Case study:Upper Emscher: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(26 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Case study status | {{Case study status | ||
|Approval status= | |Approval status=Approved | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Location | {{Location | ||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
|Name of parent multi-site project=Emscher restoration | |Name of parent multi-site project=Emscher restoration | ||
|Multi-site=No | |Multi-site=No | ||
|Project summary=Part of the integrated river basin management for the Emscher Region (865 km<sup>2</sup>, 2.700 inhabitants/ km<sup>2</sup>) is the revitalization of the river Emscher and its tributaries. Due to industrialization the | |Project picture=Emscher Holzwickede.jpg | ||
|Project summary=Part of the integrated river basin management for the Emscher Region (865 km<sup>2</sup>, 2.700 inhabitants/ km<sup>2</sup>) is the revitalization of the river Emscher and its tributaries. Due to industrialization the water bodies were systematically developed as open wastewater sewers in the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Economic and technical alternatives such as closed sewer systems could not be implemented due to constant subsidence caused by coal mining. | |||
Momentarily, the river system is being restructured in order to enable the Emscher to once again be a fully functioning, continuous water-based ecosystem with typical topology and vegetation. | Momentarily, the river system is being restructured in order to enable the Emscher to once again be a fully functioning, continuous water-based ecosystem with typical topology and vegetation. | ||
An ecological concept based on the assumption of a non-interrupted river as a connection from the source to the mouth has been developed. | An ecological concept based on the assumption of a non-interrupted river as a connection from the source to the mouth has been developed. | ||
Studies on the feasibility of restructuring the Emscher show, that due to coal mining, industrial impacts and population changes the “original” conditions can never be reached again. It will not be possible to return the Emscher to its original, meandering state. Therefore, the reference conditions are no direct goals for the river restoration, but they give orientation in the planning procedure. | Studies on the feasibility of restructuring the Emscher show, that due to coal mining, industrial impacts and population changes the “original” conditions can never be reached again. It will not be possible to return the Emscher to its original, meandering state. Therefore, the reference conditions are no direct goals for the river restoration, but they give orientation in the planning procedure. | ||
The upper Emscher is a small river, in parts still a creek of a little more than 12 km in length. Its source is located in a small forest south of Dortmund. Flowing northwards the restored waterbody passes fields, shrubs and several towns/quarters of Dortmund as well as smaller industrial parks. Due to the many restrictions by buildings or infrastructure several box-culverts with natural substrates had to be built. The longest in Dortmund-Aplerbeck has a length of 120 m. Since there was hardly any space at all, the culvert and the sewage pipes were constructed more or less simultaneously, placing the culvert on top of the pipes. | |||
Several flood water detention basins have been constructed along the watercourse. The biggest of which, the " [http://www.dortmund.de/en/leisure_and_culture/phoenix_see_1/index.html Phoenix-See] " (Phoenix-Lake), is mostly used as recreation area. Bicycle and pedestrian paths as well as a harbour for sailing boats have been placed in and around the Lake. | |||
Because of the restrictions the Emscher is usually not meandering, but mostly in a more or less woven bed which has been sharply incised during the beginning of the 20<sup>th</sup> century. Except for the part parallel to the Phoenix-Lake and the many urban areas restricting the width and natural dynamics, natural succession can be allowed (sometimes only in the meadow, not on the slopes), thus creating different habitats of alder forest, <i>Typha</i> and <i>Carex</i> reeds, sedge, floodgrass and <i>Potamogeton</i> in the compensatory floodplain. | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Image gallery}} | {{Image gallery}} | ||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=Bauphase Schueren 2009.jpg | |||
|Caption=Upper Emscher in Dortmund Schüren during construction | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=restrictedEmscher.jpg | |||
|Caption=Upper Emscher with lots of restrictions on both sides | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=ZQEmscher Phoenix.jpg | |||
|Caption=<i>Typha</i>-reeds as seen during normal water levels | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=Flood phoenix.JPG | |||
|Caption=16 m<sup>3</sup> discharge, nearly flooding the detention basin | |||
}} | |||
{{Case study image | |||
|File name=viewtowardslake.JPG | |||
|Caption=View towards the detention basin phoenix-lake | |||
}} | |||
{{Image gallery end}} | {{Image gallery end}} | ||
{{Toggle button}} | {{Toggle button}} | ||
Line 34: | Line 62: | ||
|WFD (national) typology=Type 18: small loess-loam dominated lowland river | |WFD (national) typology=Type 18: small loess-loam dominated lowland river | ||
|WFD water body name=Emscher | |WFD water body name=Emscher | ||
|Heavily modified water body= | |Pre-project morphology=concrete lined bed and bank, Straightened, Over deepened, | ||
|Protected species present= | |Reference morphology=Actively meandering, groundwater dominated | ||
|Invasive species present= | |Desired post project morphology=Low gradient passively meandering, enabled contact between floodplain and water body | ||
|Heavily modified water body=Yes | |||
|Protected species present=Yes | |||
|Invasive species present=Yes | |||
|Dominant hydrology=Groundwater, quick run-off | |||
|Dominant substrate=Clay, Silt, loam | |||
|River corridor land use=urban, Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural), Intensive agriculture (arable), | |||
|Average bankfull channel width category=2 - 5 m | |||
|Average bankfull channel depth category=0.5 - 2 m | |||
}} | |||
