Summary Report: European Stakeholder Workshop on Fish ......FIThydro (Fish-friendly Innovative Technologies for Hydropower) is a 4-year Horizon2020 research and innovation action (duration

Summary Report: European Stakeholder Workshop on Fish-Friendly Hydropower www.fithydro.eu

SUMMARY REPORT:

European Stakeholder Workshop on Fish-Friendly Hydropower

28 – 29 January 2020, Brussels


Summary Report: European Stakeholder Workshop on Fish-Friendly Hydropower 28-29 January 2020, Brussels

March 2020

Authors: Workshop note-takers: Eleftheria Kampa (Ecologic Institute), Lea Berg & Hany Abo El Wafa (Technical University of Munich)

Discussion group moderators: Ian Cowx (University of Hull), Christian Wolter (Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries), Richard Noble (University of Hull), Atle Harby (SINTEF), Laurent David (CNRS), Robert Boes (ETH Zürich), Martin Schletterer (TIWAG), Antonio Pinheiro (University of Lisbon), Jeffrey Tuhtan (Tallinn University of Technology)


Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1

The FIThydro project ........................................................................................................................................... 1

Aims of the FIThydro European Stakeholder Workshop ..................................................................................... 1

Session I: Science meets Management and Policy – Challenges and opportunities for hydropower .................... 3

Presentations ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Plenary discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 3

Session II: Risk assessment & decision-support tools for hydropower plants .................................................... 5

Plenary session ................................................................................................................................................... 5

Presentations .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Plenary discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Parallel discussion group 1: Risk assessment and impact assessment .............................................................. 6

Presentations .................................................................................................................................................. 6

Assessment of cumulative impacts across Europe – Tour de table ................................................................ 6

Participant feedback on the Cumulative Impact Assessment tool of FIThydro ............................................... 7

Participant feedback on the Fish Population Hazard Index ............................................................................. 8

Parallel discussion group 2: Measures selection using FIThydro Decision-Support System and wiki ............... 10

Presentations ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Decision making processes across Europe – Tour de table ......................................................................... 10

Participant feedback on the FIThydro tools................................................................................................... 11

Session III: Cost-effective and applicable solutions for key impacts from hydropower plants ............................ 13

Plenary session ................................................................................................................................................. 13

Presentations ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Plenary discussion ........................................................................................................................................ 13

Parallel discussion group 1: Technical solutions for downstream migration ...................................................... 13

Presentations ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Challenges and available solutions for downstream migration – Tour de table ............................................ 14

Participant feedback on targets for fish guidance efficiency and future research ......................................... 15

Parallel discussion group 2: Solutions for impacts related to hydropeaking ...................................................... 16

Presentations ................................................................................................................................................ 16

Challenges for fish populations downstream of hydropeaking power plants – Tour de table ........................ 17

Participant feedback on the hydropeaking tool – Tour de table .................................................................... 17

Participant feedback on mitigation measures and needs for further research .............................................. 18

Group 3: New diagnostic Methods, Tools and Devices (MTDs) ........................................................................ 20

Presentations ................................................................................................................................................ 20

MTDs for fish-friendly hydropower – Tour de table ....................................................................................... 20

Participant feedback on present status and future needs for technologies on fish behaviour ....................... 21

Applicability of FIThydro MTDs ..................................................................................................................... 21

Session IV: Collaboration between science, industry and public for supporting fish-friendly hydropower ............ 23

Presentations .................................................................................................................................................... 23


Outlook .................................................................................................................................................... 24

Annex 1: List of Participants ...................................................................................................................... 25

Annex 2: Agenda ...................................................................................................................................... 28

Imprint ..................................................................................................................................................... 29

1

Introduction

The FIThydro project

FIThydro (Fish-friendly Innovative Technologies for Hydropower) is a 4-year Horizon2020 research and innovation action (duration 2016-2020), which aims to support decisions on commissioning and operating hydropower plants (HPP) by the use of existing and innovative technologies. It concentrates on environmental impact assessment and mitigation measures to develop cost-effective environmental mitigation measures and strategies to avoid fish damage and to support the development of self-sustainable fish populations, with the main emphasis on the more sensitive run-of-river HPP.

FIThydro brings together 26 partners (13 research, 13 industrial) from 10 countries, involving several of the leading companies in the renewable and hydropower energy sector in Europe. Solutions, methods, tools and devices (SMTDs) are tested or applied and evaluated at 17 test cases, each with different HPP set-ups and different challenges, in four test case regions in Europe: Alpine region, Scandinavia, France/Belgium, Iberian Peninsula.

Scenario modelling in the four different geographic, climatic and topographic test case regions will allow the quantification of effects and resulting costs for different mitigation options in Europe.

Figure 1 FIThydro output highlights

Aims of the FIThydro European Stakeholder Workshop

The FIThydro European Stakeholder Workshop on Fish-friendly Hydropower took place on 28-29 January 2020, in Brussels. It served as a platform for consultation and exchange between FIThydro scientists, policy-makers and technical experts working on the assessment of impacts from hydropower plants and the planning of mitigation measures.

Approximately 70 participants attended the workshop and 26 speakers gave wide-ranging points of view. 16 different European countries with representatives of various stakeholder groups including national administrations and agencies, European associations, scientists, NGOs, operators and fisheries associations, were represented.

The objectives of the FIThydro European Stakeholder Workshop were to:

• Present and discuss FIThydro outputs and conclusions, which are relevant for the stakeholder community, with emphasis on impact assessment and planning of mitigation measures for hydropower plants.

2

• Gather & discuss feedback of stakeholders on the value of FIThydro decision-support tools and technical solutions for more fish-friendly hydropower.

• Exchange experiences on solutions & methods applied so far and on key remaining challenges for assessing impacts and identifying suitable mitigation measures for hydropower impacts on fish.

The workshop was an interactive event including a mix of plenary sessions and parallel discussion groups relevant to risk assessment and decision support tools for hydropower plants as well as technical solutions for key hydropower impacts. The parallel discussion groups addressed relevant FIThydro tools and outputs and also reflected on relevant activities in European countries.

In preparation for the workshop, participants received the following two documents:

• A FIThydro Policy Brief including summaries of selected key outputs of the FIThydro project, which were presented at the workshop.

• A Cover Note, which proposed questions for exchanging views and experiences among participants in the parallel discussion groups.

The workshop presentations are available at the workshop website:

https://www.fithydro.eu/workshop-eu/

https://www.fithydro.eu/workshop-eu/

3

Session I: Science meets Management and Policy – Challenges and opportunities for hydropower

Presentations

In the opening plenary session I, presentations were given by FIThydro, DG Research & Innovation, DG Environment, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and a member of the FIThydro Advisory Board. The presentations covered:

Introduction to FIThydro & aims of workshop (Peter Rutschmann, Technical University of Munich & Eleftheria Kampa, Ecologic Institute)

• This presentation introduced the main elements of the FIThydro work-programme and explained the aims and structure of the stakeholder event.

Hydropower research and Innovation: The European viewpoint (Thomas Schleker, DG Research and Innovation)

• This talk presented the EU Energy Policy and Energy Research frameworks, opportunities and challenges for hydropower from the R&I perspective and ongoing research activities.

