Case study:Teglverksdammen: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Reopening and restoration of the stream Hovinbekken | |Name of parent multi-site project=Case_study:Reopening and restoration of the stream Hovinbekken | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project summary=The Teglverksdammen is a reach of the stream Hovinbekken which opened in 2015. The project was initiated to improve the water quality downstream, as the downstream area ( | |Project picture=Teglverksdammen TFM.JPG | ||
|Picture description=Lower stretches of the opened stream channel before the main pond in Teglverksdammen, the first full summer season - 2016. Source: Therese Fosholt Moe / NIVA (Norwegian Institute for Water Research) | |||
|Project summary=The Teglverksdammen is a reach of the stream Hovinbekken which opened in 2015. The project was initiated to improve the water quality downstream, as the downstream area (Ensjø) was to be transformed from an industrialized area to a new residential area. The Tegiverksdammen consists of a stretch of riffles and pools, followed by a large pond (called Teglverksdammen), a short river stretch (to become a wetland) and a final pond for sedimentation. After the final pond (Grensedammen), the river flows into the Ensjø area. The water in this system originates from an 800 m culvert, and part of the flow is still directed to the original culvert, to prevent flooding of the system. The water quality is typical of urban streams, with high nutrient levels and organic load. | |||
|Monitoring surveys and results=https://www.vann-nett.no/portal/#/waterbody/006-70-R | |Monitoring surveys and results=https://www.vann-nett.no/portal/#/waterbody/006-70-R | ||
|Lessons learn=Based on studies of | |Lessons learn=Based on studies of the first year after opening, colonization of invertebrates mainly appeared to be from species drifting from upstream, rather than (except perhaps to a very small extent) from the other Oslo streams. (Refer to David Arnott's master thesis here) | ||
Benthic algae the first two years after opening | Benthic algae, the first two years after opening, were a mixture of diatoms (mostly early spring and late fall), green algae and cyanobacteria. The main pond (Tegiverksdammen) had an extensive growth of filamentous green algae (Spirogyra) during the warm summer months, which also flourished after mechanical removal in July. The shallow parts of the upper stream reach also had a high production of benthic cyanobacteria, which broke off and flowed massively into the main pond as brown-black lumps on the surface. Whether these were temporary conditions due to the recent opening of the facility, or simply an effect of low water flows and depths remains to be seen. (Refer here to Karoline Dahl Myrstad's Master's thesis) | ||
Due to maintenance | Due to maintenance requirements during the first summer after opening, the flow of water was shut down for approximately one month. During this period, the pools and ponds had stationary water, while the riffles dried out. The result of this was a massive increase in phytoplankton biomass in the main pond (Teglverksdammen). Other than that, biodiversity did not change significantly between the first two full years after the facility opened. (Refer here to Susanna Birgitta Diana Burgess's Master's thesis) | ||
Monitoring of water chemistry at the inlet and outlet of the system the first two summer seasons after opening showed the potential of the facility for some purification of the water, but it was partly dependent on time | Monitoring of water chemistry at the inlet and outlet of the system during the first two summer seasons after opening showed the potential of the facility for some purification of the water, but it was partly dependent on time of year, on whether the water was flowing and on the nutrient concentrations of the water entering the system. | ||
|Project title=Teglverksdammen | |Project title=Teglverksdammen | ||
}} | }} | ||
Line 44: | Line 46: | ||
{{Project background | {{Project background | ||
|Project started=2013/01/01 | |Project started=2013/01/01 | ||
|Project completed=2016/01/01 | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Motivations | {{Motivations | ||
Line 52: | Line 55: | ||
|Other motivation=Landscape enhancement, Recreation, | |Other motivation=Landscape enhancement, Recreation, | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Measures}} | {{Measures | ||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Reopening of culverted river, Habitat restoration, habitat creation, Creation of pools and riffles, Sediment trap building, | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Creation of pools and riffles, Creation of pond, | |||
|Management interventions=Reduced pollution, | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Biological quality elements header}} | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Invertebrates | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Phytoplankton | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes and/or phytobenthos: Taxonomic composition | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes and/or phytobenthos: Average abundance | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Improvement | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Nutrient concentrations | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=No | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=Yes | |||
