hydropower planning assessment methodology … planning assessment methodology and fish passage...

Hydropower Planning Assessment Methodology and Fish Passage

Improvement

A workshop for Local Authority Planners, Environment Agency Staff and Catchment

Stakeholders

30th September 2011

Trentside, Nottingham

22Hydropower Planning Assessment Methodology and Fish Passage Improvement

Why is climate change important to us?


Our climate risks

What are we are doing about climate change?


What are we are doing about climate

change?

Reduce emissions: reduce demand and increase

Sustainable renewable energy


Government drivers for mitigation

� Climate Change Act 2008 - legally commits the UK to reducing CO2 emissions.

� EU Emissions Trading System

� CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme

� The Climate Change Levy

� Climate Change Agreements

� Renewables Obligation

� Feed in tariffs

� Renewable heat incentive

� Renewables 2020 target


Hydropower’s role:

� Small but significant contribution – up to 1% energy in 2020 (over 800,000 homes)

� But environmental & physical constraints

� Huge increase in the number of applications


The Big Question

�We want more ‘good’ green energy- including

hydropower

�We want more

fish - eels, salmon & the rest


The Big Question

Can we have both

?


- and emerge alive?

Some other questions

� How can we strike the right balance in the right places?

� Could the planning & environmental impact assessment process be streamlined together to make this easier?

� Cumulative impacts of barriers & HEP schemes ‘in combination’ matter to fish access & health - would a a catchment model + ‘policy/plan/strategy’ help?

� Can we bring all stakeholders together around ‘their common ground’ – i.e. anglers, hydropower developers, conservationists, planners & all functions within the Environment Agency

generate ‘less heat, more light’, better information and an agreed way forward?


(we know its not just fish…)

� A variety of locally specific planning and environmental issues may often dominate a hydropower application

� Flooding

� Bryophytes

� Depleted reach impacts

� Heritage value

� Visual impact

� Hydropeaking, levels

� Screening, Operation etc


So what will we do today?






Some background…

� Previous phases of national barrier mapping and modelling work

� Power potential guestimates

� Environmental constraints – upstream & downstream

� Cumulative impacts on fish

� Barriers, HEP & cumulative fish dispersion impact modelling

� Survey needed to wise-up the barrier information

� Who’s up next?


Individual barrier info Height, flow, power

potential guestimates

Add more comprehensive

summary of ecological & other

(e.g. flood?) constraints

Within,

Upstream,Downstream

Consider cumulative

relationships with other

barriers & existing schemes

Upstream passage

Downstream passage

Let’s consider the planning and environmental impact assessment

process together and get everyone in a ‘patch’ to help improve the basic

understanding & have a go at a more streamlined & strategic approach

Previous national mapping workP

ha

se

1P

ha

se

2N

OW


Where’s ‘the patch’

East Midlands

Region

& Local

Planning

Authorities



East Midlands

Region

& Local

Planning

Authorities

Trent

catchment



Trent

catchment

*Catchment

Abstraction

Management

Strategy

Derbyshire

Derwent

CAMS* +

main Trent

to the

Humber


Barriers & HEP can affect fish

Trent

catchment

Derbyshire

Derwent

CAMS +

main Trent

to the

Humber



• Barriers in

database for

the Trent

Trent

catchment

Derbyshire

Derwent

CAMS +

main Trent

to the

Humber



Derbyshire

Derwent

CAMS +

main Trent

to the

Humber

• Barriers in

database for

the Trent

Digital River

Network

Trent

catchment



MODELLING the cumulative

influence of existing barriers &

HEP schemes on fish distribution

How many fish would we

get in all the reaches of

the Trent,

1. Start

here

2. How much do

the barriers/

schemes stop

upstream passage?

3. How suitable

would the river

reaches be for

spawning (if the

fish could get here)?

4. How much do

the barriers/

schemes stop downstream

passage?

5. End

here

None

Lots








the Trent, if…

None

Lots

Barriers & schemes

don’t affect upstream or

downstream fish

passage rates

All reach habitats

equally suitable



Barriers & schemes all have 90%

upstream & downstream fish

passage rates






the Trent, if…

None

Lots

All reach habitats

equally suitable



…except this barrier on the

main Trent which only allows

10% upstream passage



passage rates






the Trent, if…

None

Lots

All reach habitats

equally suitable



Habitat suitability varies e.g.

with upstream river length

<10km Not suitable

10 – 500km 50% suitable

>500km Totally suitable



passage rates






the Trent, if…

None

Lots



Barrier upstream &

downstream fish passage

rates vary with estimated

barrier height (which we don’t know very well)

<1m 100%

1 – 3m 60%

>3m 30%

All reach habitats

equally suitable






the Trent, if…

None

Lots


Summary

� Further development of GIS/catchment approach on ‘general

environmental constraints’ probably not worthwhile?

� too many site-specific factors

� Improve the GPG

� But cumulative impacts of barriers in themselves & with HEP schemes

on the movement & mortality of fish, upstream and downstream,

remains a 'hot topic' from all sides

� Barriers database + DRN = proto GIS fish dispersion model

� the Agency own this GIS model – it’s based on your ideas

� It’s a proto model needing ownership, steer & development

� The GIS map keys & functionality need tightening up

� Models have been built for the Wye (3 mins/run) and Trent (15 mins/run)

� … ‘blank canvases’ w.r.t. barrier passage & habitat suitability assumptions

� Needs ‘on the ground’ user input to wise-up & ground truth – the survey

� Needs longer term vision of possible users/roll out.


