Analysis of National Strategies For Preservation of River Ecosystems in Line With The Water Framework Directive

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT FOR PRESERVING
RIVER ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

WFD
WORK PACKAGE 4 Preserving Water Bodies
Ecosystems
Final Version
Date 22.05.2012
C. Mielach, R. Schinegger, S. Schmutz, C. Trautwein, S. antl, A. Rechberger,

D. Gasparetto, M. Cesca, I. Saccardo, A. Moldoveanu, A.T. Lazarine, B. Popa;
Preface
The present work is an outcome of the project SEE HYDROPOWER, targeted to improve water
resource management for a growing renewable energy production, in the frame of the South-East-
Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme, co-funded by the European Regional Development
Fund (www.seehydropower.eu).
The project is based on the European Directive on the promotion of Electricity from Renewable
Energy Sources respect to the Kyoto protocol targets, that aims to establish an overall binding
target of 20% share of renewable energy sources in energy consumption to be achieved by each
Member State, as well as binding national targets by 2020 in line with the overall EU target of 20%.
Objectives of SEE HYDROPOWER deal with the promotion of hydro energy production in SEE
countries, by the optimization of water resource exploitation, in a compatible way with other water
users following environmental friendly approaches. Therefore, it gives a strong contribution to the
integration between the Water Frame and the RES-e Directives.
Main activities of the project concern the definition of policies, methodologies and tools for a better
water & hydropower planning and management; the establishment of common criteria for
preserving water bodies; to assess strategies to improve hydropower implementation, such as
small hydropower; testing studies in pilot catchments of partner countries; promotion and
dissemination of project outcomes among target groups all over the SEE Region countries.
In particular, the report D4.3 Strategy development for preserving river ecosystems in accordance
with the WFD, which is part of the Work Package 4 Preserving water bodies ecosystems - is
presented here.
2
INDEX
PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Fish migration.................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.1.1. Migration guilds ................................................................................................................................................. 5
1.1.2. Migration purposes ........................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1.3. Factors influencing fish migration ................................................................................................................... 7
1.1.4. Migration seasons ............................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.5. Important factors for fish migration aids ........................................................................................................ 7
2. ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL STRATEGIES TO PRESERVE RIVER ECOSYSTEMS

FOLLOWING THE WFD ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1. Austrian measures .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.1. Austrian priorisation strategy ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.2. Priorisation in Austria ...................................................................................................................................... 10
2.1.3. Barriers and their passability in Austria........................................................................................................ 11
2.2. Slovenian measures ..................................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1. Priorisation in Slovenia ................................................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2. Barriers and their passability in Slovenia .................................................................................................... 20
2.3. Romanian measures ..................................................................................................................................... 22

2.3.1. Priorisation in Romania .................................................................................................................................. 22
2.3.2. Barriers and their passsability in Romania .................................................................................................. 22
2.4. Italian measures ............................................................................................................................................ 28

2.4.1. Priorisation in Italy........................................................................................................................................... 28
2.4.2. Barriers and their passability in Italy ............................................................................................................ 31
3. ANNEX 18 OF THE DRBMP: ECOLOGICAL PRIORITISATION OF MEASURES TO

RESTORE RIVER AND HABITAT CONTINUITY IN THE DRBD.............................................. 39
3.1. Objectives....................................................................................................................................................... 39
3.2. Distribution of long and medium-distant migrants (LDM) in the DRB ................................................ 40
3.2.1. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 40
3.2.2. Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 41
3.3. Development of a prioritisation index for restoring continuity ............................................................ 43

3.3.1. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 43
3.3.2. Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 44
3.4. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 46
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 47
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 49
3
ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................................. 53
4
1. Introduction
This chapter was written by the Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management of
the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU, project partner 11). The
authors are Carina Mielach, Rafaela Schinegger and Stefan Schmutz.
With regard to the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EG, WFD) all surface water bodies
have to achieve at least a good status by 2015. To accomplish this condition, both a good
ecological status and a good chemical status have to be obtained (EC, 2000).
The following chapters will give a short overview of strategy development for preserving river
ecosystems in accordance to the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
The deliverable starts with the discussion of selected national methods and strategies to preserve
river ecosystems with regard to river continuity and barriers in the SEE region. Furthermore, an
excerpt from the Danube River Basin Management (DRBM) Plan (Annex 18) is discussed, as it
can be an important tool for the priorisation of river habitat and connectivity restoration for a whole
river basin.
1.1. Fish migration

Fish are evolutionary adapted to the four-dimensionality of river ecosystems (longitudinal, lateral,
vertical connectivity and its variation in time) (Ward, 1989; Jungwirth et al. 2000). Since fish
migrate in most life stages to optimize resource use (e.g. for feeding, growth, reproduction or
cover) migration can be seen as an adaptive phenomenon to optimize productivity (i.e. growth,
survival) (Northcote, 1978). Therefore, barriers interrupting the continuity for migration threaten fish
populations (Zitek et al., 2007).
Fish, as vagile organisms, perform changes of their position depending on their species and age
class. Therefore, they can be used as indicators for both, the local habitat and the entire,
migratabel habitat. As a consequence, fish are good indicators for continuity- and connectivity
conditions in riverine ecosystems (Jungwirth et al., 2004; AG-FAH, 2011).
1.1.1. Migration guilds

While some species migrate only within a river network others switch between fresh- and sea
water. This characteristic can be used to categorize fish species according to their migratorial
behaviour. In general, species are divided into the ones switching between sea- and freshwater
(diadromous), species migrating only within freshwater (potamodromous) and species migrating
only within the seas (oceanodromous). Diadromous species can be further classified into
anadromous species (live in the sea but reproduce in freshwater), catadromous species (live in
freshwater systems but reproduce in the sea) and amphidromous species (switch frequently
between sea- and freshwater without the purpose of reproduction). Potamodromous species are
divided into long-, medium- and short-distance migratory species (Jungwirth et al., 2004; AG-FAH,
2011). The different guilds are summarised in Errore. L'origine riferimento non stata trovata..
Table 1: Migratory guilds (AG-FAH, 2011)

sea freshwat Description
er
Diadromous x x switch between sea- and freshwater
anadromous X X live in the sea but reproduce in freshwater
catadromous X X live in freshwater but reproduce in the sea
amphidromous X X switch frequently between sea- and freshwater without the
purpose of reproduction
Oceanodromous x migrate only within the seas
Potamodromous x migrate only within river systems
5
long-distance x >300km in one direction per year
medium-distance x 30-300km in one direction per year
short-distance x < 30km in one direction per year
All species perform targeted habitat shifts at least in certain age classes (e.g. larvae or juveniles)
for the purpose of a significant change in habitat conditions (Schmutz et al., 1997; Jungwirth, 1998;
Northcote, 1998; Mader et al., 1998).
According to Waidbacher and Haidvogl (1998) and Schmutz et al. (2000) all endemic species in
Austria including long-distance migrators can be categorized as potamodromous species.
As a result of anthropogenic pressures and particulary continuity interruptions, the four endemic
long distance migratory species in Austria, Beluga sturgeon (Huso huso), Stellate sturgeaon
(Acipenser stellatus), Russian sturgeon (Acipenser gueldenstaedtti) and European eel (Anguilla
anguilla, in a very small part of lower Austria) are already extinct. Furthermore 2 of 14 medium
distance migratory species and 50% of short distance migratory species (i.e. 23 of 45) are
negatively impacted by human influences and considered as endangered (AG-FAH, 2011).
1.1.2. Migration purposes

As already mentioned before, migrations can have different purposes. However, the best
investigated movements are seasonal. Migration phenomenons differ with regard to the fish region,
age class, the given environmental parameters or the season. In general, the following migration
types are present (AG-FAH, 2011):
- Reproduction migrations to certain reproduction habitats (mosty upstream and lateral)
- Post-reproduction migrations (from reproduction habitats back the their usual habitat or
nutrition habitats)
- Feeding migrations (up-, downstream and lateral)
- Drift (downstream)
- Compensatory migrations (mostly upstream e.g. after floods)
- Overwintering migration (mostly downstream, sometimes lateral)
- Migrations for density compensation (up- and downstream)
- Settlement and resettlement migrations (up- and downstream)
- Escape-migrations in case of deteriourating environmental parameters (e.g. to deeper

areas during droughts, spring-fed areas during increased temperatures in summer, mostly
downstream or lateral, sometimes upstream)
- Migration for unknown reasons.
Migrations are spacious and can therefore be distinguished from shorter movements. A migration
occurs only if a return to the previous location occurs (Northcote, 1978; Dingle, 1996). Mass-
migrations of barbel (Barbus barbus), nase (Chondrostoma nasus) and Danube salmon (Hucho
hucho) are historically well known, especially for the Danube (Danner, 1884; Scheuring, 1949;
Reinartz, 1997), Inn and Drau (Margreiter, 1935) but for barbel and nase also for other European
rivers as e.g. Mosel (Rosengarten, 1954) or Rhine (Hofer, 1906; Lelek and Buhse, 1992).
6
1.1.3. Factors influencing fish migration
Fish migrations are usually induced by several, complex interacting parameters, which can be
grouped in internal and external factors (Pavlov, 1989; Colgan, 1993; Lucas and baras, 2001).
External factors are general conditions (as e.g. light, discharge, water temperature, water quality,
oxygen saturation, habitat availability or anthropogenic impacts as e.g. shipping), drift, predation
pressure or nutrition availability. Important internal factors are hormonal readiness for reproduction,
nutrition requirements, stress or other endogenic (genetic or ontogenetic) determinants as e.g.
imprinting and homing to a birth place (i.e. homing effect) (Lucas and Baras, 2001). In general,
internal factors are highly influenced by external factors as e.g. seasonal temperature regime,
discharge conditions, habitat availability or human impacts (Pavlov, 1989; Albanese et al., 2004).
Migrations occur in seasonal, monthly or daily intervals (Northcote, 1984; Jonsson, 1991; Hvidsten
et al., 1995; Lucas and Baras, 2001) and therefore overlap each other.
1.1.4. Migration seasons

Upstream migrations occur in specific seasonal intensity over the entire year, depending on the fish
region (Zitek et al., 2007). Most endemic species migrate from March to November. From
December to January/February the number of migrating fish is highly reduced due to low water
temperatures. Brown trout (Salmo trutto f. fario) migrates aready during summer to its reproduction
habitats although the reproduction period is from October to December (Kottelat und Freyhof,
2007). In areas with higher altitude, reproduction occurs ealier. Due to regional differences, each
Austrian federal state has its own close seasons for fishing (AG-FAH, 2011).
Downstream migrations include the spreading of fish larvae, the drift of fish in all age classes at
flooding events, post-reproduction migrations and downstream migration of adults and juveniles in
autmn/winter to occupy their winter habitats (AG-FAH, 2011).
1.1.5. Important factors for fish migration aids

An important factor for the planning of fish migration aids is the specific swimming capability of
certain fish species, which mainly depends on the body shape, size, muscular system and the
water temperature (Jens et al., 1997). The swimming speed can be expressed in body length per
second (BL/s) (DVWK, 1996; Jens et al., 1997; ATV-DVWK, 2004) and can be categorised in four
categories depending on its duration (according to Jens et al., 1997; complemented by Clugh and
Turnpenny, 2001):
The sustained swimming speed is used for normal locomotion and can be sustained for a
long time (>200 min) without fatigue of the muscles. This speed is usually used for
migration.
The prolonged swimming speed can only be sustained for shorter periods (20 sec to 200
min) and leads to fatigue of the muscles.
The burst swimming speed can be sustained by the use of anaerob metabolism of the
musculature for very short periods (<20 sec) and has to be followed by a relaxation phase.
The critical burst swimming speed is, according to Clugh and Turnpenny (2001), the
speed at which a drift occurs after 20 seconds. According to new approaches, this
speed is used for the ecohydraulic planning (Clough et al., 2001; Clough and
Turnpenny, 2001; Turnpenny et al., 2001; Clough et al., 2004; Watkins, 2007). A
special software allows the calculation of this swimming capability with regard to fish
species, fish size and water temperature (Jacobsaquatic, 2006). An approximation
for Salmonids are 10 BL/s and for Cyprinids (e.g. roach with 15-30 cm or bream with
20-50 cm) 4 to 5 BL/s.
The maximal burst swimming speed is the theoretically maximal achievable speed of a
7
certain fish.
Figure 1: Swimming capabilites and their duration of sustainment (AG-FAH, 2011)

For the planning of fish migration aids the maximal and mean flow veocity have to be adapted to
these swimming capabilites.
Fish use different factors for orientation. Besides optical criteria and the familiarity of the habitat
water quality differences, position of the sun, electric or magnetic fields, odors in the water (river
e.g. pheromones of conspecifics), noises and the discharge conditions play a major role (Jens et
al., 1997; Lucas and Baras, 2001). Besides these factors, a positive reaction to flow is known for
many species (Lucas and Baras, 2001). Therefore, this criterion should receive particular attention
for the construction of fish migration aids.
Furhtermore, fish rely on sufficient water dephs (water cushion) at overfalls, slots or speeds. Also
deteched water jets can hinder the passability of a structure. In Austria, only adult brown trout is
known to jump over barriers with a maximum height of 1.1m (Ovidio and Philippart, 2002).
Therefore, transition between pools has to be constructed with these factors in mind (AG-FAH,
2011).
Besides the swimming capabilities and the behaviour of certain species, also the size of certain
fish species has to be considered to guarantee the passability. The local key species with the
highest demands should be used for dimensioning (AG-FAH, 2011).
8
2. Analysis of national strategies to preserve river
ecosystems following the WFD
2.1. Austrian measures
The following chapters deal with continuity restoration in Austria.
2.1.1. Austrian priorisation strategy

the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU, project partner 11). Authors
are Carina Mielach, Rafaela Schinegger and Stefan Schmutz.
According to the National River Basin Management Plan (2009) there are approximately 28,000
non-passable barriers of which more than 5,000 are in rivers with a catchment larger than 100 km2.
Most of them are flood control facilities or hydropower plants but also too little depths (e.g. due to
insufficient environmental flow) affect the passability. Continuity interruptions counteract the
achievement of the quality targets by disturbing the passability for fish, fragmenting habitats and as
a consequence weakening fish populations (Jungwirth et al., 2003). As a result long-distance
migratory species are extinct and 12 out of 14 medium-distance migratory species are classified as
endangered. The impacts concern the entire habitat of fish populations, although a higher impact is
assumed upstream of a barrier (Austrian RBMP, 2009).
The modifications of existing permits with regard to passability restoration are complicated and
time-consuming. Therefore, the restoration of passability with regard to state of the art ( 21a of
the national Water Rights Act 1959) is demanded only for few existing permits by now.
Until now, obligations for restoration/preservation of passability were decided on a case-by-case

basis. However, for new concessions fish passability must be ensured.
The following map shows sections with a high priority for continuity restoration.
Figure 2: Prioritised sections (in yellow) for continuity restoration
9
Besides the sections shown in Figure 2, the passability of larger rivers (> 100 km2 catchment) shall
be restored until 2021 and of small rivers (< 100 km2 catchment) until 2027.
2.1.2. Priorisation in Austria