Challenges for hydropower at the interface of different policies (Johan Kling, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management)

• This outlined various challenges for hydropower, including power systems, climate change, increasing water demand and challenges tied to fish migration and habitat connectivity.

Hydropower, rivers and fish ecology (Colin Bean, External Expert Advisory Board of FIThydro)

• This presentation addressed fish as complex living organisms and rivers as complex systems in constant change. The vulnerability of fish to pressures, such as hydropower, and to changes in the environment, such as land use and climate change, were emphasised.

New EU guidance on the ecological potential of heavily modified water bodies impacted by hydropower (Jeanne Boughaba, DG Environment, Water Unit)

• This presentation outlined the policy context as well as available resources tied to the new EU guidance on achieving good ecological potential for heavily modified water bodies impacted by hydropower.

Requirements for hydropower in relation to the Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 2000) (Christina Pantazi, DG Environment, Nature Protection Unit)

• This gave an overview of the EU guidance document on the requirements for hydropower in relation to EU nature legislation.

Plenary discussion

The key issues raised during questions and discussions in this session addressed the following:

• Energy losses due to mitigation measures at HPP: The implications of the Swedish national plan for the revision of hydropower licenses on energy production were discussed. Mitigation measures such as environmental flow releases may lead to annual energy production loss up to 1,5 TWh. However, the impact on regulatory production will be more modest, with no significant losses planned.

• Hydropower versus other uses impacting rivers: The contribution of hydropower to impacts on rivers was discussed. The misconception that all impacts on rivers are due to hydropower should be avoided. There are several other water uses and land uses that impact rivers as well. Coordinated action between different sectors is needed to tackle the large pressures on the water environment.

4

• Scientific uncertainty in appropriate assessments: The question was raised how to carry out the appropriate assessment process required under the Habitats Directives in cases of insufficient data. It is known that, in many cases, appropriate assessments are of poor quality and many data on the conservation objectives of Natura 2000 sites are missing. It is therefore very difficult to assess the possible impacts of a project (e.g. a hydropower plant), if knowledge is inadequate on what needs to be protected. Science can contribute to filling in this knowledge gaps. The precautionary principle should be considered in case of missing data and knowledge.

5

Session II: Risk assessment & decision-support tools for hydropower plants

Plenary session

Presentations

The presentations were given by members of the FIThydro team covering:

Risk classification system for fish species (Christian Wolter, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries)

• This presented the concept behind the risk classification system feeding into the Fish Population Hazard Index and the cumulative impact analysis tool.

Assessment of cumulative impacts (Ian Cowx, University of Hull)

• This presentation gave an overview of cumulative impacts and their assessment in a modelling framework.

Knowledge sharing on tools for planning, implementing and monitoring mitigation measures (Atle Harby and Bendik Hansen, SINTEF)

• This outlined various aspects of mitigation measures, including selection and combination of measures, methods, tools and devices to support mitigation, cost-effectiveness, as well as providing a brief overview of the FIThydro wiki.

Risk-based Decision Support System for hydropower plants (Richard Noble, University of Hull)

• This presentation introduced the FIThydro Decision Support System (DSS) framework, outlined use cases, the mitigation measures catalogue and the DSS webtool.

Plenary discussion


• Fish Population Hazard Index: Some clarifications were requested on the scope and elements, such as types of turbines, accommodated in the Fish Population Hazard Index developed in FIThydro. It was explained that different turbine types with different risks to fish have been integrated into the Index. Information on the different mortality models used, e.g. for Kaplan and Francis turbines, will be made available on the FIThydro website.

• Species considered in cumulative impact assessment: Concerning the development of a cumulative impact assessment tool by FIThydro, the question was raised about the fish species that can be included. It was explained that the cumulative impact assessment can be used for all species for which life history models and mortality values for each life stage are available. The main model behind the tool works for long distance migrators, such as salmon and eel, but it also works for potamodromous species like trout that have short distance migratory movements.

• Linking FIThydro wiki to other sources: It was asked whether the FIThydro wiki will include information from other European sources such as the European library of mitigation measures for heavily modified water bodies and previous European projects like REFORM. It was confirmed that FIThydro has looked at such sources and the FIThydro wiki will be linked to other projects. However, the FIThydro wiki will provide more detailed information on some issues than other projects, aiming at giving practical guidance.

• Cost of measures for hydropower: Clarification was requested on the sources of information used to evaluate the cost of mitigation measures for hydropower. The information collected by FIThydro is based on a literature study and a survey using questionnaires among experts within FIThydro as well as outside the project. It was noted though that for some measures, it is very difficult to find records of cost information.

6

Parallel discussion group 1: Risk assessment and impact assessment

Presentations

The AMBER Barrier Atlas: an overview of stream fragmentation in Europe (Carlos Garcia de Leaniz, Swansea University)

• The presentation provided an overview of river fragmentation in Europe and data availability on barriers, based on the findings of the H2020 project AMBER.

Hydropower pressure on European rivers (Claire Baffert, WWF European Policy Office)

• The presentation introduced the hydropower inventory on European rivers published by WWF and its partners in 2019. It includes maps of the distribution of hydropower plants in Europe and specifically in protected areas.

Application example of Fish Population Hazard Index (Christian Wolter, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries)

• The presentation provided a hands-on demonstration of how to use the different components of the Fish Population Hazard Index in Excel and how to interpret the hazard score.

Assessment of cumulative impacts across Europe – Tour de table

Participants were asked to express their views and exchange with each other on the following questions:

• How do you assess cumulative impacts, including upstream and downstream issues, of hydropower plants on fish populations in your country/ organisation? Are specific tools used to support this type of assessment?

• How do you prioritise actions in terms of mitigating impacts from dams and barriers in general?

• What are challenges and gaps in this context?

The key issues raised by the participants addressed the following:

Assessment of cumulative impacts and prioritisation

• Cumulative impact assessment was discussed at great length not only in relation to hydropower but to barriers as a whole.

• Prioritisation refers to what the available resources should be spent on for the best environmental benefits.

• Several participants commented the benefits and environmental impacts of large versus small dams. Benefits from large dams are greater than from small dams, e.g. more electricity production, but the environmental impacts are not directly related to the height of dams. Often it is the location of the dam that is important.

• A lot of small hydropower in Europe is subsidized to meet green energy targets but the contribution to energy targets is very small. When subsidies for small hydropower are removed, most plants are not economical viable anymore and would operate with loss.

• Several options should be considered when prioritising actions for barriers such as removing obsolete dams before removing other dams that still serve a purpose, as well as stop building culverts and other small structures without purpose.

• The largest share of small-scale hydropower are not equipped with modern technology; at the same time, it is not realistic to remove all these hydropower plants. Strategies are needed on how to retrofit small-scale hydropower plants to state-of-the-art (better fish protection solutions and fish passes) and how to finance this.

7

Challenges and needs in assessing cumulative impacts

• A well-established framework for the evaluation of ecosystem services is needed, which can be used to prioritise actions on existing or new schemes (monetary value).

• The cumulative impact of all hydropower plants can be negative, but there is also a possible positive cumulative impact when considering all the services provided.

• Artificial barriers need to be distinguished from natural barriers which have been equipped with hydropower plants. Natural barriers may not be a real problem for upstream migration, but possibly only for downstream migration.

• Inventories of barriers should distinguish between those used for electricity production and those used for other purpose.

