Altusried test case - Revision history

LB at 14:31, 21 October 2020

2020-10-21T14:31:39Z

LB: /* Acoustic 2D telemetry fish tracking */

2020-10-21T14:18:45Z

Acoustic 2D telemetry fish tracking

Bendikhansen: /* Migration model */

2020-10-09T11:39:12Z

Migration model

LB: /* Hydrodynamic modelling */

2020-09-29T12:25:14Z

Hydrodynamic modelling

Eppletob at 08:52, 28 April 2020

2020-04-28T08:52:11Z

Eppletob at 08:51, 28 April 2020

2020-04-28T08:51:09Z

Eppletob at 08:48, 28 April 2020

2020-04-28T08:48:22Z

Eppletob at 08:41, 28 April 2020

2020-04-28T08:41:59Z

Eppletob at 08:41, 28 April 2020

2020-04-28T08:41:04Z

LB at 08:32, 22 April 2020

2020-04-22T08:32:58Z

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 =Gallery=
+<gallery mode=packed>
-=Relevant Literature=
+Günz (C)flussbauiC VillachAustria3.jpg|Areal view of the hydropower plant Altusried (picture rights: iCFlussbau, Villach Austria)

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 ===Acoustic 2D telemetry fish tracking===
-The Vemco Positioning System (VPS) was applied to track fish swimming behaviour in 2D. Through the fish telemetry study, 15 million fish positions of 47 wild fish, 25 grayling and 22 barbel were collected. The tagged fish stayed in the VPS network between 2 and 92 days, whereby barbel resided on average for longer in the area than grayling. A detailed analysis is under way. The fish detections of the hydrophones in the fish pass already indicate that 12 tagged grayling and 8 tagged barbel found the entrance of the fish ladder at least once and swum up at least half way. Of these, 10 grayling and 6 barbel then also found their way upstream into the counting pool.
+The Vemco Positioning System (VPS) was applied to track fish swimming behaviour in 2D. Through the fish telemetry study, 15 million fish positions of 47 wild fish, 25 grayling and 22 barbel were collected. The tagged fish stayed in the VPS network between 2 and 92 days, whereby barbel resided on average for longer in the area than grayling. The fish detections of the hydrophones in the fish pass already indicate that 12 tagged grayling and 8 tagged barbel found the entrance of the fish ladder at least once and swum up at least half way. Of these, 10 grayling and 6 barbel then also found their way upstream into the counting pool.
 ===Hydrodynamic modelling===

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 ===Migration model===
-An extension of the habitat simulation system CASiMiR is being developed with input from the Test Cases. This new CASiMiR-Migration model is designed to simulate the migration behaviour of fish. For Altusried, the model has been applied to a lower flow velocity threshold of 0.15 m/s and an upper threshold of 1.5 m/s. When positioning the virtual fish equally over the river width in the lower part of the river stretch 10% of fish find the fish ladder entrance with flow velocities of 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s, 7% with 20 m<sup>3</sup>/s and 5 % with 60 m<sup>3</sup>/s in the river. I.e. the higher the flow in river the less distinct is the attraction flow when considering only flow magnitude and direction. By a first evaluation of the fish tracks it is already clear that the percentage of fish finding the fish ladder entrance is much higher than these values. This indicates that the current model has to consider additional parameters as mentioned before.
+An extension of the habitat simulation system [[CASiMiR]] is being developed with input from the Test Cases. This new  [[Agent based model|CASiMiR-Migration model]] is designed to simulate the migration behaviour of fish. For Altusried, the model has been applied to a lower flow velocity threshold of 0.15 m/s and an upper threshold of 1.5 m/s. When positioning the virtual fish equally over the river width in the lower part of the river stretch 10% of fish find the fish ladder entrance with flow velocities of 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s, 7% with 20 m<sup>3</sup>/s and 5 % with 60 m<sup>3</sup>/s in the river. I.e. the higher the flow in river the less distinct is the attraction flow when considering only flow magnitude and direction. By a first evaluation of the fish tracks it is already clear that the percentage of fish finding the fish ladder entrance is much higher than these values. This indicates that the current model has to consider additional parameters as mentioned before.
 =Gallery=
 =Relevant Literature=