The following chapters (2.1.2 and 2.1.3) were written by the Government of Styria (STYRIA,
partner 4). Author is Albert Rechberger.
In Austria about 67% of rivers are at risk because of significant hydro morphological pressures.
Main reasons are deficits in longitudinal continuity combined with deficits of habitat.
After the national implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in the National Water
Act 1959 (as amended BGBl. I Nr. 14/2011), the National River Basin Management Plan (RBMP)
2009 (enforced 30.03.2010) was implemented. As a part of the RBMP there is also to mention the
Austrian Regulation for Ecological Quality Objectives of surface waters (BGBI.II Nr. 99/2010).
With account for national river data collected up to this, as well as actual studies taken into account
(e.g. MIRR project - Model-based Instrument for River Restoration), a priorisation of river continuity
was integrated in the RBMP. Therefore, in Austria a standardised priorisation approach for the
restoration of river continuity is present.
The final decission for the RBMP was a stepwise achievement of objectives (beginning with long
and medium distance migratory species (continuity warranted until 2015) and ending with short
distance migrators (continuity warranted until 2021/2027).
The following parameters are included in the priorisation/decision process:
Fish is important for all fish bioregions but a stepwise achievement of the objectives is
defined beginning with long and medium distance migratory species and ending with short
distance migrators.
River size is considered in most cases because there is a correlation between fish
bioregion (river size) and long/medium and short distance migratory species.
The proximity to a main river or the Danube is taken into account for long and medium
distance migrators (until 2015) and short distance migrators until 2021/2027.
Transit areas are taken into account for long and medium distance migrators (until 2015)
and short distance migrators until 2021/2027.
Key migration routes for fish are included from big to small. Beginning with the Danube
(long distance migrators) and its tributaries (middle distance migrators) until 2015 and
followed by a stepwise achievement of objectives for short distance migrators until
2021/2027.
Although the following points are not defined by law they are recommended (based on the MIRR-
study http://mirr.boku.ac.at/dl/MIRR_Kontinuumsleitfaden.pdf, in German).
Number of migratory species
Location of barrier (e.g. mouth, middle reach or headwater)
Distance from mouth/confluence
Number of barriers counted from mouth/confluence (e.g. first, second, third or higher)
10
Length of reconnected habitat
For the actual ecological status there is no difference made as far as migration is concerned.
2.1.3. Barriers and their passability in Austria

In Austria, a total number of 56,022 barriers is present, which means that there is a barrier
approximately every 0.5 km.
Legal requirements for facilities to ensure upstream continuity (via fish pass) are defined in the
National River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) 2009 (enforced 30.03.2010) as an implementation
of the National Water Act 1959 (as amended BGBl. I Nr. 14/2011). It states that each hydropower
plant (HPP) in Austria is required to have a fish pass. For existing HPPs the stepwise
achievements of objectives are taken into account, which means to ensure continuity for long and
medium distance migrators (until 2015) and short distance migrators until 2021/2027.
Methods developed - in and for Austria - show good results so far. Medium-and long-term results
are yet not available but evaluations are planned. So far in terms of the present data the evaluation
system is proved.
Concerning the method on how to ensure upstream continuity a technical standard set by law is
under development and it is planned to be published about end of 2012 at the latest. Meanwhile
the draft version of this is used as a recommendation, in original: Grundlagen fr einen
sterreichischen Leitfaden zum Bau von Fischaufstiegshilfen in translation,Basics for an Austrian
guide for the construction of fish ladders, version March 2011 (AG-FAH; 2011).
Actually, the following fish pass types are recommended:
Resolved rock ramp or partial rock ramp

Nature orientaded bypass
Nature orientaded pass ponds
Vertical slots
Wich of these types to prefer depends on the specific given problem/situation at the barrier (fish
bioregion, surrounding area etc.). Additional expert knowledge in every case is needed.
The assessment of the minimum size of fishpass is based on the physical dimensions of the
determining fish size and hydraulic design limits (the maximum and minimum).
Assessment of the minimum amount of flow and discharge is based on the type of fish pass and
size of river as well as which fish bioregion is concerned.
The fundamental objective is to ensure the upstream migration year-round. Nevertheless extreme
events (e.g. yearly floods or winter freezing) may cause limited functioning. These facts have to be
taken into account for planning. Times of reduced/enabled migration should be kept to the
minimum.
Concerning the requirements that fish can locate a fish pass, a detailed description is to find in the
recommendation mentioned above ((AG-FAH, 2011; actually just in available in German). The
main basics focused are:
Correct positioning of entrance and exit of fishpass (in relation to weir etc.).
Correct positioning of the fish pass in relation to large-scale and small-scale discharge and
11
morphologic changes of the river down stream of the weir.
Adeqate water depths and flow velocitys which allow to find, to pass and to leave the
fishpass independent to the actual flow of the river.
Additional basics may occur depending on each single situation. This means that additional
expert knowledge is needed.
Furthermore, a technical check whether the construction requirements are met is required and for
larger facilities normally also biological monitoring is carried out. Legal provisions also include
requirements to apply the best available technique (BAT).
Recommendation concentrates primarly on upstream migration although in some cases

downstream migration might be possible but this was not the main focus on the creation of draft
(although shortly discussed). Legal requirements or recommendations about downstream
migration are under discussion but there are no defined results yet.
At the moment, not every hydropower plant is required to ensure downstream continuity. National
law (referring also the National River Basin Management Plan - RBMP 2009, enforced 30.03.2010
as an implementation in the National Water Act 1959 (as amended BGBl. I Nr. 14/2011) is stating
for all water users to respect the state of Art & Technology.
Although there is in Austrian rivers a lack of long distance migrators like salmon or eel (theyre not
autochtonous with just one exception of a very small river system) downstream migration is seen
as important for longitudinal continuity for fish species in general. At the moment there is
discussion about a proven state of technology to ensure downstream migration but without defined
results at this time.
At the moment, the following tools are used in Austria in combination with fish migration aids:
Physical barriers to protect fish from turbine intake channels (screens) can be a
recommendation in single cases but actually there is no technical standared set by law.
Bypasses and sluiceways are applied in a few pilot cases.
Fish-friendly turbines are a technical standard not set by law but can be recommended in
single cases.
In some cases monetary compensation for general negative effects on fish in case of a
hydropower plant for the owner of the fisheries licenses is performed. In a few pilot cases
instead and/or additional to the monetary compensation, fish are stocked.
Furthermore, there is a general requirement to mitigate negative effects of hydropower
plants.
An obligation to monitor the effectiveness of measures is under discussion but not
obligatory yet.
Monitoring takes place in two steps:
1. Primarly there is a technical review of the contemporary functionality of the fish pass (a
consensus of modern allocation and proper use):
Review of the operating conditions

Review of findability
Review of traversability
Review of operational safety, accident prevention and the maintenance of
12
functionality
2. Review of the fishpass via fish-ecological parameters (ecological basic program):
Checked are the number of upstream and downsream migrating individuals with
size and spezies composition and so the species/size selectivity of the fishpass as
well as the same parameteres upstream and downstream the fish pass.
These investigations and reports are to be done according to the state of knowledge and
technology and have to be performed by a designated expert. All conditions have additionally to be
checked via ecohydraulic measurements. Result of a fish pass monitoring is an evaluation of the
functioning of upstream and downstream migration to the level of assessment.
The main used recommendation in Austria to the topic review of the fishpass via fish-ecological
parameters - ecological basic program is a guidance paper created by the Fisheries Association of
Austria in 2003 with the title "Minimum Requirements for the review of fish migration aids and the
evaluation of functioning" in original: "Mindestanforderungen bei der berprfung von
Fischmigrationshilfen und Bewertung der Funktionsfhigkeit" (WOSCHITZ et al.2003). Actually this
guidance paper is just available in German.
Table 2 shows the efficiency of fish facilities regarding ecological basic program with evaluation
scheme after Woschitz et. al (2003). The table was translated and compiled by the author.
13
Table 2: Efficiency of fish facilities regarding ecological basic program (after Woschitz et al., 2003)
steps of upstream migration upstream migration downstream migration habitat suitability in the fish facility
functionality (qualitatively) (quantitatively) (for the entire cross section )
middle distance migr. short distance migr.
I upstream migration is for all/almost all for all/almost all active downstream migration is possible environmental colonization of the fish
total possible for all different individuals of common individuals of anytime of the year for all different facility is (almost) an equivalent to natural
functioning species and their species upstream common species species and their different stages river sections of the main river. For most
different stages migration is possible upstream migration (qualitative as well as quantitative species reproduction in the fish facility is
(juvenile/adult) is possible respects are concerned) also possible
II upstream migration is for most individuals of for most individuals active downstream migration is possible environmental colonization of the fish
almost total possible for all different common species of common species most time of the year for almost all facility is an equivalent to natural river
functioning species (except just a upstream migration is upstream migration different species and their different stages sections (to a large extend). The biocenosis
view rare ones)and for possible is possible (qualitative as well as quantitative is more or less an equivalent to tributaries
almost all different respects are concerned) of the main river. For many species
stages (juvenile/adult) reproduction in the fish facility is also
possible
III upstream migration is for individuals of for many individuals active downstream migration is possible environmental colonization of the fish
limited possible for most common species of common species for many different species and their facility shows a deviation to natural or
functioning common species and upstream migration is upstream migration different stages but just for part times of nature near tributaries. For some species
most common stages of fractional possible is possible the year (qualitative as well as reproduction in the fish facility is possible.
species quantitative respects are concerned)
IV upstream migration is for just few individuals for just several active downstream migration is fractional environmental colonization of the fish
poor possible for just a view of common species individuals of possible for common species and /or facility shows a significant deviation to
functioning spezies and/or stages upstream migration is common species stages. More or less passive downstream natural or nature near tributaries. For just a
possible upstream migration migration dominates. few species reproduction in the fish facility
is possible is possible
V upstreanm migration is for just several Upstream migration more or less passive downstream environmental colonization of the fish
no functioning impossible or just individuals of common is impossible or just migration with just very few exceptions facility shows a very significant deviation to
possible for single species upstream possible for several natural or nature near tributaries. For
species and/or single migration is possible individuals of no/just very few species reproduction in the
stages common species fish facility is possible
From the individual ratings of upstream migration qualitatively, upstream migration quantitatively
- medium distance migrators and upstream migration quantitatively - short distance migrators an
integrative overall assessment is performed by an arithmetic mean value.
The determined value is a decimal number (1.0 - 5.0). The functionality ranges between I - V.
I total functioning 1.50

II almost total functioning 1.51 2.50
III limited functioning 2.51 3.50
IV poor functioning 3.51 4.50
V no functioning > 4.50
As an example a fish ecological investigation of a fish facility showed following results:
Criterion upstream migration (qualitatively) shows:

o upstream migration is possible for all different species (except just a view rare
ones) and for almost all different stages (juvenile/adult) (allocate to class II)
Criterion upstream migration(quantitatively) - middle distance migrators shows:

o for most individuals of common species upstream migration is possible (allocate to
class II)
Criterion upstream migration(quantitatively) - short distance migrators shows:

o for all/almost all individuals of common species upstream migration is possible
(allocate to class I)
The arithmetic mean value to this example is 1.67. The fish facility is to allocate to class II (1.51
2.50) almost total functioning.
In addition, there has to be considered the following k.o. criterion:
The overall assessment may only be one step better than the worst individual criterion
(k.o.-criterion). If for example - the overall value is between 1.51 and 2.50 (which means
to be in class II) but for the criterion upstream migration quantitatively - short distance
migrators because of the result for just several individuals of common species upstream
migration is possible, this single criterion is in class is IV the fish facility has to be allocated
to class III.
For the criterions downstream migration (for the entire cross section) and habitat suitability in the
fish facility the overall assessment is not done by arithmetic mean value but evaluated by expert
judgment.
The ideal fish-migration facility has to be passable the whole year. Furhtermore, spawning seasons
of certain fish species, the location of the guiding current, different swimming capabilites of
referece species and the presence of migratory fish species are taken into account.
Focussed to reach the technical objectives concerning discharge, flow velocity, energy dissipation
and attraction flow of the fishpass there is no preference for a technical or nature near sulution.
The decision depends on what is the best ecological and technical feasible solution at the specific
location. So which type to prefer depends on the specific given problem/situation at the barrier (fish
bioregion, surrounding area, etc.) In regular, additional expert knowledge is needed.
As mentioned before, there is to reach the technical objectives concerning discharge, flow velocity,
energy dissipation and attraction flow in every single case. These objectives vary with the different
fish bioregions (and the different species composition with different swimming capacities etc.)
Furthermore water depth, length and width of basins and the width of slots have to be considered.
As a basic principle, a fish-migration facility has to be passable the whole year. Furhtermore,
spawning seasons of certain fish species, the location of the guiding current, different swimming
capabilites of referece species and the presence of migratory fish species are taken into account.
For each river stretch (river type), relevant fish species are defined which have to pass the fish
pass including the length of the largest one which forms the basic element for designing a fish pass
as well as the swimming capacity (in respect to the flow velocity) of the weakest species.
Therefore, dimensioning of the fish migration aid takes place according to the swimming
capabilities of reference species, the river size and type and technical objectives (as e.g.
discharge, flow velocity).
Table 3 shows the fish-body sizes of predominant species (considering the different fish bioregions
and their individual Leitbild) corresponding to the "Guide for the collection of biological quality
elements, Part A1 - Fish" according to Guidelines for investigation of biological quality elements,
Part A1 Fish in original: Leitfaden fr die Erhebung der biologischen Qualittselemente, Teil A1
Fische
Table 3: Fish-body sizes of predominant species

