Introducing the WBG Guidelines for

selecting EFlow assessment

methods

Cate Brown
 This presentation
• Factors affected potential impacts
• Level of detail in EFlows assessments:
– Magnitude and complexity of potential impacts
– WBG safeguard requirements
• Guide to selecting EFlow assessment level
• Examples
FACTORS AFFECTING IMPACTS
 EFlows and hydropower
HPPs can change rivers in four main ways of
relevance for EFlow Assessments:
• Partial or whole dewatering of a reach
• Changes in pattern of flows of water and
sediment
• Lost of connectivity:
– Longitudinal - barrier effect of the dam wall and the
reservoir
– Lateral – reduced flooding of floodplains
• Diversions to another basin, which affects two
river
 Factors influencing potential impact
• Location
• Design
• Operation
• Effectiveness of barrier to longitudinal
connectivity lost along the river

Combining two or more of the factors will

usually increase the impact.
Location

• Water flow
• Sediment flow
• Connectivity
 Location

Lower operational
constraints Smaller changes to:
• Water flow
• Sediment flow
• Connectivity
Design

• Water flow
• Sediment flow
• Connectivity
 Design

Flowing water

No change to water flow

Minor change to sediment flow

Barrier effect relatively easily overcome

Design Barrier effects extremely
difficult to overcome

Still water

Potentially major changes to

pattern and volume of water
and sediment
Design

Potentially dewatered river

reach
Operation

• Water flow
• Sediment flow
• Connectivity
 Operation
Sediment flushing may be effective to tackle the loss of
reservoir storage as a result of siltation
• can have serious impacts on downstream ecosystem
– blankets habitats
– reduces oxygen
– fish kills
• can be mitigated by: • Water flow
– controlling sediment conc. • Sediment flow
– timing sediment releases
• Connectivity
 Run-of-river hydropower
Used to describe a considerable range of designs:

• HPPs with no storage, (i.e. inflow matches outflow minute by minute)

• HPPs with limited storage and no peaking-power releases (e.g. inflow matches
outflow over c. 24 hours)
• HPPs with moderate storage and peaking-power releases
• HPPs that rely on large upstream storage facilities
• HPPs where the flow of a river is diverted from the host river to another river

Of limited value from an EFlows perspective

In the guidelines: “True run-of-river” HPPs

“Hydropower plants that release downstream into the same river,

with a short or no diversion,
have ≤ 48-hour dry-season storage and
do not make peaking-power releases”
LEVEL OF DETAIL IN EFLOWS
ASSESSMENTS
 EFlows assessment methods/levels
• Over 300 methods Tennant Method

• Simple ones from 1970s to more

modern holistic methods
CHANNEL AND HABITAT MAINTENANCE FLOODS
(second building blocks)

SPAWNING/

DISCHARGE
MIGRATION
FRESHES
(third
building blocks)

Three levels of detail:

LOW FLOWS
(first building blocks)

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

MONTHS

• Low resolution (a) (b)

• Medium resolution

Wetted perimeter
Banktop Banktop

• High resolution
Break points in slope
Water levels
Discharge
corresponding to break points

DRIFT
 Low resolution
• Usually desktop
• Hydrological or hydraulic data are analyzed to
derive standard indices as recommended flows
• Typically prescriptive
• Result in a recommended flow based on data
extrapolated from areas where more detailed
studies have been undertaken
• No detail on the responses of habitat or species
 Medium and high resolution
Medium- and high-resolution methods are similar:
• Many are interactive through the use of scenarios
• Collect and use data from the study river
• Many focus on establishing a relationships between changes in river flow and
one or more aspects of the river.
• Many methods can be used at medium or high resolution

They are distinguished from one another by:

– spatial scope
– number of components
– level of effort in collecting and analysing local information

High-resolution usually incorporate issues such as:

– survival of individual species
– impacts of sediment reduction
– effects of peaking-power releases
– other river- or project-specific variables, such as management
interventions.
 Other important differences between
method
• Prescriptive – recommend a flow
• Interactive – provide implications of different
flows

• Prescriptive – no information on what will

happen if you don’t meet EFlows requirements
• Interactive – information of allow tradeoffs
 Relative cost of assessment
Low- Medium- High-
Level of resolution Units
Resolution Resolution Resolution

