Case study:Albbruck-Dogern (bypass and nature-like pool pass)
This case study is pending approval by a RiverWiki administrator.
Project overview
| Status | Complete |
|---|---|
| Project web site | |
| Themes | Economic aspects, Fisheries, Hydropower |
| Country | Switzerland |
| Main contact forename | Rolf-Jürgen |
| Main contact surname | Gebler |
| Main contact user ID | User:Kasvio |
| Contact organisation | Ingenieurmeinschaft Gruner/Kelag |
| Contact organisation web site | http://www.radag.de |
| Partner organisations | Rhein Kraftwerk Allbruck-Gogern AG, Ing. Büro Kesselring |
| Parent multi-site project | |
| This is a parent project encompassing the following projects |
No |
Project summary
The discharge in the River Rhein is at the moment high, 1610 m3/s (1484 m3/s). The discharge in the fish way is always at the minimum 600 l/s (max 800 l/s). The height difference in the fish ladder steps are 20–30 cm. At the upper end the water course is divided into two arms: the rock-cascade-pass (Q 0,8-3,0 m3/s) that leads straight onto the river bed. The second arm is designed as a vertical-clot-pass that connects the water course with the tailwater of the turbine outlet. The total discharge at the outlet varies between 0,6 m3/s and 4.0 m3/s.
Before the (re)contruction of the plant there was insufficient residual water flow (3‐8 m3/s) due to the diversion, section for the existing power plant “Albbruck Dogern”, interrupted continuum by river weir, interrupted fish migration, low fish population and low popultaion of aquatic fauna.
After the contruction work of the plant there has been immediate increase of the residual water flow: 3.8 m3/s to 40 m3/s; from the 1st January 2008 up to 70‐100 m3/s. Creation of a nature like fish ladder with collection gallery, renaturing of former gravel islands, upvaluation of a birdisland. New weir‐power plant extension uses in operation a water flow of min. 200 m3/s. Implementation of the ecological measures lasted until year 2012.
Hydromorfological improvements concerned the connection of the sidewater Alb to the Rhine, creation of a nature like bed structure in the diversion with gravelbars and ecological improvements in the whole area of the river diversion and in the river course under the weir. Also there was ecological improvements of the ecological diversity of the shoreline.
The bypass channel is 1 km long. The minimum discharge in the bypass channel is 2–5 m3/s (2,5 m3/s mean). If the discharge in the river is higher than 1200 m3/s then the max discharge is let to the bypass channel. There are recreational interest in the area. And if the planning will start they needed to compensate the land. Many migratory fish uses the bypass channel. For example the grayling spawns in the bypass channel.
Monitoring surveys and results
Lessons learnt
Catchment and subcatchment
Site
| Name | |
|---|---|
| WFD water body codes | |
| WFD (national) typology | |
| WFD water body name | |
| Pre-project morphology | |
| Reference morphology | |
| 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 | Urban |
| Average bankfull channel width category | |
| Average bankfull channel width (m) | |
| Average bankfull channel depth category | |
| Average bankfull channel depth (m) | |
| Mean discharge category | more than 1000 m³/s |
| Mean annual discharge (m3/s) | 1610 m3/s1,610,000 l/s <br /> |
| Average channel gradient category | |
| Average channel gradient | |
| Average unit stream power (W/m2) | New 300, old 1100 "New" is not declared as a valid unit of measurement for this property. |
Project background
| Reach length directly affected (m) | 900900 m <br />0.9 km <br />90,000 cm <br /> |
|---|---|
| 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
| Mitigation of a pressure | Hydropower |
|---|---|
| Hydromorphology | Flow velocities |
| Biology | Fish: Abundance |
| Physico-chemical | |
| Other reasons for the project |
Measures
Structural measures
| |
|---|---|
| Bank/bed modifications | Creation of fish ladders |
| Floodplain / River corridor | Creation of side channel |
| Planform / Channel pattern | |
| Other | |
Non-structural measures
| |
| Management interventions | |
| Social measures (incl. engagement) | |
| Other | |
Monitoring
Hydromorphological quality elements
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Biological quality elements
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
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
| Element | When monitored | Type of monitoring | Control site used | Result | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before measures | After measures | Qualitative | Quantitative | |||
Monitoring documents
Image gallery
Additional documents and videos
Additional links and references
| Link | Description |
|---|
Supplementary Information
Edit Supplementary Information