FIThydrowiki - User contributions [en]

Cumulative impact assessment

2020-10-26T10:53:35Z

Hanywafa:

[[file:Figure1CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1. Illustrated definition of multiple, cumulative and multiple cumulative impacts (UHULL)]]
[[file:Figure2CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2. Scheme of vulnerability assessment in freshwater fishes (UHULL).]]
[[file:Figure3CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Relative sensitivity rankings of UK fishes - based on distribution, abundance and phenology (UHULL).]]

Despite concerns over cumulative and/or multiple environmental exposures/impacts, there is currently no standard definition of ‘cumulative’ or ‘multiple’ impacts, nor standard approaches for this type of assessment. The European Commission identified this problem in their Guide-lines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions (European Commission 1999) by stating ‘a key problem … was how to define indirect and cumulative and impact interactions. The definitions of these three types of impact overlap, although there are no agreed and accepted definitions’ (European Commission 1999). In the Chambers English Dictionary, cumulative is defined as ‘increasing by successive additions’ and multiple as ‘consisting of many elements or components’ (Chambers English Dictionary, 7th Edition, Schwarz 1988). Thus technically “cumulative impacts” refers to a single exposure, repeated many times, while multiple implies more than one exposure, occurring once or re-peated many times (cumulative and multiple). These exposures may occur at low levels and only cause noticeable outcomes through their cumulative/multiple effects.
Figure 1 attempts to illustrate these explanations diagrammatically in the context of hydropower development, but are purely additive and do not include impact interactions, which are complex to interpret. Consequently, there is a need to draw on principles and thinking for other domains.

To understand the notion of cumulative impact on fish and fisheries, reference to the climate change literature is advised, where the concepts of vulnerability and exposure are discussed in relation to the impact of climate change on populations.
Climate risk analyses (and their predecessors, Climate Vulnerability Analyses) are a systematic comparison of the consequences of climate change and applicable for understanding the likely vulnerability and adaptability of climate change on fish conservation. The IPCC’s (2007) vulnerability assessment framework provides a mechanism to understand the vulnerability of freshwater fish and fisheries to climate change scenarios, and the process is equally applicable to understanding the impact to hydropower development on freshwater fish and fisheries. Exposure is related to direct effects of changes in connectivity, loss of recruitment, change in hydrology (duration, frequency and amplitude of the hydrograph) and sediment delivery or size of impoundment etc. on river ecosystems. Biological sensitivity can be derived from trait-based indicators related as outlined in the Fish Hazard Index (FIThydro deliverable D1.3 Fish Population Hazard Index) related to:
*ABUNDANCE -measures of potential for biological productivity
*DISTRIBUTION – measures of capacity to shift
*PHENOLOGY – measures of the potential impact on the timing of life cycle events.

Adaptive capacity in the context of fish conservation largely relates to mitigation measures that are linked to recovery potential, e.g. fish passage facilities, habitat improvement measures, establishing environmental flows, screening of turbine, or protecting habitats from degradation and maintaining the ecosystem integrity to support the aquatic biota (FIThydro deliverable D2.1: A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these). Stock enhancement is another measure that can be used but this does not take away the bottleneck to recruitment nor production processes that impact on the populations and is thus an unsustainable measure unless carried out in combination with other habitat-related measures.
Vulnerability applied in the context of hydropower development refers to the interplay of a freshwater fish’s exposure to projected impacts from the physical structure and change to the fish’s habitat (extrinsic factor), its sensitivity to the impacts factors (based on intrinsic traits) and ability to adapt (intrinsic traits).

Exposure is derived from the relative change to the aquatic, and thus fishes’, environment between the pre-hydropower installation and current characteristics with the hydropower in-stalled and operational. Sensitivity is determined through a review of published literature in addition to the use of the European database on species traits compiled in the Fish Hazard Index. Attributes are related to the historical distribution of the species and their relative abundance, as well as the IUCN Red List in terms of conservation status. These are coupled with phenological traits that likely impact on the timing of life cycle events. These traits included maximum size (Lmax), von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k), age at 50% maturity (tmat), size at 50% maturity (Lmat), reproductive strategy (R), fecundity (F) and trophic level (TL). For each species, each exposure and sensitivity attribute can be scored on a Likert scale (say 1–3, where 1 indicates low exposure and low sensitivity and 3 indicates high exposure and high sensitivity). The sensitivity score for each species present can then be represented graphically on a stacked bar chart to illustrate the most vulnerable species and thus those that require the most focussed action. These tend to be migratory species (both diadromous and potamodromous species) that need to bypass the hydropower installation both in and upstream and downstream direction.
An example of the vulnerability assessment for UK freshwater species is illustrated in Figure 3.