A survey to ‘wise-up’ the model



•You each have a workshop example

•(Beeston, Borrowash, Holme Sluices)

•They are yours - please write your name on them



Barrier ID

Survey & surveyor

Photographs

Height Type

Sketch

HeritageFish Pass

HEP Scheme & screening

Upstream

fish now

Upstream

% passage

Downstream

% passage

Habitat

suitability


Who’s up next?

Hydropower Planning Assessment

John Pomfret, AMEC

30th September 2011


Introduction

� Small scale hydropower schemes -

� can contribute to meeting Government targets for renewable energy

� can contribute to the localism agenda

� may conflict with Water Framework Directive requirements and the RBMP

objectives for river restoration

� Regulators must balance these and other material considerations

� Permitting of hydropower schemes involves -

� planning issues where LPAs have the main technical expertise

� water-related issues where the Environment Agency has the main technical

expertise

� This workshop aims to develop a methodology and guidance to -

� improve coordination and reduce duplication of effort by regulators

� assist regulators in determining applications

� assist developers in preparing schemes that are likely to be permitted


Current process

� Planning permission

� no permitted development

� EIA requirement if output greater than 0.5MW

� flood risk assessment required in compliance with PPS25

� requirement to consult the Environment Agency

� Abstraction licence

� not required for scheme in a weir

� Impoundment licence

� required if impoundment involved - even for scheme in existing weir

� Land drainage/flood defence byelaw consent

� required – supporting evidence will need to consider flood risk

� Fish passage approval

� dealt with by fish passage panel


Current EA process


Approach on planning issues

� Questionnaire survey (ongoing) on key issues identified by -

� development management officers in Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)

� planning liaison officers in the Environment Agency

� Identification of links with technical specialist in the Agency

� Examination of case studies to ‘ground truth’ our understanding

� This workshop aims to –

� explore ways of improving the application process

� make use of local knowledge

� identify what should be included in the methodology and guidance

� discuss whether there would be benefits in catchment-wide hydropower strategies (this afternoon)

� Workshop December 1st to present drafts and obtain feedback

� Finalisation of guidance and training material (January 2012)


Key consenting issues/responsibilities

??HighErosion

High

Low

Low

High

High

High

High

Low

High

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Significance

��Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation

��Contaminated Land

��Water Quality and WFD

��Water Resources

��Flood Risk

��Recreational Angling

��Recreation and Navigation

��Economy

��Ecology/Biodiversity

��Air Quality

��Cultural Heritage/Material Assets

��Transport

��Landscape/Visual

��Noise

EALPAIssue


Key Consenting Issues and Responsibilities

Neighbouring Uses??HighErosion

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

EA

High

Low

Low

High

High

High

High

Low

High

Low

Moderate

Moderate

Moderate

Low

Significance

��Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation

��Contaminated Land

Natural England, Wildlife Trust, Angling Trust, Rivers Trust

Water Quality and WFD

Natural England, Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Angling Trust, Rivers Trust

Water Resources

Neighbouring UsesFlood Risk

Angling TrustRecreational Angling

Recreational Users, British Waterways, Inland Waterways Association

National Association of Boatowners

��Recreation and Navigation

Anglers Trust, Neighbouring Uses��Economy

Natural England, Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Angling Trust, Rivers Trust

��Ecology/Biodiversity

EHOs��Air Quality

English Heritage��Cultural Heritage/Material Assets

Highways, Ramblers Assoc��Transport/Accessibility

AONB Units, English Heritage��Landscape/Visual

EHOs��Noise

Other StakeholdersLPAIssue


Typical key issues

� Planning permission

� landscape and visual

– AONB, Conservation Areas

� wildlife conservation

– all designated sites, protected species, BAP

� cultural heritage

– historic weirs, mills, factories

– archaeology

� recreation

– angling

– navigation

� road transport

� flood risk

� electricity transmission arrangements

– especially overhead lines


Typical key issues

� Environment Agency consenting

� fish passage (re duties under S&FFA 1975)

� fish passage (re duties under the Eels (E&W) Regulations 2009)

� wildlife conservation (aquatic designated sites, protected species, BAP)

� Water Framework Directive requirement for good ecological status

– weir removal

– depleted reach

– water quality

– habitat change e.g.

– weir pools affected by local changes in hydrodynamics

– shallow areas affected by drying due to water level fluctuations

� flood management responsibilities on main river

� navigation (recreation duties under XXX)

� IDB

� may occasionally be relevant


Case study – Sawley Weir (Trent)

� Overview

� 0.8MWe scheme using two Kaplan turbines

� EIA required

� Cross boundary scheme

(North West Leicestershire and Erewash LPAs)

� Consented

� Key Issues

� Impact on fish populations, particularly -

– proposed fish pass design

– weir pool morphology

– proposed screening

– impact from raising the weir

– impounding effects upstream and associated habitat issues

� Potential impact on Lockington Marsh SSSI

� Hydrology and flood risk -

– impact on outfalls and discharges to the River Trent upstream

– changes to land drainage patterns

� Navigational effects


Case study – Sawley Weir (Trent)

� Objections also received in relation to:

– impact on anglers’ interests

– reduced natural scouring of the river bed caused by slowed river flow

– limited renewable contribution

– non-compliance with the WFD

– requirement for an eel pass

– increased use of the Sawley Flood Lock causing queuing and requiring additional local operators


Case study – Gunthorpe Weir (Trent)

� Overview

� 1.2 MWe scheme comprising 3 “Kaplan” turbines

� EIA required

� Cross-boundary application (Gedling and Rushcliffe)

� Consented


Case study – Gunthorpe Weir (Trent)

� Key Issues

� Ecology including impacts on breeding birds, otters, water voles, badgers, bats, amphibians, invertebrates and macrophytes.