Determining fish size Lengh (cm) Hight (cm) Width* (cm)
Brown trout - Salmo trutta f. fario
30 6 3
(Linnaeus, 1758)
40 8 4
(Linnaeus, 1758)
50 10 5
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Grayling - Thymallus thymallus
40 9 5
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Grayling - Thymallus thymallus
50 11 6
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Chub Leuciscus cephalus
40 8 5
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Chub Leuciscus cephalus
50 11 6
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Burbot - Lota lota (Linnaeus, 1758) 50 7 7
Burbot - Lota lota (Linnaeus, 1758) 60 8 8
Barbel - Barbus barbus (Linnaeus,
60 11 7
1758)
Bream - Abramis brama (Linnaeus,
50 15 5
1758)
Pike Esox lucius (Linnaeus, 1758) 60 8 6
Pike Esox lucius (Linnaeus, 1758) 90 12 8
Huchen - Hucho hucho (Linnaeus,
80 13 10
1758)
90 14 12
1758)
100 16 12
1758)
120 19 14
1758)
Brown trout - Salmo trutta
90 20 11
(Linnaeus, 1758) lacustrine form
European catfish - Silurus glanis
90 14 13
(Linnaeus, 1758)
16
120 23 22
(Linnaeus, 1758)
150 31 30
(Linnaeus, 1758)
Perlfisch - Rutilus meidingeri
70 13 7
(Heckel, 1851)
*most fish data was sampled outside spawning season. Considering this the widths depending on the type of fish are at
least to take up to several cm larger.
Table 4: River types combined after Haunschmid et al. (2006) and corresponding size of determining
fish species (i.e. Leitfischarten) according to the Guidelines for investigation of biological quality
elements, Part A1 Fish, in original Leitfaden fr die Erhebung der biologischen
Qualittselemente, Teil A1 Fische - translated and compiled by the author.
FISH REGIONS & RIVER TYPES DECISIVE SPECIES AND SPECIES SIZE
Epirhithral
Epirhithral < 2 m/s MQ 30 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta f. fario
Epirhithral > 2 m/s MQ 40 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta f. fario
Metarhithral
Metarhithral, < 2 m/s MQ 40 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta f. fario
50 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta f. fario and Grayling -
Metarhithral, > 2 m/s MQ
Thymallus thymallus
Hyporhithral
50 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta f. fario, Chub Leuciscus
Hyporhithral, small (< 2 m/s MQ) cephalus and Grayling - Thymallus thymallus
60 cm Burbot - Lota lota
Hyporhithral, medium (> 2 m/s MQ) 60 cm Burbot - Lota lota and Barbel - Barbus barbus
Hyporhithral, medium (> 2 m/s und < 20
80 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho
m/s MQ) with Huchen
Hyporhithral, large (> 20 m/s MQ), with
100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho
Huchen
Epipotamal
60 cm Barbel - Barbus barbus, 50 cm Chub Leuciscus
Epipotamal, small (< 1 m/s MQ)
cephalus and Grayling - Thymallus thymallus
Epipotamal, medium without Pike and
60 cm Barbel - Barbus barbus
without Huchen
Epipotamal, medium with Pike but without
90 cm Pike Esox lucius and 50 cm Bream - Abramis brama
Huchen
Epipotamal, medium with Huchen 90 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho, 50 cm Bream - Abramis brama
Epipotamal,large with Huchen 100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho
Epipotamal, large without Huchen but with
120 cm European catfish - Silurus glanis
European Catfish
Epipotamal, large without Huchen and
90 cm Pike Esox lucius and 50 cm Bream - Abramis brama
without European Catfish
Special type of East-Austrian lowlands: Stone loach Gudgeon type (in origininal Schmerlen- und
Grndlingsbach)
Stone loach Gudgeon type 40 cm Chub Leuciscus cephalus
For main rivers in Austria
Donau 150 cm European catfish - Silurus glanis
17
90 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta lacustrine form and Pike
Alpenrhein
Esox lucius
100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho and, 120 cm European
Drau
catfish - Silurus glanis
100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho and, 120 cm European
Inn catfish - Silurus glanis (in the lower part of river Inn in Upper
Austria)
100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho (downstream Salzburg, Upper
Salzach Austria), 120 cm European catfish - Silurus glanis (Salzach in
Upper Austria))
Mur 100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho and, 120 cm European

catfish - Silurus glanis (in the lower part of river mur near the
Slovenian borderline)
Enns 100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho
Special type: Rivers/River sections as instream/outstream areas of lakes (in original: Seezubringer und
Seeausrinne
90 cm Brown trout - Salmo trutta lacustrine form, 90 cm
Rivers/River sections as instream/outstream
Pike Esox lucius, 70 cm Perlfisch - Rutilus meidingeri, 60 cm
areas of lakes
Barbel - Barbus barbus, 50 cm Bream - Abramis brama
The suitable technical parameters like discharge, flow velocity, energy dissipation and attraction
flow of the fishpass are the main factors to allow fish migration. For nature-near solutions there is
a need for detailled planning with experienced experts on an individual basis to keep all the
parameters mentioned above. Taking into consideration that well planned nature near solutions
additional advantages (e.g. useful habitats for a lot of aquatic/semiaquatic species) they should be
the first choice. Due to different uses of river sorrounding areas this is not always possible. In these
special cases technical fish passes should be used.
Some examples for technical parameters (e.g. velocity and energy dissipation) from AG-FAH,
(2011):
Velocity: (v-min) and (v-max) in the entrance area of the fish pass for following bioregion:
Upper trout region: v-min = 1 m/s v-max = 2.0m/s

Lower trout region: v-min = 1 m/s v-max = 1.9m/s
Greyling region: v-min = 1 m/s v-max = 1.7m/s
Barbel region: v-min = 1 m/s v-max = 1.5m/s
Bream region: v-min = 1 m/s v-max = 1.2m/s
Energy dissipation in the fish pass (e.g. from basin to basin in a vertical slot) in W/m:
Upper trout region: 140 W/m

Lower trout region: 120 W/m
Greyling region: 120 W/m
Barbel region: 100 W/m
Bream region: 80 W/m
18
Table 5 shows an example for calculations of fish facility dimensions depending on type (e.g.
nature oriented bypass, vertical slot, etc.) and fish region based on the size of fish (as mentioned
before) and determining the minimum and maximum hydraulic conditions (AG-FAH, 2011;
translated and compiled by the author):
This example can be seen as a suggestion how to pre-size a fish facility for a river section which
is in grayling region. The river size described via MQ (=mean flow) is 20 m/s. The decisive
species is Danube salmon (Hucho hucho) with a species size of 100 cm for this fish bioregion:
Table 5: Example for fish facility dimentions (Hucho hucho)

Hyporhithral, MQ
>20m3/s Huchen (Hucho hucho )
Energy dissipation
(W/m3): 120 body size fish hight (cm): 16
lenght (cm) 100
min. depth min. width
max. min. pond- min. pond- min. water in passage in passage min. min.
difference - lenght of the width of depth in min. min. e.g. section e.g. section width of depth of
surface to max. slope single ponds the single single ponds volume of discharge pond to pond to slots are slots are
Type of fishpass surface (cm) (%) (cm) ponds (cm) (cm) pond (m3) (l/s) pond (cm) pond (cm) used (cm) used (cm)
pond-pass 15 3,1 480 290 110 7,5 500 53 73
Nature orientaded
bypass xx 0,7 300 110 550 40 80 xx
vertical slot 15 4,8 310 210 100 6,7 550 107,5 35
resolved rock
ramp or partial
rock ramp 15 *) *) *) 100 *) *) 40 *) xx
For the nature near pond pass the simplified allocation is calculated as a rectangular slot with
slot width of 1.5 times of the vertical slot and 2/3 of the maximum pool depth. To calculate the
ponds volume it is 0.5 times of the maximum depth. The required length of the single pond is
calculated by the ponds volume, the width is 3/5 of the length.
For the nature near bypass hydraulic calculation is done by using the formula according to
Strickler (i.e. Stricklerformel1). The bypass channel is calculated as an asymmetric trapezoidal
profile. The width of the subsurface low trough is equal to the slot width of the slot pass. The slope
in ford is assumed with about at 1.5 times of the average slope.
The slope ratio of the banks is similar to natural slopes between 1:1 for erosion banks and 1:5
to 1:6 for deposition banks with a k-value (according to the Strickler-formula) of 25.
For the vertical slot the minimum depth is calculated by the average value of the depth above the
slot and the depth below the slot. The pool length is calculated from the required single pool
volume, the pool width is 2/3rd of the length.
For the resolved rock ramp/partial rock ramp individual assessments are needed. These values
are obtained depending on the MALQd (=natural mean annual low flow).
1
The GaucklerManningStrickler formula is an empirical formula for open channel flow, or free-surface flow
driven by gravity. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manning_formula for details.
19
2.2. Slovenian measures
The following chapter deals with continuity restoration in Slovenia and was written by the University
of Ljubiljana (UL, project partner 5). Authos is Sao antl.
2.2.1. Priorisation in Slovenia

In Slovenia, ther is no standardised priorisation approach for the restoration of river continuity. At
the moment it is decided on the basis of expert knowledge. For example for rivers where trout is
representative or dominant fish species, barriers higher than one meter must be equipped with a
fish pass.
The following parameters are included in the priorisation/decision process:
importance for fish

protected areas (e.g. FFH relevance)
density of barriers/ degree of fragmentation
presence of importatn spawning grounds
transit areas
key migration routes for long distance migratory fish
number of migratory species
The decision process conciders also the height of a barrier and what kind of fish species are
present (cyprinid or salmon).
The determination and evaluation of the selected parameters is decided in a case-by-case decision
process which is managed by fish experts. In Slovenia there is no standardisation prioritisation
methodology developed yet.
2.2.2. Barriers and their passability in Slovenia

If all barriers (weirs, dams etc.) built for different purposes (irrigation, HP, erosion prevention, river
bed stabilization, flood mitigation etc.) are taken into consideration, a total number is not prepared
or aggregated for all Sloveninan territory yet. For certain rivers this data can be very detailed on
one side and for some stretches this data is not collected. Also data can be dispersed among
different national authorities and their local services or offices.
The following table provides an overview of sub-basins and their continuity.
Table 6: Slovenia sub-basins and their continuity
Sub-basin Name of HP dam Continuity Comment
HE Dravograd -
HE Vuzenica -
HE Vuhred -
HE Obalt -
Drava
HE Fala -
HE Mariborski otok + Reconstruction of existing fish pass phase
Jez Melje -
Jez Markovci -
HE Moste -
Sava
HE Mavie -
20
HE Medvode -
HE Botanj -
HE Vrhovo - Planning phase
HE Blanca +
HE Krko + Construction phase
HE Doblar -
Soa Jez Ajba -
HE Solkan -
National legal requirements for facilities to ensure upstream continuity (via fish pass) are defined in
the Freshwater Fishery Act of Slovenia. It defined that all new hydropower plants in Slovenia are
required to have a fish pass.
To improve implementation of construction of fish passes for existing SHPP and HPP additional
measures or impulses should be considered:
subsidies for the construction of fish passes

reduction of support for electricitiy generated from SHPP without fish pass should be
considered etc.
Since there is no agreed method/approach in Slovenia on how to ensure upstream continuity it is
defined on a case-by-case basis. However, a national recommendation is under development.
At the moment the type of fish pass (technical or bypass channel), its hydraulic design,
requirements on the duration of time for passabilty or requirements that fishes can locate the fish
pass in the river, as well as its effectiveness and the best available technique (BAT) are considered
on a case-by-case basis.
Also legal requirements for facilities to ensure downstream continuity are defined on a national
basis. Again, only new hydropower plants are required to ensure downstream continuity and the
approach is set on a case-by-case basis.
Furthermore, tools to protect fish as e.g. physical barriers to keep fish away from the turbines, plant
operation management, fish-friendly turbines or compensation measures are also only considered
in case-by-acse decisions.
Monitoring actions are not defined. The Freshwater Fishery Act only states, that a water user must
ensure the effectivity of migration.
The process of fish pass design also includes the following requirements:
Functional duration of the fish migration aid

Migration periods of certain fish species
Guiding current (for fish to find the entry of the structure)
Different swimming capabilities of reference species
Presence of migratory fish species (medium to long distance)
In Slovenia, bypass channels or fish ramps (close-to-nature construction) and technical fish passes
(pool fish passes and fish ramps) are widely used. The different types are selected with regard to
the present fish region. The dimensioning of the fish migration aids (e.g. length, depth, width and
flow velocity) is adapted according to the swimming capabilities of reference species.
21
2.3. Romanian measures
The following chapters deal with continuity restoration in Romania and were written by the National
Administration Apele Romane (APELE, project partner 8) and the University Politehnica of
Bucharest (POLI-B, proejct partner 7). Authors are Alexandru Moldoveanu, Alina-Tereza Lazarine
(from APELE) and Bogdan Popa (from POLI-B).
2.3.1. Priorisation in Romania

In Romania, there is a standardized priorisation approach for the restoration of river continuity. The
approach is presented in the River Basin Management Plans approved by GD 80/2011 for the
approval of the National Management Plan for the Romanian side of the international Danube
River Basin.
For the first planning cycle (the first river basin management plan), Romanian experts considered
as criterion for prioritization the height of the hydraulic structure and the existence of medium and
long distance migratory fish species. In general, at the European level, the fish passes were built
for dams with the height up to 15 m. Therefore, for this stage, the experts considered that there is
no technical feasible solution to assure fish migration for dams, with the height greater than 15 m,
located on all Romanian rivers (exception the Danube River for which the approach is done under
the ICPDR umbrella). In the second planning cycle, it is possible that this criterion will be revised
based on the results of research studies, feasibility studies and pilot projects.
In this stage of the Management Plan development the prioritization approach for restoration of
river continuity has been considered the height of the barriers to be below 15 m (considered as
technical feasible solutions) and located on the watercourses with migratory fish species.
In addition, if the results of the monitoring revealed the presence of migratory fish species, both
upstream and downstream of the barriers (due to the existence of the migratory fish species on the
tributaries too), it was considered that it is no longer necessary to restore longitudinal connectivity.
In the second planning cycle, once the confidence in assessing the ecological status/potential will
increase and the research, feasibility and pilot studies will come to some conclusions with regard to
the effectiveness of implemented measures most probably other measures (other criteria, other
approach) to achieve the environmental objectives for water bodies affected by the
hydromorphological pressures will be proposed.
For the prioritization process it can be said, that if there is already good ecological status/potential
(the migratory fish are recorded upstream and downstream of the barrier) the fish pass is not
needed. However long and medium distance migratory fish which are on the list have to be
recorded at monitoring stations. Furthermore the height of the barrier has to be less than 15 m and
migratory fish species (medium and long distance) have to be currenty recorded.
2.3.2. Barriers and their passsability in Romania

According to the Danube River Basin Management Plan (2009) there are in total 1452 barriers in
Romanian basins with a catchment area larger than 4000 km2. One out of these 145 river
interruptions will be reconnected until 2015. The remaining 144 will be impassable until 2015, from
which 48 are exemptions according to WFD Art. 4(4), 27 are exemptions according to WFD Art.
4(5) and for 69 no measures were indicated yet. (Source: www.icpdr.org)
For the 48 exemptions according to WFD Art. 4(4) the measures for the river reconnection will be
taken in the second and third WFD cycle and for the 27 exemptions according to WFD Art. 4(5) the
measures for the river reconnection will not be taken at all due to technical infeasibility and
2
2 The Danube River Basin Management Plan covers the river basins with surface greater than 4000 km
22
disproportionate costs.
Figure 3 clearly illustrates which specific measures will be undertaken by 2015, which after 2015,
or not at all due to exemptions according to Articles 4(4) and 4(5) (www.icpdr.org).
Figure 3: Exemptions according to WFD Article 4(4), 4(5) in Romania

