Case study:Hurdalselva - River Hurdalselv
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity |
Country | Norway |
Main contact forename | Bjørn Otto |
Main contact surname | Dønnum |
Main contact user ID | User:Arolam |
Contact organisation | |
Contact organisation web site | |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)
Site
Name | Hurdalselva |
---|---|
WFD water body codes | |
WFD (national) typology | REM1221 |
WFD water body name | |
Pre-project morphology | |
Reference morphology | |
Desired post project morphology | |
Heavily modified water body | No |
National/international site designation | |
Local/regional site designations | |
Protected species present | No |
Invasive species present | No |
Species of interest | brown trout (Salmo trutta) |
Dominant hydrology | |
Dominant substrate | Cobble, Gravel, bedrock |
River corridor land use | Mainly forest on the west side of the river and in the upper part of the watershed. Some agriculture (rye, barley) along part of the north-east bank of the project site. Forest is dominantly conifers, but deciduous trees and bushes constitutes apprx. 50% of riparian vegetation |
Average bankfull channel width category | 10 - 50 m |
Average bankfull channel width (m) | |
Average bankfull channel depth category | 0.5 - 2 m |
Average bankfull channel depth (m) | |
Mean discharge category | 1 - 10 m³/s |
Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | |
Average channel gradient category | more than 0.1 |
Average channel gradient | |
Average unit stream power (W/m2) |
Project background
Reach length directly affected (m) | 11001,100 m <br />1.1 km <br />110,000 cm <br /> |
---|---|
Project started | |
Works started | |
Works completed | |
Project completed | |
Total cost category | |
Total cost (k€) | 3232 k€ <br />32,000 € <br /> |
Benefit to cost ratio | |
Funding sources | Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), private funding, local angling club |
Cost for project phases
Phase | cost category | cost exact (k€) | Lead organisation | Contact forename | Contact surname |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Investigation and design | 55 k€ <br />5,000 € <br /> | NJFF-Akershus | Bjørn Otto | Dønnum | |
Stakeholder engagement and communication | 11 k€ <br />1,000 € <br /> | Hurdal JFF | |||
Works and works supervision | 2626 k€ <br />26,000 € <br /> | NVE | |||
Post-project management and maintenance | |||||
Monitoring |
Supplementary funding information
This was.....
Reasons for river restoration
Mitigation of a pressure | Flow channelization |
---|---|
Hydromorphology | |
Biology | |
Physico-chemical | |
Other reasons for the project | Improving aestethics of the river and riverbank. |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
---|---|
Bank/bed modifications | |
Floodplain / River corridor | |
Planform / Channel pattern | |
Other | |
Non-structural measures
| |
Management interventions | |
Social measures (incl. engagement) | |
Other |
Monitoring
Hydromorphological quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative |
Biological quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative |
Physico-chemical quality elements
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative |
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative |
Monitoring documents
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Link | Description |
---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information
The works in this particular river stretch was initiated to test different restoration techniques in a rather high gradient river (part of the river section has a gradient of 1,5%). Two days after completion of the in-river works, a large flood (estimated to be a 1:50-year return flood) destroyed part of the constructions. Not very encouraging for the local angling club, because the project was meant to be part of a larger project. Funding however stopped after the trial, and there has not been any attempt to restart the project.