� Fish (including salmon and eel) populations:

– impact of river impoundments

– proposed fish pass design

– proposed screening

– cumulative impacts (due to existing scheme further upstream)

– impact on weirpools

� Flood risk:

– previous application refused due to failure to provided an adequate Flood Risk Assessment

– additional flood risk modelling undertaken

– potential impact of increased flood risk on footpaths

� River geomorphology:

– impact on silt movement and affect on the geomorphology of the river

– potential impact on erosion on The Split (which provides protection to a boatyard)


Challenges for regulators

� External and internal coordination of regulators

� one or more LPAs plus the EA

� internal EA coordination between hydropower permitting and consultation responses on planning applications

� Simplifying application procedure for EA permits

� single point of contact (account manager)

� single application pack

� coordinated decision making

� bring abstraction and impoundment licensing into EPR

� Pre-application consultation – both EA and LPA

� guidance to applicants – specific to hydropower, without extraneous

information (Community guide, GPG – being updated – provides focus)

� pre-application screening form

� aim to ensure that only realistic schemes are submitted and take up time

� does one regulator need to take the lead?


Challenges for developers

� Achieving a scheme that is likely to be permitted before applying

� Understanding permit requirements

� Pre-application consultation

� balance as to when to consult

� Environment Agency

� LPA

� electricity network operator

� local community – including anglers, boat users

� statutory advisors if designated/scheduled features present


Challenges for developers

� Application

� LPA

– Planning application

– Design and Access Statement

� EA only

– Licence/consent applications (multiple)

– Environmental Site Audit checklist/report

� Both

– design details

– environmental statement

– flood risk assessment

– Habitats Regulations assessment – use EA format?

� Monitoring

� Who should do it?

� Who benefits?


Existing policy and guidance

Planning guidance

� National planning policy

� Planning and Climate Change Supplement to Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1

� PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

� PPS 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conversation

� PPS 22: Renewable Energy

� PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk

� Also, PPG13 (Transport), PPG2 (Green Belt) etc

� Draft National Planning Policy Framework

� Local planning policy

� Existing Local Plans

� Local Development Framework (LDF) Development

Plan Documents

� LDF Supplementary Planning Documents

Issues:

� Does not provide

specific guidance

in relation to HEP

delivery

Issues:

� Existing Local Plan

policies outdated (no

reference to HEP)

� No specific policies

within LDF

documents related to

HEP


Existing policy and guidance

Environment Agency guidance

� Hydropower guidance

� Hydropower community guide

� EA Hydropower Good Practice Guidance (under

revision)

� Fish passage guidance

� Screening intakes and outfalls

� Guidance notes on forms (some not specific to HEP)

� Internal guidance/work instructions

� EA Streamlining the Permitting of Hydropower

Projects in England and Wales

� Other relevant plans

� River Basin Management Plans

� Catchment Flood Management Plans

� Catchment Abstraction Management Plans

Issues:

� Catchment Hydropower

Plans could provide a

mechanism for greater

co-ordination

� EA and LPAs could identify areas/locations

where HEP may be

acceptable (in principle)

Issues:

� Too many different documents

� Some contain

extraneous info

� Guidance on erosion

needed


Issues to consider

� Development of guidance

� no guidance for planners specific to HEP applications identified – is there any?

� should this be separate or incorporated into EA GPG?

� can other guidance be improved/simplified

� geographic guidance (catchment HEP strategies) to discuss this afternoon,

also potential for guidance on text to include in LDF, or SPD on HEP

� Coordination of pre-application discussions involving:

� Developer

� LPA Planning Officer(s)

� EA Staff

� Stakeholders (who? when?)

� Planning decisions by LPAs

� need to be aware of EA requirements and concerns

� cross-boundary applications need good communication from start

� how to assess and attach weight to the range of issues?

� EA staff have received considerable HEP training but more needed to

ensure LPA/EA interactions can be streamlined

� Erosion is a grey area. Who has the expertise to take a lead?

Hydropower Planning Assessment

Methodology and Fish Passage

Improvement

A workshop for Local Authority Planners,

Environment Agency Staff and Catchment

Stakeholders

30th September 2011

Trentside, Nottingham

2 Hydropower Planning Assessment Methodology and Fish Passage Improvement

2

Barriers, hydropower, fish and

risk assessment tool

IAN G. COWX

HULL INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES INSTITUTE,

UNIVERSITY OF HULL


Major

obstructions in

Trent catchment


Typical major obstructions

Borrowash, Derwent

Cromwell Weir

Holme Sluices -

Nottingham

Beeston Weir

5 Hydropower Planning Assessment Methodology and Fish Passage Improvement 5

Issues

Barriers disrupt migration

Restrict access of migratory salmonids,

lamprey and eel to upper catchment

Construction of fish passes has opened up

Trent catchment but connectivity remains

compromised

Recognise large numbers of weirs (LH barriers)

features of rivers since before the 19th century


Distribution of eel and

migration barriers

Result of

stocking?


