Case study:Jufferbeek

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.

Approve case study

 

0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 52° 17' 11.76" N, 6° 53' 54.31" E
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site
Themes Habitat and biodiversity, Water quality
Country Netherlands
Main contact forename Maarten
Main contact surname Zonderwijk
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation Waterschap Vechtstromen
Contact organisation web site http://www.vechtstromen.nl
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Building with nature measures in streams

This is a parent project
encompassing the following
projects
No
This case study hasn’t got a picture, you can add one by editing the project overview.

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.


The Jufferbeek is a very small stream with an irregular discharge. It is a tributary of the Deurningerbeek and Regge. Parts of the stream are still meandering, but other parts, that are close to urban or industrial areas, have been straightened. In 2006, dead wood was introduced in this stream. The purpose of this exercise was to restore the circulation of organic detritus and provide a habitat for particular species. It was also meant to raise the streambed and increase the retention capacity.

Monitoring surveys and results

Edit project overview to modify the Monitoring survey and results.


Water levels downstream of the wood packages are higher and fluctuate more downstream of the wood package. This may be caused by the increased flow resistance due to the dead wood, leading to a higher water level for the same discharge. Water level peaks downstream of the wood package are smaller relative to the average water levels. This may because of water retention by the wood packages. As a result of the introduction of dead wood, sandy substrates have become less dominant and silty substrates have become more prominent. No change in nutrient levels was observed. A change in species composition was observed, but this change was short-lived. A subtle change in macroinvertebrate composition remained for a longer period afterwards.

Lessons learnt

This case study hasn’t got any lessons learnt, you can add some by editing the project overview.


Image gallery


ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment

Catchment

River basin district Rijn
River basin Rijndelta

Subcatchment

River name Vecht
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 100 - 200 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology Siliceous, Organic
Ecoregion Central Plains
Dominant land cover Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable), Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural)
Waterbody ID NL36_OWM_014



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Beentjesgraven, Beneden Regge, De Doorbraak, Deurningerbeek, Dinkel Noord, Living Vechte-Dinkel, Marswetering, Midden Regge, Oude Bornschebeek, Oude Diep... further results


Site

Name Jufferbeek
WFD water body codes NL05 Oudebornschebeek
WFD (national) typology R6
WFD water body name Oude Bornsche Beek
Pre-project morphology Actively meandering, Straightened
Reference morphology Actively meandering
Desired post project morphology Actively meandering, Straightened
Heavily modified water body Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate Sand
River corridor land use Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Grassland, Intensive agriculture (arable), Parklands garden
Average bankfull channel width category Less than 2 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category 0.001 - 0.01
Average channel gradient 0.0016
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Reach length directly affected (m)
Project started
Works started
Works completed
Project completed
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

Cost for project phases

Phase cost category cost exact (k€) Lead organisation Contact forename Contact surname
Investigation and design
Stakeholder engagement and communication
Works and works supervision
Post-project management and maintenance
Monitoring



Reasons for river restoration

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


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



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information