Difference between revisions of "Rhone river bypass section - Pierre-Bénite"
(→Site description) |
(→Measures selection) |
||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
==Measures selection== | ==Measures selection== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Rhone river restoration program had four complementary aims. First was to preserve natural environment and its ecological richness. Second was to maintain groundwater level and water resource. Third was to manage flood by restoration of natural flood expansion areas. Forth was to maintain tourist and recreational activities around Rhone river. Increase minimum flow is one of different measures implemented in order to achieve these aims. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Minimum flows in different bypass sections have been worked out from statistical hydraulic models predicting the local hydraulic conditions in a stream reach (Lamouroux et al., 1999). Minimum flow increase and flow seasonal variations are different in each bypass section. Chautagne bypass section flow has been increase from 10-20 m3 s-1 to 50 m3 s-1 (september to april) or 70 m3 s-1 (may to august). In Belley bypass section, flow has been established to 60 m3 s-1 (september to february), 90 m3 s-1 en (march and may), to 100 m3 s-1 (april) and to 80 m3 s-1 (june to auguste). Brégnier-Cordon bypass section flow has been increase to 80 m3 s-1 (november to march), to 100 m3 s-1 (april to may and September to October) and to 150 m3 s-1 (june to august). At last, in Pierre-Bénite bypass, flow has been increase from 10-20 m3 s-1 to 100 m3 s-1. | ||
==Success criteria== | ==Success criteria== | ||
Revision as of 11:41, 27 May 2010
Rhone river bypass section - Pierre-Bénite
Key features of the case study
Rhone river restoration is multi-sites, concerning four bypass sections on Upper Rhone (Chautagne, Belley, Brégnier-Cordon) and Rhone upstream Lyon (Pierre-Bénite). Same measures have been implemented on the different sites: increase and ensure minimum flows and naturalize flows regime. These measures have been implemented in august 2000 to Pierre-Bénite, july 2004 to Chautagne, july 2005 to Belley and winter 2005 to Brégnier-Cordon. Next, same restoration measures will be applied in three other downstream Rhone bypass sections (Montélimar, Donzère-Mondragon and Péage-de-Roussillon). Flows manipulations go with twenty-five former channels restorations (see Rhone river former channels case studies).
Site description
Rhone river has been deeply impacted by human activities for centuries. First most important interventions were during nineteenth century with systematic river dyking for protection against floods. River control works continue during twentieth century with arrangements for fluvial shipping and dam constructions for hydropower. Rhone river has been channelled and historical stream is today a succession of bypass-sections, from Geneva to the Camargue. Sites concerning by restoration are located in this Bypassed Rhone (Rhone Court-Circuité in French - RCC), also named Historical Rhone or Old Rhone. However, pressures are not the same according to the bypass section considered. From upstream to downstream, first bypass section is Chautagne, 10 km long. It is upstream bounded by Motz dam and minimum flow instream was set 10-20 m3 s-1. Belley bypass section downstream from Chanaz dam is the longest with 18 km. Minimum flow in this section was set 25 m3 s-1 from december to march, 28 m3 s-1 from april and october-november and 60 m3 s-1 from july to september. Brégnier Cordon section, last of Upper Rhone, is bypassed by Brégnier-Cordon dam. Pierre-Bénite bypass is in Middle Rhone, just downstream of Lyon. It is 10 km long and minimum flow set 10 or 20 m3 s-1. Geographical context is different from others bypass sections because it is located right inside one of the more important French industrial area. However in every bypass section pressures and stakes are important. Preservation of natural environments and their ecological richness is undoubtedly recognized as the first issue. Aim is also to preserve the groundwater resources and to ensure flood protection. Economical and social needs must be considered (hydroelectric production, water resource, recreational activities, etc.). At last watershed size of Rhone river is an additional constraint. Pressures must be considered also on many tributaries (industrial waste, domestic waste, etc…).
Pressures have lot of consequences on Rhone river hydrosystem structure and process. First, dams and canals modify hydrological regime (quantity and variability), stream and groundwater flow, and lower groundwater level. Upstream dams are also problem for sediment transport. Bank erosions are observed and former channels are disconnected from main stream. Deterioration of water quality is other consequence. These physical dysfunctions have deep impacts on ecological structures and processes. Fish habitat is damaged and natural environment as a whole is disturbed. At all, in a social way, alteration of landscape quality is also underlined problem.
Measures selection
Rhone river restoration program had four complementary aims. First was to preserve natural environment and its ecological richness. Second was to maintain groundwater level and water resource. Third was to manage flood by restoration of natural flood expansion areas. Forth was to maintain tourist and recreational activities around Rhone river. Increase minimum flow is one of different measures implemented in order to achieve these aims.
