Federal Department of the Environment,Transport, Energy and Communications DETEC

Federal Office for the Environment FOENWater Division

Section: Morphology and Residual Flows of Surface Waters

River restoration and h d ki i S it l dhydropeaking in Switzerland

Diego Tonolla

International Workshop on Hydropeaking – Zurich – 19 June 2012

Contents

1 Current status1. Current status

2. New legal context

3. Strategic planning

4. Indicators for the assessment of serious harm

Restoration of water bodies

The changes of the Water Protection Act (WPA) and of the O ( O)

Current statusWater Protection Ordinance (WPO) aim to rehabilitate the water bodies and to eliminate the negative impacts of hydropower plants on the water bodies.Legal context

Strategic planning

Indicators

Restoration of water courses

The changes of the Water Protection Act (WPA) and of the O ( O)

Current statusWater Protection Ordinance (WPO) aim to rehabilitate the water bodies and to eliminate the negative impacts of hydropower plants on the water bodies.Legal context

Flowing Standing Alluvial Strategic planning

watersg

waters plains

B d l d

Indicators

Hydropeaking Bed loadbudget Fish migration

The cantonal authority shall develop strategic planning for appropriate mitigation measures in the different areasdifferent areas.

Importance of hydroelectric power

Current status Mean annual production of ~ 36 TWh (~ 56% of country’s )

Legal context

electricity supply) (BFE 2011).

~ 53% produced in storage power plants (BFE 2011).

Strategic planning The hydropower market is worth ~ 2 billion CHF (basis = delivery from power plant at 5 cents per kilowatt hour) (BFE 2011) .

Indicators

Overview of the potential hydropeaking caused b h droelectric facilities across S it erlandby hydroelectric facilities across Switzerland

Potential ratio peak flow to low flow (X)p ( )

X < 1.5:1< 1.5:1 X < 5:1X > 5:1

~ 130 power plants 130 power plants with a flow rate upsurge:downsurge ≥ 1 5:1≥ 1.5:1

Modified from Pfaundler et al. (2012, unpublished).

Overview of the potential hydropeaking caused b h droelectric facilities across S it erlandby hydroelectric facilities across Switzerland

Watercourses potentially affected by hydropeakingp y y y p g

Potentially affectedPotentially affected but not plausiblep

~1,000 km potentially affected by hydropeaking

Modified from Pfaundler et al. (2012, unpublished).

Future challenges

Current status Swiss waters are expected to face increasing pressure f f

Legal context

because of the potential expansion of hydropower by 2050which will be around 1.5 TWh per year under current use conditions and 3.2 TWh per year under optimized

Strategic planning

conditions of use (BFE 2012).

Indicators

Legal basis on hydropeaking

Art. 39a para. 1 WPACurrent status

Those responsible for hydropower plants must prevent or eliminate by means of civil engineering measures short-Legal context

term artificial changes in the water flow on a body of water (hydropeaking) that cause serious harm to the indigenous flora and fauna as well as their habitats.

Strategic planning

At the request of the person responsible for a hydropower plant, the authority may order operational instead of civil

Indicators

plant, the authority may order operational instead of civil engineering measures.

Funding

Compensation of the mitigation measuresCurrent status

1 billion CHF up to 2030 for mitigation measures.Legal context

Financed via an electricity surcharge of 0.1 cents/KWh (Art. 15b Energy Act).

Strategic planning

Indicators

Legal basis on hydropeaking

Art. 39a para. 1 WPACurrent status

Those responsible for hydropower plants must prevent or eliminate by means of civil engineering measures short-Legal context

term artificial changes in the water flow on a body of water (hydropeaking) that cause serious harm to the indigenous flora and fauna as well as their habitats.

Strategic planning

Indicators

Legal basis on hydropeaking

Art. 41e WPOCurrent status

There is serious harm to indigenous flora and fauna and to their habitats due to hydropeaking where:Legal context

a. the flow rate for upsurge is at least 1.5- times greater than for downsurge (please see Pfaundler, Dübendorfer, Zysset

(2011) for more details on the determination of this flow rate) ;Strategic planning

AND(2011) for more details on the determination of this flow rate).;

b. the site-specific quantity, composition and diversity of the plant and animal biocoenoses are changed to their

Indicators

AND

the plant and animal biocoenoses are changed to their detriment, in particular because regularly and in an unnatural manner fish are run ashore, fish spawning grounds are destroyed aquatic animals are washedgrounds are destroyed, aquatic animals are washed away, turbidity arises or the water temperature is altered in an unlawful manner.

Work package Hydropeaking

FOEN publication: Hydropeaking – strategic planningCurrent status

Legal context

Strategic planning

Indicators

Publication available in german and french (soon also in italian) on: http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01637/index.html?lang=de

Work package Hydropeaking

FOEN publication: Hydropeaking – strategic planningCurrent status

Describes individual planning steps.Legal context

Addresses the strategic planning.

