Case study:Ruppoldingen: Difference between revisions

From RESTORE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:
}}
}}
{{Site
{{Site
|Name=Aar at Ruppoldingen  
|Name=River Aar at Ruppoldingen
|Reference morphology=Pool-riffle,  
|Reference morphology=Pool-riffle,
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Heavily modified water body=No
|Protected species present=No
|Protected species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|Invasive species present=No
|River corridor land use=Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural),  
|River corridor land use=Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural),
}}
}}
{{Project background}}
{{Project background}}

Revision as of 10:49, 15 November 2012

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: none specified



Project overview

Edit project overview
Status Complete
Project web site
Themes Hydropower
Country Switzerland
Main contact forename nick
Main contact surname elbourne
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
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.


A natural fish pass was constructed on the river Aar at the Ruppoldingen hydropower plant. The aim was to mitigate the impacts of the hydropower plant, allowing free fish migration and compensate for loss of habitats. The scheme was two-fold. Firstly a 155 meter long natural fish pass close to the turbines. A second 1.2km long bypass channel was also created further downstream of the plant. This channel comprised two arms, one which was shallower with gravel riffles installed and a deeper channel for migration. The aim was to re-create a natural alpine stream. The mean gradient of the fish pass is 3.8%, and the bypass channel 0.4%. Pike, Carp, Barbell and Catfish have been seen to use the bypass channel. Juvenile Grayling have also been found, suggesting that the bypass channel is providing a new reproductive area.

Monitoring surveys and results

This case study hasn’t got any Monitoring survey and results, you can add some by editing the project overview.

Lessons learnt

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

Catchment and subcatchment

Select a catchment/subcatchment


Edit the catchment and subcatchment details
(affects all case studies in this subcatchment)

Catchment

River basin district Rhine
River basin Rhine

Subcatchment

River name Rhine
Area category 1000 - 10000 km²
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category 1000 - 2000 m
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology Siliceous
Ecoregion Central Plains
Dominant land cover Grassland, Urban
Waterbody ID



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Amerongse Bovenpolder, Bakenhof Dyke reconstruction, Blauwe Kamer, Room for the River, Upper Main catchment restoration


Site

Edit site
Name River Aar at Ruppoldingen
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology Pool-riffle
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body No
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present No
Invasive species present No
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use Improved/semi-improved grassland/pasture, Broadleaf/mixed woodland (semi natural)
Average bankfull channel width category
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


Project background

Edit 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

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


Measures

Edit 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

Edit Hydromorphological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Biological quality elements

Edit biological
quality elements
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative

Physico-chemical quality elements

Edit 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

Edit Other responses
Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents

Upload monitoring documents



Image gallery



Additional documents and videos

Upload additional documents


Additional links and references

Edit links and references
Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information