The most sensitive species are those that are migratory, such as salmon (Salmo salar) and shads (Alosa spp.), or have very limited distribution ranges such as spined loach (Cobitis taenia) or limited environmental tolerances, e.g. grayling (Thymallus thymallus). Worryingly, the low risk species are mostly non-native invasive that are considered problematic in the UK and considerable investment has been spent eradicating sunbleak (Leucaspius delineates) and top-mouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva). Opening up fish passage will likely exacerbate the spread of these species and require increased investment to control. The medium sensitivity species are all eurytopic species with 3-10 year life cycles and wide distribution.

Cumulative impact assessment

2020-10-22T14:48:39Z

Hanywafa: /* Cumulative Impact Assessment */

[[file:Figure1CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1. Illustrated definition of multiple, cumulative and multiple cumulative impacts (IGB, UHULL)]]
[[file:Figure2CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2. Scheme of vulnerability assessment in freshwater fishes (IGB, UHULL).]]
[[file:Figure3CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Relative sensitivity rankings of UK fishes - based on distribution, abundance and phenology (IGB, UHULL).]]

Despite concerns over cumulative and/or multiple environmental exposures/impacts, there is currently no standard definition of ‘cumulative’ or ‘multiple’ impacts, nor standard approaches for this type of assessment. The European Commission identified this problem in their Guide-lines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions (European Commission 1999) by stating ‘a key problem … was how to define indirect and cumulative and impact interactions. The definitions of these three types of impact overlap, although there are no agreed and accepted definitions’ (European Commission 1999). In the Chambers English Dictionary, cumulative is defined as ‘increasing by successive additions’ and multiple as ‘consisting of many elements or components’ (Chambers English Dictionary, 7th Edition, Schwarz 1988). Thus technically “cumulative impacts” refers to a single exposure, repeated many times, while multiple implies more than one exposure, occurring once or re-peated many times (cumulative and multiple). These exposures may occur at low levels and only cause noticeable outcomes through their cumulative/multiple effects.
Figure 1 attempts to illustrate these explanations diagrammatically in the context of hydropower development, but are purely additive and do not include impact interactions, which are complex to interpret. Consequently, there is a need to draw on principles and thinking for other domains.

To understand the notion of cumulative impact on fish and fisheries, reference to the climate change literature is advised, where the concepts of vulnerability and exposure are discussed in relation to the impact of climate change on populations.
Climate risk analyses (and their predecessors, Climate Vulnerability Analyses) are a systematic comparison of the consequences of climate change and applicable for understanding the likely vulnerability and adaptability of climate change on fish conservation. The IPCC’s (2007) vulnerability assessment framework provides a mechanism to understand the vulnerability of freshwater fish and fisheries to climate change scenarios, and the process is equally applicable to understanding the impact to hydropower development on freshwater fish and fisheries. Exposure is related to direct effects of changes in connectivity, loss of recruitment, change in hydrology (duration, frequency and amplitude of the hydrograph) and sediment delivery or size of impoundment etc. on river ecosystems. Biological sensitivity can be derived from trait-based indicators related as outlined in the Fish Hazard Index (FIThydro deliverable D1.3 Fish Population Hazard Index) related to:
*ABUNDANCE -measures of potential for biological productivity
*DISTRIBUTION – measures of capacity to shift
*PHENOLOGY – measures of the potential impact on the timing of life cycle events.

Adaptive capacity in the context of fish conservation largely relates to mitigation measures that are linked to recovery potential, e.g. fish passage facilities, habitat improvement measures, establishing environmental flows, screening of turbine, or protecting habitats from degradation and maintaining the ecosystem integrity to support the aquatic biota (FIThydro deliverable D2.1: A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these). Stock enhancement is another measure that can be used but this does not take away the bottleneck to recruitment nor production processes that impact on the populations and is thus an unsustainable measure unless carried out in combination with other habitat-related measures.
Vulnerability applied in the context of hydropower development refers to the interplay of a freshwater fish’s exposure to projected impacts from the physical structure and change to the fish’s habitat (extrinsic factor), its sensitivity to the impacts factors (based on intrinsic traits) and ability to adapt (intrinsic traits).