Team and effort

No. of people People 1-2 3-6 3-10

No. of site visits Trips 1 1-2 2-3

Duration Months 1-2 6-12 6-24

Time estimates

Total Person days 5-12 40-140 130-290

Cost (excl. disbursements) US$ (x1000) 4 – 10 32 – 112 100– 232

 Relative cost of assessment
Using conservative total cost US450 million:
• Low = 0.001 – 0.002%
• Medium = 0.007 – 0.024%
• High = 0.22 – 0.52%
 Link between potential impacts and
EFlows assessment level
As potential impacts increase in magnitude and
complexity:
• Need to greater understanding of implications and options
• Need for greater detail in assessments
• For instance if potential impacts include:
– Timing of seasons
– Large within day flow changes
– Flooding of floodplains
– Sediment supply
– Barrier to upstream and downstream movement
• Does not make sense to set 10% minimum flow without further
investigation
 Link between WBG safeguards and
EFlows assessment level
• Biodiversity
ESS6/PS6: Biodiversity Conservation
OP 4.04 Natural Habitats • Ecosystem services
and Sustainable Management of
OP 4.36 Forests • River connectivity
Living Natural Resources
• Nutrient cycling

• Natural Resources
OP 4.10 Indigenous • Livelihoods
ESS7/PS7: Indigenous People
People • Spiritual and
Cultural Resources

• Cultural Heritage
OP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources
ESS8/PS8: Cultural Heritage
Resources • Cultural Practices
and Ceremonies

OP 7.50: International Waterways • All of above

 Other factors affecting EFlow
assessment level
• Other developments
• Position in a cascade
• Type of ecosystem affected
• High level of social dependency
GUIDE TO SELECTING EFLOW
ASSESSMENT LEVEL
 Tools to guide selection of
EFlow assessment level
• Decision-tree
• EFlows Screening Tool

In general, these will recommend:

• Low-resolution methods for HPPs that will not affect natural and
critical habitats; for true run-of-river projects; or for baseload plants
that have no substantial influence on the flow regime.
• Medium-resolution methods for HPPs that that will not affect critical
habitats; low social dependence; or are near other existing HPPs (e.g.,
cascade of dams) as long as they are not the most downstream one.
• High-resolution holistic methods for HPPs that will affect critical
habitats; OR ecosystems other than rivers; OR high social dependence
OR transboundary or has a trans-basin diversions.
The decision tree
 Dewatered reach Limited to
True 'RoR' between dam wall medium Large storage
and tailrace? storage

Assessment of the d/s impact

Peaking? Yes
of peaking
No

T r a n s b o u n d a r y b a s I n? Yes

No

Trans-basin diversion ? Yes

No

Ecosystems other than river affected, e.g., Yes

wetlands, estuary?
No

High level of social dependency / use? Yes

No

First or most d/s in a cascade? Yes

No

Protected Area or Critical Habitat? Yes

No

Yes Modified Habitat?

No

LOW-RESOLUTION MEDIUM-RESOLUTION HIGH-RESOLUTION

EXAMPLES
Poonch River Mahaseer National Park

Golden Mahaseer
Gulpur HPP – retrospective
 EFlows assessment:
Scope and costs (2014/15)
• Four sites, one upstream, one between the dam wall and the
tailrace and two in the river downstream of the tailrace and
Mangla Dam.
• The EFlows scenarios incorporated considerations of:
– changes to pattern and volume of downstream flows
– the downstream effects of sediment trapping and/or flushing
– changes in connectivity assessment for key migratory fish
– options for turbine selection
– options for management protection (i.e., offsets).
• The team = 4 international consultants with EFlows experience,
who guided a team of Pakistan specialists through the
assessment.
• Cost to client: ± US$ 300 000.00 inclusive of disbursements.
 Batoka
Poonch River MahaseerGorge HPP
National Park
Batoka HPP – retrospective
 EFlows assessment:
Scope and costs (2014)
• Two sites downstream of the tailrace to Kariba Dam.
• The EFlows scenarios incorporated considerations of:
– changes to pattern and volume of downstream flows
– the downstream effects of sediment trapping and/or flushing
– changes in connectivity assessment for key migratory fish (Victoria Falls)
• The team = 6 consultants:
– EF specialist
– Hydraulics
– Geomorphology
– Vegetation
– Inverts
– Fish
• Cost to client: ± US$ 110 000.00 inclusive of disbursements.
 Proposed design for
Bute Inlet array (individual)
 Summary
Guide to promote a standard approach to
EFlows Assessments in WBG-funded HPPs:
• based on the context in which EFlow to be
assessed and applied;
• allows for selection of project-appropriate
EFlows Assessment methods, and;

Stronger links with ESIAs, CIAs and SEAs

Thank you