The requirement for facilities to ensure an upstream continuity (via fish pass) is defined on a
national basis. It is included in MO 1163/2007 for the approval of measures to improve design
technical solutions and implementation of hydraulic works for the development and redevelopment
of the water courses, to achieve environmental objectives in the water field. The legal requirements
are represented by the provisions of the Water Law 107/1996 with subsequent amendments and
Order 1.163/2007 of the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development for fish migration
without any distinction/specifications for upstream or downstream continuity.
According to the law, all new hydropower plants have to be facilitated with a fish migration aid in
order to ensure both the downstream and upstream continuity. For new HPPs the provisions of
Ministerial Order 1163/2006 are applicable for the damming works of water courses with a height
>40 cm which should be equipped with fish migration facilities for migratory fish, if the case be,
23
respectively where these are technically feasible and do not entail disproportionate costs. For
existing HPPs, the construction of fish passes is assessed case-by-case based on technical and
costs studies and analysis.
The possibilities for improvement of the regulations will be done through the implementation of the
RBM Plans (approved by Governmental Decision 80/2011).
There is no difference in the approach for downstream and upstream continuity in the Romanian
legislation. There are general provisions for both. For new HPPs, the technical provisions of the
Order 1163/2006 of Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development are applicable. For
existing HPPs, the methodology on the measures for the restoration of longitudinal connectivity of
the WBs, which fail to reach good ecological status due to hydro morphological alterations, has
been applied on case-by-case approach being based on technical and costs studies and analysis.
The methods mentioned above include requirements regarding:
Type of fish pass (technical or bypass channel)

Special type of fish pass (e.g. denil, vertical slot fish pass)
Hydraulic design (e.g. discharge, flow velocity)
In Romania, the case-by-case approach is used. Most of the fish aids already built are special type
of fish pass. The hydraulic design was also, taken into consideration.
At the moment there are no requirements to monitor the effectiveness, but if the water authority
has decided that it is necessary, this can be included in the water licenses as an obligation for the
hydropower owner. Furthermore, requirements regarding the best available technique (BAT) are
included in the licenses. Furthermore, there are indications about the height of the damming
structures in relation to the measures for longitudinal connectivity restoration of the WBs, which fail
to reach good ecological status due to hydro morphological alterations.
Legal requirements for facilities to ensure downstream continuity are defined in the national
legislation. The provisions of the Water Law 107/1996 with subsequent amendments and Order
1.163/2007 of the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development for fish migration without
any distinction/specifications for upstream or downstream continuity represent the legal
requirements.
Water Law Art. 53 states
(4) Barriers on water courses should be provided with facilities to ensure the required flow
downstream, and, where appropriate, with construction for ichthyofauna migration in order
to achieve good water status.
(5) By the water management licence, the investor may be required to perform other
necessary works which were not included in the technical documentation, so that the
works, buildings or facilities proposed do not produce damages to the existing water users
and riverside residents both upstream and downstream of the barriers.
According to Art. 87 the following acts are considered contraventions in the water field, if they are
committed in such conditions that they are not considered infractions according to penal law:
1) developing or putting into operation of works built on the watercourses or water related
works, and their modification or extension without licence/authorization or without
complying with the licence or water management authorization.
24
39) absence of facilities to ensure the downstream sanitary and servitude flows and
ichthyofauna migration at the waterworks barriers.
In combination with the fish migration aids, the following tools are used in Romania.
Phydrical barriers to protect fish from turbine intake channels (screens)
Bypasses and sluiceways
However, there is no oblication to monitor the effectiveness of these measures.
At the national level, about 100 fish passes have been identified, but migratory fish were not
monitored passing through any of these fish passes in order to asses the effectiveness of these
constructions.
In the First River Basin Management Plan, one of the measures proposed is to perform an
investigation monitoring for the ecological status assessment of water body (in cases when there
are no information about that water body) followed by identifying and implementing the appropriate
measures.
In Romania, there are no requirements regarding the functional duration of the fish migration aid,
migration periods of certain fish species, guiding current or different swimming capabilities of
reference species. Only the presence of migratory fish species (long and medium distance) is
considered.
From the approximately 100 fish passes identified at the national level, most of them were built
before 1990. These fishways were built for heights of the barriers between 0.5 m and 2 m,
downstream of bottom sills and Tyrolean weirs, without taking into account the existence of the
migratory fish species in the downstream sectors.
The types of the fish passes most used in Romania are the following (Source: NIHWM Study,
2011):
fish passes with deflectors (baffle) or Denil fishways,
fish passes with pools (pool pass).
The different fish passes are selected after studying the area (if migratory fish species on medium
and long distances exist in present, see Table 7).
The list presented below, in Table 7, is according to the River Basin Management Plan and will be
updated in accordance with the results of the research studies regarding the migratory fish
species.
Table 7: List of the migratory fish species on medium and long distances from the Romanian rivers
Ordinal Species English Migratory
name Species
Eudontomyzon danfordi Carpathian lamprey X
Acipenser gueldenstaedti Danube sturgeon X
Acipenser nudiventris ship sturgeon / fringebarbel X
sturgeon
Acipenseriformes
Acipenser ruthenus sterlet X
Acipenser stellatus stellate sturgeon / starry X
sturgeon
Huso huso beluga / European sturgeon X
25
Alosa immaculata / Caspialosa pontica Pontic shad / Caspian shad X
Clupeiformes
Clupeonella cultriventris Black Sea sprat X
Hucho hucho Danube salmon / huchen X
Salmoniformes Salmo trutta lacustris lake trout X
Salmo trutta labrax Black Sea trout X
Anguiliformes Anguilla anguilla European eel X
Chondrostoma nasus nase X
Leuciscus idus ide X
Abramis brama bream X
Aspius aspius asp X
Barbus barbus barbel X
Vimba vimba vimba bream X
Cypriniformes Cyprinus carpio common carp X
Chalcalburnus chalcoides big bleak X
Romanogobio uranoscopus (Tisa Danubian longbarbel gudgeon / X
superior) / Gobio Uranoscopus / gudgeon
Rheogobio frici
Pelecus cultratus sichel X
Lota lota burbot X
Decision to build the fish passes is taken considering
the existence of the migratory fish species and
the existence of the target fish species in the reference conditions.
In Romania, the river fish zones designation was made in 1964 by Banarescu. The reference
zones are shown in Figure 4 and the dominant fish gives the name of the area as follows: the trout
area, the grayling area, broad snout area, the barbel area, the carp area, the chub area and the
perch area.
For this classification the parameters took into consideration by Banarescu are the following: the
flow, the velocity, the depth, the water transparency/turbidity, the substrate, the water temperature
variation and the oxygen concentration.
The general characteristics of the analyzed parameters for the reference fish zones are described
in the next table.
Table 8: General characteristics of the analysed parameters

water
Fish Water oxygen
flow velocity depth substrate temperature
areas transparency concentration
variation
trout Low high low clear Rocks and Temperature is high
area (most gravel generally
likely constant the
around fluctuations are
3
1m /s) not higher that
7-8C
grayling Higher lower low clear Rocks and Temperature high
area than the than the gravel fluctuations are
trout area trout area about 12-14C.
nase Higher Variable Variable Variable Gravel, sand Temperature medium

area than the from high from low From clear to and rarely fluctuations are
grayling to low to high turbid (snow mud high, over 20C
area melting or
rainy periods)
barbel Variable Variable Variable Generally Sand, mud Temperature medium
26
area flow from from low turbid and rarely fluctuations are
(lower medium to high gravel very high, over
during to low 30C
summer)
carp Variable low high Generally Sand and Temperature medium
area flow from turbid mud fluctuations are
medium very high, over
to high 30C
chub Variable Variable high Generally Gravel, sand Temperature medium
area flow from high clear and rarely fluctuations are
(lower to low mud very high, over
during 30C
summer)
perch Variable Variable Variable Variable from Sand, mud Temperature medium
area flow from high from low clear to turbid and gravel fluctuations are
(lower to low to high very high, over
during 30C
summer)
Figure 4: Romanian fish zones of reference
Reference conditions according to the WFD for fish are considered to be the same with Banarescu
classification (rivers fish zones designation).
Solutions for fishways must be designed on case-by-case analyses because each obstacle (dam,
bottom sill) has its own particularities arising from the location site. Depending on local conditions,
it may be necessary to build more facilities for fish passes for a single dam, to ensure continuity of
the migratory fish species at both low water and high waters.
The construction of fish passes (dimension of e.g. length, depth or width) is assessed case-by-
case based on technical and costs studies and analysis.
27
2.4. Italian measures
The following chapters deals with continuity restoration in Italy and were written by ARPA Veneto,
the Land Safety Department (ARPAV, project partner 1). Authors are Dino Gasparetto, Italo
Saccardo and Matteo Cesca.
2.4.1. Priorisation in Italy

An approach for the restoration of river continuity in Italy has been proposed in 2009 by the
University of Florence Department of Forest and Agricultural Engineering which has produced
a technical document, aimed at providing operational guidelines and design criteria (Regione
Toscana e Universit di Firenze, 2009). This document is based on a previous work which can be
considered the first Italian manual on fish passes Guide lines for the correct approach in fish
passes design prepared in 2006 by a technical and scientific committee consisting of
international and national experts of six cooperating institutions, i.e. the Province of Modena, the
Department of Forest and Agricultural Engineering of the University of Florence, the Association of
Italian Freshwater Ichthyologists, the Politecnico di Torino, the French GHAAPPE and the Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
So the Toscana Region aimed at defining and testing a simple and widely applicable management
tool, based on already available or easily collectable data, which could allow the Italian Watershed
Authorities to prioritize the interventions for river longitudinal connectivity restoration, reopening
fish migration routes.
The aim of the cited work was the realization of instruments of easy applicability, called Priority
Indexes, usable by Administrations involved in river basin management. The use of the Priority
Indexes permits the planning of interventions of river restoration for migratory species as fish
passes at weirs and dams, for whole river basin or its segments.
The proposed priority indices for fish passes, experimented to two Italian watersheds (Arno and
Magra Rivers), are based on obstacle characteristics, length of the potential reopened reach and
fish species distribution and migratory behaviour.
Its considered the reopening of the fish migration route a priority in sites where:
there is the presence of protected and autochthonous migratory fish species;

the watercourse has a low level of longitudinal fragmentation (i.e. the restoration of the
continuum requires a lower number of interventions);
the river reach upstream the obstacle is significantly longer than the downstream one and a
reopening would hence significantly increase the available habitat for upstream migrants;
the obstacle has a limited height (the retrofitting costs, by means of the construction of a
fish pass, are generally lower.
A fish factor (F) was defined in order to weight the importance of fish population of the examined
reach, composed by i species:
F = ki = ( Mobi + Vci ) 2 Equation 2.1
The coefficient ki describes the relevance of each species taking into account its mobility
characteristics and conservation value: Mob (mobility) is a value assigned to the migratory
behaviour of the examined species, while Vc (conservation value) is referred to the level of
protection, i.e. its inclusion in lists of endangered and protected species. The fish factor F can
28
therefore be calculated for every reach/station where data on each species composing the fish
population are available, and the range of values of Mob and Vc can be easily adapted to site-
specific characteristics taking into account that the evaluation of ki is mainly devoted to the ability
of migratory species and secondarily to its conservation value.
In Table 9 is reported an example of calculation of ki values for some fish species in the Arno
watershed (Pini Prato et al., 2011). In this example the species are listed according to their
migratory behaviour to highlight the rating scale defined for the mobility value Mob (from 0 for
allochthonous species to 5 for diadromous ones). The conservation value Vc ranges from 0 to 1
and is related to the inclusion of the species in national and regional red lists (1 included in both
lists, 0.5 included only in one, 0.25 endemic but not protected, 0 allochthonous). The sum of the ki
values for all the species identified in the watercourse determines the resulting value of the fish
factor F.
Table 9: Example of calculation of ki referred to the Arno watershed (Pini Prato et al., 2011)
Category Species Mob Vc Ki
Diadromous European eel (Anguilla anguilla) 5 1 36
Twaite shad (Alosa fallax) 1 36
High migratory behaviour Barbel (Barbus plebejus) 4 1 25
Etruscan chub (Squalius lucumonis) 1 25
South European nase (Chondrostoma genei) 1 25
Tiber barbel (Barbus tyberinus) 0.5 20.25
Brown trout (Salmo trutta trutta) 0.5 20.25
Moderate migratory Carp (Cyprinus carpio) 3 0 9
behaviour Tench (Tinca tinca) 0.5 12.25
Low migratory behaviour Spined loach (Cobitis taenia) 2 0.5 6.25
Arno goby (Gobius nigricans) 1 9
Eurialine Chelon, Liza, Mugil 1 0.5 2.25
European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax) 0.5 2.25
Allochthonous in Tuscany Welsh catfish (Silurus glanis) 0 0 0
rivers Catfish (Iactalurus melas) 0 0
An indicator of the level of river fragmentation is the continuity index CI which represents the ratio
between the total length (Lt) of a river reach and the number (N) of existing obstacles which are not
passable by fish moving upstream:
Lt
CI = Equation 2.2
N
On the basis of the above parameters, two indices were defined in order to compare priorities both
between different reaches and different obstacles.
The first index, IPt (priority index for a total reach), can be used to evaluate on which reach of a
hydrographical network there is the higher need for restoring the longitudinal connectivity:
CI L
k i
IPt = F = t Equation 2.3

N
H n H n
where Hn is the height of each impassable obstacle.
IPt can be applied to compare different reaches of the same watercourse or different watercourses
(e.g. different tributaries of the same river).
29
The second index, IPs (priority index for single obstacle), can be used to evaluate, within a
watercourse or river reach, on which of the impassable obstacles the restoration of the longitudinal
connectivity can considered more beneficial:
Lu
IPs = (Ld + Lu ) F Equation 2.4
Lu H
where H is the height of the obstacle, Ld is the length of the continuous river reach downstream the
obstacle (distance from the first downstream obstacle) and Lu is the length of the continuous river
reach upstream the obstacle (distance from the first upstream obstacle).
With this approach a greater weight is assigned to the length of the blocked upstream reach (Lu)
that could be reopened (potential new available habitat) and takes into account the fish factor F
related to fish population of the downstream reach.
The priority lists produced by the application can function as a first step in defining a watershed
restoration plan and could help the Watershed Authorities to address the available resources
towards more detailed studies to be carried out at sites classified with the higher priority levels.
The following parameters are included in the decision process of prioritisation of continuity
interruptions:
Importance for fish: The approach proposed by the University of Florence Department of
Forest and Agricultural Engineering is based on the definition of the coefficient ki which
describes the relevance of each species taking into account its mobility characteristics
(Mob) and conservation value (Vc).
The sum of the two parameters, elevated to the square, defines the coefficient of priorities
for the fish species. The choice of a non-linear function in the calculation of ki is due in
order to give more weight to highly migratory and protected species, compared to species
with limited migration requirements and reduced interest in natural or allochthonous.
Mob values vary from 0 for allochthonous species to 5 for diadromous species like sea
lamprey, twaite shad and eel. It could take intermediate values as 1 for eurialine species, 2
and 3 for species with a low and moderate migration range respectively, 4 for non
diadromous species with significant migratory behaviour. Vc values vary from 0, for
allochthonous species, to 1, for species included in both national and regional IUCN Red
List of Threatened Species (0.5 if included in only one list and 0.25 if endemic but not
protected). These reference values can change case by case.
River size: The priority Index for a total reach (IPt) is proportional to the the overall length
(Lt) of the river reach.
Density of barriers/degree of fragmentation: The priority index for a total reach (IPt) is
proportional to a specific indicator of the degree of river fragmentation (CI); the continuity
index CI represents the ratio between the total length (Lt) of a river reach and the number
(N) of existing obstacles which are not passable by fish moving upstream.
Presence of important spawning grounds: The costruction of a fish pass is not

recommended when the river reach upstream the obstacle is not suitable for fish spawning.
Number of migratory species: For a potential wider application, the priority indices must not
be single species-specific or group-specific (e.g. only applicable for Salmonids) or focus
30
only on diadromous species: all present or potentially present species have to be taken into
account, including allochthonous ones, assigning to each of them a different weight
according to its ecological interest at a local level.
Location of barrier (mouth, middle reach or headwater): If the presence of diadromous

species is ascertained, the construction of fish passes must always be planned starting
from the barrier further downstream, regardless of the value of the priority index IPs.
Number of barrier counted from mouth/confluences: For different river stretches, at the
same total length, height of the obstacles and fish factor, the priority lies for the river
characterized by the lower number of barriers.
Length of reconnected habitat: For different river stretches, at the same total length, height
of the obstacles and fish factor, the priority lies for the river characterized by the greater
length of the continuous river reach upstream the barrier (Lu).
2.4.2. Barriers and their passability in Italy