Exposure is derived from the relative change to the aquatic, and thus fishes’, environment between the pre-hydropower installation and current characteristics with the hydropower in-stalled and operational. Sensitivity is determined through a review of published literature in addition to the use of the European database on species traits compiled in the Fish Hazard Index. Attributes are related to the historical distribution of the species and their relative abundance, as well as the IUCN Red List in terms of conservation status. These are coupled with phenological traits that likely impact on the timing of life cycle events. These traits included maximum size (Lmax), von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k), age at 50% maturity (tmat), size at 50% maturity (Lmat), reproductive strategy (R), fecundity (F) and trophic level (TL). For each species, each exposure and sensitivity attribute can be scored on a Likert scale (say 1–3, where 1 indicates low exposure and low sensitivity and 3 indicates high exposure and high sensitivity). The sensitivity score for each species present can then be represented graphically on a stacked bar chart to illustrate the most vulnerable species and thus those that require the most focussed action. These tend to be migratory species (both diadromous and potamodromous species) that need to bypass the hydropower installation both in and upstream and downstream direction.
An example of the vulnerability assessment for UK freshwater species is illustrated in Figure 3.

The most sensitive species are those that are migratory, such as salmon (Salmo salar) and shads (Alosa spp.), or have very limited distribution ranges such as spined loach (Cobitis taenia) or limited environmental tolerances, e.g. grayling (Thymallus thymallus). Worryingly, the low risk species are mostly non-native invasive that are considered problematic in the UK and considerable investment has been spent eradicating sunbleak (Leucaspius delineates) and top-mouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva). Opening up fish passage will likely exacerbate the spread of these species and require increased investment to control. The medium sensitivity species are all eurytopic species with 3-10 year life cycles and wide distribution.

Cumulative impact assessment

2020-10-22T14:12:52Z

Hanywafa: Created page with "=Cumulative Impact Assessment= Figure 1. Illustrated definition of multiple, cumulative and multiple cumulative impacts (IGB, UHULL) fil..."

=Cumulative Impact Assessment=

[[file:Figure1CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1. Illustrated definition of multiple, cumulative and multiple cumulative impacts (IGB, UHULL)]]
[[file:Figure2CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 2. Scheme of vulnerability assessment in freshwater fishes (IGB, UHULL).]]
[[file:Figure3CIA.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 3: Relative sensitivity rankings of UK fishes - based on distribution, abundance and phenology (IGB, UHULL).]]

Despite concerns over cumulative and/or multiple environmental exposures/impacts, there is currently no standard definition of ‘cumulative’ or ‘multiple’ impacts, nor standard approaches for this type of assessment. The European Commission identified this problem in their Guide-lines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts as well as Impact Interactions (European Commission 1999) by stating ‘a key problem … was how to define indirect and cumulative and impact interactions. The definitions of these three types of impact overlap, although there are no agreed and accepted definitions’ (European Commission 1999). In the Chambers English Dictionary, cumulative is defined as ‘increasing by successive additions’ and multiple as ‘consisting of many elements or components’ (Chambers English Dictionary, 7th Edition, Schwarz 1988). Thus technically “cumulative impacts” refers to a single exposure, repeated many times, while multiple implies more than one exposure, occurring once or re-peated many times (cumulative and multiple). These exposures may occur at low levels and only cause noticeable outcomes through their cumulative/multiple effects.
Figure 1 attempts to illustrate these explanations diagrammatically in the context of hydropower development, but are purely additive and do not include impact interactions, which are complex to interpret. Consequently, there is a need to draw on principles and thinking for other domains.

To understand the notion of cumulative impact on fish and fisheries, reference to the climate change literature is advised, where the concepts of vulnerability and exposure are discussed in relation to the impact of climate change on populations.
Climate risk analyses (and their predecessors, Climate Vulnerability Analyses) are a systematic comparison of the consequences of climate change and applicable for understanding the likely vulnerability and adaptability of climate change on fish conservation. The IPCC’s (2007) vulnerability assessment framework provides a mechanism to understand the vulnerability of freshwater fish and fisheries to climate change scenarios, and the process is equally applicable to understanding the impact to hydropower development on freshwater fish and fisheries. Exposure is related to direct effects of changes in connectivity, loss of recruitment, change in hydrology (duration, frequency and amplitude of the hydrograph) and sediment delivery or size of impoundment etc. on river ecosystems. Biological sensitivity can be derived from trait-based indicators related as outlined in the Fish Hazard Index (FIThydro deliverable D1.3 Fish Population Hazard Index) related to:
*ABUNDANCE -measures of potential for biological productivity
*DISTRIBUTION – measures of capacity to shift
*PHENOLOGY – measures of the potential impact on the timing of life cycle events.

