Case study:Eldbäcken

From RESTORE
Jump to: navigation, search
0.00
(0 votes)


To discuss or comment on this case study, please use the discussion page.


Location: 60° 26' 10", 14° 13' 48"
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
Eldbäcken, biokanal (photo by Olle Calles)

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 call “biocanal”. The name derives from the fact that the fishway is constructed not only to facilitates passage, but also to contain additional habitats and thereby 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.


Image gallery


Floodplain habitat during high flow conditions. Photo: Olle Calles
Braided habitat during high flow conditions. Photo: Olle Calles
Colonization of riparian vegetation in progress. Photo: Olle Calles
ShowHideAdditionalImage.png


Catchment and subcatchment



Site

Name Eldbäcken
WFD water body codes
WFD (national) typology
WFD water body name River Västerdalälven
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 Freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera), Brown trout (Salmo trutta)
Dominant hydrology
Dominant substrate boulder, cobble
River corridor land use
Average bankfull channel width category 2 - 5 m
Average bankfull channel width (m)
Average bankfull channel depth category 0.5 - 2 m
Average bankfull channel depth (m)
Mean discharge category 0.1 - 1.0 m³/s
Mean annual discharge (m3/s)
Average channel gradient category 0.001 - 0.01
Average channel gradient
Average unit stream power (W/m2)


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

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

Mitigation of a pressure
Hydromorphology
Biology
Physico-chemical
Other reasons for the project


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

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Flow velocities No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Substrate conditions No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Biological quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
Fish No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Invertebrates No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Physico-chemical quality elements

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative
PH No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Temperature No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Any other monitoring, e.g. social, economic

Element When monitored Type of monitoring Control site used Result
Before measures After measures Qualitative Quantitative


Monitoring documents



Additional documents and videos


Additional links and references

Link Description

Supplementary Information

Edit Supplementary Information