Minimum flows in different bypass sections have been worked out from statistical hydraulic models predicting the local hydraulic conditions in a stream reach (Lamouroux et al., 1999). Minimum flow increase and flow seasonal variations are different in each bypass section. Chautagne bypass section flow has been increase from 10-20 m3 s-1 to 50 m3 s-1 (september to april) or 70 m3 s-1 (may to august). In Belley bypass section, flow has been established to 60 m3 s-1 (september to february), 90 m3 s-1 en (march and may), to 100 m3 s-1 (april) and to 80 m3 s-1 (june to auguste). Brégnier-Cordon bypass section flow has been increase to 80 m3 s-1 (november to march), to 100 m3 s-1 (april to may and September to October) and to 150 m3 s-1 (june to august). At last, in Pierre-Bénite bypass, flow has been increase from 10-20 m3 s-1 to 100 m3 s-1.
Success criteria
Ecological response
Hydromorphological response
Monitoring before and after implementation of the project
Socio-economic aspects
Contact person within the organization
Extra background information
References
Andre S., Doledec S., Lamouroux N., Merigoux S., Olivier J-M., 2004. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration écologique et hydraulique du Rhône. Vieux Rhône et lônes de Chautagne. Caractérisation de l’état initial : poissons et invertébrés du chenal. Année 2003. Contrat de prestations n°DPE-F 03-0093. 95 p.
Barthelemy C & Souchon Y., 2009. La restauration écologique du fleuve Rhône sous le double regard du sociologue et de l'écologue. Natures Sciences Sociétés, No. 17, pp. 113-121.
Barthelemy C., 2006. De la restauration écologique à la concertation : des territoires fluviaux en devenir ? Analyse sociologique du Programme Décennal de Restauration Hydraulique et Ecologique du Rhône. Rapport final. Janvier 2006, 100 p.
Bornette G. Rivoire E., 2007. Suivi scientifique de niveau 2 et complément du niveau 1. Analyse fonctionnelle des systèmes restaurés. Développement de modèles prédictifs utilisables en restauration fluviale. Chapitre 3 Thème « Macrophytes des lônes ». 29 p.
Castella E., Paillex A., Carron G., MacCrae D., Terrier A., 2007. Suivi scientifique de niveau 2 et complément du niveau 1. Analyse fonctionnelle des systèmes restaurés. Développement de modèles prédictifs utilisables en restauration fluviale. Chapitre 5 Thème « Invertébrés des lônes ». 51 p.
Fruget J-F., 2003. Changements environnementaux, dérives écologiques et perspectives de restauration du Rhône français : bilan de 200 ans d’influences anthropiques. VertigO – La revue en sciences de l’environnement, Vol 4, No 3, 17 p.
Harby A., Mérigoux S., Olivier J.M & Malet E. 2005. Norwegian mesohabitat method used to assess minimum flow changes in the Rhône River, Chautagne, France. Case study, lessons learned and future developments - methods and application. Proceedings, COST 626 final meeting, Silkeborg, Denmark. pp. 125-141
Harby A., Olivier J-M., Mérigoux S., & Malet E., 2007. A mesohabitat method used to assess minimum flow changes and impacts on the invertebrate and fish fauna in the Rhône River, France. River Research and Applications, Vol. 23, Issue 5, pp. 525-543.
Henry C.P. & Amoros C., 1996. Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands. III. Vegetation survey and monitoring optimization. Ecological Engineering 7: 35-58.
Henry C.P., Amoros C. & Roset N., 2002. Restoration ecology of riverine wetlands: A 5-year post-operation survey on the Rhône River, France. Ecological Engineering, 18: 543-554.
Lamouroux N. & Chandesris A. (coord), 2003. Chute de Pierre Bénite. Suivi de l’incidence de l’augmentation du débit réservé dans le vieux-Rhône. Phase II (2001-2004). Rapport intermédiaire 2003. Version 3.0. 63 p.
Lamouroux N. & Chandesris A. (coord), 2004. Chute de Pierre Bénite. Suivi de l’incidence de l’augmentation du débit réservé dans le vieux-Rhône. Phase II (2001-2004). Rapport final 2004. 103 p.
Lamouroux N., Doutriaux E., Terrier C. & Zylberblat M., 1999. Modélisation des impacts de la gestion des débits réservés du rhône sur les peuplements piscicoles. Bull. Fr. Pêche Piscic. 352 : 45-61.
Michalkova M. & Piégay H., 2006. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration hydraulique et écologique du Rhône. Restauration des tronçons Court-Cirduités de Belley, de Chautagne et de Brégnier-Cordon. Rapport final du suivi de niveau 2 – déc. 2006. 47 p.
