Difference between revisions of "Remove bank fixation"
(→General description) |
(→Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations):) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Remove bank fixation= | =Remove bank fixation= | ||
| − | + | Category 07. Riparian zone improvement | |
==General description == | ==General description == | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
In this fact-sheet, the removal of bank fixation and creation of habitats at the river bank (e.g. gravel bars) is described, which does not necessarily include other large scale measures to restore a natural planform or channel dynamics. | In this fact-sheet, the removal of bank fixation and creation of habitats at the river bank (e.g. gravel bars) is described, which does not necessarily include other large scale measures to restore a natural planform or channel dynamics. | ||
Bank fixation is removed and shallow gravel banks are created using heavy machinery. In some cases, the toe of the bank is still fixed to prevent complete bank erosion and channel widening to ensure navigability (Figure 1). | Bank fixation is removed and shallow gravel banks are created using heavy machinery. In some cases, the toe of the bank is still fixed to prevent complete bank erosion and channel widening to ensure navigability (Figure 1). | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[Image:BankRemoval.jpg|600px|thumb|centre|Figure 1: Removal of bank fixation with toe protection (modified after http://www.donau.bmvit.gv.at/projekt/massnahmen/uferrueckbau/).]] | ||
==Applicability == | ==Applicability == | ||
| − | + | This kind of bank removal can especially be applied and will be very efficient in impounded large gravel bed rivers like the upper Danube, where gravel bars are drowned and shallow low-velocity habitats are virtually absent. In these impounded rivers, spawning and nursery habitats like shallow near-bank gravel bars, side channels, and backwaters are often the bottleneck for stream-type specific fish species. River banks have been heavily fixed and the potential for river restoration is limited due to uses like navigation, hydropower or flood protection and mitigation measures are restricted to the river banks.. | |
| + | |||
| + | Similar or complementary measures to enhance river bank habitat are to modify hydraulic structures like groynes (see fact sheet “Remove or modify in-channel hydraulic structures (e.g. groynes, deflectors)”) and the placement of large wood (e.g. rootwads). | ||
==Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations): == | ==Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations): == | ||
| − | + | There are some empirical studies published as grey literature but no information on this measure in open scientific literature (see below). Therefore, the assessment of the effect of this measure is mainly based on expert judgement. | |
| − | + | '''Hydromorphology (general and specified per HYMO element)''' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | * Increase of shallow gravel bar habitat, low-velocity zones and backwaters, i.e. spawning and nursery habitats for fish (Zauner et al. 2001). | |
| − | * | + | * Increase of fine sediment deposition in backwater areas downstream from near-bank gravel bars (Zauner et al. 2001). |
| − | + | '''Physico-chemical parameters''' | |
| + | |||
| + | * No information available. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Biota (general and specified per biological quality elements)''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | {| class="wikitable" border="1" style="text-align:center" | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | ! BQE !! Macroinvertebrates !! Fish !! Macrophytes !! Phytoplankton | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Effect || high || high || high || no effect | ||
| + | |||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Macroinvertebrates:'' | ||
| − | + | * Increase in diversity and limnophilic species (Zauner et al. 2001). | |
| − | + | ''Fish:'' | |
| − | + | * Increase in abundance and dominance of rheophilic fish species, for example common nase, barbel, and dace in the Danube river (Zauner et al. 2001, Zauner 2003). | |
| − | + | * Increase in abundance of juvenile fish (Zauner et al. 2001, Zauner 2003). | |
| + | |||
| + | ''Macrophytes:'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Most probably significant increase in number and abundance of macrophytes due to the increase in shallow low-velocity zones, which are virtually absent in impounded large, degraded rivers (e.g. waterways like the Danube river). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Phytoplankton:'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | * Probably no effect on phytoplankton. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Temporal and spatial response == | ||
==Pressures that can be addressed by this measure == | ==Pressures that can be addressed by this measure == | ||
<Forecasterlink type="getPressuresForMeasures" code="M53" /> | <Forecasterlink type="getPressuresForMeasures" code="M53" /> | ||
==Cost-efficiency == | ==Cost-efficiency == | ||
| + | Medium cost-efficiency: Medium to high cost for removal of riprap and creation of gravel bars, high ecological effect in highly degraded and impounded rivers since the main bottlenecks are addressed by the measure. | ||
| + | |||
==Case studies where this measure has been applied == | ==Case studies where this measure has been applied == | ||
<Forecasterlink type="getProjectsForMeasures" code="M53" /> | <Forecasterlink type="getProjectsForMeasures" code="M53" /> | ||
==Useful references == | ==Useful references == | ||
| + | Zauner, G., Pinka, P. & Moog, O. (2001) Pilotstudie oberes Donautal - Gewässerökologische Evaluierung neugeschaffener Schotterstrukturen im Stauwurzelbereich des Kraftwerks Aschach. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie, Wien, 132 pages. | ||
| − | + | Zauner, G. (2003) Fischökologische Evaluierung der Biotopprojekte Ybbser-Scheibe und Diedersdorfer Haufen - Studie im Auftrag der Wasserstraßendirektion. Ezb - TB Zauner, Engelhartszell, Austria, unpublished report, 70 pages. | |
==Other relevant information == | ==Other relevant information == | ||
[[Category:Measures]][[Category:07. Riparian zone improvement]] | [[Category:Measures]][[Category:07. Riparian zone improvement]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:09, 7 January 2019
Contents
- 1 Remove bank fixation
- 1.1 General description
- 1.2 Applicability
- 1.3 Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations):
- 1.4 Temporal and spatial response
- 1.5 Pressures that can be addressed by this measure
- 1.6 Cost-efficiency
- 1.7 Case studies where this measure has been applied
- 1.8 Useful references
- 1.9 Other relevant information
Remove bank fixation
Category 07. Riparian zone improvement
General description
In many rivers, habitat quality at the river banks is poor due to bank fixation (e.g. using riprap). Removal of bank fixation is a prerequisite for many other measures like re-meandering or widening as well as initiating later channel migration and dynamics.
