Case study:Ålgårda nature-like bypass channel at River Rolfsån

From RESTORE
Revision as of 15:03, 12 November 2012 by Laamaneno (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: 57° 29' 19.39" N, 12° 14' 26.60" E
Loading map...
Left click to look around in the map, and use the wheel of your mouse to zoom in and out.


Project overview

Edit project overview
Status In progress
Project web site
Themes Fisheries, Habitat and biodiversity, Hydropower
Country Sweden
Main contact forename -
Main contact surname -
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation -
Contact organisation web site
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project

Case_study:Biologisk återställning i Rolfsåns vattensystem

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.


The watercourse of River Rolfsån is one of the rare inland water areas in Sweden which has vivid salmon and sea trout populations. Besides sea trout (Salmo trutta trutta) there are also lake (Salmo trutta lacustris) and stream trout (Salmo trutta fario). Also endangered species freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) exists in the watercourse. To maintain these populations the fish need to be able to migrate upstream and downstream. This is why several bypass channels have been built in Rolfså River during last years.

The Ålgårda hydropower plant was built 1918. The application to inforce the power company to build fishway was delivered to Environmental Court in 2011.

The fish and benthic invertebrates are now able to migrate upstream from the Ålgårda power station. At the same time the hydropower production is ongoing. Building of a bypass channel is the only option to enable migration for all fauna, also the benthic invertebrates. Salmonids seem to use bypass channels instead of technical fishways for migration. Bypass channels are also more recommendable than technical fishways because of their contribution to landscape.

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 Skagerrak and Kattegat River basin
River basin Rolfsån River Basin

Subcatchment

River name River Rolfsån
Area category
Area (km2)
Maximum altitude category
Maximum altitude (m)
Dominant geology Organic (i.e. Peat)
Ecoregion Fenno-Scandian Shield
Dominant land cover Woodland, Intensive agriculture (arable)
Waterbody ID



Other case studies in this subcatchment: Apelnäs fishway at River Rolfså, Biologisk återställning i Rolfsåns vattensystem, Bosgården nature-like fishway at River Rolfså, Dam removal at Grönkullen, River Rolfsån, Restorations of River Nolån-Hulta dam removal, ´Restorations of River Nolån-Bypass channel in Hulta Hydro power plant, ´Restorations of River Nolån-Fishway in Forsa hydro power plant


Site

Edit 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
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present
Invasive species present
Species of interest
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use
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