Case study:Restoration of Kalajoki River

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: 64° 15' 21.76" N, 23° 56' 36.51" E

Edit location

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	Complete
Project web site
Themes
Country	Finland
Main contact forename	Kimmo
Main contact surname	Aronsuu
Main contact user ID	User:firstname.lastname@ely-keskus.fi
Contact organisation	Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for North Ostrobothnia
Contact organisation web site	http://www.ely-keskus.fi
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
This is a parent project encompassing the following projects	No

Restoration of Museokoski torrent (photo: Kimmo Aronsuu )

Project summary

Edit project overview to modify the project summary.

Since early 1900´s until early 2000´s there has been major river regulation measures done in the Kalajoki River. The river was dredged, straightened and embanked because of flood control, hydro power and log floating which significantly changed hydrological and morphological conditions in the river and affected the river as a habitat of aquatic organisms.

Since late 1970´s court ordered incorporated studies on effect on regulation measures on water quality, fish stocks and fishing into the rulings. Court also ordered compensational measures like fish stocking and rehabilitation measures which also included observation of the success of these measures. The river was restored to improve breeding conditions for lamprey and crayfish. Plan was to restore rapids total of 55 ha area in the lower reaches of Hamari. The aim was to create more natural conditions for migrating fish and other aquatiq organisms by building bypass channels, adding stones and gravel as and improving bank and bed of the river. The most significant restorations have been stocking of 4.7 million one summer old white fish in 1988-2010, restorations to improve reproduction conditions for creyfish and lamprey and stocking of 30 000 mature creyfish in 2003-2006. There has been also follow-up done to evaluate the effects of the restorations on crayfish, lamprey, fish stocks and the River Kalajoki as a habitat for aquatic organisms.

The government has been major actor in almost all of the water management projects in the River Kalajoki. Restorations were managed by Finnish environmental authority (Centre for Economic Development, Transport and the Environment for North Ostrobothnia). Restorations were done in co-operation with municipalities, local people and non governmental organizations. Estimated costs were about 1 million euros.

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

Site

Edit site

Name	Kalajoki River Basin
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name
Pre-project morphology
Reference morphology
Desired post project morphology
Heavily modified water body	Yes
National/international site designation
Local/regional site designations
Protected species present	No
Invasive species present	No
Species of interest	crayfish, lamprey, different fish species
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate
River corridor land use	Coniferous 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	1994
Works started
Works completed
Project completed	2004/09/02
Total cost category
Total cost (k€)
Benefit to cost ratio
Funding sources

Cost for project phases

Reasons for river restoration

Edit reasons for restoration

Mitigation of a pressure	Invasive species
Hydromorphology	Channel pattern/planform, Continuity for organisms, Quantity & dynamics of flow
Biology	Fish: Disturbance-sensitive species
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