In this fact-sheet, the removal of bank fixation and creation of habitats at the river bank (e.g. gravel bars) is described, which does not necessarily include other large scale measures to restore a natural planform or channel dynamics. Bank fixation is removed and shallow gravel banks are created using heavy machinery. In some cases, the toe of the bank is still fixed to prevent complete bank erosion and channel widening to ensure navigability (Figure 1).
Applicability
This kind of bank removal can especially be applied and will be very efficient in impounded large gravel bed rivers like the upper Danube, where gravel bars are drowned and shallow low-velocity habitats are virtually absent. In these impounded rivers, spawning and nursery habitats like shallow near-bank gravel bars, side channels, and backwaters are often the bottleneck for stream-type specific fish species. River banks have been heavily fixed and the potential for river restoration is limited due to uses like navigation, hydropower or flood protection and mitigation measures are restricted to the river banks..
Similar or complementary measures to enhance river bank habitat are to modify hydraulic structures like groynes (see fact sheet “Remove or modify in-channel hydraulic structures (e.g. groynes, deflectors)”) and the placement of large wood (e.g. rootwads).
Expected effect of measure on (including literature citations):
There are some empirical studies published as grey literature but no information on this measure in open scientific literature (see below). Therefore, the assessment of the effect of this measure is mainly based on expert judgement.
Hydromorphology (general and specified per HYMO element)
- Increase of shallow gravel bar habitat, low-velocity zones and backwaters, i.e. spawning and nursery habitats for fish (Zauner et al. 2001).
- Increase of fine sediment deposition in backwater areas downstream from near-bank gravel bars (Zauner et al. 2001).
Physico-chemical parameters
- No information available.
Biota (general and specified per biological quality elements)
| BQE | Macroinvertebrates | Fish | Macrophytes | Phytoplankton |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect | high | high | high | no effect |
Macroinvertebrates:
- Increase in diversity and limnophilic species (Zauner et al. 2001).
Fish:
- Increase in abundance and dominance of rheophilic fish species, for example common nase, barbel, and dace in the Danube river (Zauner et al. 2001, Zauner 2003).
- Increase in abundance of juvenile fish (Zauner et al. 2001, Zauner 2003).
Macrophytes:
- Most probably significant increase in number and abundance of macrophytes due to the increase in shallow low-velocity zones, which are virtually absent in impounded large, degraded rivers (e.g. waterways like the Danube river).
Phytoplankton:
- Probably no effect on phytoplankton.
Temporal and spatial response
Pressures that can be addressed by this measure
- Channelisation / cross section alteration
- Embankments, levees or dikes
- Alteration of instream habitat
Cost-efficiency
Medium cost-efficiency: Medium to high cost for removal of riprap and creation of gravel bars, high ecological effect in highly degraded and impounded rivers since the main bottlenecks are addressed by the measure.
Case studies where this measure has been applied
- Asseltse Plassen - Bank erosion
- Lahn Cölbe
- Renaturierung Untere Havel
- Spree - Restoration and remeandering of the Müggelspree - downstream Mönchwinkel
- Lek bij Everdingen - Groyne shields
- Regge Velderberg
- Klebach - Side channel
- Thur
- Dommel Eindhoven
- Ems floodplain (LIFE project)
- Skjern - LIFE project
- River Quaggy, Chinbrook Meadows
- Vallacuera ravine. Removal of a dyke.
- Drava - Kleblach
- Bakenhof - Dyke relocation
- Enns - Aich
- Oberwerries - Optimisation of the pSCI “Lippe floodplain between Hamm and Hangfort” (LIFE05/NAT/D/000057)
- Soest - Optimisation of the pSCI “Lippe floodplain between Hamm and Hangfort” (LIFE05/NAT/D/000057)
- Lower Traun
- Lippeaue Klostermersch
- Ruhr Binnerfeld
Useful references
Zauner, G., Pinka, P. & Moog, O. (2001) Pilotstudie oberes Donautal - Gewässerökologische Evaluierung neugeschaffener Schotterstrukturen im Stauwurzelbereich des Kraftwerks Aschach. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie, Wien, 132 pages.
Zauner, G. (2003) Fischökologische Evaluierung der Biotopprojekte Ybbser-Scheibe und Diedersdorfer Haufen - Studie im Auftrag der Wasserstraßendirektion. Ezb - TB Zauner, Engelhartszell, Austria, unpublished report, 70 pages.
