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 05.03.2015

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

Impact from Water Storage

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

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……

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)

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

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?

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

MMT results of 4 March 2015 20 countries

MMT test before London

Estonia Cyprus Denmark Irland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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