Pierre Sagnes - edfluminus.edf.com Luminus... · 2009 : Climate and energy package Goal renewable sources represent at least 20% of Europe’s gross eergy osuptio y 2020. The gross

Pierre SagnesGuest speaker

French Agency for Biodiversity

Life4Fish project

Liège, 05 March 2018

Hydropower and good health of aquatic ecosystems:

from current to future innovative solutions

http://pousse-toidemonsoleil.eklablog.com

Pierre SAGNES

Agence Française pour la Biodiversité

Pôle écohydraulique AFB-IMFT

Toulouse, France

[email protected]

2009 : Climate and energy package

Goal renewable sources represent at least 20%

of Europe’s gross e ergy o su ptio y 2020.

The gross electricity generation from renewable energy sources in the EU-28(source: Guidance document on hydropower development and Natura 2000, N2K Group, Feb. 2015)

Introduction

Introduction

2011: 23 000 hydropower installations

91% = small ones 13% of total production

9% = large ones 87% of total production

(Source: Hydropower generation in the context of the EU WFD.

EC DG Environment, Arcadis, 2011, 168 p.)

European directives antagonism between:

the development of green energy (hydropower…the restoration of ecological continuity

Insuring goods

and persons

protection

Restoration of ecological continuity everywhere = excessive cost !

Need to prioritize the most valuable sites in terms of ecological value

Need of a diagnosis

Potential impacts of hydropower on freshwater ecosystems

Hydropower

- Construction phase

- Operation

- Maintenance

- Renovation

- End of operation

Upstream potential impacts:

Modification of the thermal regime

Accumulation of sediment in the reservoir

Increase in evaporation

Release of Greenhouse gases

Changes in Water quality

Changes in basin/chanel form and substrate

Changes in primary production

(plankton/periphyton)

Growth of aquatic macrophytes

Favour invasive species

Changes in riparian vegetation

Changes in communities composition:

blockage of migrations

mortality in turbines

modification of biotope

Karcham Wangtoo, I dia’s iggest p ivate hydropower plant (courtesy: Jaiprakash

Hydropower Limited)

Potential impacts of hydropower on freshwater ecosystems

Downstream potential impacts:

Modification of daily, seasonal and annual flows

Changes in water quality

Reduction of sediment transport

Changes in channel morphology

Modification of floodplains

Modification of coastal deltas

Changes in plankton and periphyton

Growth of macrophytes

Changes in riparian vegetation

Changes in freshwater species diversity

blockage of migrations

mortality in turbines

modification of biotope

decrease in lateral connections

Needs, impacts and solutions

Sediment transport: needs

(source : Handbook for environmental design in regulated salmon rivers, Forseth T. & Harby A. Eds., NINA Special

Report 53, 2014)

Exploitation of river bed sediments by juvenile salmon during their early development

http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/barbel/Timeline

Sediment transport: impacts

© J.R. Malavoi

© Laboratoire d'Hydrographie et de Géomorphologie Fluviatile (Liège, Belgium)

Lateral erosion

Pavement


Sediment deposition

Lack of fine sediments


+ disconnection of lateral habitats,

lowering of grounwater table,

clogging of downstream habitat during operations of sediment evacuation

Upstream views during an operation of sediment evacuation in Génissiat dam (Rhône River, France, 2000)

Sediment transport: impacts

© P. Sagnes© P. Sagnes


Sediment transport: solutions

(source: Suivi de la reproduction naturelle des grands salmonidés migrateurs sur le bassin de la Dordogne en

aval du Sablier (départements de la Corrèze et du Lot) – Automne/hiver 2014/2015, rapport Migado, 2015)

Use of gravel as spawning habitats by Salmonids after an artificial sediment deposit (Maronne River)

Building of a new

fish pass

+ increase of

minimum flow

(12 m3/s)

in the by-passed section


Sediment transport: solutions

(source: Suivi de la reproduction naturelle

des grands salmonidés migrateurs sur le

bassin de la Dordogne en aval du Sablier

(départements de la Corrèze et du Lot) –Automne/hiver 2014/2015, rapport

Migado, 2015)

Number of spawning grounds in

the Maronne River, between 1999

and 2015

Sediment inputs in the by-passed section

(1300 m3) (1100 m3)

Fish needs water!


Flow dynamics: needs (1)

Water depth (m)

Water depth preferences for 3 life-stages of European grayling

(Thymallus thymallus)(source: Mallet et al., 2000, Habitat preference of European grayling in a

medium size stream, the Ain River, France. J. Fish Biol., 56, 1312-1326)

Upstream and downstream of the Little Nerang Dam (Australia)

Downstream the Aspen dam, Roaring Fork River, USA

(July 2012)

http://aspenjournalism.org/2014/04/30/aspen-agrees-to-leave-more-water-in-the-fork


Flow dynamics: impacts (1)

The Seine River (Poissy station):

average monthly discharge

Lateral migration of Pike


Flow dynamics: needs (2)Fish needs flow dynamics!