{{Project background | |||
|Project started=1993/01/01 | |||
|Works completed=2013/12/31 | |||
}} | |||
{{Motivations | |||
|Hydromorphological quality elements=Continuity for organisms, Continuity of sediment transport, Connection to groundwaters, Quantity & dynamics of flow, Width & depth variation, Structure & condition of riparian/lake shore zones, | |||
|Biological quality elements=Fish, Invertebrates, Macrophytes, Create a new natural habitat with continuity for benthos, fishes and other organisms | |||
|Other motivation=Landscape enhancement, Recreation, | |||
}} | |||
{{Measures | |||
|Bank and bed modifications measure=Removal of concrete banks and bed, Opening the river about 2 km, Bed raising, | |||
|Floodplain / River corridor=Increase water retention area, Connection to wider floodplain, Wetland habitat | |||
|Planform / Channel pattern=Removal of concrete bank protection, Adding sinuosity, Channel widening, | |||
|Social measures=Information for the public, New bicycle path | |||
}} | }} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | {{Hydromorphological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Channel pattern/planform | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Continuity for organisms | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Structure & condition of riparian/lake shore zones | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Substrate conditions | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Hydromorphological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Width & depth variation | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Biological quality elements header}} | {{Biological quality elements header}} | ||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Fish | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=No | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Invertebrates | |||
|Monitored before=Yes | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Macrophytes | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Biological quality element table row | |||
|Element=Angiosperms | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=No | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | {{Physico-chemical quality elements header}} | ||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Temperature | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Nutrient concentrations | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Oxygen balance | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=PH | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{Physico-chemical quality element table row | |||
|Element=Salinity | |||
|Monitored before=No | |||
|Monitored after=Yes | |||
|Qualitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Quantitative monitoring=Yes | |||
|Control site used=No | |||
|Result=Awaiting results | |||
}} | |||
{{End table}} | {{End table}} | ||
{{Other responses header}} | {{Other responses header}} |
Latest revision as of 15:13, 2 January 2019
Project overview
Status | Complete |
---|---|
Project web site | |
Themes | Habitat and biodiversity, Hydromorphology |
Country | Germany |
Main contact forename | Mechthild |
Main contact surname | Semrau |
Main contact user ID | User:EGLV |
Contact organisation | Emschergenossenschaft |
Contact organisation web site | http://eglv.de |
Partner organisations | |
Parent multi-site project | |
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
Part of the integrated river basin management for the Emscher Region (865 km2, 2.700 inhabitants/ km2) is the revitalization of the river Emscher and its tributaries. Due to industrialization the water bodies were systematically developed as open wastewater sewers in the beginning of the 20th century. Economic and technical alternatives such as closed sewer systems could not be implemented due to constant subsidence caused by coal mining.
Momentarily, the river system is being restructured in order to enable the Emscher to once again be a fully functioning, continuous water-based ecosystem with typical topology and vegetation. An ecological concept based on the assumption of a non-interrupted river as a connection from the source to the mouth has been developed.
Studies on the feasibility of restructuring the Emscher show, that due to coal mining, industrial impacts and population changes the “original” conditions can never be reached again. It will not be possible to return the Emscher to its original, meandering state. Therefore, the reference conditions are no direct goals for the river restoration, but they give orientation in the planning procedure.
The upper Emscher is a small river, in parts still a creek of a little more than 12 km in length. Its source is located in a small forest south of Dortmund. Flowing northwards the restored waterbody passes fields, shrubs and several towns/quarters of Dortmund as well as smaller industrial parks. Due to the many restrictions by buildings or infrastructure several box-culverts with natural substrates had to be built. The longest in Dortmund-Aplerbeck has a length of 120 m. Since there was hardly any space at all, the culvert and the sewage pipes were constructed more or less simultaneously, placing the culvert on top of the pipes.
Several flood water detention basins have been constructed along the watercourse. The biggest of which, the " Phoenix-See " (Phoenix-Lake), is mostly used as recreation area. Bicycle and pedestrian paths as well as a harbour for sailing boats have been placed in and around the Lake.
Because of the restrictions the Emscher is usually not meandering, but mostly in a more or less woven bed which has been sharply incised during the beginning of the 20th century. Except for the part parallel to the Phoenix-Lake and the many urban areas restricting the width and natural dynamics, natural succession can be allowed (sometimes only in the meadow, not on the slopes), thus creating different habitats of alder forest, Typha and Carex reeds, sedge, floodgrass and Potamogeton in the compensatory floodplain.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Image gallery
Catchment and subcatchmentSelect a catchment/subcatchment
Catchment
Subcatchment
Other case studies in this subcatchment: Flood detention basin (HRB) Ickern-Mengede
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
|