Olivier J.M., Mérigoux S., Malet E. & Harby A. 2005. Norwegian mesohabitat method used to assess minimum flow changes in the Rhône River, Chautagne, France. Case study, lessons learned and future developments - impacts on the fish population. Proceedings, COST 626 final meeting, Silkeborg, Denmark. pp. 267-281
Olivier J-M. & Lamouroux N. (coord), 2008 (version provisoire du 06/08). Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration hydraulique et écologique du Rhône : Un observatoire dynamique de l'état écologique du fleuve. 187 p.
Olivier J-M., 2005. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration écologique et hydraulique du Rhône. Vieux Rhône et lônes de Chautagne. Suivi piscicole. Année 2004. Contrat de prestations n°DPE-F 03-0093. 20 p.
Olivier J-M., 2007. Suivi scientifique de niveau 2 et complément du niveau 1. Analyse fonctionnelle des systèmes restaurés. Développement de modèles prédictifs utilisables en restauration fluviale. Chapitre 2 Thème « Poissons ». 12 p.
Olivier J-M., 2007. Suivi scientifique de niveau 2 et complément du niveau 1. Analyse fonctionnelle des systèmes restaurés. Développement de modèles prédictifs utilisables en restauration fluviale. Présentation générale. Période 2003-2006. 12 p.
Olivier J-M., Lamouroux N., Bornette G., Jezquel C., Merigoux-Lhopital S., Fruget J-F., Castella E., Paillex A., Montbertrand A-L., Carron G., MacCrae D., Piégay H., Michalkova M., 2008. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration hydraulique et écologique du Rhône : Un observatoire dynamique de l’état écologique du fleuve. Rapport d’étape 2007. 170 p.
Olivier J-M., Lamouroux N., Bornette G., Jezquel C., Merigoux-Lhopital S., Fruget J-F., Castella E., Paillex A., Montbertrand A-L., Carron G., MacCrae D., Piégay H., Michalkova M., 2009 (version provisoire). Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration hydraulique et écologique du Rhône : Un observatoire dynamique de l’état écologique du fleuve. Rapport d’étape 2008. 182 p.
Olivier J-M., Lamouroux N., Malet E., Merigoux S., Doledec S., Castella E., Paillex A., Carron G., MacCrae D., Terrier A., Bornette G., Rivoire E., Piégay H., Michalkova M., Levrat J., Masse C., 2005. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration écologique et hydraulique du Rhône. Vieux Rhône et lônes de Brégnier-Cordon. Caractérisation de l’état initial. Années 2004-2005. Contrat de prestations n°DPE-F 03-0093. 144 p.
Olivier J-M., Lamouroux N., Malet E., Merigoux-Lhopital S., Piégay H. & Michalkova M., 2007. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration écologique et hydraulique du Rhône. RCC de Chautagne, Belley et de Brégnier-Cordon. Année 2006. Contrat de prestations n°DPE-F 03-0093. 115 p.
Olivier J-M., Lamouroux N., Merigoux S., Doledec S., Castella E., Paillex A., Carron G., Bornette G., Piégay H., Levrat J., 2004. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration écologique et hydraulique du Rhône. Vieux Rhône et lônes de Belley. Caractérisation de l’état initial. Années 2003-2004. Contrat de prestations n°DPE-F 03-0093. 142 p.
Olivier J-M., Lamouroux N., Piégay H., Michalkova M., Masse C., 2006. Suivi scientifique du programme décennal de restauration écologique et hydraulique du Rhône. RCC de Chautagne et de Belley. Année 2005. Contrat de prestations n°DPE-F 03-0093. 64 p.
Piégay H., Foussadier R., Joly P., Pautou G & Mourier V., 1997. Principes de réhabilitation des marges du Rhône à partir d'indicateurs géomorphologiques, phyto-écologiques et batrachologiques (cas du Rhône court-circuité de Pierre-Bénite). Revue de géographie de Lyon, Vol. 72, No. 1, pp. 7-22.
Piégay H., Michalkova M., 2007. Suivi scientifique de niveau 2 et complément du niveau 1. Analyse fonctionnelle des systèmes restaurés. Développement de modèles prédictifs utilisables en restauration fluviale. Chapitre 4 Thème « Sédimentologie ». 47 p.
Pupier S., 2003. Perception paysagère des îles et lônes du vieux Rhône de Pierre Bénite après réhabilitation du site. Mémoire, Université Lumière Lyon II, 80 p.
Valentin S., 1997. Chute de Pierre Bénite. Suivi de l'incidence de l'augmentation du débit réservé dans le Vieux-Rhône. Rapport final. Avril 1997, 140 p.
Related Measures
- No measures have been assigned to this project.