Flow regime of Porma River (Spain), before (blue: 1942-1968) and after (pink: 1969-2004) regulation

through Juan Benet dam operation(source: Forecaster European Project, http://forecaster.deltares.nl/index.php?title=Hydrological_regime_modification)

Reversal of flow regime

© J-M. Olivier, UMR CNRS 5023

Chautagne by-passed channel (Rhône river, France) before (left) and after (right) the increase of

minimum flow.

- direct reconnection of cut-off channels to the river

- dredging of isolated pools within the channels

Rhône River:

- increase of the minimum flow in some bypassed sections,

- seasonal modulation of minimum flow following biological needs

In association with:


Flow dynamics: solutions

Pierre Bénite by-passed channel

(Rhône River, France) before (left)

and after (right) the increase of

minimum flow

(source: Suivi scientifique du programme

de restauration hydraulique et écologique

du Rhône - Un observatoire dynamique de

l’état é ologi ue du fleuve, Rappo t d’état d’ava e e t, 4


Flow dynamics: solutions

Proportion of rheophilic species before and after restoration (Pierre Bénite, Rhône River)

Average

(after restoration)

(source: http://

restaurationrhone.

univ-lyon1.fr/)

(source: Etude pour la définition d'indicateurs pour la

caractérisation des éclusées dans le bassin Adour-Garonne,

Courret D. et Larinier M., rapport pour l'Agence de l'Eau

Adour-Garonne, 2008)

http://www.cedren.no



Discharge of the Maronne River (Basteyroux, France)

downstream the Hautefage HPP (1-31 jan. 2006)

http://hydropeaking.boku.ac.at/



http://www.nature33.fr © Epidor

Stranded fish and gammarus

http://www.debits-dordogne.fr © Epidor

Dried eggs

Dried salmonids

spawning areas(Armand & Courret, 2011)

Stop all hydropeaking operations


Flow dynamics: solutions (3)

Stop hydropeaking during

biologically sensitive periods

Change HPP characteristics

e.g. create a buffer or demodulation pond

Base flow,

Maximum flow,

Range,

Increase and decrease gradie ts…

Modify hydropeaking characteristics

Level potential spawning substrates for

lithophilic species,

Remove potential trapping zones,

Provide hydraulic shelters oulders, …

Change channel morphology to

reduce sensitivity

http://www.grimselstrom.ch/kwoplus-en-US/stilling-basin-innertkirchen


Flow dynamics: solutions (3)

Project of a buffer pond to reduce hydropeaking effects on the Aare River (Switzerland)

- Stilling basin with a volume of 50'000-80'000 m3

- Reduction of hydro-peaking from 8:1 to 5:1

- Energy increase of 2 GWh per year

- Investment: 15 million Francs


Fish migration: needs

Daily movements of a brown trout(source: Ovidio et al., 2007)

Seasonal migration of brown trouts

(source: Meyers L. Thuemler T.F., Kornely G., 1992.

Seasonal movements of brown trout in Northeast

Wisconsin. North. Am. Jour. Fish. Managt. 12 : 433-441)


Fish migration: needs

(source: M. Ovidio)

A salmonid trying to reach upstream habitats on the Maronne River (Hautefage, Corrèze, France)


Fish upstream migration: impacts

Fish are stopped or lose time


Fish upstream migration: solutions

Fish passes





http://www.michigan.gov/dnr

Trapping and road transport





A result of the optimisation/rebuilding of fish-passes

+ an increase of minimum flow:



(source: Migradour)

36 44 49

123

61

216217

236298

178

350422

374343

425

811

2014: increase of

minimum flow

Number of

adults of

Atlantic

Salmon

(Artix, Gave

de Pau,

from video

counts)

years

424

1190

Aquaportail.com

http://seauxs.free.fr

La Sarthe - www.photosapiens.com

High slope

Low width

Low discharge

Low mean water depth

High mean water velocity

High particle size

High oxygen concentration

Low slope

Higher width

High discharge

Higher mean water depth

Lower mean water velocity

Low particle size

Variable oxygen concentration


Upstream habitats: needs

A little tributary of the Drôme River (France)

Serre-Ponçon dam (Durance River, France)


Upstream habitats: impacts

Creation of deep and slow-flowing habitats

© P. Sagnes

Sira-Kvina hydropower system in Vest-Agder county, Norway

(source: Handbook for environmental design in regulated

salmon rivers, Forseth T. & Harby A. Eds., NINA Special

Report 53, 2014)


Upstream habitats: impacts

The natural longitudinal gradient can be heavily modified

lmportant problem because no solution, except dam lowering… or destru tio !