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 ===Hydrodynamic modelling===
-A hydrodynamic model has been set up using Hydro-As_2D to derive flow velocities and water depth as input parameter for the developed migration model. To cover the wide flow range that can occur during migration periods, the flow scenarios considered in the model range from 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s to 80 m<sup>3</sup>/s. The results from the hydrodynamic model show that for a low flow situation with 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s the flow velocities are increased close to the area of the fish ladder outlet. Usually this zone of increased flow velocities is considered to have a guiding function for fish searching the fish ladder entrance. But even for the low flow situation the increased flow velocities can only be detected in the direct vicinity of the fish ladder entrance. For higher flows the extension of the higher flow velocity area is much less distinct.
+A hydrodynamic model was set up using Hydro-As_2D to derive flow velocities and water depth as input parameter for the developed migration model. To cover the wide flow range that can occur during migration periods, the flow scenarios considered in the model range from 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s to 80 m<sup>3</sup>/s. The results from the hydrodynamic model show that for a low flow situation with 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s the flow velocities are increased close to the area of the fish ladder outlet. Usually this zone of increased flow velocities is considered to have a guiding function for fish searching the fish ladder entrance. But even for the low flow situation the increased flow velocities can only be detected in the direct vicinity of the fish ladder entrance. For higher flows the extension of the higher flow velocity area is much less distinct.
 ===Migration model===

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 The main pressures on the water body are morphology and hydrology. The formerly high pressure for river continuity, has been reduced through a fish bypass channel which has been built in 2014 - 2015.
-The pressures are mainly caused by morphological issues which are results of the HPP. There is a lack of important habitats such as juvenile habitats, spawning habitats and the reophilic interstitial. The BEW is working on this challenges with two restauration programmes, the Illerstrategie 2020 and the EU-found program ISOBEL.
+The pressures are mainly caused by morphological issues which are results of the HPP. There is a lack of important habitats such as juvenile habitats, spawning habitats and the reophilic interstitial. The LEW Wasserkraft GmbH is working on this challenges with two restauration programmes, the Illerstrategie 2020 and the EU-found program ISOBEL.
 =Test case topics=

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ===Pressures on the water body's ecosystem===
-The main pressures on the water body are effluents from a water treatment plant, hydrology, and, to a small extent, the spillover from storm water overflows and morphology. The formerly high pressure for river continuity, has been reduced through fish bypass channels which were built in 2014.
+The main pressures on the water body are morphology and hydrology. The formerly high pressure for river continuity, has been reduced through a fish bypass channel which has been built in 2014 - 2015.
 The pressures are mainly caused by morphological issues which are results of the HPP. There is a lack of important habitats such as juvenile habitats, spawning habitats and the reophilic interstitial. The BEW is working on this challenges with two restauration programmes, the Illerstrategie 2020 and the EU-found program ISOBEL.

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ===Migration devices===
-A fish bypass channel has been built 2014. It has a length of 700 m and a flow of 1 m<sup>3</sup>/s. To also fulfill a compensation habitat function, juvenile and spawning habitats have been built into the fish-bypass channel.
+A fish bypass channel has been built 2014 - 2015. It has a length of 700 m and a flow of 1 m<sup>3</sup>/s. To also fulfill a compensation habitat function, juvenile and spawning habitats have been built into the fish-bypass channel.
 ===Downstream migration===