Hydropower development

Barriers offer opportunities for small scale run

of river hydropower development


8

Design - low-head versus high-head schemes

Scheme designed criteria

• River topography

• Flow availability

• Turbine types

• Access to infrastructure



Hydropower

Installation

design

Structural barrier

to the movement

of aquatic fauna

Risk of fish entrainment

in turbine intakes and

turbine mortality

Altered water

level in depleted

reach

Altered physico-

chemical conditions

in depleted reach Altered structure and

condition of bed,

banks and riparian

zone in depleted

reach

Altered flow

regime in

depleted reach

Altered sediment

dynamics within

depleted reach

and above weir

Flow requirements

for fish passage

facilities

Issues related to run-of-

river hydropower


• Salmon daily rod

catches and flow -

River Exe

• Catches relate to

upstream access that is

regulated by flow over

weirs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Da

ily s

alm

on

ro

d c

atc

h

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Dis

ch

arg

e a

t T

ho

rve

rto

n (

ML

/d)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Da

ily s

alm

on

ro

d c

atc

h

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Dis

ch

arg

e a

t T

ho

rve

rto

n (

ML

/d)

Disruption to connectivity

• Change in flow dynamics and hydraulics round

barrier or depleted reach

potentially disrupt migration

Modification of flow regime


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fre

qu

ency

Bellflask

n = 520

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Fre

qu

ency

Westwick Weir

n = 546

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 8

16

24

32

40

48

56

64

72

80

88

96

10

4

11

2

12

0

12

8

13

6

14

4

15

2

16

0

Length class (mm)

Fre

qu

ency

Boroughbridge Weir

n = 176

0

1

2

3

4

5

Fre

qu

ency

0

1

2

3

4

5

Fre

qu

ency

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fre

qu

ency

Langton Bridge

n = 681

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fre

qu

ency

Thornton Bridge

n = 473

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 8

16

24

32

40

48

56

64

72

80

88

96

10

4

11

2

12

0

12

8

13

6

14

4

15

2

16

0

Length class (mm)

Fre

qu

ency

Myton

n = 618

•Ure •Swale •Length distribution of

Lampetra ammocetes

•in two tributaries of

the Ouse

2002 low flows and

barriers affect adult

migration

Weak recognition of importance of migration to

non-salmonid species

2003 spawning in

both rivers




• Flow - critical component in the economic

viability of run-of-river hydropower schemes

Issues relate to design of schemes

• Minimal impact on peak flows

• Loss of flows is in the middle of the flow range

• Low flows generally protected (Hands off flows)

in Good Practice Guidelines (EA & SEPA) or

inadequate to drive turbines (not economically

viable)


river hydropower



• Flow - critical component in the economic

viability of run-of-river hydropower schemes

Issues relate to design of schemes

• Minimal impact on peak flows

• Loss of flows is in the middle of the flow range

• Low flows generally protected (Hands off flows)

• Hydropeaking - potential problem with LH

schemes causing water level fluctuations

upstream of impoundment


river hydropower



Conclusion: impounding structures associated with

small-scale hydropower schemes likely to impede

upstream migration of most fish species in the UK

BUT

Hydropower schemes offer opportunity to improve

connectivity through construction of passage facilities

Note: Potential gains from improved connectivity

provided by scheme conflicts with increased

prevalence of downstream mortality


Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures to ameliorate likely impacts

of various scheme types and scenarios focus on:

• in-take and outfall locations,

• fish passage facilities,

• screen designs,

• User friendly turbine design (recognition that

only effective way to improve survival is to

direct the fish away from the intakes – screens

and bypass channels)

• measures to ameliorate the potential impact of

depleted reaches – allocation of flows


Gap Analysis

• Most information relates to large hydropower schemes

• Little research into small-scale schemes, especially:

• Robust pre- and post- impact monitoring

• Impacts of turbine mortality on populations

• Assessment of cumulative impacts

• Effectiveness of mitigation measures

• Impact of climate change on flows

• Rigour of science supporting some decisions not

defensible

• GPG provides generic assessment but risk-based

strategy should be embedded in guidance


Risk-based guidance for run-of-river hydropower

development - proposed steps (SNIFFER project)

1. design criteria, including hydrological modelling of

potential impact of scheme in affected reach of river;

2. information on the status and potential impact on fisheries

and biodiversity in the affected reach of river, with

emphasis on potential depleted reach(es) (and other

pressures) – include habitat sensitivity assessment linked

to catchment modelling;

3. review of type of scheme and previous impacts

encountered – risk analysis;

4. specific designs for impoundment, fish passage facilities

(where needed), screening for intake and outfalls; turbine

design and operational protocols – risk analysis;

Risk-based assessment of

run-of-river hydropower


Risk and uncertainty

REJECT

EVALUATE THE POTENTIAL

IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED

SCHEME

DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES

RETURN TO LOOKUP BOX 1

NO

LOOKUP BOX 4: RISK ANALYSIS FLOW CHART

ARE THERE BIOGEOGRAPHICAL OR

HISTORICAL REASONS WHY THE

SCHEME SHOULD NOT OCCUR?

NO

NO

SUMMARISE THE BIOLOGICAL

INFORMATION ON THE SPECIES IN

THE IMPACT REGION

IS THE SCHEME TECHNICALLY

FEASIBLE AND ECONOMICALLY

VIABLE IN THE LONG-TERM?

ARE THERE POTENTIAL ECOLOGICAL

IMPLICATIONS OF THE SCHEME?

GO TO LOOKUP BOX 2

ARE THE PROPOSED MITIGATION

MEASURES ACCEPTABLE?

GO TO LOOKUP BOX 3

NO

NO

NO

YES

ARE THERE MECHANISMS FOR

ELIMINATING POTENTIAL

IMPACTS?

