Implementing environmental flows in Catalan rivers Cost analysis and impact on use CIS ECOSTAT HYDROMORPHOLGY WORKSHOP 12 th and 13 th June 2012 Antoni Munné. Catalan Water Agency

Introduction - location Catalan region - 31,896 km 2 Catalan Basins 16,628 km % of the territory Catalan part of Ebro Basin 15,268 km % of the territory The Catalan Basins constitute a water management unit which is under the authority of the regional Government of Catalonia (Generalitat de Catalunya), and are managed by the Catalan Water Agency

1.The hydromorphological quality assessment in Catalan rivers. Hot spots identification. 2.Definition of environmental flows to achieve good status. Methods and results. 3.Implementation process and economic impact on uses: An specific case study (upper Ter river) where the implementation cost has been analysed Content

Hydromorphological assessment HIDRI protocol combines several hydromorphological elements: Riparian quality (QBR index) River continuity (ICF index) Flow regime alteration (according to the environmental flow regime fulfilment) HIDRI protocol: A protocol to establish the Hydromorphological conditions that was launched in ICF index has been published in: Solà et al., (2011). Limnetica 30(2): QBR index was published in: Munné et al., (1998). Aquatic Convervation 30(2): h 1,4 h

Flow regime alteration River continuity Floodplain conditions CALIDAD HIDROMORFOLÓGICA HIDRI protocol Extrapolated QBR index in each water body ICF index for every barrier (one out all out) Environmental flow regime fulfilment Hydromorphological quality One out all out

Hydromorphological conditions - HIDRI Results Using this map we can select measures to improve hydromorphological conditions and to achieve good status When good status is not possible, then heavily modified water bodies is suggested Water diversion (mainly hydropower): it heavily affects 15% of WB Flow regulation (by dams): it heavily affects 9% of WB Water withdrawal (mainly urban uses): it heavily affects 3% of WB

Downstream water pressure Upstream water pressure Water is diverted Habitat is lost due to water diversion. Only some pools or completely dry river stretches are found Unsuitable habitat for some fish fauna Flow regime alteration

Environmental flow assessment We combine both methods: Hydrological methods. Calculated in all Catalan rivers (248 WB: 3,828 Km.) by using natural flow regime previously assessed. Habitat simulation models. Only applied in some selected WB where specific problems were detected. Different models were used according to different river types

Salmo trutta Barbus guiraonis Barbus bocagei Squalius sp. Chondrostoma sp.  Fish species selection for each river type (native species)  Hydraulic modeling software selection  Results: comparing flow and useful habitat 1D: RHYHABSIM2D: RIVER 2D Speed, Depth Width, substrate Profile Preference curves Habitat maps Environmental flow assessment

From planning to Implementation Calculated in all river stretches Objective: GOOD ecological status Without considering any economic impacts Environmental flow regime assessment Implementation process (plans for each basin) Analysis of current uses Analysis of environmental flow fulfillment in each use Economic impacts on uses Public participation process Agreements (or not) Implementation Plan for each basin Environmental flow regime Plan. Approved in July 2006 Technical analysis Implementation process

85 hydropower stations identified in 131 km of river 85 hydropower stations identified in 131 km of river Implementation Plan: Upper Ter river

Tools for agreement Water withdrawal flexibility Extension of concessions (extension along time) Compensation among hydropower stations from the same owner Reducing environmental requirements (as far?). New thresholds must be defined (public participation) Implementation without any agreement (damage on use) Water withdrawal flexibility Extension of concessions (extension along time) Compensation among hydropower stations from the same owner Reducing environmental requirements (as far?). New thresholds must be defined (public participation) Implementation without any agreement (damage on use) We started an agreement process and several options for agreement were discussed:

Environmentalists, fishermen, NGOs, etc. Hydropower users (owners) Public participation -Non reduction of environmental flows in protected areas -Max. reduction up to 60% of the useful habitat for fish -Greater control over concessions -Implementation without economic compensation -Non reduction of environmental flows in protected areas -Max. reduction up to 60% of the useful habitat for fish -Greater control over concessions -Implementation without economic compensation -Reduction of environmental requirements -Extension of concessions -Economic compensation for production loss -Reduction of environmental requirements -Extension of concessions -Economic compensation for production loss Agreements and requirements

Flexibility without investment Uses currently compatible with environmental flows Flexibility with moderate investment. The production can increase in order to return the investment (acceptable pay back) Flexibility with moderate investment. The production can increase in order to return the investment (acceptable pay back) Extension of concession in order to recover the production loss Flexibility requires a high investment. The pay back is not acceptable Flexibility requires a high investment. The pay back is not acceptable Users are disagreed about previous options Agreements without cost (52% of users) Agreements without cost (52% of users) Production loss Damage on use High cost Production loss Damage on use High cost Tools for agreement Total hydropower stations analysed Provisional results (not finally agreed yet): We are still discussing in order to finish the Implementation Plan 18 out of 32, env. flow regime could be reduced

Impact analysis on uses (hydropower) Estimated hydropower production loss 7.8 GWh/year 42.2 GWh/year 3 % 19 % Increasing greenhouse gas emissions CO2 Tons /year (0.45 KT/GWh) 3,510 18,890 % of increasing greenhouse gas emissions CO2 Tons in Catalonia (60 million T/year) 0.01 % 0.03 % Optimistic Pessimistic Scenarios % of production loss in the upper Ter river (223 GWh / year) We conclude that no significant damages on production loss, and high greenhouse effect emissions are produced implementing environmental flow regimes. On the other hand, good status can be restored in rivers (ecological services will be recovered)

Implementation cost Cost per person (€/inhab. year) Electricity production cost to restore production loss (0.075 €/kWh) 1.02 M€/year9 Investment cost to improve turbines and hydropower efficiency 4.45 M€- Economic compensation cost (Worst scenario - without any agreement achieved) 1.35 M€/year11 TOTAL At least: 9€ Worst scenario: 20€ Impact analysis on uses (hydropower) Cost analysis of implementing environmental flows in the upper Ter river were calculated: (85 hydropower plants, 131 km of river, 118,000 inhabitants)

$377 All Aquatic Species Magat et al $220 Recreation Desvousges et al $252 Ecosystem Services Loomis et al $80 Minimum Instream Flow Colby 1993 $73 Minimum Instream Flow Berrens 1998 $6.70 Minimum Instream Flow Brown & Duffield 1995 $25.04 Cost of upper Ter River restoration env. flows Willingness to pay analysis to restore flow regimes and river habitats. Restoration cost review in areas with similar Spanish income per capita (Honey et al., 2008): Restoration cost scale: ($ per person) Impact analysis on uses (hydropower) This is not a disproportionate cost !!!

Thank you very much for your attention