• We need spatial planning for hydropower plants (new and existing ones) and for taking decisions on where to remove and where to keep dams. We have to start looking at compromises of sacrificing certain rivers and keeping others intact.

• In addition to top-down spatial planning, it is important to know from the bottom-up what the people in the catchment want. This might be different from the opinion of planning authorities. Stakeholder dialogue is important to set the boundary conditions for what we want to achieve.

• A crucial point for the cumulative impact assessment tool is quantitative information on how much habitat we need to get back to good ecological status (how much habitat is needed between the dams for fish to be able to spawn and to develop?).

• Countries need a guidance document or tools on how to assess a catchment, starting from a coarse level to start prioritizing resources, and then getting to a more detailed level. Many countries do not have a lot of time available for prioritizing mitigation actions.

• Possible tools to consider for undertaking coarse-level surveys are drones.

Participant feedback on the Cumulative Impact Assessment tool of FIThydro

Participants were asked to provide feedback (post-its on pinboards) on criteria to consider for assessing cumulative impacts and potential challenges in applying the Cumulative Impact Assessment tool of FIThydro. The following summarizes the issues which the group participants considered as important/relevant in this respect (inventory of total of 38 post-its).

Criteria for assessing cumulative impact (post-it inventory)

• Consider whole catchment area, from source to sea • Consider upstream and downstream migration as well as hydropeaking • Need to understand habitat quality (habitat available to fish), river networking and other hazards • Obstacle size and impact • What is the relationship between HPP dams and other barriers? • Criteria related to geolocation, type of facility, species of interest • Important to use standardized behavioural metrics to quantify the cumulative impacts: delays +

performance + mortality rates • Include climate change impacts on flow/ populations etc. • WFD assessment indicators • Juvenile (age 0+ / young of the year [YOY]) habitats for rheophilic fish species especially cyprinids

(number / site / quality / loss) • Spawning habitats for lithophilic fish species (number / size / quality / loss) • Predators (birds/mammals/human) • Chemical pollution • Derive appropriate criteria (weighted):

1. Policy driven WFD + protected species 2. Ecosystem service values 3. Cost / Benefit

8

Potential challenges for the application of the Cumulative Impact Assessment tool of FIThydro (post-it inventory)

• Tool very needed (application for stakeholders, environmental organizations…) for planning and control

• Validation of tool on the ground • Data availability • Description of available habitat in catchment - Knowledge of habitats for targeted species is a challenge • Selection of priority areas to promote connectivity • Fish stock evaluation & habitat qualification & quantification • Part of fish population may be more affected by the barrier impact on some groups of the population,

rather than by the barrier itself • Convincing decision-makers that the results are describing the real situation (importance of validation) • Translation into policy once the tool completed • Taking into account other impacts (except hydropower), e.g. climate change, rise of temperature,

pollution, predators • Ecological trajectories vs. climate changes • How much habitat do we need? • How much hazard is tolerable? • Quantification of impacts • Does the model include effects of competition between species? • The interlinkages with WFD should be better explored - DSPIR approach from WFD link to impact

assessment

Clarifications provided by FIThydro team on scope of Cumulative Impact Assessment tool (open discussion)

• The tool has been applied in the UK already. Within FIThydro, the cumulative impact assessment tool will be tested and validated in some of the FIThydro test cases.

• Data relevant for the cumulative impact assessment should become available as part of WFD assessments as well as from citizen science activities.

• The consideration of impacts other than hydropower, such as climate change effects on hydrology and flow, is an important issue but it can probably not be addressed within FIThydro.

Participant feedback on the Fish Population Hazard Index

Participants were asked to provide feedback (post-its on pinboards) on the potential fields of application and challenges for the Fish Population Hazard Index. The following summarizes the issues which the group participants considered as important/relevant in this respect (inventory of total of 30 post-its).

Main area/fields for potential application of Fish Population Hazard Index (post-it inventory)

• FPHI is a good tool for understanding the pressure from each hydropower plant. • Planning and modelling for retrofitting HPP • Identification of species under risks are usually known but tool is rapid for planning / control. • Assessment of existing HPP & support of decisions on how to improve existing systems • Rapid evaluation of existing hydropower concerning environmental risks • Assessment of hazard based on 1) site-specific data and 2) mitigation options • Prioritisation of measures • Comparison of different designs to get the most fish-friendly hydropower plant (for new HPP) • Can help to set EU objectives for river restoration – protection priorities • Supporting the (re)conception phase of dam + power plant • Large-scale assessment (one methodology for all the power plants on a river)

9

Potential challenges in application of Fish Population Hazard Index (post-it inventory)

• Verification/validation needed before applying the tool • Lack of data/knowledge on

o Existing barriers (types etc.) o Species and their behaviour / needs

• Filling gaps in knowledge of individual species and life history stages – to improve the sensitivity of the model and to widen applicability.

• Concept of “good” and “bad” habitat is species-dependent (what is good for one species, e.g. pools, may be bad for others).

• Hydraulic conditions are not always known in the micro hydropower plants (like those with water wheels).

• Fish survival depends on the flow field, not only on the mean flow velocity (i.e. on the head). • Dealing with individual versus population variation • Taking care of natural or human predation between the dams • Assessing mortality through gates • Considering impact of project on other aspects of ecosystem (other than fish) • Make the FPHI applicable to other turbine types and other artificial barriers • Is the FPHI too simple? (Real project planning needs more complex modelling) • Cost/time uncertainties • Cost-effectiveness versus improvement • Open questions:

o Can the FPHI be used to assess the passability of hydro structures for invasive species and to inform the EU Invasive Non-Native Species (INNS) regulation?

o Are costs of measures included? o How is operation of the hydropower plant included in the model? o What are the real impacts of small turbines? o High vs. Low value: Species -> Who decides? -> What criteria?

Clarifications provided by FIThydro team on scope of Fish Population Hazard Index (open discussion)

• The FPHI has not been applied yet to existing hydropower systems. In the remaining months of FIThydro until October 2020, we will use existing hydropower plants (test sites of FIThydro) to assess and compare our data with empirical data of mortality. There are a few studies with available data from hydropower plants which can be used for a verification of the tool.

• The FPHI is limited to one hydropower plant and to assessing the mortality risk for fish. The tool does not consider impacts on other aspects of the ecosystem. The FPHI also does not provide any indication in terms of measures and costs of measures except for those that directly reduce entrapment of fish in turbines.

• The FPHI is good for simple risk assessment but it cannot solve all issues related to the assessment of hydropower plants. It is linked though to the Decision Support System of FIThydro which offers more layers of assessment.

• Delayed mortality cannot be estimated directly with the FPHI. Delayed mortality applies only to diadromous fish on their way to spawning, but it is not possible to assess this delay for potamodromous species.

• Concerning the possible link of the FPHI to the issue of invasive species, the tool can be used to assess the mortality risk for non-native species during turbine passage similar to its use for native species. However, this is not sufficient to inform the implementation of the EU INNS regulation.

10

Parallel discussion group 2: Measures selection using FIThydro Decision-Support System and wiki

Presentations

Prioritization between environmental measures (Elin Hellmér, Swedish energy research center Energiforsk)

• The presentation provided an introduction and overview of the new mitigation measure prioritization approach that is being developed in Sweden. This approach is based on three steps that include scientific support, quantification and prioritization of measures.

