General
National Id
Spain_02
Site name
Duero River Basin, Órbigo River (segment I), León (NUTS3), Castilla y León (NUTS2))
Summary
Órbigo River (Duero River Basin, northwest of Spain) ecological status improvement. The budle of measures applied within the framework of this project (2013 IRF European Riverprize finalist) aimed to promote floodplain reconnection and restoration, revitalisation of flowing water, levelling of longitudinal barriers, natural bank stabilisation, elimination of riverbank protection and restoration and riparian buffer restoration and maintenance. The intended impacts of these NWRM were to improve the river (lateral and longitudinal) connectivity and dynamics.
The in-depth description of the case study
NUTS Code
Castilla y León
RBD code
ES020
Transboundary
0
Data provider
Gonzalo Delacámara and Marta Rodríguez (IMDEA Water) in close cooperation with Ignacio Rodríguez Muñoz, José Ignacio Santillán Ibáñez and Rosa Huertas (Duero River Basin Authority, Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero)
Source(s)
NWRM(s) implemented in the case study
Longitude
-5.82061595
Latitude
42.65652004
Site information
Climate zone
cool temperate moist
Mean rainfall
534,700012207031
Mean rainfall unit
mm/year
Average temperature
10,6700000762939
Type
Case Study Info
Light or indepth?
In-depth
Average slope range
0-1% (average slope of the Órbigo River Stretch I: 0.3%)
Vegetation class
Riparian vegetation with poorly preserved continuity due to replacement with other uses (adjacent crops: agro (irrigation) and forest (poplar: Populus x euroamericana).
Monitoring maintenance
Monitoring impacts effects
1
Monitoring parameters
So far: areas suffering from intense erosion and deposition processes; side arms dynamics according to variable water flow levels; wet areas after intense flood events (April 2013 and 2014) and perception of local population towards changes. Planned new activities to be carried out during 2014: topographic characterization of the most active areas.
Performance
Performance impact estimation method
Catchment outlet
Performance impact estimation information
Field visits, drone images (comparison before and after floods), information from stakeholders.
Design & implementations
Application scale
River
Installation date
2012-09
Performance timescale
1 - 4 years
Area (ha)
160500
Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha)
45
Size
45
Size unit
ha
Design capacity description
Variable volume of retained water according to circulating water flow. For this kind of intervention it is more appropriate to use the concept of "slow down flow water"; and the use of simulation models (different water volumes and return periods). e.g. Flood lamination: 4-5 hm3; Water volume: 590 m3/s; Return period: 500 years [Source: River Basin Authority, personal communication]
Inflow volume
16,1100006103516
Inflow volume unit
m3/sec
Public consultation
1
Design contractual arrangement
| Arrangement type | Responsibility | Role | Comments | Name |
|---|
Design consultation activity
| Activity stage | Key issues | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Screening phase
|
Preparatory phase (year 2009): with municipal majors/neighbourhood associations'representatives. Using ortophotos (years 56-57, 2004 and 2008) as a basis for analysing changes in floodplain
|
|||
|
Design phase
|
a) Diagnosis phase (year 2009): Compilling and analysing information provided by the referred stakeholders; b) Informative sessions: with other interested stakeholders (inhabitants)
|
|||
|
Other
|
Public hearing phase (year 2009: alternatives were discussed and showed by means of computer simulation on the basis of ortophotos (years 2004 and 2008).
|
[CHD, 2013b]: More than 50 meetings (in a period of 3 years) with stakeholders.
|
||
|
Other
|
Monitoring
|
[Source: Barquero and Santillán (2012a)]
|
||
|
Design phase
|
Informative sessions (for stakeholder (inhabitants)
|
|||
|
Implementation phase
|
a) Informative sessions (for stakeholder (inhabitants); b) Dissemination activities (for external audience) and field trips: Riverbasin Authority/Ministry of Environnment Websites; Specialised national/international networks on river restoration (newsletters, presentations). 2013 IRF European Riverprize finalist practice.Field trips from: Universities, Administration bodies, within in the framework of specialised workshop; c) Newspapers; d) Volunteering and environmental education programme
|
|||
|
Screening phase
|
Preparatory phase (year 2009): with municipal majors/neighbourhood associations'representatives. Using ortophotos (years 56-57, 2004 and 2008) as a basis for analysing changes in floodplain
|
CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
|
||
|
Design phase
|
a) Diagnosis phase (year 2009): Compilling and analysing information provided by the referred stakeholders; b) Informative sessions: with other interested stakeholders (inhabitants)
|
CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
|
||
|
Other
|
Public hearing phase (year 2009: alternatives were discussed and showed by means of computer simulation on the basis of ortophotos (years 2004 and 2008).