In Italy there are 539 large dams (height >15 m or reservoir capacity > 1,000,000 m3) with state
jurisdiction ) as imposed by the Ministry of Infrastructures and Transports (data updated to March
2012).
Legal requirements for facilities to ensure upstream continuity (via fish pass) are defined on a
national and regional basis by the following decrees.
Royal Decree No. 1486 of 22 November, 1914 - Regulation on river and lake fishing:
[op.cit.] for water abstraction concessions with industrial or agricoltural purposes, the
Prefect should require the installation of fish ladders, gratings on withdrawals, etc;
Royal Decree No. 1604 of October 08, 1931 - Approval of the text on fishing laws: Art. 10:
for the release of water abstraction concessions the necessary works should be prescribed
in the interest of the fishing industry (fish ladders, screens on intake channels and
whenever the construction of special structures for fish is not possible, the concessionaire
can be prescribed annual introductions of juveniles at his expense;
Toscana Region - Regional Act No. 7/2005 making provision on inland fisheries: Art. 14
[op.cit.] the projects of Regional public works, works of public interest and private works,
which involve the partial or total occupation of the river bed, include the construction of
facilities suitable for the upstream migrating fish and for the free transit of fish species;
whenever the construction of special structures for fish is not possible, the concessionaire
can be prescribed to refund to the Province the amount of the fish restocking's cost;
Piemonte Region - Decree of the President of the Regional Executive No. 8/2007 on
minimum water flow: Art. 3 and Art. 12 [op.cit.] the river continuity must be ensured by
appropriate fish ladders. Where facilities suitable for the upstream migrating fish are
required, the environmental flow, or portion of this, is released throught the above works;
Veneto Region - Regional Act No. 19/1998 setting out the rules for the protection of
hydrobiological resources and of fish population and providing for internal and maritime
waters fisheries in the Veneto Region;
Liguria Region - Regional Act No. 21/2004 laying down provisions for the protection of the
aquatic ecosystem and regulating fishing in inland waters: Art. 18 [op.cit.] each new work
31
realized on the river stream has to provide for the construction of facilities for fish passage;
Lombardia Region - Regional Act No. 7/20557/2005 - Technical document for fisheries
management: [op.cit.] the Lombardia Region, in accordance with the power plants
operators, is committed to promoting thecnical solutions for assure river continuity. The
recommended solutions are presented in the Guidelines for the management of fisheries in
the Lombardia Region (Fish Compatible Hydraulic Interventions: Guidelines (Quaderni
della Ricerca, n. 125, 2011): guidelines for artificial fish passes design and realization).
Not every hydropower plant is required to have a fish pass. The Italian legislative scenario relative
to fish passes refers to two standards that date back to the first years of the last century: Royal
Decree no. 1486 of 22 November, 1914 (Regulation on river and lake fishing) and Royal Decree
no. 1604 of 8 October, 1931 (Approval of the text on fishing laws). These prescriptions, however,
have rarely been applied, especially as far as the construction of fish passes is concerned, while
the obligation of the concessionaire to annually introduce juveniles has sometimes been
encountered, in particular for structures on watercourses in which there is a significant interest in
fishing (mainly for brown trout - Salmo trutta fario) and where the local fishing associations have a
certain weight. Today, this is still done in some regions and watercourses. For example, for Piave
river in the Province of Belluno there are still annually introductions of juveniles in different sub-
basins and reaches. The requirements for facilities to ensure river continuity are currently regulated
by specific regional laws.
More recently, with the introduction of national and regional standards concerning EIA
(Environmental Impact Assessment) for new abstractions, the construction of such devices is
gradually becoming a mitigating measure that is usually considered as part of Environmental
Impact studies.
Fish passage restoration at all the existing obstacles in a river will not always be a feasible target,
both for economical (high costs due to the relevant number of sites to be retrofitted and or technical
complexity for high drops or particular locations) and ecological (the reach upstream a dam could
be blocked by a natural or artificial impassable obstacle or could not supply an adequate habitat for
migrating species) reasons and methods need to be developed to help Watershed Authorities to
target important sites for biodiversity restoration.
There is the need for improvement of their enforcement and implementation. In Italy the retrofitting
of existing obstacles still remains a relevant issue to be faced and it isnt actually possible the total
restoration of river connectivity in all the rivers, because of the very high number of weirs, dams
and other obstacles. Compensatory measures such as the construction of fish passes often apply
only to new projects even though it is not supported by an adequate technical-scientific
background that would allow correctly designed and efficient structures to be constructed in a
widespread manner.
In almost all cases, the constructions that can be found throughout the territory present evident and
serious criticalities due to an erroneous or inadequate design and/or maintenance. In fact, because
of the historical absence of stringent legal requirements concerning the construction of such
devices, there is still an evident lack of research in this field at a national level, in particular
regarding the calibration of fish passes as far as the biological requirements and swimming
capabilities of the ichthyic species that characterise the Italian hydrographic network is concerned.
The result of this lack is that, from the beginning of the twentieth century till now, some migratory
species have become extinct in several watercourses following the construction of most of the
hydroelectric plants in Italy and due to the important increase in polluting loads carried by the water
bodies. Some of the species that have become extinct are: Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser sturio),
32
Adriatic sturgeon (Acipenser naccarii), European sturgeon (Huso huso)) and shad (Alosa fallax) in
the Po River and in the most important river tributaries (the Panaro, Secchia, Adige, Ticino, etc.)
while many other species have become rare and are at risk of extinction, such as the European eel
(Anguilla anguilla) in the Tyrrhenian watercourses, Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) and the
European river lamprey (Lampetra fluviatilis).
At present, it is very clear the necessity of comparison criteria to establish the correct scenarios for
fish passes planning at environment of high ecological and biological value and technical
standardized criteria for their construction at national level.
Concerning the applied method for upstream continuity, there is only a regional recommendation.
The Provincia di Modena, Italy, has been promoting river rehabilitation for fish migration since 1984
and was the first Local Authority in Italy to carry out specific training programmes on fish passes. In
2002 it financed a river rehabilitation project aimed at safeguarding fish species of local and
European interest: Italian barbel (Barbus plebejus), European chub (Leuciscus cephalus cabeda),
vairone (Leuciscus souffia muticellus), South European nase (Chondrostoma genei), goby
(Padogobius martensii), gudgeon (Gobio gobio), spined loach (Cobitis taenia) in a watercourse of
high ecological value (Panaro river) through the design of fish passes for the restoration of the river
continuum. The gained experience is compiled in the manual: Guide lines for the correct approach
in fish passes design, that is the first Italian manual on fish passes. It was prepared during 2006
by a technical and scientific committee consisting of international and national experts of six
cooperating institutions, i.e. the Province of Modena, the Department of Forest and Agricultural
Engineering of the University of Florence, the Association of Italian Freshwater Ichthyologists, the
Politecnico di Torino, the French GHAAPPE and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
An approach for the restoration of river continuity in Italy has been proposed in 2009 by the
University of Florence Department of Forest and Agricultural Engineering which has produced
a technical document, aimed at providing operational guidelines and design criteria (Regione
Toscana e Universit di Firenze, 2009). The aim of the cited work was the realization of
instruments of easy applicability, called Priority Indexes, usable by Administrations involved in river
basin management.
The following requirements are included in the above described methods:
Type of fish pass: Bypass channel: also used for rises greater than 2 m, but with slopes
lower than 1:20, minimum width of 1.20 to 1.50 m, minimum operating discharge of 100 l/s
per meter of width.
Special type of fish pass:
Denil fish pass: width variable from 0.6 to 0.9 m, maximum slope of 1:5 and length variable
from 6 to 8 m (over these lengths the use of "resting pools" has to be applied); minimum
operating discharge of 250 l/s.
Vertical slot fish pass: basins' minimum size of 1.90 m wide and 1.20 m long; minimum
operating discharge variable from 150 l/s to several cubic meters.
Hydraulic design: The discharge for the fish pass has to be chosen from an analysis of the
river discharges during the migratory-reproductive season of the target species. The
following measures have to be collected during the migration period: mean water level
upstream and downstream the barrage, variation of water level upstream and downstream
33
the barrage, mean river discharge.
The selected typology has to be adapted to the main operational needs related to the local
peculiarities:
- to limit the length of the fish passes (bottom slope increase), guaranteeing
sustainable hydrodynamic conditions according to the swimming capabilities of the
target species;
- to keep the main channel (and consequently the fish pass) in the middle of the river
section both for hydraulic safety and fish pass attractivity reasons;
- to concentrate the whole flow in the fish pass during dry periods, guaranteeing its
efficiency even for discharges lower than the 365 days duration discharge.
Recommendations that fishes can locate the fish pass in the river: The attractivity of the fish
pass is a key-point that will be taken into account during the Environmental Impact
Assessment procedure: the compulsory instream flow has to be released either completely
through the fish pass or, in order to limit its dimensions and related costs, through a proper
device (pipe, channel) as an auxiliary flow that will not compete with the remaining
discharge flowing through the fish pass.
In order to guarantee a sufficient attractivity of the fish pass for the upstream migrating fish,
the minimum discharge for the device had to be selected in the 1%-5% range of values of
the mean discharge of the migratory period.
Recommendations to monitor the effectiveness: The monitoring of efficiency (fish trapping

in the upstream section of each fish pass and electrofishing surveys) is recommended in
order to significantly contribute to increase the present poor knowledge of the swimming
ability and migratory behaviour of the examined fish species and to show objective
evidence of the environmental results that could be obtained through the construction of
such mitigation measures to all the stakeholders.
The following regulations are also used for downstream migration:
Art. 10 of the Royal Decree No. 1604 of October 08, 1931, approval of the text on fishing
laws: for the release of water abstraction concessions the necessary works should be
prescribed in the interest of the fishing industry (fish ladders, screens on intake channels
and whenever the construction of special structures for fish is not possible, the
concessionaire can be prescribed annual introductions of juveniles at his expense;
Toscana Region - Art. 14 of the Regional Act No. 7/2005: [op.cit.] the projects of
Regional public works, works of public interest and private works, which involve the partial
or total occupation of the river bed, include the construction of facilities suitable for the
upstream migrating fish and for the free transit of fish species; whenever the construction of
special structures for fish is not possible, the concessionaire can be prescribed to refund to
the Province the amount of the fish restocking's cost;
Liguria Region Art. 18 of the Regional Act No. 21/2004: [op.cit.] each new work
realized on the river stream has to provide for the construction of facilities for fish passage;
Lombardia Region - Regional Act No. 7/20557/2005: [op.cit.] the Lombardia Region, in
accordance with the power plants operators, is committed to promoting technical solutions
for assure river continuity. The recommended solutions are presented in the Guidelines
34
for the management of fisheries in the Lombardia Region.
The only national regulatory reference for hydropower plants is still the Royal Decree
no.1604/1931 which states that in the authorization phase of new sites the competent Authorities,
in order to safeguard fisheries, can ask for the construction of special structures for fish (screens
on intake channels, etc.) or for the annual introduction of fries in the involved river reaches: this
requirement has been applied only in a very limited number of cases and, where applied,
compensatory measures (periodical restocking) rather than facilities for fish have been prescribed.
At least, the obligation to ensure an environmental flow, in many cases, can be helpful to limit the
death of the fish within the turbines.
Downstream continuity is enabled by a case-by-case method. The promotion of technical solutions

in order to ensure downstream continuity is defined with the power plants operators case-by-case
during the authorisation phases.
Currently are being studied more sophisticated technological solutions such as the controlled
transit of fish using lights or a beep.
Tools used in connection with fish bypasses:
Physical barriers to protect fish from turbin intake channels: Screens on intake channels
and Tyrolean intakes are widely used to favour the river continuum preservation; with
Tyrolean intake the water to be diverted is taken in through a collection canal built into the
river bottom and covered with a screen. The bars of the screen are laid in the direction of
the current and inclined in the direction of the tail water so that coarse bed load and fish are
kept out of the collection canal and transported further downstream.
Plant operation management spill flow: Water releases independent of power generation
are guaranteed under the regional rules on minimum vital flow.
Compensation according to fish stocking: Art. 10 of the Royal Decree No. 1604 of October
08, 1931 states that whenever the construction of special structures for fish is not possible,
the concessionaire can be prescribed annual introductions of juveniles at his expense; The
obligation of the concessionaire to annually introduce juveniles has been encountered, in
particular for structures on watercourses in which there is a significant interest in fishing
and where the local fishing associations have a certain weight.
Currently there isn't any national legislation which regulates the construction of these facilities and
their monitoring: for this reason, most of the existing fish passes are realized without any
construction standards. In the absence of a public controlling body for monitoring and specialized
inspection, the power plants operators should take charge the verification of the structures'
functionality and provide for their maintenance. For these reasons, even if an official list for the
numerous fish passes developed in Italy is not available, most of them are not functioning.
The most typical and frequent mistakes are the following (from the technical document produced
by University of Florence and Tuscany Region in 2009):
the slope of the fishway is too steep: in fact, the slope must be related to the target fish
species, which often are not salmonids, which are good swimmers, but small cyprinids,
which are scarce swimmers;
planning based on the assumption that, in the pool-type fishway, fish will jump from one
35
pool to the other, when in fact fish swim mainly near the bottom where the roughness
reduces the flow, and jump only if they are forced to pass an obstacle;
wrong planning of the upstream-downstream connection of the pool, with the first pool
downstream suspended, or the first upstream fed by only a very thin layer of water with
high velocity.
The monitoring of fish migration facilities are implemented only in the context of specific case
studies through fish trapping in the upstream section of each fish pass or electrofishing surveys.
Furthermore there are requirements regarding:
Functional duration of the fish migration aid: The mean monthly discharges/levels and the
discharges duration curve were used to identify the mean values expected during the
migratory-reproductive season of the local ichthyofauna.
Migration periods of certain fish species: The mean monthly discharges/levels and the
discharges duration curve were used to identify the mean values expected during the
migratory-reproductive season of the local ichthyofauna.
Guiding current (for fish to find the entry of the structure): In order to guarantee a sufficient
attractivity of the fish pass for the upstream migrating fish, the minimum discharge for the
device had to be selected in the 1-5% range of values of the mean discharge of the
migratory period.
Different swimming capabilities of reference species: For the dimensioning of the

