Fish protection in Germany first steps on a long and rocky road. Marq Redeker ARCADIS Germany

Transcription

1 Fish protection in Germany first steps on a long and rocky road Marq Redeker ARCADIS Germany

2 Outline Introduction German fish protection & downstream fishway guideline Pilot fish protection facilities Incentive for facility installation Recent & current efforts Lessons learnt & conclusions

3 Mülheim fish and eel passes in 1920 Ruhrfischereigenossenschaft Introduction > 100 yrs. knowledge of fish passage issues Prussian Water Act (1916) already required fish protection facilities at water intakes Federal & State Water Acts and State Fisheries Regulations require fish protection facilities (usually 20mm bar spacing) Upstream fish passage (re )addressed in Germany in late 1980 s German (Upstream) Fish Pass Guideline first published in 1996 (compulsory & represents best practice ) Literature review on fish protection & downstream fishway technology in 1997

4 German fish protection guideline Working group on fish protection best practice established in 1998 Inventory in 1998 by German Energy Association: < 20 fish protection facilities at thermal and hydro power plants in Germany Lab research of fish behavior and permissible approach velocities and screen spacing IfaÖ

5 German fish protection guideline Impact assessments: damage & mortality at screens and hydropower plants IfaÖ IfaÖ Guideline published in 2005 Includes high degree of overseas know how due to lack of German/ European experience Guideline is a recommendation not compulsory due to interventions of electricity lobby

6 German fish protection guideline Main results & recommendations: Screening criteria for selected species acc. body size and swimming ability In general: recommendation of physical screens (with bypasses) behavioral guidance systems efficiencies are site & species specific Introduction of screening criteria in some States based on guideline

7 Pilot facilities Inclined perforated plate screen, Wetzlar hydropower plant Bypass Inclined wedge wire screen IB Floecksmühle Bypass Wedge wire screen & bypass at Floecksmühle hydropower plant (Q = 1,7 m³/s, 5.3mm spacing, vapproach = 0,6m/s)

8 Pilot facilities Bar screen (10mm spacing, A=100m², width=12m, vapproach=0,35m/s) at Roermond hydropower station (NL) IB Floecksmühle IB Floecksmühle Issues with pilot facilities in Germany: Insufficient monitoring Lack in publication/ communication of test results and design & operation experience

9 Incentive for facility installation German Renewable Energy Sources Act (REA) is most important incentive for fish facility installations and funding mechanism REA first enacted 1991: a) promoted development of RE, b) facilitated grid access for small generators & c) guaranteed minimum feed in tariffs Feed in tariff system of the REA has been copied/ adapted in 18 EU member states (A, CZ, DK, E, H, IRL, P ) and 40+ countries worldwide Feed in tariff for hydropower : 7,67 ct/kwh for HPP 5 MW 2004 and 2009 REA amendments: significant changes to hydropower feed in tariff models as a result of WFD requirements 2009 amendment: Feed in tariffs for a duration of 20 yrs. HPP 5 MW HPP > 5 MW Output portion Modernised HPP New HPP Output portion Modernised HPP 500 kw 11,67 ct/kwh 12,67 ct/kwh 500 kw 2 MW 8,65 ct/kwh 8,65 ct/kwh 500 kw 7,29 ct/kwh 2 MW 5 MW 8,65 ct/kwh 7,65 ct/kwh > 50 MW 3,5 ct/kwh

10 Incentive for facility installation Modernisation: achieves good ecological status of water body or improves ecological status considerably by: reduction/ relinquishment of hydro peaking restoration of fish passage (upstream & downstream) minimum environmental flows restoration/ improvement of sediment transport restoration/ improvement of riverine environment (hydromorphology) Experience with REA: (Surplus) Remuneration is not sufficient to finance measures in all fields. REA 2004 remuneration did not allow installation of both fish passes and fish protection facilities at existing HPP. Focus on construction/ retrofit of fish passes & minimum flows Typically screening criteria acc. State Fisheries Regulations applied and not acc. German fish protection guideline

11 Recent & current efforts Focus on cumulative effects of multiple barriers (e.g. HPP cascade) Total fish survival rate in downstream migration with multiple barriers: p = fish survival rate n = number of barriers q = fish protection rate at barrier p = q n Designation of water bodies suitable for diadromous species (also as a result of EU Eel Management Directive)

12 Recent & current efforts Alternative management approaches, e.g. Trap & truck of eels on the Moselle River Installation of early warning systems, e.g. for turbine management Tanks Pumps MIGROMAT at Wahnhausen hydropower station Institut für angewandte Ökologie

13 Recent & current efforts Application of new technologies, e.g. DIDSON Sonar DIDSON screenshot: Eel in front of the fish screen

14 Current efforts

15 Recent & current efforts Policy study Hydropower Generation in the context of the WFD for EC DG Environment to provide understanding of links between WFD implementation and hydropower development, with the aim to support integration; information on the current and potential future contribution of the hydropower sector to the achievement of the EU renewable energy targets; information on the influence of meeting the objectives of the WFD (incl. review of environmental effects of HPP and best practices in EU Member States); overview of strategic planning approaches to achieve better policy integration between WFD and hydropower development.

16 Lessons learnt & conclusions Fish protection guidelines/ screening criteria definition Impossible to provide protection for all life stages. Prescribing specific screen spacing represents a conscious decision on which fish sizes/ life stages one intends to protect, or not. Determination that essentially defines what proportion of fish need to be excluded to meet environmental targets is a mutual compromise and controversially debated. Need open & honest interdisciplinary discussions, (preliminary) determination of screen design parameters based on agreed criteria (e.g. fish conservation objectives) and their endorsement by regulators. Commitment to ongoing review and improvement process.

17 Lessons learnt & conclusions Pilot facilities Operation and maintenance are the technical and economical challenges with physical barriers (in particular cleaning and sediment management), and not their design and installation. Need pilot protection facilities at large HPP to test operability. Need more monitoring & evaluation (biological & technical) and dissemination of results. Renewable Energy Sources Act Feed in tariffs not sufficient to finance all necessary fish passage and ecological restoration measures to obtain GES/ GEP. Ongoing work Intensification of scientific research (e.g. fish behaviour and swimming performance) to improve our knowledge.

18 Kaua e rangiruatia te ha o te hoe, e kore to tatou waka e u ki uta. Do not lift the paddle out of unison or our canoe will never reach the shore. emphasizes the importance of all working together to succeed in a joint project.