|Result=Inconclusive | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Other responses header}} | {{Other responses header}} | ||
Line 64: | Line 116: | ||
{{Monitoring documents end}} | {{Monitoring documents end}} | ||
{{Additional Documents}} | {{Additional Documents}} | ||
{{Case study documents | |||
|File name=Burgess2018 oppgave FINAL.pdf | |||
|Description=Master Thesis Burgess 2018: Development in Phytoplankton Assemblages, Ecological Status and Purification Effect in Teglverksdammen | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study documents | |||
|File name=Masteroppgave Karoline.pdf | |||
|Description=Master Thesis Dahl Myrstad 2017: Colonisation and Growth of Benthic Algae in a Recently Deculverted Urban Stream | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study documents | |||
|File name=Master Thesis David Arnott 2017.pdf | |||
|Description=Master Thesis Arnott 2017: Macroinvertebrate colonisation of a recently deculverted urban stream | |||
}} | |||
{{Additional Documents end}} | {{Additional Documents end}} | ||
{{Additional links and references header}} | {{Additional links and references header}} |
Latest revision as of 14:29, 2 March 2020
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Economic aspects, Flood risk management, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology, Monitoring, Social benefits, Spatial planning, Water quality, Urban |
Country | Norway |
Main contact forename | Agency of Urban Environment (temporary) |
Main contact surname | Oslo municipality (temporary) |
Main contact user ID | |
Contact organisation | Oslo municipality |
Contact organisation web site | http://www.oslo.kommune.no |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project |
Case_study:Reopening and restoration of the stream Hovinbekken |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The Teglverksdammen is a reach of the stream Hovinbekken which opened in 2015. The project was initiated to improve the water quality downstream, as the downstream area (Ensjø) was to be transformed from an industrialized area to a new residential area. The Tegiverksdammen consists of a stretch of riffles and pools, followed by a large pond (called Teglverksdammen), a short river stretch (to become a wetland) and a final pond for sedimentation. After the final pond (Grensedammen), the river flows into the Ensjø area. The water in this system originates from an 800 m culvert, and part of the flow is still directed to the original culvert, to prevent flooding of the system. The water quality is typical of urban streams, with high nutrient levels and organic load.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Based on studies of the first year after opening, colonization of invertebrates mainly appeared to be from species drifting from upstream, rather than (except perhaps to a very small extent) from the other Oslo streams. (Refer to David Arnott's master thesis here)
Benthic algae, the first two years after opening, were a mixture of diatoms (mostly early spring and late fall), green algae and cyanobacteria. The main pond (Tegiverksdammen) had an extensive growth of filamentous green algae (Spirogyra) during the warm summer months, which also flourished after mechanical removal in July. The shallow parts of the upper stream reach also had a high production of benthic cyanobacteria, which broke off and flowed massively into the main pond as brown-black lumps on the surface. Whether these were temporary conditions due to the recent opening of the facility, or simply an effect of low water flows and depths remains to be seen. (Refer here to Karoline Dahl Myrstad's Master's thesis)
Due to maintenance requirements during the first summer after opening, the flow of water was shut down for approximately one month. During this period, the pools and ponds had stationary water, while the riffles dried out. The result of this was a massive increase in phytoplankton biomass in the main pond (Teglverksdammen). Other than that, biodiversity did not change significantly between the first two full years after the facility opened. (Refer here to Susanna Birgitta Diana Burgess's Master's thesis)
Monitoring of water chemistry at the inlet and outlet of the system during the first two summer seasons after opening showed the potential of the facility for some purification of the water, but it was partly dependent on time of year, on whether the water was flowing and on the nutrient concentrations of the water entering the system.
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
Project background
Cost for project phases
Reasons for river restoration
Measures
MonitoringHydromorphological quality elements
Biological quality elements
Physico-chemical quality elements
Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic
Monitoring documents
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
Supplementary InformationEdit Supplementary Information
|