Decision making processes across Europe – Tour de table


• How do you take decisions on mitigation measures for hydropower plants and set relevant priorities in your country/organisation, either in re-licensing or when licensing new hydropower plants?

• Are specific tools and/or guidelines used to support this decision-making process?

• What are challenges and gaps in this context?


Approaches for decision making and prioritization

• Several guidelines for decision making on mitigation measures are available or are currently being developed. However, these are not always used or enforced everywhere, leading to volatility in the technical decisions made. In other countries, no clearly defined method for the relicensing and selection of mitigation measures exists. Additionally, there are very few mandatory tools.

• Europe-wide there is great variety on how legislations are handled and by whom. In different countries, either regional, national or federal authorities are responsible for making and realising legislation about mitigation measures and giving concessions. Furthermore, the entities responsible for the decisions as well as the decision-making processes can vary depending on whether it is a renewing of licenses for existing HPPs or a new licensing process.

11

Challenges and gaps in the decision-making processes

• The main challenges addressed with mitigation measures are e-flow, fish passage, habitats, sediments, and in relevant countries hydropeaking.

• The technical feasibility, cost transferability and efficiency of mitigation measures are important factors for the selection and acceptance of measures.

• The different responsibilities and systems make it difficult to establish a common decision-making process. In Germany, for example, each federal state has its own regulations, causing difficulties in the realisation of measures during retrofitting of HPPs.

• In various countries, many HPPs will have to undergo relicensing in the next years and that will require the implementation of mitigation measures to adapt to environmental standards. However, a standardized process is often not in place.

• It is sometimes difficult to realise alternative mitigation measures, as the responsible authorities often only require a few established and selected measures.

• In some countries, such as Kosovo, regulations are in place but not always respected or they are realized too late. This can be a potential challenge also with the planned HPPs, especially small scale HPPs, in previously untouched rivers in Eastern Europe/the Balkans.

Participant feedback on the FIThydro tools

After a demonstration of the FIThydro wiki and the Decision Support System, participants were asked to provide feedback on the usefulness and possible additional functions of the tools. The main points the participants raised are the following (inventory of total of 41 post-its):

Useful aspects of the FIThydro wiki

• The wiki offers a good overview and detailed description of different mitigation measures. • The form of the wiki allows an update or adding of new information, even after the project end. • The cross-links are very useful to go from measures to relevant test cases and tools. • The wiki is an easy to use tool that can be useful for diverse users (stakeholders, authorities,

hydropower operators, non-experts etc.)

12

Wishes for additional functions of the FIThydro wiki

• Links to other catalogues of measures, other relevant projects and to the WFD table of measures for the good ecological potential (GEP) of heavily modified water bodies should be provided.

• A user-friendly option to search for specific categories etc. • An easy open access to the wiki to expand it and add new measures and additional tools to it that

have not been developed in FIThydro. • Possibility for links to videos to explain the various tools. • References should be added to all articles, and a clear indication for the validation of the solutions

should be provided. • It should be made transparent, how the information has been evaluated and checked for quality (e.g.

are all mitigation measures applied at case-studies and examples evaluated and quality-tested?). • Some kind of “consensus base” – what works, what does not in specific conditions with regard to

specific challenges or problems.

Useful aspects of the FIThydro Decision Support System

• The DSS is a good tool for testing the impacts of different mitigation measures and for making an evaluation of the best mitigation action.

• The prioritization of mitigation measures based on solid arguments is especially helpful. • It offers a structured and transparent approach for the decision-making process on the choice of

mitigation measures that can be applied everywhere. However, site-specific effects will still need an additional in-depth analysis.

• The DSS is easy to use and allows non-experts to understand the relevant aspects of impact assessment.

• It raises the questions/aspects that need to be considered.

Wishes for additional functions of the FIThydro Decision Support System

• Providing a cost estimation of the different mitigation measures would make the evaluation of suggested measures easier for the user. It should also be explained if a cost-benefit analysis is included and if so, how.

• A clear explanation of how the decision tree behind the DSS functions and what is used to calculate the outcomes should be provided.

• The evaluation process should be comprehensive and transparent in terms of the evaluation of alternatives for legal procedures and the judgement of measure effectiveness.

• Additionally, it would be important to clearly inform the user that the outcomes are only an indication. • It is important to define the potential users as this tool might not be applicable for administrators. • Next to instructions and tips, a generic test case as an example would help clarify the tool and its

usage. • Relevant scales should be better identified. I.e. what pressures other than the HPPs are considered

and are cumulative impacts of several HPPs integrated?

13

Session III: Cost-effective and applicable solutions for key impacts from hydropower plants

Plenary session

Presentations


Cost-effective and applicable solutions for hydropower impacts on downstream migration (Ismail Albayrak, ETH Zürich)

• This presentation introduced the topic of downstream migration and presented a variety of cost-effective solutions from FIThydro studies.

Flow regime at hydropower plants: Ecological needs and methodological approaches (Martin Schletterer, TIWAG-Tiroler Wasserkraft AG)

• This gave an overview of flow regimes, including an example of risk assessment from Austria, and described hydropeaking, its impact on fish habitats and the hydropeaking tool of the project.

Sensor Networks, Fish Robots and Virtual Turbines: Advancing Sustainable Innovation for Hydropower (Jeffrey Tuhtan, Tallinn University of Technology)

• This presented various technologies explored and developed within the context of FIThydro, including cost information. Particular focus was given to the FIThydro Barotrauma Detection system technology.

Plenary discussion


• Curved bar racks: Several clarifications were requested on the innovative technology of curved bar racks (CBR) presented by FIThydro. Concerning the velocity for which CBR have been tested so far, it was clarified that the CBR (designed for high flow velocity) have been tested up to 0,7 m/s (laboratory studies), but it is planned to carry out pilot studies in large HPP. Concerning the size of fish, CBR have been tested for fish down to 7 cm length but it was noted that some fish are not sensitive to hydraulic cues. In live fish tests, guidance efficiency for eels has been less than 75% but more than 75% for other fish species. It was also noted that head losses are significantly lower for CBR than for classical vertical angled bar racks and louvers.

• Sensors versus live fish: The role of assessments using live fish versus alternative technologies such as barotrauma detection sensors was discussed. Scepticism was expressed on whether such sensors can ever fully replace methods using live fish. It was noted that both approaches are needed. In many countries, live fish cannot be used in assessments; therefore, it is necessary to use sensors as proxy.

Parallel discussion group 1: Technical solutions for downstream migration

Presentations

Key problems on downstream migration & FIThydro solutions (Laurent David, CNRS)

• This setting-the-scene presentation gave an overview of different types of solutions for downstream migration, with emphasis on lessons learned about solutions which FIThydro works on.

Fish protection by fish guidance rack-bypass systems (Robert Boes, ETH Zürich)

14

• This presentation concerned the design, hydraulics and fish guidance efficiencies related to curved-bar racks and horizontal bar racks. Conclusions were drawn on the advantages of using each system, curved-bar and horizontal bar racks.

Adaptive weir management for safe downstream migration of European Eel (Cornelia Häckl, Uniper)

• The presentation addressed safe eel migration by a combination of different measures, with specific information provided on the downstream migration of silver eel via open weirs.