structures, the values of the maximum and cruising velocities are calculated using Videler
equations, which supply values in relation to the length of the individuals:
V = (0.7 * L) / 2T
were V is the maximum swimming velocity, L is the fish length and T is the time of the
muscles contraction. The obtained values are then compared to the Habitat Suitability
Curves versus the water velocity defined for the reference species in similar watercourses.
Presence of migratory fish species (long to medium distances): An analysis of the historical
data on the ichthyofauna and an ad hoc survey have to be carried out with the following
objectives: to update knowledge on the status of the local ichthyofauna and to integrate this
with quantitative data that would permit the identification of possible dynamics underway in
the local fish populations; to identify the target species; to define the population structures
of the individual species in order to identify the potentiality of use of the fish passes, in
particular for the reproducers, and to allow their correct dimensioning. The target species
for the design of the fish passes were selected taking into account the migratory behaviour,
the level of protection according to national and international laws and the inclusion in the
national and international faunal lists of species at various risks of extinction. The
migratory-reproductive periods of the selected target species were identified on the basis of
bibliographic data, previous studies and observations in the regional watercourses.
The first Italian manual Guidelines for the correct approach in fish passes design, prepared
during 2006 by a technical and scientific committee consisting of international and national experts
of six cooperating institutions, recommends the use of the following migration facility types:
close-to-nature:
36
o bottom ramps and slopes: a sill having a rough surface and extending over the
entire river width with as shallow a slope as possible, to overcome a level difference
of the river bottom. This category also includes stabilizing structures (e.g. stabilizing
weirs), if the body of the weir has a shallow slope similar to the slope of a ramp or
slide and is of loose construction.
o bypass channel: a fish pass with features similar to those of a natural stream,
bypassing a dam. As the dam is preserved unchanged, its functions are not
negatively affected. The whole impounded section of the river can thus be
bypassed.
o fish ramp: a construction that is integrated into the weir and covers only a part of the
river width, with as gentle a slope as possible to ensure that fish can ascend.
Independently of their slope, they are all called ramps; in general the incorporation
of perturbation boulders or boulder sills is equired to reduce flow velocity.
technical fish passes:
o pool passes: the principle of a pool pass consists in dividing up a channel leading
from the headwater to the tailwater by installing cross-walls to form a succession of
stepped pools. The discharge is usually passed through openings (orifices) in the
cross-walls and the potential energy of the water is dissipated, step-by-step, in the
pools. Fish migrate from one pool to the next through openings in the cross-walls
that are situated at the bottom (submerged orifices) or at the top (notches). The
migrating fish encounter high flow velocities only during their passage through the
cross-walls, while the pools with their low flow velocities offer shelter and
opportunities to rest. A rough bottom is a prerequisite to make pool passes
negotiable for benthic fauna.
o vertical slot passes: the slot pass is a variation of the pool pass whereby the cross-
walls are notched by vertical slots extending over the entire height of the crosswall.
The cross-walls may have one or two slots depending on the size of the
watercourse and the discharge available. In the one-slot design, the slots are
always on the same side (in contrast to the conventional pool pass where the
orifices are arranged on alternate sides).
o denil passes: The fish pass consists of a linear channel, in which baffles are
arranged at regular and relatively short intervals, angled against the direction of
flow. The backflows formed between these baffles dissipate considerable amounts
of energy and, because of their interaction, allow a relatively low flow velocity in the
lower part of the baffle cutouts. This allows the Denil pass to have a steep slope,
relative to other types of fish passes, and to overcome small to medium height
differences over relatively short distances.
special fish passes: works that allow the passage of the fish without restoring the river
continuity. The fish are simply moved passively or actively, but the river continues to remain
substantially interrupted (eel ladders, fish locks, fish lifts).
In Italy, fish ramps/ladders and pool passes are the most used fish migration facility types.
The different types are selected case-by-case considering the species which have a significant
interest in fishing (mainly for brown trout - Salmo trutta fario).
37
The fish migration aids are dimensioned on the basis of the reference species size which is strictly
related with their maximum swimming velocities. The selected fish pass discharge and
consequently the water velocities and energetic dissipation limits sustainable by the target species
are then used as specific input to select the fish pass type to be used for the weir retrofitting design
phase. The weirs features (use, height, width, etc.), the local hydrodynamic conditions (upstream
and downstream water levels during the migration period, river morphology and solid transport)
and a limited visual intrusion conditioned the final choice.
38
3. Annex 18 of the DRBMP: Ecological prioritisation of
measures to restore river and habitat continuity in the
DRBD
This chapter is an excerpt of the Danube River Basin Management (DRBM) Plan. Annex 18 of the
DRBMP was written by the Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management of the
University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU, project partner 11, Schmutz et
al., 2009) on behalf of the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River
(ICPDR).
3.1. Objectives
All fish species of the Danube River Basin (DRB) are migratory to some extent, however, the
importance of migrations for the viability of fish populations considerable vary among species.
Migrations are different in terms of migration distances, migration direction (upstream,
downstream, lateral), spawning habitats, seasons, life stages, etc.. In general, in the DRB
migratory requirements are more distinct in lowland than in head water fish communities (Figure 5).
Long-distance-migrants (LDM) such as beluga (Huso huso) migrated up to several thousand
kilometres from the Black Sea to the barbel zone in the DRB. Mediumdistance- migrants (MDM, so
called potamodromous fish species) like nase (Chondrostoma nasus) and barbel (Barbus barbus)
migrate within the river over distances of 30 to 200 km (Waidbacher & Haidvogl 1998). A significant
number of lowland fish species depend on floodplain spawning habitats during spring season.
Contrarily, headwater fish species migrate comparable short distances as living and spawning
habitats are mostly not far away. Nevertheless, in the long term all species need an open
continuum for e.g. re-colonisation after catastrophic events and for genetic exchange. The overall
goal of continuity restoration in the DRBD should be free fish migration routes within the entire
DRB. However, due to the high number of barriers and limited resources a prioritisation of
measures is necessary. The approach provides indications on a step-wise and efficient
implementation of restoration measures on the basin-wide scale. It provides useful information on
the estimated effects of the national measures in relation to their ecological effectiveness on the
basin-wide scale. The approach serves as a supportive tool for future measure implementation.
Therefore, it also supports the feedback from the international to the national level and vice versa
in the DRB. Therefore, the prioritisation tool represents an important component of the DRB
Management Plan and will be an essential basis for the hydromorphological component on river
and habitat interruptions within the Joint Programmes of Measures (JPM).
39
Figure 5: Fish zones and abiotic conditions in running waters (adapted from Jungwirth et al. 2003)
3.2. Distribution of long and medium-distant migrants (LDM) in