SEE NOTES ON BOX 7

ARE THERE MECHANISMS

FOR OVERCOMING

POTENTIAL IMPACTS?

SEE NOTES ON BOX 8

NO

NO

UNDERTAKE FULL IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

YES

Likelihood

Consequence

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Significant

Rare N L L M M

Unlikely N L M H H

Possible N L H H E

Likely N M H E E

Almost certain N M E E E

Table 7. Risk Matrix. N = negligible; L = low, M = moderate; H =

high; E = extreme

Table 9. Proposed weighting to account for uncertainty of

information about potential risks run-of-river hydropower

scheme

Degree of certainty of risk from scheme

Description Rating scale

High Well established knowledge from assessment and post-project monitoring of existing run-of-river hydropower schemes.

0.5

Medium Knowledge from limited assessment and post-project monitoring of existing run-of-river hydropower schemes, supported by documented ecological and environmental studies

1.0

Low Little or no previous knowledge from assessment and post-project monitoring of existing run-of-river hydropower schemes, and little or no supporting ecological and environmental studies

3.0




What fish are where now

Fish impact evidence

How to do the barrier survey?



Need to understand fish community

structure and dynamics

Meta-analysis of NFPD

■ Brown trout

□Other salmonids & grayling

Cyprinids






FCS2 or EFI+






FCS2 or EFI+

Interpretation of migration

pathways and barriers


Prioritisation of fish

migration barriers




FCS2

EFI+

Interpretation of migration

pathways and barriers



migration barriers

Methodology - Prioritisation matrix, based on the

National Fish Pass Prioritisation Matrix (Wilson,

2006) and Nunn et al. in press

Data Collection

Develop Prioritisation

Model

Site Visits

&

Identify Fish Passage

Solutions and hydropower development

initiatives

Apply Prioritisation

Model

Prioritisation Results


Data collection - site visits

Identify barriers to migration, compare historical and current distributions by: interrogation of NFPD and consultation with EA staff;

interrogation of other historical reports and records.

Complete section 1 of barrier survey form


migration barriers


Complete section 1 of barrier survey form - barrier ID


migration barriers

Voluntary Stakeholder Survey of River Barriers in the Derbyshire Derwent Catchment and Downstream Trent Corridor, October 2011

Barrier Identification

The aim is to improve understanding of existing barriers to fish in order to make better informed decisions on hydropower. NB Surveyors are

responsible for their own safety.

Barrier ID (see

map)

Add this ID to the .xls

name Photographs

Please take photos of the whole barrier and of details (fish pass, spillway, HEP

installation etc)

Barrier Name

Record the date & time of the photos below, note what they show & change the digital photo file name to the

barrier ID.Photo number

River Name Photo Date & time taken Photo shows

Please print & staple to the back or e-mail the

photos in

Barrier Owner 1 whole

Survey Date 2 detail

Surveyor's Name 3 detail

Affiliation Access

Permis

sion

needed

?

(yes/no

)

from

who?

e-mail

Access

route

notes

telephone

(to help

other

visits)


Data collection - site visits

Data on brown trout, Atlantic salmon, coarse fish, grayling, bullhead, brook lamprey, river lamprey, sea lamprey, spined loach, white-clawed crayfish and non-native crayfish.

Barrier features that influence passage

Species-specific assessment of barrier passability

Engineering constraints on solutions

Hydropower development opportunities

Potential fish pass solutions at each site

Complete section 2 of barrier survey form


migration barriers


Complete section 2 of barrier survey form - barrier details


migration barriers

Barrier characteristics: Size

Measured or

estimated? Barrier Type:

if other, please

describe

Approx. height metres Weir Dam Lock

Waterf

all Ford

Culver

t Bridge Other

Approx. width metres Profile vertical

steppe

d angled

Sketch plans (barrier, by-pass channels, fish passes, turbines, pools,

labels, distances)

Impounded reach, bypass channels and flow splits

Approx length of upstream impounded

reach metres

Barriers on the bypass

channels?

Are there any leats or bypass channels?

(yes/no) yes no yes no

If yes, approx length of flow depleted

reach metres

Approx flow depth over

barrier

If yes, approx % of total flow going over

the barrier % cm

Fish pass or not

Is there an existing fish pass

(yes/no) yes no

If yes, how effective do you think

it is? What is the heritage value of the weir

(judge & put 1 in box) not at all, 0%

totally

100% (judge & put 1 in box) no value

high

value

If yes, what type of fish pass is

it? Baffled ladder Lock and lift Pre-barrage

Natural

bypass

Rock channel

Existing or proposed hydropower scheme If there is a scheme, is the intake and/or tailrace screened?

Is there a hydropower scheme

NOW? yes no

Is the INTAKE screened?

(yes/no)

if yes,

mesh

size mm

Is there a hydropower scheme

PROPOSED? yes no

Is the TAILRACE screened?

(yes/no)

if yes,

mesh

size mm

if yes, turbine location (barrier or

bypass) Barrier

Bypas

s

Is there any evidence of fish death in downstream passage through

turbine?(yes/no)

If yes, what type of turbine is it?

Archimedes

screw Waterwheel Kaplan/Francis Crossflow Pelton etc


Complete section 2 of barrier survey form - barrier details


migration barriers

Overflow depth over crest (in centimetres)

Width (in metres) Total flow

Total flow

Depleted reach

Flow % over barrier

Bypass channel or leat

Bypass

barriers?