Water volume in the reservoir will lose 99%:

from 1 700 000 m3 to 13 000 m3

and from 3,5 km to 300 m long


Upstream habitats: solutions

Current Poutès dam (Allier River, France)

17m

Future Poutès dam (Allier River, France)

<5m

(source: www.nouveau-poutes.fr)


Fish downstream migration: impacts (1)

Fish are stopped or lose time

(source: Etude du comportement de dévalaison des smolts

de saumon atlantique (Salmo salar) au droit de la retenue

de Poutès Allie , F a e à l’aide de la télé ét ie acoustique 2D, oral presentation, EDF, Alleyras, Onema,

Saumon Sauvage, 2015)

A fish trajectory in the reservoir of Poutès dam

(Allier River, France)

Mean time in the reservoir: 13.7 days

(Min: 19 hours ; Max: 45 days)

Atlantic Salmon smolts :

25% spend more than 23 days

Solution (1):

+ =


Fish downstream migration: impacts (2)

Fish can be killed, hurt or disoriented after passage through turbines

4 types of potential solutions:

- Targeted shutdowns of turbines

- Fish-friendly turbines

- Behavioural barriers associated with bypasses

- Material barriers associated with bypasses

To avoid fish passage through turbines:

3 weeks

31/03 22/04

Ex : salmon smolts

May be possible for some species (short migrating period)

0%

different years

Ex: silver eels

(Very) difficult for other species…

6 months

migrating

individuals

migrating

individuals

100%

Problem = to target and anticipate

downstream migration events

May induce important losses in terms of

energy production


Fish downstream migration: solutions (2)

Targeted shutdowns of turbines

VLH (Very Low Head) turbines:– drop height range: 1.4 to 2.8 m

– discharge of 10 to 30 m3/s

–100 to 500 kW

Archimedes or hydrodynamic screws:– drop height range: 1.0 to 10 m

– discharge of 0.5 to 5.5 m3/s

– up to 300 kW.

Fish injection in a VLH turbine

(to test its Fish-Friendly potentialities)http://www.vlh-turbine.com/testfish



Fish-friendly turbines

http://www.vlh-turbine.com/turbine

Water wheels and other potential fish-friendly tur i es…need biological tests before accepting their "ichtyocompatibility" in France.



Fish-friendly turbines

Test of an infrasound

barrier to protect eel

migrating

downstream (Gave

de Pau, 2008 and

2009, au Baigts and

Biron dams)

Devices that guide fish towards a safe route by

means of diverse stimuli: noise, light,

electricity, bubbles, chain screens…

Light screen



Behavioural barriers

Results sometimes promising in lab, but

much less during in situ tests (sensitive to

hydraulic conditions, species-dependent)

Needs of research, development and new tests

Ex: guide walls (or surface masks) for surface migrating species

Ex : Bellows Falls (Connecticut, USA) : mask height = 4,5 m

(water depth 9 m), angled at 40° Efficiency of 84% (smolts)

Must be quite deep and angled (towards a bypass) to be efficient.

Not efficient for bottom-oriented species, such as eel.

3 bypasses



Material barriers

By-passes combined to existing trashracks

Efficiency for smolts: 10-20% to > 80%, depending on the repulsing effect (bar spacing) and fish

guidance (flow conditions)

Less efficient for eel as the repulsive effect of trashrack is lower



Material barriers

3 crucial functions to ensure:

– Stop the fish and avoid them to go through the turbines

– Guide them towards bypasses

– Transfer them downstream without any damages

Low spacing trashrack combined with one or

several by-passes



Material barriers: fish-friendly water intake

Angled trashrack

Inclined trashrack

A way of working together… A current collaboration between:

Operation, economic feedbacks:

Water intake characteristics,

Cleaning of bar racks,

Loss of hydraulic load,…

and HydroelectriciansEcohydraulics R&D team

Hydraulic & Biological efficiency feedbacks

Pôle Recherche et Développement en Ecohydraulique

A possible balance between economic and ecological needs

https://www.pinterest.com

Need of modernising powerplants

Need of improving ecosystems functioning

A possible balance between economic and ecological needs

Albbruck-Dogern HPP (Rhine River)

(Source: WFD and hydromorphological pressures –Technical Report. Case studies potentially relevant to

the improvement of ecological

status/ potential by restoration/ mitigation

measures, 2006)

Run-off facility built in 1933, long derivation

No power plant on the weir

Low residual flow (3-8 m3/s)

New concession for the hydropower plant

and building of an additional hydropower plant by the weir

Aim = increase of power generation together

with improvement of the ecosystem.

- Increase of residual flow up to 200 m3/s in 2009-2010

- Construction of a nature like fish pass, creation of a

nature like bed structure in the diversion with gravel bars,

revitalisatio of for er gravel isla ds…- Costs for hydropower development = 51 million EUR

- Costs for ecological measures = 4 million EUR

Improvement of the

ecological conditions and

increase of the annual

energy output of about 87

GWh/year.

Documents

Pierre Sagnes - edfluminus.edf.com Luminus... · 2009 : Climate and energy package Goal renewable sources represent at least 20% of Europe’s gross eergy osuptio y 2020. The gross