Case study:Eldbäcken

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: 60° 26' 9.54" N, 14° 13' 47.69" 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	http://www.nrrv.se/
Themes	Habitat and biodiversity, Hydropower
Country	Sweden
Main contact forename	Stina
Main contact surname	Gustafsson
Main contact user ID
Contact organisation	Karlstad University
Contact organisation web site	http://www.nrrv.se
Partner organisations
Parent multi-site project
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.

Eldbäcken is a more diverse version of a nature-like bypass channel, a fishway type that we have called “biocanal”. The name derives from the idea that the fishway not only would facilitate passage, but also that it would create additional habitats and compensate for the loss of biodiversity which often is the result in regulated rivers. The biocanal was constructed in 2009 in the Västerdalälven river system, in the province of Dalarna in central Sweden, diverting water around the Eldforsen hydroelectric power plant and into the old river bed. The biocanal has a head of 5 m and a length of 500 m, resulting in a gradient of 1%. To make the flow as nature-like as possible, the intake of the biocanal is constructed to allow a variable flow regime.

To increase the potential for a high biodiversity, four different habitat types, each replicated three times, were created within the biocanal:

1) Pools, with a low water velocity and gravel substrate to compensate for lost freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) habitat and spawning areas for brown trout (Salmo trutta).

2) Floodplains, with winding channels and shallow ponds and

3) Braided habitats, where the canal has been diverted into narrow channels with islands in-between. These two habitat types were created to accommodate young individuals of brown trout.

4) Riffles, with a straight watercourse and higher water velocity, providing habitat for rheophilic taxa in general.

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
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	Fortum Environmental Fund

Cost for project phases

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