1. Compiled by core group ECOSTAT workshop, Paris 05.03.2015
GEP and water storage - Draft results from mitigation measure template 20 countries
Compiled by core group
ECOSTAT workshop,
Paris

2. Aims for this workshop
Ensure common understanding of MM and use therof
Towards an intercalibrated/harmonised GEP
Knowledge exchange
Share relevant mitigation measure across countries
BAT/BAMM (Best Available Mitigation Measure) for water storage affected water bodies
Clarify objectives in HYMO altered water bodies
If not GES then GEP unless
Measures are ruled out due to effect on use, wider env or technical feasability
And is there a lower limit for GEP?
Exemptions - LSO

3. Impact from Water Storage

5. Key measures for GEP Pressure Mitigation measure
Ecological impact
Mitigation measure
Reservoir dams & river intake structures
Migratory fish absent or abundance reduced
1. Upstream continuity fish
2. Downstream continuity fish
Water impoundment & abstraction
Reduced abundance of plant & animal species. Alterations to composition of plant & animal species
3. Mitigation low flow
4. Mitigation fish flow
Reduced abundance of fish & invertebrate species. Alterations in invertebrate composition
5. Mitigation variable flow
10. Mitigation physico-chem
Water recharge (outflow from tailrace)
Reduction in animal & plant species abundance. Alterations in composition
6. Mitigation hydropeaking
Water impoundment or river intake structure
Reduction in fish & inveretbrate abundance & alterations in species composition
7. Mitigation for interrupted sediment movement
Reduction in abundance of plant & animal species. Alterations to species composition
8. Mitigation lake level
Water impoundment
Alterations to plant & animal species composition
9. Mitigation ponded river flow

6. GEP/Water storage activities
Brussel (Oct 2013)
2014:
Vienna (5-6 March)
Oulo (18-19 March)
UK/Scotland (summer)
London (End of Sept)
2015:
Deadline for MMT – 12. febr
Paris WS (5-6 March)
WG ECOSTAT (18 March)
 Brussel (Oct 13) Vienna – Oulo – SEPA/UK – London – London - Paris……

7. Outputs aimed for – Vienna 2014
Comparison of how significant water body impacts are identified
Comparison of mitigation measures
Comparison of how mitigation libraries are used
Comparison of how other pressures are assessed
Comparison of principles used to identify impact on use thresholds (hydropower focus)

8. Is the mitigation measure already in place?
Yes
No further mitigation needed for GEP
Mitigation not needed for GEP
Is the environmental impact absent? No
Yes No
Minimum requirement for GEP?
Less stringent objective
Yes
Would it be technically impossible to put it in place? No
Is there another mitigation option?
Yes
Would it have a significant impact on the use or wider environment? No
Mitigation needed for GEP No

9. Disruption of sediment transport
Key terms - Typical causes of impacts
Type
Reservoirs
Downstream rivers
Upstream rivers
General
Typical impacts
Level alteration
Flow depletion
Flow peaking
Disruption of sediment transport
Ponding
Barrier to fish
Hydropower only
Mainly hydropower?

10. Next steps – London Oct 2014 Autumn 2015:
Aiming at an European wide mitigation measure library (MML) within 2016?
Common pictogram series?
Get MML template filled in by all hydropower countries with water storage - before March 2015
Revise MML template and possibly simplify
Ensure common understanding
Autumn 2015:
Evaluate if adjustment of GEP-practise is needed to full fill WFD principles
Liason with other water uses
GEP vs GES

11. MMT results of 4 March 2015
20 countries

12. MMT test before London

13. Estonia
Cyprus
Denmark
Irland

14. Measures (1-5) in use (n=20)

15. Measures (6-10) in use (n=20)

16. 1. Upstream migration - scale
Typical minimum length of upstream river with impaired fish access for which mitigation would be considered
Austria
Not quantified
Mitigation is required for any obstacle for typespecific fish species, except only possibbility to destroy very high dams
Denmark
0.5 to <1km river length
France:
Catch, transport and R : only for babies anguilla
Germany Reservoir
Germany ROR HEP
Luxemburg
Netherlands
≥10km river length
Norway
Huge variation
Romania
Slovakia
Ireland UK
<0.1km river length
Actually no lower limit
Czech Republic
Portugal
Finland
Italy
Sweden
Estonia
3 to <5km river length
in protected river sections (salmon, trout rivers ) in total length; in other rivers it is decided case by case at the water permit process

17. 1. Upstream migration - ranking
Summary stats - count - upstream
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank <3
No answer
Total
in use
Ramp 5 2 1 8
Fish pass (eg lift, ladder etc) 11 14
By-pass channel 12
Catch, transport & release
Stock from hatchery*
* Necessary to ensure functioning aquatic ecosyste, but not in measure library

18. 2. Downstream migration - ranking
Summary stats - count – downstream
Rank 1
Rank 2
Rank 3
Rank <3
No answer
Fish-friendly turbines 6 1
Fish screens 5 4
By-pass channel 10 2
Trap, transport & release
Fish pass (eg notch in small intake structure; lift, ladder, ramp, etc) 9

20. Summary pr measure Wheter measure commonly in library
Emerging good practise
Typical examples of submeasure in use (ranking)
How common MM is
Typical reason for ruling out
Impact not relevant
Other main reasons
Expose issues

21. Ecological flow
Partly the same flow components for GEP flow as for Eflow
Some measures may reduce flow needs
E.g. river engineering (reduce wetted perimeter)
HES/GES
Conservation status (HD, BD)

22. CIS HMWBs and Eflows CIS HMWB guidance no 4 Prague approach
Key conclutions from several HMWBs workshops
Eflow guidance no 31
Intercalibration of GEP