|
CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
|
[CHD, 2013b]: More than 50 meetings (in a period of 3 years) with stakeholders.
|
|
|
Other
|
Monitoring
|
CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES
|
[Source: Barquero and Santillán (2012a)]
|
|
|
Design phase
|
Informative sessions (for stakeholder (inhabitants)
|
COMMUNICATION
|
||
|
Implementation phase
|
a) Informative sessions (for stakeholder (inhabitants); b) Dissemination activities (for external audience) and field trips: Riverbasin Authority/Ministry of Environnment Websites; Specialised national/international networks on river restoration (newsletters, presentations). 2013 IRF European Riverprize finalist practice.Field trips from: Universities, Administration bodies, within in the framework of specialised workshop; c) Newspapers; d) Volunteering and environmental education programme
|
COMMUNICATION
|
Design land use change
| Land use change type |
|---|
Design authority
| Authority type | Role | Responsibility | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lessons, risks, implications...
Key lessons
A 2013 IRF European Riverprize finalist.
a) Good practice of integrated water management and land use policies
b) Implementation of innovative concepts (e.g. “room for the river”, green infrastructure…)
c) Relevance of management and planning tasks.
d) Example of integrated approach in WFD and FD implementation
e) Example of the need to devote a great deal of time and effort to explain to the stakeholders the scope of the measures in order to achieve their acceptance and their participation. Multiplier effects are obtained when stakeholders became aware of the effectiveness of the measures.
e) Example of the relevance of public involvement during the whole process (public participation during the planning cycle and volunteering within the framework of environmental programme linked to the Project).
f) Impact on the media (beyond the pressnotes on the plan).
g) Replicability (downstream stretches) potential and networking potential (the project derived in the participation of the Basin Authority -together with other 4 European basin authorities- in the ECRR Community of Practice -launched in 2013 as a network for sharing their experiences in river restoration-).
(Source: CHD, 2013a; River Basin Authority, personal communication).
a) Good practice of integrated water management and land use policies
b) Implementation of innovative concepts (e.g. “room for the river”, green infrastructure…)
c) Relevance of management and planning tasks.
d) Example of integrated approach in WFD and FD implementation
e) Example of the need to devote a great deal of time and effort to explain to the stakeholders the scope of the measures in order to achieve their acceptance and their participation. Multiplier effects are obtained when stakeholders became aware of the effectiveness of the measures.
e) Example of the relevance of public involvement during the whole process (public participation during the planning cycle and volunteering within the framework of environmental programme linked to the Project).
f) Impact on the media (beyond the pressnotes on the plan).
g) Replicability (downstream stretches) potential and networking potential (the project derived in the participation of the Basin Authority -together with other 4 European basin authorities- in the ECRR Community of Practice -launched in 2013 as a network for sharing their experiences in river restoration-).
(Source: CHD, 2013a; River Basin Authority, personal communication).
Financing difficulties
0
Success factor(s)
| Success factor type | Success factor role | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Public participation
|
main factor
|
Active participation process during the whole life-cycle of the project |
|
|
Attitude of decision makers
|
main factor
|
Innovative approach, strong involvement and will to promote participation |
|
|
Existing staff and consultant knowledge
|
main factor
|
Innovative approach, strong involvement and will to promote participation |
|
|
Existing institutional framework
|
main factor
|
Coordination between Ministry and River Basin Authority |
|
|
Financing possibilities
|
main factor
|
||
|
Other
|
Scale and adopted approach: long river stretch (23 km) within the framework of a wider scale project (100 km long river, watershed and “historical” approach) instead of a punctual and isolated intervention in a specific site. |
Financing
| Financing type | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
|
National funds
|
This measure is implemented within the framework of the National Strategy for River Restoration (ENRR, Estrategia Nacional de Restauración de Ríos). Funding: Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Medio Rural y Marino), MARM
|
Driver
| Driver type | Driver role | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Past flooding events
|
main driver
|
||
|
Organisation committed to it
|
main driver
|
Financing share
| Financing share type | Share | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|
Policy, general governance and design targets
Policy description
Loss of lateral (main derived problem: floods) and transversal connectivity, river dynamics (erosion and sedimentation) alteration, flow alteration and riparian forest loss and fragmentation. Pressures for this water body (identified by IMPRESS): hydromorphological (weirs, channels...) and land-use patterns. [Source:INFRAECO (2011a)]