Impounded reach


Types of fish passes

31

Baffled

Pool - weir

Pool - traverse

Denil

vertical slot


Types of fish passes

32

Larinier Rock chute/bypass channel


Types of hydropower

schemes

33

Archimedes screw

Water wheel

Kaplan


Prioritisation matrix, Complete Section 3 of

survey form.

Obstruction type and height

Existing fish pass type

Ease of rectification - expert judgement

Fish stock status - dominant species groups

Degree to which barriers are limiting – expert judgement.

Percent estimate of current passability

Fish species habitat quantity and quality upstream – estimate of

distance to next barrier and WFD risk categories


migration barriers


Complete section 3 of barrier survey form - species details


migration barriers

Upstream fish stocks, habitat suitability and barrier passage assessment (upstream and downstream)

Is there stocking of trout upstream

(yes/no)

How many fish upstream of this

barrier NOW

How suitable is the upstream

habitat?

What % fish pass barrier

upstream?

What % fish pass barrier

downstream?

Salmon & trout

Eels

Coarse fish

Lamprey/grayling

(judge & put 1 in

boxes) None Lots

0% None

suitable

All very

suitable 100% 0% none

All

100% 0% none

All

100%


FIS

H P

AS

ES

S P

RIO

RIT

ISA

TIO

N P

RO

JEC

T

36

5 points

4 points

3 points

2 points

1 point

0 points

Impassible under any conditions

Passage likely during periods of high flow

Passable at all times

Low Priority

High Priority


migration barriers

Scoring system - barrier passability - species specific



Habitat quality assessment

Dove

Derwent


Prioritising migration barriers

Scored inputs for the matrices are: Fish stock status (fish biomass or density, scored from 1 to 5).

Degree to which barriers are limiting (the degree to which

barriers and other factors are limiting fish species in the

watercourse, scored from 1 to 5).

Passability (the % passability of each barrier by fish species,

scored from 1 to 5).

Fish species habitat quantity upstream (the quantity of riverine

and stillwater eel habitat upstream of each barrier, up to the next

barrier, scored from 1 to 5).

Fish species habitat quality upstream (the quality of eel habitat

upstream of each barrier, scored from 1 to 5).


Prioritising migration barriers

The output of the matrices is a barrier score (S), derived as:

S = FS × B × Qnr × Qns × Ql × P

where FS is the fish stock status, B is the degree to which barriers

are limiting, Qnr is the riverine habitat quantity upstream, Qns is the

stillwater habitat quantity upstream, Ql is the habitat quality upstream,

and P is the percent passability.

• Each barrier is then ranked according to their barrier score,

identifying priority barriers for passage improvements.

• NOTE: the barriers ranked as highest priority for passage

improvements are not necessarily the most significant migration

barriers!


Prioritisation of eel migration barriers

First two major barriers to eel migration on each main water course flowing into the Humber Estuary identified.

Prioritisation matrix, based on the National Fish Pass Prioritisation Matrix (Wilson, 2006)

Eel score – a function of the eel stock status, the degree to which barriers are limiting, percent passability, eel habitat quantity upstream and eel habitat quality upstream.

Priority – rank of each barriers in terms of eel score.


Example of barrier prioritisation

matrix - Eel in Humber catchment S

ite

num

be

r

Site

nam

e

Multip

le o

bstr

uctio

n N

o.

Re

gio

n

Are

a

Ca

tch

me

nt

Riv

er

NG

R

Up

per

NG

R

Ob

str

uctio

n t

yp

e

Ob

str

uctio

n h

eig

ht

Exis

tin

g f

ish

pa

ss t

yp

e

Ea

se

of

rectifica

tio

n

Ee

l sto

ck s

tatu

s

De

gre

e to

whic

h

barr

iers

are

lim

itin

g

% p

assa

bili

ty

Ee

l h

ab

ita

t q

ua

ntity

u/s

Ee

l h

ab

ita

t q

ua

lity u

/s

Ee

l s

co

re

Pri

ori

ty

m 1 to 6 1 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5

1 Ferriby Sluice 1 Anglian Northern Ancholme Ancholme SE 976 211 Estuary barragen/a None Difficult 3 3 75 5 5 1125 31

2 Harlam Hill Weir 2 Anglian Northern Ancholme Ancholme TF 020 947 Weir 1.5 Navigation lockIntermediate 3 3 50 1 3 270 58

3 Bishopbridge 3 Anglian Northern Ancholme Ancholme TF 031 911 Weir 1.5 None Simple 3 3 50 1 2 180 61

4 Toft Newton 4 Anglian Northern Ancholme Ancholme TF 032 875 TF 032 875 Gauging weir 1.5 None Intermediate 4 3 25 1 2 360 56

5 Stonebridge Farm 1 Anglian Northern Tetney HavenTetney HavenTA 354 031 Estuary barragen/a None Difficult 3 3 75 1 5 225 60

6 Tetney Lock 2 Anglian Northern Tetney HavenTetney HavenTA 343 023 Weir 1.0 None Intermediate 3 3 50 5 5 2250 10

7 Alvingham 3 Anglian Northern Tetney HavenLouth Canal TF 373 927 TF 373 927 Weir 1.0 None Intermediate 3 3 50 1 4 360 56

8 Cromwell 1 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Trent SK 809 612 Weir 3.0 Pool & TraverseDifficult 5 5 25 2 5 3750 2

9 Averham 2 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Trent SK 770 535 Weir 3.0 None Intermediate 5 5 50 3 4 3000 6

10 Nether Lock 2 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Trent SK 801 553 Weir 3.0 Navigation lockDifficult 5 5 25 1 4 1500 21