Challenges and available solutions for downstream migration – Tour de table


• What are the main constraints and limitations you face for improving downstream migration at HPP (existing plants and new projects)?

• What (technical) solutions have you been applying and to what extent have they been satisfactory?


Technical solutions applied so far

Group participants mentioned several technical solutions applied so far for downstream migration (with examples from Germany, Sweden, Belgium and France):

• Solutions so far mainly for eel and salmon

• Horizontal angled bar racks and inclined vertical bar racks (possible state of the art, particularly for small HPP)

• Bottom gallery and zigzag tubes for eels

• Catch and carry

• Adaptive weir management for eels

• Operational measures such as shutting down HPP at night during migration of eel

• Fish friendly pumps / fish friendly turbines

• Downstream migration drift via weir overflow

Constraints for downstream migration

• In many countries, downstream migration is a topic that is still at an early stage of regulation and knowledge

• For large HPP and large discharges > 150m3/s, we lack state of the art technologies. Bar racks can be part of the solution but may not be the only solution.

• We also lack knowledge on the range of species that migrate. Fish migration may also change, considering that we have already experienced phenological changes e.g. in terms of temperature conditions.

• Refurbishment of old HPP is challenging due to conflicts and boundary conditions related to flow and space availability.

• In some countries, there are still misconceptions that the same technical solutions apply for both upstream and downstream migration. More communication is needed with hydropower companies to clearly distinguish the two issues.

• In several countries, current licenses do not require measures for downstream migration, therefore it is difficult to convince operators to take measures. Focus in terms of measures is still on upstream migration.

15

• In other countries, there are requirements relevant to downstream migration. Some of these requirements could however also restrict the application of new technical solutions; for example, a requirement of a maximum 15 mm rack limits options.

• It would be helpful to have a guideline on downstream fish migration for water managers and regulators. In Germany, such a guideline on downstream fish passage is in preparation.

Further needs for technical solutions

• We need simple and cheap solutions that do not lead to major losses of energy. Also clogging and other operational issues are among key aspects to consider for operators.

• There is a need for solutions that work for large HPP and large discharges >150 m3/s.

• Some good solutions are available from scientific work but we have to bring them to the field and validate them.

• The curved-bar racks presented by FIThydro may be tested in the near future in a small HPP in Switzerland (as pilot). Additional field experience may be gathered in Norway, where it is being considered to use curved-bar racks or modified bar racks at a large HPP.

• We need ways to finance the implementation of technical solutions.

• Site- and case-specific solutions are needed. In the same river for a similar type of HPP, a different solution might be needed because boundary conditions differ.

• Whole river reaches and catchments should be considered, not only HPP and barriers.

• Migration delay is important to consider, in addition to fish guidance efficiency.

• From a fish biological point of view, we need more knowledge on fish behaviour and on the fish species that want to migrate downstream (not only eel and salmon, but also fish behaviour of potamodromous species).

• Also all sizes of fish, including very small fish and larvae should be considered.

• We are still looking at single solutions but we need combinations of solutions to address problems for fish migration (full life cycle of fish).

• Monitoring of applied solutions is usually not obligatory, but it is necessary to build up knowledge on efficiency. More monitoring will provide us with more quantitative results (how many fish really survive and how long did it take?).

Participant feedback on targets for fish guidance efficiency and future research

Participants were asked to provide feedback (post-its on pinboards) on targets for fish guidance efficiency (What is the overall target in terms of fish guidance efficiency at individual HPP we should aim at? Is this a function of fish species and number of HPP in a cascade, or rather an absolute value?) as well as on further research needed on technical solutions for downstream migration. The following summarizes the issues which the group participants considered as important/relevant in this respect (inventory of total of 26 post-its).

Targets for fish guidance efficiency (post-it inventory)

• Targets should support sustainable populations and survival of species in the long term. • Targets need to relate to species, position in river, availability of suitable habitat and conservation

targets. • All species should be considered. • Required efficiency should be based on population models for whole river system. • If fish guidance is needed, the target for efficiency should be close to 99%. Also the target for safe and

quick downstream fish passage at a HPP should be approximately 99%. • No target for fish guidance efficiency will predict the improvement for a population. • Open questions:

16

o As guidance efficiency will vary for different species, how to choose which species to address?

o Should high conservation value species have higher targets for successful passage? o Should targets be life-stage specific? o Below which mortality % can a turbine be considered fish-friendly? Is a mortality rate of e.g.

only 1% enough to classify a turbine as fish-friendly? Or must the mortality rate be 0%?

Needs for further research on technical solutions for downstream migration (post-it inventory)

• Research on large HPP > 100m³/s • Research on behavioural barriers (not just bar racks, which are mechanical behavioural or physical

barriers) • Fish behaviour (incl. migratory behaviour of potamodromous species in relation to habitat availability

and migration distances) • Influence of hydrodynamics on fish behaviour • Focused on the whole river, not only the HPP • Coordination of methods – synergistic and antagonistic interactions • More fieldwork required to evaluate new systems and bring them to state of art • Better data for a wider range of fish species + life history stages • Efficiency of screening solutions in combination with other methods • Maintenance of flows upstream of HPPs to reduce losses of diadromous fish through disorientation

Parallel discussion group 2: Solutions for impacts related to hydropeaking

Presentations

Key problems on hydropeaking & FIThydro solutions with focus on the Hydropeaking Tool (Atle Harby, SINTEF)

• This outlined the important issues associated with hydropeaking as well as approaches to mitigation including both physical mitigation and operational changes.

Monitoring of mitigation measures for hydropeaking in the Hasliaare (Steffen Schweizer, Kraftwerke Oberhasli AG)

17

• This presentation gave an overview of the Hasliaare case study monitoring of hydropeaking mitigation efforts.

Lateral fish shelters in river banks as an innovative measure for hydropeaking mitigation and river restoration (Anton Schleiss, EPFL-ICOLD)

• This presentation described an approach to hydropeaking mitigation through lateral fish shelters in river banks.

Challenges for fish populations downstream of hydropeaking power plants – Tour de table


• What are the main challenges for fish populations downstream hydropeaking power plants?


• It is important to analyse the frequency and timing of peaking.

• It is also important to gain knowledge on the low flow (residual flow) in the system and on how hydropeaking affects habitat quality, including the spatial extent of impacts.

• Not enough data are available about the consequences of hydropeaking on fish populations and further research is needed on these effects.

• Thermopeaking (artificial, rapid, periodic and frequent changes in water temperature) and saturopeaking (artificial, rapid, periodic and frequent fluctuation of gas saturation) are observed in certain areas but this is not widespread all over Europe. We have to analyse these case-by-case as these issues depend on the setting of the hydropower facilities.

• We also have to consider technical limitations in the operations of hydropower plants. Operational measures may not lead to losses in economic terms, but they may not be feasible to implement due to technical limitations.

• It is important to investigate the seasonal effects of hydropeaking. For example, peaks in energy demand at day-time in winter often coincide with ecologically sensitive periods, e.g. spawning of certain species in winter. These situations should be identified on case-by-case basis.

• The effects of climate change will lead to changes in the energy system requiring more energy storage and possibly also increased hydropeaking operations in rivers.

Participant feedback on the hydropeaking tool – Tour de table


• How suitable is the hydropeaking tool for your own country/organisation?