Part of wider plan
1
Policy target
| Target purpose | |
|---|---|
|
Peak-flow reduction
|
|
|
Runoff control
|
|
|
Erosion Control
|
|
|
Improved Biodiversity
|
|
|
Oher Societal Benefits
|
Policy pressure
| Pressure directive | Relevant pressure |
|---|
Policy area
| Policy area type | Policy area focus | Name | Comments |
|---|
Policy impact
| Impact directive | Relevant impact |
|---|
Policy wider plan
| Wider plan type | Wider plan focus | Name | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
National
|
Water
|
National Strategy for River Restoration (Estrategia Nacional de Restauracií³n de Río, ENRR)
|
Sub-programme 3 (improvement of the longitudinal continuity of the rivers within the Duero basin) and
4 (improvement of the lateral continuity of the rivers within the Duero basin) [Source: Rodríguez et al., 2012a] |
Policy requirement directive
| Requirement directive | Specification |
|---|
Socio-economic
Costs land acquisition information
Null value as intervention were carried out in Public domain land [INFRAECO (2011d)]
Costs operational information
Commonly no operational cost is associated to this kind of project (river restoration) [Source: García et al. (2013)]
Costs maintenance information
Variable according to the specific element considered (average values for Spanish river basins: 1.2% of initial investment cost for fishladders; 20% of total investment cost for revegetation works; 15% of total investment cost for bioengineering works) [Source: García et al., 2013]. Due to the implementation of the project maintenance costs have been drastically reduced (CHD, 2013a). These costs were expected to be very low and assumed by the Duero River Basin Authority within the framework of its Public Domain Conservation Programme (Source: CHD, 2009).
Costs total
3084697,25
Costs total information
This is the total projected budget. Budget breakdown: 1. Lateral connectivity and dynamics improvement works (52.01%); 2. Longitudinal continuity improvement works (15.70%); 3. Riverbank estabilization works (7.52%); 4. Site access improvement (11.14%); 4. Supplementary works (2.57%); 5. Other items: monitoring of works (3.89%); environmental monitoring (3.89%); risk prevention (2.23%); waste management (1.06%) [Source: INFRAECO (2011d) ] Executed budget: 2065264.81 € [Source: River Basin Authority, personal communication]
Ecosystem improved biodiversity
1
Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity
Higher habitat diversity as a consequence of the improvement of longitudinal and lateral continuity due to reforestation of riparian forest (0.6% recovery, 6.5 ha as planned in technical reportt+fish ladders) and due to recovering adjacent fluvial areas. [Source: CHD (2013a); INFRAECO (2011a)]
Ecosystem provisioning services
1
Information on Ecosystem provisioning services
Recreational (opening access to the river banks); b) Integration of the river in urban areas (improvement of the landscape and tourism sector strenthening) [Source: CHD (2013a)]
Ecosystem impact climate regulation
No information available
Ecosystem flood control volume
160
Biophysical impacts
Information on retained water
Variable volume of retained water according to circulating water flow and water depth. For this kind of intervention it is more appropriate to use the concept of "slow down flow water" and the use of simulation models (different water volumes and return periods). E.g. Flood lamination: 4-5 hm3; Water volume: 590 m3/s; Return period: 500 years
Information on Peak flow rate reduction
According to the Planning Office (River Basin Authority) (on-going evaluation) NRWM have performed properly against floods that took place during Winter 2013 (160 m3 flood: same as those in 1995 and 2000 causing serious damage) and during the Winter of 2014 (300 m3). These were successfully abated thanks to NWRM [Source: River Basin Authority, personal communication]
Information on Increased infiltration
Greater infiltration rate and rate of recharge of the natural floodplains. [Source: CHD (2013b]]
Information on Ecosystem flood control volume
According to Planning Office (River Basin Authority) (on going evaluation) these NRWM have performed properly against floods that took place during Winter 2013: 160 m3 flood, (same that in 1995 and 2000 caused serious damage) was successfully abated thanks to implemented NWRMs
Ecosystem erosion control
1
Water quality overall improvements
Not relevant for this application
Information on Water quality overall improvements
According to technical project [Source: INFRAECO (2011a) initial water quality status for the Stretch I (chemical/physical status /microinvertebrates/diatomes) was rated as good-very good so no specific measures were designed for this purpose. Despite of this, first evaluation results show that the ecological status of this water body has been improved.
Soil quality overall soil improvements
N/A info
Information on Soil quality overall soil improvements
Positive effects regarding infiltration rate and rate of recharge of the alluvial natural floodplains and soil fertilization are expected but no empirical evidence has been obtained yet [Source: CHD (2013b]]
Information on Soil quality overall soil carbon
Positive impact-SQ improvement