11 Newark 3 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Trent SK 792 537 Weir 2.5 Navigation lockDifficult 5 5 25 3 4 4500 1

12 Hazelford 3/4 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Trent SK 732 494 SK 732 494 Weir 3.0 Navigation lockIntermediate 5 5 25 2 3 2250 10

13 Hazelford Back Weir 3/4 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Trent SK 732 493 SK 732 493 Weir 2.0 None Intermediate 5 5 25 2 3 2250 10

14 Adlingfleet 1 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Adlingfleet DrainSE 859 219 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Intermediate 4 4 25 1 5 1200 24

15 Cow Lane 2 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Adlingfleet DrainSE 837 209 SE 837 209 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Intermediate 4 4 50 1 5 800 38

16 Luddington 1 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Paupers' DrainSE 850 153 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Intermediate 5 4 0 1 5 2000 13

17 Pademoor 2 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Paupers' DrainSE 808 145 SE 808 145 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Intermediate 5 4 50 2 5 2000 13

18 Keadby Outfall 1 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Bosky Dyke (Keady Warping Drain)SE 836 121 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Intermediate 4 4 25 1 5 1200 24

19 Keadby Sluice 2 Midlands Lower Trent Trent Bosky Dyke (Keady Warping Drain)SE 813 127 SE 813 127 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Intermediate 4 4 50 1 5 800 38

20 Crimpsall 1 North East Ridings Don Don SE 566 037 Sluice (any type of water control structure)2.0 Rock Ramps Simple 5 4 90 2 5 400 51

21 Sprotborough 2 North East Ridings Don Don SE 538 014 Weir 2.0 Navigation lockIntermediate 5 4 25 3 4 3600 5

22 Thrybergh 3 North East Ridings Don Don SK 464 964 Weir 2.0 Alaskan A DenilIntermediate 5 4 25 1 3 900 32

23 Aldwarke 4 North East Ridings Don Don SK 450 944 Weir 2.0 Navigation lockIntermediate 5 4 25 1 3 900 32

24 Masbrough 5 North East Ridings Don Don SK 425 928 SK 425 928 Weir 2.0 Navigation lockIntermediate 5 4 25 1 3 900 32

25 Adwick upon Dearne3 North East Ridings Don Dearne SE 481 018 Gauging weir 1.0 None Intermediate 5 4 50 1 3 600 45

26 Wath 4 North East Ridings Don Dearne SE 436 022 Sluice (any type of water control structure)n/a None Simple 5 4 90 1 3 120 62

27 Darfield 5 North East Ridings Don Dearne SE 423 048 Weir 1.0 None Intermediate 5 4 25 1 3 900 32

28 Little Houghton 6 North East Ridings Don Dearne SE 418 054 SE 418 054 Weir 2.5 None Difficult 5 4 25 2 3 1800 17

29 Ogreave 6 North East Ridings Don Rother SK 427 874 Weir 1.5 Rock Ramps Simple 6 4 90 1 2 96 63

30 Beighton 7 North East Ridings Don Rother SK 446 841 Weir 1.5 None Simple 6 4 50 1 2 480 46

31 Rother Valley Country Park8 North East Ridings Don Rother SK 454 827 Weir 1.0 None Intermediate 6 4 50 1 2 480 46

32 Killamarsh 9 North East Ridings Don Rother SK 446 809 SK 446 809 Weir 1.5 None Intermediate 6 4 50 1 2 480 46

33 Chapel Haddlesey 1 North East Ridings Aire Aire SE 581 260 Weir 1.5 Navigation lockDifficult 5 4 25 2 5 3000 6


High Priority

Obstructions


matrix - Eel in Humber catchment


Watercourse Priority obstructions

Priority ranking

Watercourse Priority obstructions

Priority ranking

R. Hull Hempholme Cleaves Farm

M L

R. Rother Beighton Rother Valley CP

M M

Y. Ouse Naburn Linton

H H

R. Dearne Adwick Darfield

L L

Y. Derwent Barmby Elvington

H M

R. Aire Chapel Haddlesey Beal

H H

R. Ure Boroughbridge West Tanfield

M M

R. Calder Kirkthorpe Wakefield

M M

R. Swale Crakehill Topcliffe

M H

R. Ancholme South Ferriby Harlam Hill

M L

R. Nidd Skip Bridge Hunsingore

M M

R. Foulness Weighton Lock Holme House

M M

R. Wharfe Tadcaster Boston Spa

M M

Adlingfleet Dr. Adlingfleet outfall Cow Lane

M M

R. Trent Cromwell Averham

H H

Pauper’s Dr. Luddington Pademoor

H H

R. Don Sprotbrough Thrybergh

H M

Keadby W. Dr. Keadby outfall Keadby sluice

M M

H = high priority, M = medium priority, L = low priority


matrix - Eel in Humber catchment



Fish impact evidence Need to understand changes in fish community


Historical changes in species distribution

Shifts in angler catch dynamics

Change in WFD ecological status

Loss of spawning and nursery area

Impact of flow changes on connectivity

Mortality / injury at turbines

Cumulative impacts - Rob Soley group


Barrier survey priorities & plan


Barrier survey priorities & plan

2. Barrier survey forms laid out on

LPA tables, ordered by total length

of upstream river

Longest

u/s rivers

Shortest

u/s rivers

3. Find your ‘patch’.

Work together to

add information &

‘extra priority

coloured blobs’ to

the map keys

High – probably big barrier

HEP scheme there nowHEP application in/comingFish pass there now

Add barrier name etc, &

pencil in form etc

5. Pick up the prioritised

barrier forms which you and

others in your organisation will

try to survey – bundle locally

1. Look at the map with Local

Planning Authority Areas,

barriers, rivers & lakes on it

4. Barriers

upstream of

reservoirs have

low priority?