Adaptive capacity in the context of fish conservation largely relates to mitigation measures that are linked to recovery potential, e.g. fish passage facilities, habitat improvement measures, establishing environmental flows, screening of turbine, or protecting habitats from degradation and maintaining the ecosystem integrity to support the aquatic biota (FIThydro deliverable D2.1: A List of solutions, models, tools and devices, their application range on a regional and overall level, the identified knowledge gaps and the recommendations to fill these). Stock enhancement is another measure that can be used but this does not take away the bottleneck to recruitment nor production processes that impact on the populations and is thus an unsustainable measure unless carried out in combination with other habitat-related measures.
Vulnerability applied in the context of hydropower development refers to the interplay of a freshwater fish’s exposure to projected impacts from the physical structure and change to the fish’s habitat (extrinsic factor), its sensitivity to the impacts factors (based on intrinsic traits) and ability to adapt (intrinsic traits).

Exposure is derived from the relative change to the aquatic, and thus fishes’, environment between the pre-hydropower installation and current characteristics with the hydropower in-stalled and operational. Sensitivity is determined through a review of published literature in addition to the use of the European database on species traits compiled in the Fish Hazard Index. Attributes are related to the historical distribution of the species and their relative abundance, as well as the IUCN Red List in terms of conservation status. These are coupled with phenological traits that likely impact on the timing of life cycle events. These traits included maximum size (Lmax), von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k), age at 50% maturity (tmat), size at 50% maturity (Lmat), reproductive strategy (R), fecundity (F) and trophic level (TL). For each species, each exposure and sensitivity attribute can be scored on a Likert scale (say 1–3, where 1 indicates low exposure and low sensitivity and 3 indicates high exposure and high sensitivity). The sensitivity score for each species present can then be represented graphically on a stacked bar chart to illustrate the most vulnerable species and thus those that require the most focussed action. These tend to be migratory species (both diadromous and potamodromous species) that need to bypass the hydropower installation both in and upstream and downstream direction.
An example of the vulnerability assessment for UK freshwater species is illustrated in Figure 3.

The most sensitive species are those that are migratory, such as salmon (Salmo salar) and shads (Alosa spp.), or have very limited distribution ranges such as spined loach (Cobitis taenia) or limited environmental tolerances, e.g. grayling (Thymallus thymallus). Worryingly, the low risk species are mostly non-native invasive that are considered problematic in the UK and considerable investment has been spent eradicating sunbleak (Leucaspius delineates) and top-mouth gudgeon (Pseudorasbora parva). Opening up fish passage will likely exacerbate the spread of these species and require increased investment to control. The medium sensitivity species are all eurytopic species with 3-10 year life cycles and wide distribution.

File:Figure3CIA.jpg

2020-10-22T14:10:15Z

Hanywafa:

File:Figure2CIA.jpg

2020-10-22T14:07:52Z

Hanywafa:

File:Figure1CIA.jpg

2020-10-22T14:03:30Z

Hanywafa: Hanywafa uploaded a new version of File:Figure1CIA.jpg

File:Figure1CIA.jpg

2020-10-22T14:01:36Z

Hanywafa:

File:Figure1 CIA.png

2020-10-22T13:58:13Z

Hanywafa:

Decision support system

2020-09-29T07:53:51Z

Hanywafa:

INCOMPLETE/TEMPORARY, only a placeholder. [[file:broken]]

''[[file:DSS_picture.PNG|500px|right|Conceptual flow diagram of a risk-based Decision Support System to ensure environmentally friendly
hydropower decision making]]

The proliferation of hydropower development to meet obligations under the Renewable Ener-gy Directive has also seen the emergence of a conflict between the hydropower developers and the fisheries and conservation sectors. The hydropower industry wants a joined up re-sponse to their planned developments with sound guidance and timely decision-making. On the other hand, the fisheries and conservation interests have concerns over the impact that these schemes can have (especially the impact on WFD and Habitats Directive status) and want to be fully consulted on proposed schemes. They need to be reassured that the stand-ards of design, construction and operation will provide adequate protection of wildlife and biodiversity, and the ecosystem services that they provide. As a result, there is a need to de-velop robust and transparent, evidence-based, support for decision making that is easy for developers and regulators to use while enabling a high level of appropriate environmental protection and mitigation.

