Costs of solutions

From FIThydrowiki
Revision as of 10:58, 30 September 2020 by Bendikhansen (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Note: the info on this page is temporary File:Broken

One of the goals of the FIThydro project is to determine the financial costs of implementing mitigation measures (solutions).

Library of possible measures Min Max Unit Reference
[Euro] [Euro]
Habitat Instream habitat adjustments Placement of spawning gravel in the river 10 100 per cubic meter 1,2
Placement of stones in the river 50 150 per cubic meter 3
Cleaning of substrate - ripping, ploughing and flushing 1 50 per square meter 3
Fish refuge under hydropeaking conditions NA
Placement of dead wood and debris 10 150 per meter 4
Restoring habitat Removal of weirs 2,000 1,000,000 per weir 5,6
Construction of a 'river-in-the-river' 50 5,000 per meter 7
Construction of off-channel habitats 1 100 per square meter 8
Shoreline habitat Environmental design of embankments and erosion protection 10 150 per meter 3
Restoration of the riparian zone vegetation 1 50 per square meter 8
Fish migration Downstream Migration barrier removal 2,000 1,000,000 per project 5,6
Operational measures (turbine operations, spillway passage) NA
Sensory, behavioural barriers (electricity, light, sound, air-water curtains) 800 4,000 per m3/second 9
Fish-friendly turbines 500,000 per turbine 10
Skimming walls (fixed or floating) 3,000 per m3/second 11
Bypass combined with other solutions 10,000 25,000 per m3/second 12
Fish guidance structures with narrow bar spacing 2000 40000 per m3/second 11
Fish guidance structures with wide bar spacing 2000 40000 per m3/second 11
Fish Protection System (induced drift application) NA
Bottom-type intakes (Coanda screen, Lepine water intake, etc) 17,000 per m3/second 9
Other types of fine screens NA
Upstream Complete or partial migration barrier removal 2,000 1,000,000 per project 5,6
Nature-like fishways 5,000 20,000 per vertical meter 13
Pool-type fishways 10,000 100,000 per vertical meter
Baffle fishways 5,000 100,000 per vertical meter 5,11,14
Fishways for eels and lampreys 600 per meter length 16
Fish lifts, screws, locks, and others 10000 500000 per project 11
Truck transport
Vertical slot fishways 5,000 20,000 per vertical meter
Sediment Routing Drawdown reservoir flushing 1 50 per cubic meter 15,17
Sediment sluicing NA
Removal By-passing sediments NA
Off-channel reservoir storage NA
Mechanical removal of fine sediments (dredging) 5 10 per cubic meter 15
Minimizing sediment arrival to reservoir 150,000 per Vortex tube 18
Restoration in rivers Removal of bank protection NA
Removal of debris NA
Environmental flow General flow regime Mitigating reduced annual flow and low flow measures NA
Mitigating reduced flood peaks, magnitudes, and frequency NA
Short-term flow regime Mitigating rapid, short-term variations in flow (hydro-peaking operations) NA
  1. 1) Personal communication G. Loy (2020). Verbund Innkraftwerke.
  2. 2) Personal communication J. Zehender (2020). Bayerische Landeskraftwerke.
  3. 3) Cramer, M.L. (ed) (2012). Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines. Olympia, Washington, Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources, Transportation and Ecology, Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, Puget Sound Partnership, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  4. 4) Cederholm, C.J., Bilby, R.E., Bisson, P.A., Bumstead, T.W., Fransen, B.R., Scarlett, W.J., and Ward, J.W. (1997). Response of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead to placement of large woody debris in a coastal washing stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 947-963. (cited in: Fischenich, C., and J., Jr. Morrow (1999). Streambank Habitat Enhancement with Large Woody Debris. EMRRP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-13). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.)
  5. 5) CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game) (2004). Recovery strategy for California coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission.
  6. 6) Garcia de Leaniz, C. (2008). “Weir removal in salmonid streams: implications, challenges and practicalities.” Hydrobiologia 609: 83-96.
  7. 7) Saldi-Caromile, K., Bates, K., Skidmore, P., Barenti, J., and Pineo, D. (2004). Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines: Final Draft. Olympia, Washington, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Departments of Ecology and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
  8. 8) Evergreen (Evergreen Funding Consultants) (2003). A Primer on Habitat Project Costs. Prepared for the Puget Sound Shared Strategy.
  9. 9) Turnpenny, A.W.H., Struthers, G., and Hanson, P. (1998). A UK guide to intake fish-screening regulations, policy and best practice with particular reference to hydroelectric power schemes. Harwell Laboratory, Energy Technology Support Unit, UK.
  10. 10) Dewitte, M., Courret, D., Laurent, D., and Adeva-Bustos, A. (2020). Comparison of solutions to restore a safe downstream migration of fish at a low-head run-of-river power-plant. Fish Passage 2020 - International Conference on River Connectivity.
  11. 11) Venus, T.E., Smialek, N., Pander, J., Harper, R., Adeva-Bustos, A., Harby, A., and Hansen, B. (2020). D4.3 General Cost Figures for Relevant Solutions, Methods, Tools and Devices. FIThydro Report.
  12. 12) Ebel, G., Kehl, M., and Gluch, A. (2018). Fortschritte beim Fischschutz und Fisch-abstieg: Inbetriebnahme der Pilot-Wasserkraftanlagen Freyburg und Öblitz. Wasserwirtschaft, 108, 54-62.
  13. 13) Rutherfurd, I.D., Jerie, K., and Marsh, N. (2000). A Rehabilitation Manual for Australian Streams. Volume 2. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation & Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology.
  14. 14) Porcher, J. P., and Larinier, M. (2002). Designing Fishways, Supervision of Construction, Costs, Hydraulic Model Studies. Bulletin Français de La Pêche et de La Pisciculture, (364 supplément), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1051/kmae/2002100
  15. 15) Rovira, A., and Ibàñez, C. (2007). Sediment management options for the lower Ebro River and its delta. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 7(5), 285-295.
  16. 16) Pulg, U., Stranzl, S., Espedal, E., Postler, C., Gabrielsen, S., Alfredsen, K., and Fjeldstad, H.-P. (2020). Effektivitet og kost-nytte forhold av fysiske miljøtiltak i vassdrag Effektivitet og kost-nytte forhold av fysiske miljøtiltak i vassdrag. Bergen.
  17. 17) Espa, P., Castelli, E., Crosa, G., and Gentili, G. (2013). Environmental effects of storage preservation practices: controlled flushing of fine sediment from a small hydropower reservoir. Environmental management, 52(1), 261-276.
  18. 18) Personal communication A. Doessegger (2020). Regionalwerke Schweiz.