• Do you foresee specific limitations?


Suitability of hydropeaking tool

• Several participants gave positive feedback on the potential usefulness of the hydropeaking tool.

• Also more sceptic opinions were expressed, questioning how the tool could help find the right mitigation measures. It was explained that the hydropeaking tool can support in finding the factors that need to be mitigated but the selection of mitigation measures needs to be supported by other tools such as the FIThydro wiki.

18

• The hydropeaking tool is a transparent management tool. Users can look into the models behind the tool and also explore options by changing parameters such as the frequency of peaking.

• In addition, the tool can help in checking the effect of different mitigation measures (comparison of situation before/after).

• The hydropeaking tool is a management tool, which relies on data on hydrology, hydropower operations, dewatered habitats and the vulnerability of the fish population.

• It can be both a screening tool to understand where to carry out more investigations as well as a precise tool based on high quality site-specific data. This depends on the quality and spatial resolution of the input data.

• The hydropeaking tool could contribute to better integration of WFD requirements into the spatial planning of hydropower plants.

Possible limitations

• Potential data limitations in many cases such as hydrological data, habitat data and data on how fish react.

• Covering the most vulnerable species or all species (class borders available for salmon, grayling, Iberian cyprinids).

• Case-by-case tool and river scale only.

• More information on the habitat will improve the outcome, e.g. with better habitat modelling.

• Tool is dependent on the quality of the data.

Participant feedback on mitigation measures and needs for further research

Participants were asked to provide feedback (post-its on pinboards) on types of hydropeaking mitigation measures they are familiar with as well as on further research needed on hydropeaking impacts and mitigation. The following summarizes the issues which the group participants considered as important/relevant in this respect (inventory of total of 40 post-its).

Measures (post-it inventory)

• Instream measures o improvement of morphology, habitat enhancement (low flow habitats, high flow refugia) o shelter, e.g. connection to tributaries, side channels, along stream banks

• Create backwaters or secondary channels • Bypass valves • Smoother up and down-ramping of flow • Higher levels of minimum flows to maintain habitats • Operational measures, such as adapting hydropeaking frequency/rate. • Special care can be taken at critical periods, such as when the fry emerges from the gravel (the "larval

window") • Retention basins/compensation basins to smooth the downstream flow • Cascade of hydropower plants discharging directly to the next reservoir or to the sea • National strategy/spatial planning on where to do peaking (example of Sweden on river prioritisation

for flexible power production and river prioritisation for environmental goals) • Policy or tools to limit hydropeaking on vulnerable sites

Research (post-it inventory)

• Understand the effects of hydropeaking on fish populations

19

o Long-term effects of non-lethal events o Stranding – still more knowledge is needed for many fish species o Drifting o Learning effects (does fish learn how to react to peaking?)

• Effects of thermopeaking on fish populations • Effects on endangered species in European rivers • Defining bottlenecks for target species • Better analysis of effects on river habitats -> which processes are impaired? • Long-term effects on morphology • Effects on physico-chemical condition • Analysis of effects related to different life-cycle stages with different demands (1-2 months old, 3-4

months old, 5-6 months old, >6 months old) • Timing of emergence of larval fish • Local adaptation of fish populations -> do adaptations to hydropeaking occur? -> trait flexibility /

behavioral change? • Understanding natural variations in flow and how fish respond to these variations • Research on mitigation measures, including cost-benefit analysis; what are the overall effects, multiple

objectives e.g. hydropeaking mitigation and provision of shelter or spawning grounds • Mimicking hydropeaking in controlled environments such as laboratories • Real world validation of flume trials • Tools for authorities to help assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures/impact to deliver permits • Decision support system on fish behaviour under hydropeaking • How to predict effects of hydropeaking at large scale (catchment) and develop scenarios to minimize

negative impacts in spatial planning?

20

Group 3: New diagnostic Methods, Tools and Devices (MTDs)

Presentations

Introduction to new diagnostic MTDs of FIThydro & challenges they address (Antonio Pinheiro, University of Lisbon & Jeffrey Tuhtan, Tallinn University of Technology)

• This introduced the workplan and objectives for the session, and gave and overview of new methods, tools and devices (MTDs) developed in FIThydro.

Concept for the development of fish passage facility using ADCP, numerical modelling and fish monitoring (Ismail Albayrak, ETH Zürich)

• This presented a concept for the design of a fish passage technology or facility, addressing velocity measurements using ADCP (Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler), related challenges and limitations.

Bi-O-Rhône: an innovative method for fish population monitoring in hydropower plant reservoirs: eDNA & echolocation /echosounding (Franck Pressiat, Compagnie Nationale du Rhone)

• This presented the Bi O Rhône project for a non-invasive and non-lethal fish sampling methodology using hydroacoustics and eDNA,

MTDs for fish-friendly hydropower – Tour de table


• What specific challenges for fish-friendly hydropower plants need to be tackled with new or improved diagnostic methods, tools and devices (MTDs)?

• Which factors do you consider when taking decisions on whether to apply or not a new technology?


Main challenges to be tackled

• Currently, investigations mostly have an individual approach per HPP. Basin scale effects, e.g. when estimating fish survival, need to be considered, e.g. with large-scale long-term installations and studies.

• While the direct impact of turbine passage can be investigated, the assessment of reduced fitness and delayed mortality is still a challenge.

• The variation between fish species as well as between fish individuals in their behaviour and preferences needs to be taken into account. At the moment, most information available is limited to investigations of few fish species.

• Interdisciplinary knowledge is required.

• The functionality of existing fish passes needs to be investigated in an effective manner. Additionally, many older fish passes do not function any more or are not effective.

• Funding options for tests and installations is a problem.

Factors influencing the use of MTDs

• The usability of the tools is an important factor – i.e. what skills are needed to use and evaluate the tools and results, as well as the accuracy and value of the collected data.

• A validation and a pilot study is important in some countries, which could slow down the uptake process. For example, a Swedish participant mentioned that in Sweden the authorities would not use new MTDs if they have not been tested via a pilot in the country itself.

21

Participant feedback on present status and future needs for technologies on fish behaviour

The participants were asked for their experiences and future needs on technologies for improving fish behaviour knowledge in their country or organisation (post-its on pinboards). The following main points were raised by the participants (inventory of total of 36 post-its):

Present status (post-it inventory)

• A wide variety of diagnostic and screening tools exists and are being used, often for very site-specific assessments.

• Recent technological advances provide a definite improvement, e.g. through real time monitoring (video cameras).

• Examples of recent technological advances mentioned by participants: o Acoustic, radio telemetry, RFID tagging, data storage tags o Cameras (underwater, infrared, high speed) o Swim chambers/respirometers o Ultrasound (fishfinder) o E-fishing o Laboratory studies in high tech test facilities, the Laxelerator o Accelerometer tags (bio sensors) o Depth/temperature tags

Challenges and future needs (post-it inventory)

• The knowledge on fish behaviour is limited. Therefore, any advances or new methods for more precise assessments and development of effective measures including control of their operation are welcome.

• Use of MTDs by different stakeholders (authorities, operators etc.) need different incentives. MTDs should be aligned with national regulations and funding options to increase their use. Standardization of methodological approaches and the validation of MTDs is required.

• Methods are needed to evaluate (quantification) downstream migrations on large rivers (with or without dams).