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ===The Operator: LEW Wasserkraft GmbH (LEW)===
-The LEW Wasserkraft GmbH
+The LEW Wasserkraft GmbH is a 100 % subsidiary of the Lechwerke AG. It runs and maintains 36 HPPs at the rivers Danube, Günz, Lech and Iller and is thereby one of the leading HPP operators in Bavaria, Germany. The company produces over 1 billion kWh energy out of regenerative hydropower per year. [[https://wasserkraft.lew.de/lew-wasserkraft Read more.]]
 ===Pressures on the water body's ecosystem===

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 The river Iller is located in the far south-western part of Germany. It flows into the river Danube near the city Ulm. The river Iller originates from the confluence of the three rivers Stillach, Breitach and Trettach near the city Oberstdorf in the “Allgäuer Alps”, south Germany.
-It’s catchment area has a size of 2152 km<sup>2</sup>. The HPP Altusried is the first HPP after the source of the river Iller. The last HPP of the BEW is near Memmingen. In the downstream area of the BEW HPP chain there are an additional 8 HPPs.
+It’s catchment area has a size of 2152 km<sup>2</sup>. The HPP Altusried is the first HPP of a power plant chain of five HPPs that are operated by the LEW Wasserkraft GmbH. The last HPP of the LEW Wasserkraft GmbH is near Lautrach. In the downstream area of the LEW Wasserkraft GmbH HPP chain there are an additional 8 HPPs.
-The hydrology of the Iller is characterized by sustained flows in winter, high water levels in spring due to snow melting and low water periods from August to October. At Altusried, the main Test Case HPP at the Iller, the mean interannual discharge is estimated to be 46.6 m<sup>3</sup>/s.
+The hydrology of the Iller is characterized by sustained flows in winter, high water levels in spring due to snow melting and low water periods from August to October. At Altusried, the main Test Case HPP at the Iller, the mean interannual discharge is 46.6 m<sup>3</sup>/s (level Kempten).
 =About the hydropower plants=
@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 ===Layout===
-There is a big reservoir in the upstream area of the Hydropower plant. In the downstream area of the HPP the river Iller is still flowing. After a free flowing area of around 1500m impoundment by the next reservoir starts. The BEW has built a fish bypass channel around the HPP in 2015. It is 700 m long and has a mean flow of 1 m<sup>3</sup>/s.
+There is a big reservoir in the upstream area of the Hydropower plant. In the downstream area of the HPP the river Iller is still flowing. After a free flowing area of around 1500m impoundment by the next reservoir starts. The LEW Wasserkraft GmbH has built a fish bypass channel around the HPP in 2015. It is 700 m long and has a mean flow of 1 m<sup>3</sup>/s.
 ===The Operator: LEW Wasserkraft GmbH (LEW)===
-The LEW is a 100 % subsidiary of the Lechwerke AG. It runs and maintains 36 HPPs at the rivers Danube, Günz, Lech and Iller and is thereby one of the leading HPP operators in Bavaria, Germany. The company produces over 1 billion kWh energy out of regenerative hydropower per year. [[https://wasserkraft.lew.de/lew-wasserkraft Read more.]]
+The LEW Wasserkraft GmbH
 ===Pressures on the water body's ecosystem===
@@ Line 29: / Line 32: @@
 ===Migration devices===
-The Bragado weir does not have a fish pass for either upstream or downstream fish migration. Such device was considered unnecessary by the Portuguese authorities since the HPP is placed in a reach of the Avelames River with reduced natural longitudinal connectivity, due to the occurrence of natural falls. Furthermore, migratory fish species requiring long distance movements to reproduce do not occur in this river.
+A fish bypass channel has been built 2014. It has a length of 700 m and a flow of 1 m<sup>3</sup>/s. To also fulfill a compensation habitat function, juvenile and spawning habitats have been built into the fish-bypass channel.
 ===Downstream migration===
@@ Line 35: / Line 38: @@
 ===Upstream migration===
-The upstream migration facility, which was built in 2014, consists of a fish bypass channel with a length of 700 m and a flow of 1 m<sup>3</sup>/s. To also fulfill a compensation habitat function, juvenile and spawning habitats have been built into the fish-bypass channel.
+The upstream migration is possible through the fish bypass channel. Within a monitoring programm, over 7000 fish have been documented using the fish bypass channel for upstream migration within 3 years.
 ===E-flow===
-The minimum outflow of the turbines is 9.0 m<sup>3</sup>/s, during the whole year. This regulation is part of the “Illerstrategie 2020” of the BEW. It is based on the natural minimum flow of the river Iller.
+The minimum outflow of the turbines is 9.0 m<sup>3</sup>/s, during the whole year. This regulation is part of the “Illerstrategie 2020” of the LEW Wasserkraft GmbH. It is based on the natural minimum flow of the river Iller.
 =Research objectives and tasks=
@@ Line 53: / Line 56: @@
 =Results=
 ===Population and habitat analysis===
-The impact of the newly created fish-bypass channels and habitat measures have been monitored with electro fishing campaigns from 2016 – 2019 that are carried out twice a year on a length of 1500m downstream at both shorelines against the flow and in the middle of the river with the flow. The results of the electro fishing campaigns indicate the presence of all characteristic fish species in the Iller and thus an improvement of the formerly poor fish community status. Especially barbell, Danube salmon, grayling, chub and brown trout were caught in gratifying numbers, both in juvenile and adult stages. In spring 2018 even 6 young Danube Salmon were found. Only the population of nase is still in a rather poor condition.
+The impact of the newly created fish-bypass channels and habitat measures have been monitored with electro fishing campaigns from 2016 – 2019 that are carried out twice a year on a length of 1500m downstream at both shorelines against the flow and in the middle of the river with the flow. The results of the electro fishing campaigns indicate the presence of all characteristic fish species in the Iller and thus an improvement of the formerly poor fish community status. Especially barbel, Danube salmon, grayling, chub and brown trout were caught in gratifying numbers, both in juvenile and adult stages. In spring 2018 even 6 young Danube Salmon were found. Only the population of nase is still in a rather poor condition.
 ===Acoustic 2D telemetry fish tracking===