the DRB
3.2.1. Methodology
Historic upstream occurrence of long-distance migrants (LDM) in the DRB is dominated by
sturgeon species as those species are known to have migrated further upstream than other
species. The historic occurrence of LDMs is based on historical information going back centuries.
The historical information serves the definition and use as reference conditions corresponding to
entirely or almost entirely undisturbed natural conditions. The distribution of MDMs is based on
modelled data that has been calibrated with current information. The Sturgeon migration map
provided by the ICPDR was compared and updated with recent literature reviews and results of the
EU-project EFI+ (Evaluation and improvement of the European Fish Index, http://efi-
plus.boku.ac.at). Currently, the information on the distribution of medium-distant migrants (MDM) in
the DRB is scarce and incomplete. Therefore, the potential distribution (habitat) of MDM was
modelled using data from EU-project EFI+ including data from the DRB and other catchments in
40
Europe. Within the frame of the EU-project EFI+ most of the European fish species have been
classified according to their migratory behaviour, i.e. long-distance-migrants (LDM), medium-
distance-migrants (MDM) and resident species (RS). Out of the 58 fish species classified as MDM
we selected 9 key species occurring in the DRB (Table 11).
Table 10: Examples for long distance migrants (LDM) in the DRB (based on EFI+ guide classification,
see http://efi-plus-boku.ac.at)
Nr. Scientific name English name
1 Huso huso Great sturgeon, beluga
2 Acipenser Guldenstaedti Russian sturgeon
3 Acipenser nudiventris Ship sturgeon
4 Acipenser stellatus Stellate sturgeon
5 Alosa caspia Caspian shad
6 Alosa immaculate (pontica) Prontic shad
Table 11: List of medium-distance migrants (MDM) in the DRB (based on EFI+ guide classification,
see http://efi-plus-boku.ac.at) used for modelling habitat of MDM in the DRB
Nr. Scientific name English name
1 Abramis brama Common bream
2 Abramis sapa Danubian bream
3 Acipenser ruthenus Sterlet
4 Aspius aspius Asp
5 Barbus barus Barbel
6 Chondrostoma nasus. Nase
7 Hucho hucho Danube salmon
8 Lota lota Burbot
9 Vimba vimba Vimba
The consolidated EFI+ database comprises about 10,000 sites all over Europe. About 1,000 sites
are located in the DRB. Unfortunately, the number of sites from the Danube catchment with
occurrence of MDM is small (379 sites) and not sufficient for model calibration. Therefore, we used
data from additional European catchments comparable with the DRB. By restricting the selection of
data to Illiess ecoregions 3 to 16 we tried to avoid a bias from Mediterranean (Iberian) and Nordic
(Scandinavia) influences, as the distribution of MDM might follow different rules in those areas. Out
of the resulting 3,800 sites we selected all sites (1,268 sites) where MDM were recorded and
randomly a similar sized set of data from sites where MDM did not occur. In total, about 2,500 sites
were used to calibrate the model. We used Regression Tree techniques for modelling MDM
occurrence as this technique allows using also non-normally distributed data. All modelling was
done with the open source software R. The Regression Tree function of R (rpart) includes an
internal validation as the variable selection and splitting process is repeated 500 times. The results
were additionally validated by using only data from the DRB. For calculating predictive
environmental variables such as catchment size, elevation and river gradient we used the CCM
river model developed by the JRC in Ispra (Vogt et al. 2007) that was also used for the EFI+
project. The CCM is a modelled river network and hence there are slight deviations between the
modelled river courses and the real ones. This is mainly true in the headwaters where the CCM
sometimes selects different tributaries compared to other maps. Another problem may occur in
lowland rivers with very low gradient in plain terrain where the actual and modelled river course
may deviate. The deviations do not significantly affect the results as environmental variables used
for the modelling are quite stable against river course deviations.
3.2.2. Results
The Figure 7 shows the information on status of historic occurrence of LDM sturgeon species in
the DRB. According to additional data from the EFI+ project and information received from national
41
fish experts of the DRB contacted via the ICPDR slight changes of the original ICPDR maps have
been made: The occurrence of sturgeon species in the Isar river (Bavaria) was restricted to the
lower part of the river. LDM sturgeons occurrence has been added to the lower Inn river and lower
Salzach river (Austria). The modelled distribution of the MDM in the DRB using Regression-Tree
analyses shows that the presence and absence of medium-distance migrants (MDM) is mainly
determined by the size of the catchment (Figure 6). River segments with upstream catchment
areas (AREA_ctch) less than 284 km2 have a very low probability of MDM. In addition, river
segments with an upstream catchment size of less than 1,401 km2 and a mean elevation of the
upstream catchment (ELEV_MN_du) of more than 819 m have also a low probability of MDM. All
other river segments have a high probability of occurrence of MDM. The model explains the
variability of probability of occurrence by about 42 %. Applying the model to the data, presence and
absence can be explained by about 82 % and 78 %. Applying the model to only the data from the
DRB reveals similar predictions of presence (78 %) and absence (81 %) approving the applicability
of the model to the DRB. Figure 7 clearly shows the separation between the habitat of the LDM,
MDM and the head waters above the MDM in the DRB.
Results of modelled MDM habitat were checked by the countries of the DRB and only minor
deviations from the real conditions were reported and included in the final map.
AREA_ctch< 284
|
ALT_GRADIENT>=0.55 AREA_ctch< 1401
0.07198 0.3532
n=653 n=436 ELEV_MN_du>=819.2
0.8782
n=829
0.2033 0.6373
n=123 n=477
Figure 6: Regression-Tree model for medium-distance migrants using data from the EFI+ project:
Probability of occurrence and number sites of each branch (upstream catchment areas: AREA_ctch,
mean elevation of the upstream catchment: ELEV_MN_du, gradient of river segment:
ALT_GRADIENT).
42
3.3. Development of a prioritisation index for restoring continuity
3.3.1. Methodology
The selection of prioritisation criteria for continuity restoration is mainly based on the migratory
behaviour of LDM and MDM in the DRB (Table 12). The prioritisation principle follows the idea that
LDM within the Danube receive the highest priority (weight 4) followed by LDM within the
tributaries (weight 2). MDM receive less priority (weight 1) and head waters are excluded from the
prioritisation process (weight 0). Within this prioritisation framework obstacles at the mouth of a
river receive higher priority than upstream obstacles and giving more emphasis on the Danube
than on the tributaries. The more distant an obstacle is located from the river mouth the less
priority is given to the obstacle. In order to give higher weight to river segments that are less
fragmented by continuity interruptions we weighted the length of the reconnected habitat
depending on the length of river segments. For this criterion we defined different river lengths
classes for the Danube and the tributaries to consider river size. The final criterion is related to the
protection status. Obstacles within protected areas of the NATURA2000 network receive higher
priority as it is more likely that those river segments are maintained in good habitat status and will
be restored to a larger degree than unprotected river segments. The criteria are combined by
computing a prioritisation index (PI) by weighting the first criteria, migratory habitat, by the
cumulated weight of the 4 other criteria using the following formula:
PI = migratory habitat x (1 + first obstacles upstream + distance from mouth + reconnected habitat + protected site)
The maximum possible value of the PI is 36 and the minimum is 0 (only in head waters). Finally,
the PI was grouped into 5 classes: utmost priority (PI >13), very high priority (PI 10- 12), high
priority (PI 7-9), medium priority (4-6) and low priority (PI 1-3). For calculating the PI we used again
the CCM river network (Vogt et al. 2006). Rivers with more than 4.000 km catchment size were
extracted from the CCM. Rivers Lech, Altmhl, Crisul Negru, and Somesul Mic were also extracted
because they are considered as important rivers in the basin management plan. River segments
are defined as the river stretch between two tributaries. 1688 locations of barriers were provided by
the ICPDR (status 30. October 2009). The following criteria were applied during preselection for
prioritisation (total N=946):
- select barriers not passable for fish in 2009 (FISH_AID = NO OR UNKNOWN). N=932
- select barriers passable in 2009 but within long distant migrants reaches (assuming sturgeons
cannot pass fish aid). N=14
Continuity interruptions provided by the ICPDR were allocated to the CCM (snap to closest
segment). A number of 85 barriers of 946 for prioritisation could not be allocated because they are
situated in artificial water bodies (canals) or there are differences of CCM to the official ICPDR
network at the headwaters. Using various GIS tools the first obstacle upstream the mouth, the
distance from the mouth, the length of reconnected habitat, and proximity of protected areas is
calculated and the PI computed.
Table 12: Prioritisation criteria and weighting factors for restoring continuity in the DRB
1. Migratory habitat
Long-distance migrants Danube 4
Long-distance migrants habitat 2
Medium-distance migrants habitat 1
Short-distance migrants (head waters) 0
2. Obstacles in first river segment upstream river mouth
Yes in Danube 2
Yes 1
43
No 0
3. Distance from mouth
First river segment upstream of mouth 3
Second river segment upstream of mout 2
Third river segment upstream of mouth 1
River segments upstream of third river segment 0
4. Length of reconnected habitat
>50 km (>100 km Danube) 2
20-50 km (40-100 km Danube) 1
<20 km (< 40 km Danube) 0
5. Protected site (Natura2000)
Yes 1
No 0
An additional criterion, habitat quality of reconnected habitats, could be added in future versions of
the PI, when consistent information on habitat quality will be available within the entire DRB.
3.3.2. Results
The downstream upstream prioritisation concept is clear visible in the map of prioritisation
(Figure 8). The results show that according to the defined prioritisation criteria continuity
disruptions in the lower Danube (Iron Gate) receive the highest priority with values 20. In the
upper Danube the PI ranges between 8 and 16 as long as the Danube is classified as LDM habitat.
Within the LDM habitat the obstacles in Bavaria generally receive higher values compared to
Austria because longer habitats are reconnected and most obstacles are within Natura2000 areas.
Within the tributaries the lowest obstacle and following upstream obstacles generally have a higher
PI than obstacles located further upstream. In total, 946 continuum interruptions have been
considered. More than a quarter of the barriers (27 %) are not of priority (PI=0) because in
headwaters or canals. Out of the 681 prioritised barriers, 39 barriers (4 %) have a high to utmost
priority, 99 barriers (10 %) are of medium and 543 barriers are of low priority (58 %). The
importance of upstream located barriers will increase in future when downstream barriers will have
been restored (Figure 8). The results reveal clear ecological priorities for continuity restoration
within the DRB. The proposed prioritisation should used as a guideline whereby the final decision
where and when to restore a continuity interruption also depends on the technical feasibility to
build fish passes or to find other solutions (e.g. removal of barriers) and will be also determined by
the relevance for national restoration and conservation programmes.
44
300
250
Number of continuum interruptions
200
150
100
50
7 2 2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 16 20
Prioritisation Index (PI)
Figure 7: Number of barriers per Prioritisation Index (PI)
Figure 8: Prioritised continuity restoration of obstacles within the DRB using the Prioritisation Index
(PI) within habitat of long-distance- and medium-distance-migrants
45
3.4. References
Hensel, K. & J. Holcik (1997); Past and current status of sturgeons in the upper and middleDanube
River. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 184-200.
Jungwirth, M., Haidvogl, G., Moog, O., Muhar, S., Schmutz, S. (2003): AngewandteFischkologie
an Fliegewssern. p552; Facultas Universittsverlag,Wien; ISBN 3-8252-2113-X.
Vogt, J.V. et al. (2007): A pan-European River and Catchment Database. European Commission -
JRC, Luxembourg, (EUR 22920 EN) 120 pp.
Waidbacher, H. & G. Haidvogl (1998): Fish migration and fish passage facilities in the Danube:
Past and present. -In: Jungwirth, M., Schmutz, S. & Weiss, S. (eds.): Fish Migration and Fish
Bypasses. Oxford, -Fishing News Books: pp.85-98.
46
Summary and conclusions
the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna (BOKU). The authors are Carina
Mielach, Rafaela Schinegger and Stefan Schmutz.
Table 13 represents the answers of the project partners.
The methods described in chapter 2 are evaluated with regard to criteria important for fish
migration. Table 13 gives a short summary of the previously discussed criteria and how much
those criteria are fulfilled by the the methodologies of the countries.
Table 13: Summary of migration aid criteria
Country AT SLO RO IT
Stepwise For first RBMP, areas
achievement of are prior if height of
objectives (beginning barrier is below 15 m
No standardised No standardised
with long and medium (considered as
priorisation approach priorisation approach
Priorisation distance migratory technical feasible
for the restoration of for the restoration of
species (continuity solution) and located
river continuity. river continuity.
warranted until 2015) on the watercourses
and ending with short with migratory fish
distance migrators. species.
All new hydropower
RBMP states that plants have to be
each hydropower facilitated with a fish Not every hydropower
No agreed
plant in Austria is migration aid. For plant is required to
method/approach in
required to have a existing HPPs, the have a fish pass.
Upstream Slovenia on how to
fish pass. For existing construction of fish Obligation of
migration ensure upstream
HPPs, again stepwise passes is assessed concessionaire to
continuity - defined on
achievements of case-by-case based annually introduce
a case-by-case basis.
objectives are taken on technical and juveniles.
into account. costs studies and
analysis.
For new HPPs a
No national legislation
Ministerial Order
available, most of the
applicable for
A technical standard existing fish passes
damming works of
set by law on how to are realized without
water courses with a
ensure upstream any construction
height >40cm which
continuity is under standards. Approach
should be equipped
development and it is A national proposed by
Technical with fish migration
planned to be recommendation is University of Florence
standards facilities for migratory
published about end under development. technical
fish, if the case be,
of 2012 at the latest. document exists,
respectively where
Draft version already aimed at providing
these are technically
available (AG-FAH, operational guidelines
feasible and do not
2011). and design criteria.
entail
Not legally
disproportionate
implemented.
costs.
Bypass channels or
fish ramps (close-to-
Depending on the nature construction)
Fish passes with
specific given and technical fish Fish ramps/ladders
deflectors (or Denil
problem/situation at passes (pool fish and pool passes are
fishways.
Fish pass types the barrier (fish passes and fish the most used fish
Furthermore fish
bioregion, ramps) are widely migration facility
passes with pools
surrounding area used. Types are types.
(pool pass).
etc.). selected with regard
to the present fish
region.
47
Different types are
Different fish passes
Based on physical Dimensioning (length, selected case-by-
are selected after
dimensions of the depth, width, and flow case considering the
studying the area (if
Dimensions of determining fish size velocity) is adapted species which have a
migratory fish species
fish pass and hydraulic design according to the significant interest in
on medium and long
limits (maximum and swimming capabilities fishing (mainly for
distances exist in
minimum). of reference species. brown trout - Salmo
present).
trutta fario).
Dimensioned on
The construction of basis of reference
fish passes species size, strictly
Dimensioning (length,
(dimension of e.g. related with maximum
Based on type of fish depth, width, and flow
length, depth or swimming velocities.
Amount of flow pass and size of river velocity) is adapted
width) is assessed Discharge, water
and discharge as well as fish according to the
case-by-case based velocities and
bioregion. swimming capabilities
on technical and energetic dissipation
of reference species.
costs studies and limits sustainable by
analysis. the target species are
used.
There is no difference
Only new hydropower in the approach for
Legal requirements or plants are required to downstream and Downstream
Downstream recommendations are ensure downstream upstream continuity in continuity is enabled
migration under discussion but continuity, approach the Romanian by a case-by-case
no defined results yet. is set on a case-by- legislation. There are method
case basis. general provisions for
both.
No requirements to
monitor the Monitoring only
2-step approach: (1)
effectiveness at the implemented only in
Technical review of
moment, but if the the context of specific
contemporary
water authority has case studies through
functionality of the Monitoring actions
Monitoring decided that it is fish trapping in the
fish pass. (2) Review are not defined.
necessary, this can upstream section of
of fish pass via fish-
be included in the each fish pass or
ecological
water licenses as an electrofishing
parameters.
obligation for the surveys.
hydropower owner.
The summary in Table 13 shows, that there are huge differences in the national strategies to
preserve river connectivity. Although studies and guidelines on fish migration and related
installation of fish migration aids are available in all four compared countries, the legal
implementation of these documents is problematic. In Austria, the entering into force of the national
guidelines (preliminary version AG-FAH, 2011) is expected the latest at the end of 2012. For the
other countries, standards are under development (SLO), ministerial orders might be applied (RO)
or there is no legal implementation available (IT). As an output of this work, it seems that the case-
by-case basis is dominating in SLO, IT and RO and that there is urgent need for standardization of
practices in each country. After that, most important open issues as downstream migration and
monitoring of fish pass facilities need to be addressed.
48
References
BOKU
AG-FAH (2011): Grundlagen fr einen sterreichischen Leitfaden zum Bau von
Fischaufstiegshilfen (FAHs). Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft, Wien, 87 S.
Albanese B., Angermeier P.L. and Dorai-raj S. (2004): "Ecological correlates of fish movement in a
network of Virginia streams." Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(6): 857-869.
ATV-DVWK (2004): Fischschutz- und fischabstiegsanlagen: Bemessung, Gestaltung-

Funktionskontrolle. ATV-DVWK Themen. Hennef-Deutschland, Deutscher Verband fr
Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau e.V. M-501: 256.
Clough S.C., Lee-elliott I.E., Turnpenny A.W.H., Holden S.D.J. and Hinks C. (2001): Swimming
speeds in Fish: Phase 2. Southampton, Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories Ltd, Marine &
Freshwater Biology Unit. F&D Technical Report W2-049/TR1: 93.
Clough S.C., OKeeffe N.J. and Holden S.D.J. (2004): Swimming Speeds of Young-of-the-Year
Dace: Phase 2. Southampton, Jacobs Babtie Aquatic. R&D Technical Report W2-026/TR1: 18.
Clugh S.C. and Turnpenny A.W.H. (2001): Swimming speeds in Fish: Phase 1. Southhampton,
Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories Ltd, Marine & Freshwater Biology Unit, R&D Technical
Report W2-026/TR1: 94.
Colgan P. (1993): The motivational basis of fish behaviour. Behaviour of Teleost Fishes. T. J.
PITCHER. London u. a., Chapman and Hall. 7: 31-65.
Danner H. (1884): "Ein Kapitel vom Donaulachs." Mitteilungen des Obersterreichischen

Schutzvereins fr Jagd und Fischerei: 50-55.
Dingle H. (1996): Migration - The Biology of Life on the Move. New York - Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
DVWK (1996): Fischaufstiegsanlagen Bemessung, Gestaltung, Funktionskontrolle. Bonn,

Deutscher Verband fr Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau e.V.
EC (2000): Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 October 2000
Establishing A Framework for Community Action in the Field of Water Policy. OJEC. L 327. 173.
Hofer J. (1906): "Von der Nase." Schweiz. Fischerei-Zeitung(14): 140-142.
Hvidsten N.A., Jensen A.J. Vivas H. Bakke O. and Heggberget T.G. (1995): "Downstream
migration of Atlantic salmon smolts in relation to water flow, water temperature, moon phase and
social interaction." Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research(70): 38-48.
Jacobsaquatic (2006): SWMINIT. Southampton, Environment Agency.
Jens G., Born O., Hohlstein R., Kmmereit M., Klupp R., Labatzki P., Mau G., Seifert K. and
Wondrak P. (1997): Fischwanderhilfen: Notwendigkeit, Gestaltung, Rechtsgrundlagen. Offenbach
am Main, Verband Deutscher Fischereiverwaltungsbeamter und Fischreiwissenschaftler e.V.: 114.
Jonsson N. (1991): "Influence of Water Flow, Water Temperature and Light on Fish Migration in
Rivers." Nordic Journal of Freshwater Research 66(1991): 20-35.
49
Jungwirth M. (1998): River Continuum and Fish Migration Going Beyond the Longitudinal River
Corridor in Understanding Ecological Integrity. Weiss S. (ed.) Fish Migration and fish Bypasses.
Fishing News Books, Oxford: 19-32.
Jungwirth M., Haidvogl G., Moog O., Muhar S. and Schmutz S. (2004): Angewandte Fischkologie
an Fliegewssern. Facultas Universittsverlag.
Jungwirth M., Muhar S.and Schmutz S. (2000): "Fundamentals of fish ecological integrity and their
relation to the extended serial discontinuity concept." Hydrobiologia 422: 85-97.
Kottelat M. and Freyhof J. (2007): Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes, Kottelat, Cornol,
Switzerland and Freyhof, Berlin, Germany.
Lelek A. und Buhse G. (1992): Die Fische des Rheins. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Springer
Verlag.
Lucas M. and Baras E. (2001): Migration of Freshwater Fishes. Oxford, Blackwell Science.
Mader H., Unfer G. and Schmutz S. (1998): The effectiveness of nature-like bypass channels in a
lowland river, the Marchfeldkanal. In Jungwirth M., Schmutz S. and Weiss S. (eds.) Fish Migration
and Fish Bypasses. Fishing News Books, Oxford: 384-402.
Margreiter (1935): "Die Fische Tirols und Vorarlbergs: Die Flubarbe." Tiroler und Vorarlberger
Fischer(10): 74-77. Und "Die Fische Tirols und Vorarlbergs: Die Nase." Tiroler und Vorarlberger
Fischer(10): 88-90.
Northcote T.G. (1978): Migratory strategies and production in freshwater fishes.Ecology of

Freshwater Fish Production. S. D. GERKING. Oxford-London-Edinburgh-Melbourne, Blackwell
Scientific Publications: 326-359.
Northcote T.G. (1998): Migratory behaviour of fish and its significance to movement through
riverine fish passage facilities. In S. Weiss (ed.) Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses. Fisching news
Books, Oxford: 3-18.
Ovidio M. and Philippart J.C. (2002): The impact of small physical obstacles on upstream
movements of six species of fish. Hydrobiologia 483 (1-3): 55-69.
Pavlov D.S. (1989): Structures assisting the migrations of non-salmonid fish: USSR. Rome, FAO:
97.
Reinartz R. (1997): Untersuchungen zur Gefhrdungssituation der Fischart Nase (Chondrostoma

nasus L.) in bayrischen Gewssern. Institut fr Tierwissenschaften. Mnchen, TU Mnchen: 379.
Rosengarten J. (1954): "Der Aufstieg der Fische im Moselfischpa Koblenz im Frhjahr 1952 und
1953." Zeitschrift fr Fischerei und deren Hilfswissenschaften: 489-552.
Scheuring L. (1949): "Fischpsse, ihre Leistung und Zweckmigkeit." sterreichsFischerei 2: 26-