• The limits of solutions, tools, devices, etc. should be investigated, as well as their applicability in small HPP.

• Future needs include research and technological advances on: o sonar observations and data analysis o e-DNA, genetic “markers” o long-term observations o cumulative effects on fish behaviour/fitness o forecasting system to detect fish abundance o fish behaviour through turbines o use of artificial intelligence (fish behavior)

• Solutions should combine preservation of energy production capacity, efficiency and affordability. • It would be helpful if technical support for the use of the MTDs were provided. • European funding could encourage operators to use new MTDs. • A strong Inter-European exchange and communication between the different stakeholders –

scientists, authorities and policy makers, operators - is key for a successful distribution of knowledge and use of MTDs. It is important to adapt the communication to the respective audience. Capacity building across Europe is essential.

Applicability of FIThydro MTDs

After an introduction of the diagnostic MTDs newly developed in FIThydro, the participants were asked to provide feedback on the suitability of these MTDs for tackling the existing challenges. They were furthermore asked about the type of constraints they expect regarding the use of the MTDs or any new technologies in this field. The main responses were the following:

22

Suitability of the MTDs

• All MTDs are suitable, but for different purposes. The willingness to apply them depends on the usefulness of the tool in the given situation and its costs.

Challenges and further requests

• The usability of the tools can be a challenge. A strong interaction between science, policy and operators is needed.

• Technical and financial support is needed for small HPPs in order for them to be able to use most MTDs. Furthermore, research projects play an important part in obtaining measurements and applying MTDs, as some operators do not have the funds for this themselves.

• A lot of data is available, but the synthesis of the data is difficult. A standardization for comparing and synthesizing results is therefore required.

• The MTDs should be validated.

23

Session IV: Collaboration between science, industry and public for supporting fish-friendly hydropower

Presentations


Added value of collaboration between scientists and hydropower operators in current and future projects (Cornelia Häckl, Uniper)

• This emphasized the importance of collaboration between scientists and the hydropower sector to develop solutions to mitigate existing pressures and maintain energy production. For instance, new solutions with unknown efficiency can be tested under real conditions. In particular, within FIThydro, the exchange between operators and scientists has improved a lot in the duration of the project.

Interaction between operators and local communities: The Anundsjö case in Sweden (Kordula Schwarzwälder, Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

• This presentation addressed the importance of involving local stakeholders in the development of targets and in the selection of mitigation measures for more fish-friendly hydropower, using the FIThydro case study on the Anundsjö hydropower plant in northern Sweden as an example.

24

Outlook

The FIThydro European Stakeholder Workshop provided an effective platform for intensive and successful interaction between scientists and operators working in FIThydro and stakeholders from authorities, hydropower operators, consultants, fisheries associations and environmental NGOs. Valuable feedback was provided by stakeholders on the benefits of the decision-support tools and technical solutions for fish-friendly hydropower, which were presented by FIThydro.

In the following months, the scientific work of FIThydro will be further developed and completed by October 2020. The FIThydro project will continue to inform and exchange with the stakeholder community especially using the following means:

• Making project information available on the FIThydro website (https://www.fithydro.eu/) and wiki (https://www.fithydro.wiki/) in a way suitable for water managers and hydropower operators to use.

• Organisation of a joint event with the AMBER project on 29th June 2020, in the Fish Passage 2020 Conference.

• Organisation of a Final FIThydro Conference, on 16th-18th September 2020, in Munich, with invitation to the stakeholder community.

https://www.fithydro.eu/

https://www.fithydro.wiki/

25

Annex 1: List of Participants

First Name Last Name Institution Country

Hany Abo El Wafa Technical University of Munich Germany

Ismail Albayrak ETH Zurich Switzerland

Thomas Ammann WWF Switzerland Switzerland

Claire Baffert WWF European Policy Office Belgium

Colin Bean University of Glasgow United Kingdom

Cécile Bellot France Hydro Electricité France

Lea Berg Technical University of Munich Germany

Robert Boes ETH Zurich Switzerland

Jeanne Boughaba European Commission EU

Martina Bussettini Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research Italy

Johan Coeck Research Institute for Nature & Forest Belgium

Ian Cowx University of Hull United Kingdom

Laurent David Pprime-CNRS-UP France

Tobias Epple Lechwerke AG Germany

Sebastien Erpicum Liege University Belgium

Christine Etchegoyhen France Hydro Electricité France

Robert Fenz Federal Ministry of Sustainability and Tourism Austria

Claire Freund WWF European Policy Office Belgium

Susanna Galloni European Commission EU

Carlos Garcia de Leaniz Swansea University United Kingdom

Imanol García Sendón Ministry for the Ecological Transition Spain

Gottfried Goekler illwerke vkw AG Austria

Christian Göhl Fichtner Water & Transportation GmbH Germany

Cornelia Häckl Uniper Kraftwerke GmbH Germany

Bendik Hansen SINTEF Norway

Atle Harby SINTEF Norway

Fabio Heer Services industriels de Genève Switzerland

Elin Hellmér Swedish Energy Research Centre - Energiforsk Sweden

Tasniem Jawaid European Renewable Energy Federation Belgium

26


Graziella Jula National Administration "Romanian Waters" Romania

Eleftheria Kampa Ecologic Institute Germany

Jan Kappel European Anglers Alliance Belgium

Johan Kling Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Sweden

Shpetim Lajqi University of Prishtina "HASAN PRISHTINA" Republic of Kosovo

Olivia Langhamer Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Sweden

Olaf Lindner Deutscher Angelfischerverband e.V. Germany

Jiri Musil T.G.Masaryk Water Research Institute Czech Republic

Thomas Nester illwerke vkw AG Austria

Richard Noble University of Hull United Kingdom

Patrice Orban SPW Wallonie Belgium

Michael Ovidio University of Liege Belgium

João Pádua EDP Labelec Portugal

Christina Pantazi European Commission EU

Ine Pauweli Research Institute for Nature & Forest Belgium

António Pinheiro University of Lisbon, Instituto Superior Técnico Portugal

Bogdan Popa Politehnica University of Bucharest Romania

Franck Pressiat Compagnie Nationale du Rhône France

Petras Punys Lithuanian Hydropower Association Lithuania

Emanuele Quaranta European Commission EU

Costica Roman Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi Romania

Romain Roy EDF R&D France

Cristian Rusu National Administration "Romanian Waters" Romania

Peter Rutschmann Technical University of Munich Germany

Arne Anders Sandnes Statkraft Energi AS Norway

Anton Schleiss EPFL-ICOLD Switzerland

Thomas Schleker European Commission EU

Martin Schletterer TIWAG-Tiroler Wasserkraft AG Austria

Claus Till Schneider innogy SE Germany

Matthias Schneider SJE Ecohydraulic Engineering Germany

Martin Schoenberg Eurelectric Belgium

27


Kordula Schwarzwälder Norwegian University of Science and Technology Norway

Steffen Schweizer Kraftwerke Oberhasli AG Switzerland

Erik Sparrevik Vattenfall Sweden

Saulius Stakėnas Nature Research Centre Lithuania

Abderrahmane Takriet Liege University Belgium

Ana Telhado Agencia Portuguesa do Ambiente Portugal

Johan Tielman Uniper Kraftwerke GmbH Sweden

Jeffrey Tuhtan Tallinn University of Technology Estonia

Capucine Vannoorenberghe The European Association for Storage of Energy Belgium

Total: 70 Participants

28

Annex 2: Agenda

Venue: Herman Teirlinck building of the Flemish Government, Havenlaan 88, 1000 Brussels