Describes appropriate assessment methodsStrategic planning

Describes appropriate assessment methods.

Clarifies remediation obligation on the hydropower plant.Indicators

Clarifies the extent of the measures.

Stages for the remediation of hydropeaking

1st phase:Cantonalplanning

2nd phase:Planning byhydropower

3rd phase: Implementation& compensation

4th phase: Evaluation of

successplanning

31 12 2014

hydropower & compensation success

…31.12. 2014

From 01. 01. 2015

.….……

Until 2030.….…..................................

Assesment of serious harm

Art. 41e WPOCurrent status

There is serious harm to indigenous flora and fauna and to their habitats due to hydropeaking where:Legal context

a. the flow rate for upsurge is at least 1.5- times greater than for downsurge; andStrategic planning

b. the site-specific quantity, composition and diversity of the plant and animal biocoenoses are changed to their detriment in particular because regularly and in an

Indicators

detriment, in particular because regularly and in an unnatural manner fish are run ashore, fish spawning grounds are destroyed, aquatic animals are washed away turbidity arises or the water temperature isaway, turbidity arises or the water temperature is altered in an unlawful manner.

Assesment of serious harm – indicators usedGroup Indicator Keyword Evaluated parameters

F1 MSK-Module Spectrum and diversity of species; natural reproduction; population structure of the dominant fish species; deformities and abnormalities

Fishes

deformities and abnormalities

F2 Stranding Stranding risk based on water-level decrease (hydrauliccomputations) and stranding organisms (field surveys)

F3 Spawning grounds Potential area extension by up and down surge (hydraulicF3 Spawning grounds Potential area extension by up and down surge (hydrauliccomputations)

F4 Reproduction Juvenile density of the keystone fish species

F5 Productivity Theoretical productivity of the water coursey p y

Macro-

B1 Biomass Portion of altitude-dependant expected and must values

B2 MSK-Module IBCH as dimension for taxa diversity and presence ofselected taxaMacro

zoobenthos B3 Length zonation Macrozoobenthos LZI compared to classification in biocoenotic zones (from krenal to potamal)

B4 Sensitive taxa Nr. ETP-families

Hydraulic & morphology H1 Colmation

(substrate glogging)Internal colmation on the basis of suspended matter byupsurge and morphology

Discharge A1 Minimal discharge Flow regime by downsurge compared to minimal residual fl ft WPAflow after WPA

Temperature Q1 Water temperature Rate of temperature change by the up/down-surgetransition; daily amplitude; nr. daily temperature peaks

Evaluation of the indicators

Final assessmentState of-play

12 indicators are evaluated on a 5-steps scale (sometimes

E l ti St t S i h Obj tiLegal context

12 indicators are evaluated on a 5-steps scale (sometimes on a 3-steps scale).

Evaluation State Serious harm Objective

Strategic planning Very goodGood

NoneLittle

AchievedAchieved

Indicators

GoodModerateUnsatisfactoryBad

LittleConsiderableStrongVery strong

AchievedNot achievedNot achievedNot achievedBad Very strong Not achieved

Evaluation of the indicators

Final assessmentThere is serious harm to indigenous flora and fauna and to Current status gtheir habitats due to hydropeaking when:

a ≥ 1 indicator(s) in a bad state orLegal context

a. ≥ 1 indicator(s) in a bad state, or

b. ≥ 2 indicators in an unsatisfactory state, orStrategic planning

c. ≥ 3 indicators in a moderate state, or

d 1 i di t i ti f t t t d 2 i di t i

Indicators

d. 1 indicator in an unsatisfactory state and 2 indicators in a moderate state

Very goody gGoodModerateUnsatisfactoryBad

Indicator example – Fish stranding

Current status

Legal context

Strategic planning

Indicators

Indicator example – Fish stranding

This indicator is primarily based on hydraulic computations (1D or 2D models) and field surveys.

Evaluation State CriteriaDry area / Rate of decrease Nr strandedDry area / total wetted area

Very good < 10 % < 0.3 cm min-1 0

Rate of decrease in flow level

Nr. stranded fishes / 100 m

GoodModerate-bad

10 – 30 %> 30 %

0.3 – 0.5 cm min-1

> 0.5 cm min-1

1 – 5> 5

Indicator is in a moderate bad state when 2 3 criteria areIndicator is in a moderate-bad state when 2 – 3 criteria are .

Take home message

Thanks to a recent revision of the Swiss Water Protection Act it will be possible to significantly lessen most of the negative p g y gimpacts caused by hydropeaking by 2030 especially through the introduction of structural measures (e.g. equalising basins) without restricting the level of electricity productionbasins), without restricting the level of electricity production. Moreover, precise deadline and financial aspects have been defined and implemented.

The ecological impacts caused by hydropeaking are assessed by 12 state-of-the-art indicators. The practical information collected during the cantonal planning will be used to further test, and if necessary adapt, the indicators for a better assessment of the specific negative effects of p ghydropeaking.

Thanks for your attention!