31.
Schmutz S., Kaufmann M., Vogel B. and Jungwirth M. (2000): Grundlagen zur Bewertung der
fischkologischen Funktionsfhigkeit von Fliessgewssern. Wien, Bundesministerium fr Land und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft.
50
Schmutz S., Zitek A. and Dorninger C (1997): A new automatic drift sampler for riverine fish. Arch.
Hydrobiol. 139: 449-460.
Turnpenny A.W.H., Blay S.R., Carronand J.J. and Clough S.C. (2001): Literature Review
Swimming speeds in Fish. Southampton, Fawley Aquatic Research Laboratories Ltd, Marine &
Freshwater Biology Unit. R&D Technical Report W 2-026/TR2: 45.
Waidbacher H. and Haidvogl G. (1998): Fish Migration and Fish Passage Facilities in the Danube:
Past and Present.In M., Schmutz S. and Weiss S. (eds.) Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses.
Fishing News Books, Oxford - London - Berlin, Blackwell Sciences Ltd.: 85-98.
Ward J.V. (1989): "The 4-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems." Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 8(1): 2-8.
Watkins A. (2007): Swimming speeds in Fish: Phase 3 Common bream (Abramis brama).
Sothampton, Jacobs UK Limited: 42.
Zitek A., Haidvogl G., Jungwirth M. Pavlas P. and Schmutz S. (2007): Ein kologisch-strategischer
Leitfaden zur Wiederherstellung der Durchgngigkeit von Fliegewssern fr die Fischfauna in
sterreich. AP 5 des MIRR Projektes - A Model based Instrument for River Restoration
(http://mirr.boku.ac.at/mirr_resultate.htm, 27.12.2008). Wien, Institut fr Hydrobiologie und
Gewssermanagement, BOKU: 139.
STYRIA
AG-FAH (2011): Grundlagen fr einen sterreichischen Leitfaden zum Bau von
Fischaufstiegshilfen (FAHs). Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und
Wasserwirtschaft, Wien, 87 S.
Woschitz G., Eberstaller J. und Schmutz S. (2003): Mindestanforderungen bei der berprfung
von Fischmigrationshilfen (FMH) und Bewertung der Funktionsfhigkeit, sterreichischer
Fischereiverband.
Zitek, A., Haidvogl, G., Jungwirth, M., Pavlas, P., Schmutz, S. (2007): Ein kologischstrategischer
Leitfaden zur Wiederherstellung der Durchgngigkeit von Fliegewssern fr die Fischfauna in
sterreich. AP5 des MIRR-Projektes, Endbericht. Studie im Auftrag von Lebensministerium und
Land Niedersterreich.138
ARPAV
Piemonte Region - Decree of the President of the Regional Executive No. 8/2007 - Minimum water
flow;
Veneto Region - Regional Act No. 19/1998 - Rules for the protection of hydrobiological resources
and of fish population in the Veneto Region;
Liguria Region - Regional Act No. 21/2004 - Provisions for the protection of the aquatic ecosystem
and rules fo fishing in inland waters;
Lombardia Region - Regional Act No. 7/20557/2005 - Technical document for fisheries
management;
51
Lombardia Region, 2011 Interventi Idraulici Ittiocompatibili: line guida (Fish Compatible Hydraulic
Interventions: Guidelines). Quaderni della Ricerca n. 125;
FAO/DVWK, 2002. Fish Passes - Design, dimensions and monitoring. Published by FAO/DVWK
(Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and Deutscher Verband fur
Wasserwirtschaft und Kulturbau e.V). Rome. ISBN 92-5-104894-0;
Pini Prato E., 2007. Descrittori per interventi di ripristino della continuit fluviale: Indici di Priorit di
Intervento in Biologia Ambientale;
Pini Prato E., Camoglio C., Calles O., 2011. A simple management tool for planning the restoration
of river longitudinal connectivity at watershed level: priority indices for fish passes. Journal of
Applied Ichthyology 27: 73-79, 2011
Provincia di Firenze, 2008. Le scale di risalita per la tutela del patrimonio ittico: progetto di
intervento per i corsi d'acqua del Mugello. Edited by Pini Prato E.;
Comoglio C., Pini Prato E., Ferri M.,Gianaroli M., 2007. A case study of river rehabilitation for fish
in northern italy: the Panaro river project. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 3: 85-92,
2007;
Provincia di Modena, 2006. Linee guida per il corretto approccio metodologico alla progettazione
dei passaggi per pesci. Edited by Pini Prato E., Gianaroli M., Comoglio C.;
Regione Toscana e Universit di Firenze, 2009. Linee guida per la progettazione, valutazione
tecnica e pianificazione di passaggi artificiali per pesci;
Regione Piemonte, 2004. Proposta di linee guida per ladeguamento delle opere di presa esistenti
al rilascio del deflusso minimo vitale. Edited by Comoglio C., Pini Prato E., Rosso M.. Collana
Ambiente, Regione Piemonte.
Royal Decree No. 1486 of 22 November, 1914 - Regulation on river and lake fishing;
Royal Decree No. 1604 of October 08, 1931 - Approval of the text on fishing laws;
Toscana Region - Regional Act No. 7/2005 - Provision on inland fisheries;
APELE and POLI-B
Bnrescu P., The fauna of Romanian Popular Republic. Vol. XIII Pisces Osteichthies, Academy
Publishing, Bucharest, (1964).
National Administration Apele Romane, Synthesis of the River Management Plans at the River
Basin scale, Bucharest, (2009).
National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management, Study regarding the solutions for fish
fauna migration for reservoirs with dam heights between 15-50 m (2011).
52
Annex 1: Questionnaire
The questionnaire is based on a questionnaire from the European Commission on hydropower
under the CIS process (common implementation strategy for the water framework directive) which
was adapted by the ICPDR (changes of the ICPDR are marked in green). Please fill the required
information (can also be taken from the ICPDR questionnaires, if available).
Part 1: Priorisation
1) Is there a standardised priorisation method or approach for the restoration of river continuity
in your country?
Yes: Please explain your approach here:
No: How do you select those continuity interruptions, which are made passable for fish?
2) Which parameters are included in your priorisation/decision process?
Parameters mark with an x and explain how

importance for fish
actual ecological status
river size
protected areas (e.g. FFH relevance)
density of barriers/ degree of framentation
proximity to main river or Danube
presence of importatn spawning grounds
presence of habitats for juveniles/winter grounds
transit areas
key migration routes for long distance migratory fish
key migration routes for medium distance migratory fish
number of miratory species
location of barrier (mouth, middle reach or headwater)
distance from mout/confluence
number of barrier countet from mouth/confluence (e.g.
first, second, third or higher)
length of reconnected habitat
others (please specify)
Part 2: Barriers
3) How many barriers are present in your country? Please give all values asked.
Total number:
Total number within natural fish habitats:
1 barrier every ____ river km
4) How many of these barriers are passable/impassable for fish? (in percent or total)
Passable:
Impassable:
5) How are legal requirements for facilities to ensure upstream continuity (via fish pass) set in
your country? (ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.12)
53
There is relevant legislation There is no legal There is no legal There is generally no
requirement but there is a requirement or legislative means of
relevant recommendation recommendation but ensuring upstream
measures to ensure continuity
upstream continuity are
defined in individual
cases
National Regional National Regional
Title: Title:
Comments:
6) Is every hydropower plant in your country required to have a fish pass? (ICPDR
Questionnaire: Q8.13)
New hydropower plants Existing hydropower plants No complete

Yes No Yes No information
available
Comments:
7) Do you see possibilities or the need for improvement of their enforcement and
implementation? (ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.15)
8) Is there an agreed method/approach in your country on how to ensure upstream continuity?

(ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.16)
There is a technical standard set There is a recommendation Set on case- There is no

by law by-case basis relevant
method
defined
Comments:
9) Do the methods/approaches mentioned above include requirements regarding: (ICPDR

Questionnaire: Q8.17)
Please explain:
Type of fish pass (technical or bypass channel)
Special type of fish pass (e.g. denil, vertical slot fish pass)
Hydraulic design (e.g. discharge, flow velocity)
Recommendations/requirements on duration of time for
passabilty (e.g. 300 days/year)
Recommendations/requirements that fishes can locate the
fish pass in the river
Recommendations/requirements to monitor effectiveness?
Recommendations/requirements to apply best available
technique (BAT)?
Other / Comments
10) How are legal requirements for facilities to ensure downstream continuity (for fish) set in
your country? (ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.18)
54
There is relevant legislation There is no legal There is no legal There is generally
requirement but there is a requirement or no legislative
relevant recommendation recommendation but means of ensuring
measures to ensure downstream
downstream continuity are continuity
defined in individual cases
Comments:
11) Is every hydropower plant in your country required to ensure downstream continuity?
(ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.19)
New hydropower plants Existing hydropower plants No complete

Yes No Yes No information
available
Comments:
12) Is there an agreed method/approach in your country on how to ensure downstream

continuity? (ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.23)
There is a technical standard set There is a recommendation Set on case- There is no

by law by-case basis relevant
method
defined
Comments:
13) Are the following tools used in your country? If necessary to specify how the tool is used in
your country, pleas give relevant short explanation. (ICPDR Questionnaire: Q8.24)
Are these tools used? Explain

Yes No Dont know
Physical barriers to protect fish from turbine intake channels (screens)
Bypasses and sluiceways
Plant operation management - Spill flow (water releases independent of
power generation)
Fish-friendly turbines
Catch and carry / Trap and truck
Monetary compensation for restoration measures for land owners,
fishermen, environment / fishery authorities (single or annual payment)
Compensation according to fish stocking (e.g. smolts and fingerlings)
Compensation for measures taken to reproduce habitats (construction of
spawning and rearing channels, restoration of habitats)
Is there an obligation / recommendation to monitor effectiveness of
measures?
Other / Comments
14) Does monitoring of fish migration facilities take place (or is it planned) and how is it
performed?
15) Do the methods/approaches mentioned above include requirements regarding
55
Please explain:
functional duration of the fish migration aid
migration periods of certain fish species
guiding current (for fish to find the entry of the structure)
different swimming capabilities of reference species
presence of migratory fish species (medium to long
distance)
16) Wich different fish migration facility types are used?
17) Are the different types selected with regard to the present fish region?
18) How are the fish migration aids dimensioned (length, depth, width, flow velocity)?
According to the swimming capabilities of reference species (please include additional

information, if possible)
According to rivers size and type (please include additional information, if possible)
56
Authors Contact
Carina Mielach (BOKU) Dino Gasparetto (ARPAV)

e-mail: carina.mielach@boku.ac.at e-mail: dgasparetto@arpa.veneto.it
Telephone: +43 1 47654 5227 Telephone: +39 041.2794705
Fax: +43 1 47654 5217 Fax: +39 041 2794713
Rafaela Schinegger (BOKU) Italo Saccardo (ARPAV)

e-mail: rafaela.schinegger@boku.ac.at e-mail: isaccardo@arpa.veneto.it
Telephone: +43 1 47654 5223 Telephone: +39 041 2794005
Fax: +43 1 47654 5217 Fax: +39 041 2794713
Stefan Schmutz (BOKU) Matteo Cesca (ARPAV)

e-mail: stefan.schmutz@boku.ac.at e-mail: mcesca@arpa.veneto.it
Fax: +43 1 47654 5217 Fax: +39 0437 935601
Clemens Trautwein (BOKU) Alexandru Moldoveanu (APELE)

e-mailclemens.trautwein@boku.ac.at e-mail: alexandru.moldoveanu@hidro.ro
Fax: +43 1 47654 5217 Fax: 0040 21 3181116
Sao antl (UL) Alina-Tereza Lazarine (APELE)

e-mail: saso.santl@fgg.uni-lj.si e-mail: tereza.lazarine@hidro.ro
Fax: +386 1 425 0681 Fax: 0040 21 3181116
Albert Rechberger (STYRIA) Bogdan Popa (POLI-B)

e-mail: albert.rechberger@stmk.gv.at e-mail: popab_234@yahoo.com
Telephone: +43 316 877 2464 Telephone: +40 214029189
Fax: +43 316 877 2480 Fax: -
www.seehydropower.eu
Project Contact
Ing. Maximo Peviani

maximo.peviani@erse-web.it
Telephone: +39 035 55771 (switchboard)
Fax: +39 035 5577999

Analysis of National Strategies For Preservation of River Ecosystems in Line With The Water Framework Directive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of National Strategies For Preservation of River Ecosystems in Line With The Water Framework Directive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT FOR PRESERVING

RIVER ECOSYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

C. Mielach, R. Schinegger, S. Schmutz, C. Trautwein, S. antl, A. Rechberger,

1.1. Fish migration.................................................................................................................................................. 5

2. ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL STRATEGIES TO PRESERVE RIVER ECOSYSTEMS

2.1. Austrian measures .......................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2. Slovenian measures ..................................................................................................................................... 20

2.3. Romanian measures ..................................................................................................................................... 22

2.4. Italian measures ............................................................................................................................................ 28

3. ANNEX 18 OF THE DRBMP: ECOLOGICAL PRIORITISATION OF MEASURES TO

3.3. Development of a prioritisation index for restoring continuity ............................................................ 43

3.4. References ..................................................................................................................................................... 46

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 47

1.1. Fish migration

1.1.1. Migration guilds

Table 1: Migratory guilds (AG-FAH, 2011)

1.1.2. Migration purposes

- Reproduction migrations to certain reproduction habitats (mosty upstream and lateral)

- Feeding migrations (up-, downstream and lateral)

- Compensatory migrations (mostly upstream e.g. after floods)

- Overwintering migration (mostly downstream, sometimes lateral)

- Migrations for density compensation (up- and downstream)

- Settlement and resettlement migrations (up- and downstream)

- Escape-migrations in case of deteriourating environmental parameters (e.g. to deeper

- Migration for unknown reasons.

1.1.4. Migration seasons

1.1.5. Important factors for fish migration aids

Figure 1: Swimming capabilites and their duration of sustainment (AG-FAH, 2011)

2.1.1. Austrian priorisation strategy

Until now, obligations for restoration/preservation of passability were decided on a case-by-case

Figure 2: Prioritised sections (in yellow) for continuity restoration

2.1.2. Priorisation in Austria

The following parameters are included in the priorisation/decision process:

Number of migratory species

Location of barrier (e.g. mouth, middle reach or headwater)

Distance from mouth/confluence

2.1.3. Barriers and their passability in Austria

Actually, the following fish pass types are recommended:

Resolved rock ramp or partial rock ramp

Recommendation concentrates primarly on upstream migration although in some cases

Review of the operating conditions

I total functioning 1.50

As an example a fish ecological investigation of a fish facility showed following results:

Criterion upstream migration (qualitatively) shows:

Criterion upstream migration(quantitatively) - middle distance migrators shows:

Criterion upstream migration(quantitatively) - short distance migrators shows:

In addition, there has to be considered the following k.o. criterion:

Table 3: Fish-body sizes of predominant species

Mur 100 cm Huchen - Hucho hucho and, 120 cm European

Upper trout region: v-min = 1 m/s v-max = 2.0m/s

Upper trout region: 140 W/m

Table 5: Example for fish facility dimentions (Hucho hucho)

2.2.1. Priorisation in Slovenia

The following parameters are included in the priorisation/decision process:

importance for fish

2.2.2. Barriers and their passability in Slovenia

The following table provides an overview of sub-basins and their continuity.

Table 6: Slovenia sub-basins and their continuity

Sub-basin Name of HP dam Continuity Comment

subsidies for the construction of fish passes

Functional duration of the fish migration aid

2.3.1. Priorisation in Romania

2.3.2. Barriers and their passsability in Romania