Day 1, 28 January 2020

Time Agenda point

11:00 Registration / Lunch snack

Introduction (moderation: Johan Coeck, Research Institute for Nature & Forest)

12:00 Introduction to FIThydro & aims of workshop

Peter Rutschmann, Technical University of Munich & Eleftheria Kampa, Ecologic Institute

Session I: Science meets Management and Policy – Challenges and opportunities for hydropower (moderation: Thomas Schleker, DG RTD)

12:15 Hydropower research and Innovation: The European viewpoint

Thomas Schleker, DG Research and Innovation

12:30 Challenges for hydropower at the interface of different policies

Johan Kling, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

12:50 Hydropower, rivers and fish ecology

Colin Bean, University of Glasgow

13:10 New EU guidance on the ecological potential of heavily modified water bodies impacted by hydropower

Jeanne Boughaba, DG Environment, Water Unit

13:25 Requirements for hydropower in relation to the Habitats and Birds Directives (Natura 2000)

Christina Pantazi, DG Environment, Nature Protection Unit

13:40 Discussion

13:50 Coffee Break

Session II: Risk assessment & decision-support tools for hydropower plants (moderation: Martina Bussettini, Italian National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research )

14:20 Risk classification system for fish species

Christian Wolter, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries

14:35 Assessment of cumulative impacts

Ian Cowx, University of Hull

14:50 Knowledge sharing on tools for planning, implementing and monitoring mitigation measures

Atle Harby and Bendik Hansen, SINTEF

15:05 Risk-based Decision Support System for hydropower plants

Richard Noble, University of Hull

29

15:20 Short introduction to parallel discussion groups

15:25 Short break on the way to the discussion group rooms 15:40 Parallel discussion groups

Group 1: Tools for risk assessment and impact assessment (moderators: Ian Cowx, University of Hull & Christian Wolter, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries)

Short presentations:

- The AMBER Barrier Atlas: an overview of stream fragmentation in Europe (Carlos Garcia de Leaniz, Swansea University), 5-7 min

- Hydropower pressure on European rivers (Claire Baffert, WWF European Policy Office), 5-7 min

- Application example of Fish Population Hazard Index (Christian Wolter, Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries ), 5-7 min

- Application example of Cumulative Impact Assessment tool (Ian Cowx, University of Hull), 5-7 min

Group 2: Measures selection using the FIThydro Decision-Support System and wiki (moderators: Richard Noble, University of Hull & Atle Harby, SINTEF)


- Prioritizing between environmental measures (Elin Hellmér, Swedish energy research center - Energiforsk), 5-7 min

- Hands-on demonstration of FIThydro wiki (Bendik Hansen, SINTEF), 5-7 min

- Application example of the Decision-Support System (Richard Noble, University of Hull), 10 min

17:40 Coffee break on the way back to plenary

18:10 Feedback from parallel discussion groups (moderation: Johan Coeck, Research Institute for Nature & Forest)

- Group 1

- Group 2

18:30 Reception at the venue and end of Day 1

30

Day 2, 29 January 2020

Time Agenda point

Session III: Cost-effective and applicable solutions for key impacts from hydropower plants (moderation: Robert Boes, ETH Zürich)

9:00 Welcome & introduction to Day 2

9:05 Cost-effective and applicable solutions for hydropower impacts on downstream migration

Ismail Albayrak, ETH Zürich

9:20 Flow regime at hydropower plants: Ecological needs and methodological approaches

Martin Schletterer, TIWAG-Tiroler Wasserkraft AG

9:35 Sensor Networks, Fish Robots and Virtual Turbines: Advancing Sustainable Innovation for Hydropower

Jeffrey Tuhtan, Tallinn University of Technology

9:50 Coffee break on the way to the discussion group rooms

10:20 Parallel discussion groups

Group 1: Solutions for downstream migration (moderators: Laurent David, CNRS & Robert Boes, ETH Zürich)


- Key problems on downstream migration & FIThydro solutions (Laurent David, CNRS), 10 min

- Fish protection by fish guidance rack-bypass systems (Robert Boes, ETH Zürich), 5-7 min

- Adaptive weir management for safe downstream migration of European Eel (Cornelia Häckl, Uniper), 5-7 min

Group 2: Solutions for impacts related to hydropeaking (moderators: Atle Harby, SINTEF & Martin Schletterer, TIWAG-Tiroler Wasserkraft AG)


- Key problems on hydropeaking & FIThydro solutions with focus on the Hydropeaking Tool (Atle Harby, SINTEF), 10 min

- Monitoring of mitigation measures for hydropeaking in the Hasliaare (Steffen Schweizer, Kraftwerke Oberhasli AG), 5-7 min

- Lateral fish shelters in river banks as an innovative measure for hydropeaking mitigation and river restoration (Anton Schleiss, EPFL-ICOLD), 5-7 min

Group 3: New diagnostic Methods, Tools and Devices (MTDs) (moderators: Antonio Pinheiro, University of Lisbon & Jeffrey Tuhtan, Tallinn University of Technology)


- Introduction to new diagnostic MTDs of FIThydro & challenges they address (Antonio Pinheiro, University of Lisbon & Jeffrey Tuhtan, Tallinn University of Technology), 10 min

- Concept for the development of fish passage facility using ADCP, numerical modelling and fish monitoring (Ismail Albayrak, ETH Zürich), 5-7 min

31

- Bi-O-Rhône: an innovative method for fish population monitoring in hydropower plant reservoirs: Edna & echolocation /echosounding (Franck Pressiat, Compagnie Nationale du Rhone), 5-7 min

12:15 Lunch

13:15 Feedback from parallel discussion groups (moderation: Robert Boes, ETH Zürich)

- Group 1

- Group 2

- Group 3

Session IV: Collaboration between science, industry and public for supporting fish-friendly hydropower (moderation: Robert Fenz, Austrian Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism)

13:45 Added value of collaboration between scientists and hydropower operators in current and future projects

Cornelia Häckl, Uniper

14:00 Interaction between operators and local communities: The Anundsjö case in Sweden

Kordula Schwarzwälder, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

14:15 Lessons learned on public acceptance of hydropower and hydropower technologies - Cancelled

Mandy Hinzmann, Ecologic Institute

14:30 Discussion

Closing session

14:45 Closing remarks

Peter Rutschmann, Technical University of Munich

15:00 End of workshop

32

Project duration: 1 November 2016 – 31 October 2020 Project ID: 727830

Project coordinator: Prof. Peter Rutschmann Technical University of Munich Germany

Contact information: [email protected]

Partner contact for the document: [email protected]

Further information Twitter: @FIThydroproject https://www.fithydro.eu/

Photo credits: Title page: © Ecologic Institute Responsible for content: See list of authors

Imprint

https://twitter.com/FIThydroproject

https://www.fithydro.eu/

Documents

Summary Report: European Stakeholder Workshop on Fish ......FIThydro (Fish-friendly Innovative Technologies for Hydropower) is a 4-year Horizon2020 research and innovation action (duration