6. Type your name &

organisation next to

each barrier ID on one

of the laptop lists


If you’re not from round here

Please help prepare for the next discussion on ‘strategy/policy/plans’

On the flip charts, please list the EXISTING plans, strategies, policies

etc. which are relevant to fish passage, hydropower & barriers

Derbyshire

Derwent

East Midlands

Region

Humber River

Basin District

Local Planning

Authorities

National

Catchment HEP or barrier strategies/policies/plans?

John Pomfret, AMEC

30th September 2011


Catchment wide interactions

� Individual schemes may have

effects (adverse or beneficial) that

interact at a catchment scale

� cumulative effects within the catchment

– fish passage affected by multiple

barriers and HEP may influence

this

– extent of specific habitat affected

by HEP within the catchment as a

whole

� site specific but affecting the whole

catchment

– effects of HEP on fish passage in

lower reaches


Local considerations

� Local environmental sensitivities may vary through the catchment

� designated wildlife sites and other areas of high ecological value,

e.g. spawning/nursery areas for fish (substrate and depth)

� listed or scheduled historic river structures

� designated landscapes (AONB)

� national parks

� navigation requirements re water level (depth, headroom)


Mechanisms

� Effects on fish passage may be:

� detrimental due to:

– depleted reach

– new barriers

– need to retain barriers that could be removed (if funding available)

– mortality in turbines

� (incidentally) beneficial, e.g. by providing a fish pass where none exists now

� Enhancements/mitigation of adverse effects may include:

� provision of fish passes

� provision of fish screens

� limits on operation with regard to river flows (proportion of flow, HOF etc)

� limits on operation with regard to river or reservoir levels


HEP strategy or barrier strategy?

� What would catchment hydropower strategies achieve?

� prioritisation of hydropower scheme locations

– at barriers without fish passes (if fish pass included in the scheme)

– at most downstream barriers (if fish pass included in the scheme)

– upstream of reservoirs or natural barriers where fish passage is infeasible

– at locations which are less environmentally sensitive

– where barriers need to be retained for navigation or flood management

– coordination of hydrological targets

� How would a catchment hydropower strategy best be presented?

� as part of a catchment-wide plan already available?

– River Basin Management Plan – include in next round?

– Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy – abstractions already in

� Who should produce it?

� probably has to be the Environment Agency

� Who should implement?

� LPAs and EA

� would catchment-wide considerations fit with local planning remit?


HEP strategy or barrier strategy?

� What would a catchment hydropower strategy look like?

� map-based

� showing all barriers classified according to

– potential HEP output

– fish pass in place or not

– historic designation constraints

� showing wider constraints

– wildlife designations and other identified interest features (water-

associated features only?)

– landscape constraints

– areas upstream of barriers where fish passage is unlikely ever to be

feasible

� tables showing constraints arising from CAMS


If you want a 'Catchment

Hydropower Strategy', or a

‘Catchment fish migration

strategy’, what’s the scale?

CAMS catchments?

‘Catchment’ – what scale?


Agency Regions?







River Basin Districts?







'National'?







England & Wales?







What we trialled

- Wye

- Trent







What we trialled

- Wye

- Trent

…compare with CAMS

And what strategies

already exist at these

scales?






Derbyshire Derwent

East Midlands Region

Humber River Basin District

Local Planning Authorities

National


Breakouts & feedback

3rd plenary, 2:00 - 2:20. Catchment barrier/hydropower strategies/policies/plans?

14:00 Do planners & the EA need catchment strategies/policies/plans? What might they look like?

John Pomfret

3rd breakout, 2:20 - 3:00. Do we need policies/strategies? If so, what for?

Mixed stakeholder, planning & EA participants in 3 groups of different scales for planning policy/strategy

Each group discusses hydropower and/or barrier/fish access planning policy/strategy ideas & options

Discussion will be structured around common questions and will be fed back to the final plenary.

Scale Derbyshire Derwent Trent RBD/East Mids RLG National

Facilitator John Pomfret Ian Cowx Rob Soley

Notes Ruth Meek Anne Gayfer Jim Finnegan

Feedback volunteer volunteer volunteer

15:00 Tea/Coffee

Final plenary, 3:15 - 4:00. Strategy discussion feedback & wrap-up

15:15 Catchment planning strategy/policy discussion feedback: 10 mins each group

Rob Soley facilitates feedback & plenary discussion

15:45 Final questions, next steps (survey, planner training, reporting, launch), farewell

Anne Gayfer & Ruth Meek

16:00 Close


HEP strategy discussion

� What would catchment hydropower strategies achieve?

� prioritisation of hydropower scheme locations (can you give examples)?

– at barriers without fish passes (if fish pass included in the scheme)

– at most downstream barriers (if fish pass included in the scheme)

– upstream of reservoirs or natural barriers where fish passage is infeasible

– at locations which are less environmentally sensitive

– where barriers need to be retained for navigation or flood management

� coordination of hydrological targets?

� How would a catchment hydropower strategy best be presented?

� as part of a catchment-wide plan already available?

– River Basin Management Plan – include in next round?

– Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy?

� Who should produce it?

� probably has to be the Environment Agency

� Who should implement?

� LPAs and EA

� would catchment-wide considerations fit with local planning remit?