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:32, 22 April 2020
Line 63:		Line 63:
	===Migration model===		===Migration model===
	An extension of the habitat simulation system CASiMiR is being developed with input from the Test Cases. This new CASiMiR-Migration model is designed to simulate the migration behaviour of fish. For Altusried, the model has been applied to a lower flow velocity threshold of 0.15 m/s and an upper threshold of 1.5 m/s. When positioning the virtual fish equally over the river width in the lower part of the river stretch 10% of fish find the fish ladder entrance with flow velocities of 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s, 7% with 20 m<sup>3</sup>/s and 5 % with 60 m<sup>3</sup>/s in the river. I.e. the higher the flow in river the less distinct is the attraction flow when considering only flow magnitude and direction. By a first evaluation of the fish tracks it is already clear that the percentage of fish finding the fish ladder entrance is much higher than these values. This indicates that the current model has to consider additional parameters as mentioned before.		An extension of the habitat simulation system CASiMiR is being developed with input from the Test Cases. This new CASiMiR-Migration model is designed to simulate the migration behaviour of fish. For Altusried, the model has been applied to a lower flow velocity threshold of 0.15 m/s and an upper threshold of 1.5 m/s. When positioning the virtual fish equally over the river width in the lower part of the river stretch 10% of fish find the fish ladder entrance with flow velocities of 10 m<sup>3</sup>/s, 7% with 20 m<sup>3</sup>/s and 5 % with 60 m<sup>3</sup>/s in the river. I.e. the higher the flow in river the less distinct is the attraction flow when considering only flow magnitude and direction. By a first evaluation of the fish tracks it is already clear that the percentage of fish finding the fish ladder entrance is much higher than these values. This indicates that the current model has to consider additional parameters as mentioned before.
		+
		+	=Gallery=
		+
		+	=Relevant Literature=