Whilst many guidelines exist for assessing the sustainability of hydropower schemes or the need for retro-fittingretrofitting existing structures, they are often limited in their assessment of risks and uncertainty about the impact of schemes on fisheries and the environment. Few provide support for the decision-making process at each stage of evaluation. At each stage of the process, decisions have to be made about the acceptability of the risks and uncertainty of impacts of hydropower schemes, and the ability to manage those risks. A comprehensive protocol, based on a risk assessment framework, developed in the FIThydro project to ad-dress this issue is described in this report.

Here, we have developed a planning and decision framework comprising a sequence of four key steps, each encompassing a series of key considerations and decisions. The framework enables operators and regulators to develop structured proposals for new HPP schemes, and to both, review and risk assess, those proposals whilst identifying appropriate mitigation measures to address the impact of both new and existing HPP schemes. The framework leads the decision maker through four key steps which act to characterise, risk-assess (and prioritise) the scheme(s) together with the identification of the most appropriate and potential-ly cost-effective mitigation options addressing the hazards and impacts arising due to the na-ture and context of the specific scheme(s).

The final FIThydro decision-support tool is based on the project management approach and outlines the steps that should be undertaken for the initial screening of a project to appraise the impacts, risks and scope options for further diagnosis and mitigation. Question catalogues, risk assessments and filtering tools are produced which cover aspects of ‘initial screening’, ‘ecological impacts’, ‘environmental status’, ‘mitigation measures’, and ‘risk and uncertainty’. Taken together, these aid the production of a project screening/scoping report designed to provide a systematic approach to decision-making for proposals relating to hydropower schemes and their mitigation. The Decision Support System (DSS), is presented in the form of an open access web-based tool which utilises and showcases some of the tools and out-puts produced by the FIThydro project and which will act as a structured gateway to the wid-er project results.

The FIThydro DSS web tool (Figure 3-1, https://www.dss.fithydro.wb.bgu.tum.de/) is aimed at regulators, engineering consultants, developers and operators and orientated around a single, risk-based, planning structure. The implementation of the planning/decision framework within the DSS is focused around a risk-based 2D matrix between the classes of hazards (impact) of a hydropower plant’s operation and location (upstream habitat, downstream flows, upstream migration, downstream migration and turbine mortality, and sediment transport) and the spe-cies identified to be at risk. This matrix reports a summary assessment of the risks posed by a scheme and as a gateway into prioritising hazards for mitigation in relation to ecological status and objectives and then selecting appropriate hazard specific mitigation measures (filtered from a catalogue of potential measures).
''

Decision support system

2020-09-28T14:11:41Z

Hanywafa:

Decision support system

2020-09-28T14:11:08Z

Hanywafa:

INCOMPLETE/TEMPORARY, only a placeholder. [[file:broken]]

''The proliferation of hydropower development to meet obligations under the Renewable Ener-gy Directive has also seen the emergence of a conflict between the hydropower developers and the fisheries and conservation sectors. The hydropower industry wants a joined up re-sponse to their planned developments with sound guidance and timely decision-making. On the other hand, the fisheries and conservation interests have concerns over the impact that these schemes can have (especially the impact on WFD and Habitats Directive status) and want to be fully consulted on proposed schemes. They need to be reassured that the stand-ards of design, construction and operation will provide adequate protection of wildlife and biodiversity, and the ecosystem services that they provide. As a result, there is a need to de-velop robust and transparent, evidence-based, support for decision making that is easy for developers and regulators to use while enabling a high level of appropriate environmental protection and mitigation.

[[file:DSS_picture.PNG|500px|right|Conceptual flow diagram of a risk-based Decision Support System to ensure environmentally friendly
hydropower decision making]]

Whilst many guidelines exist for assessing the sustainability of hydropower schemes or the need for retro-fittingretrofitting existing structures, they are often limited in their assessment of risks and uncertainty about the impact of schemes on fisheries and the environment. Few provide support for the decision-making process at each stage of evaluation. At each stage of the process, decisions have to be made about the acceptability of the risks and uncertainty of impacts of hydropower schemes, and the ability to manage those risks. A comprehensive protocol, based on a risk assessment framework, developed in the FIThydro project to ad-dress this issue is described in this report.

Here, we have developed a planning and decision framework comprising a sequence of four key steps, each encompassing a series of key considerations and decisions. The framework enables operators and regulators to develop structured proposals for new HPP schemes, and to both, review and risk assess, those proposals whilst identifying appropriate mitigation measures to address the impact of both new and existing HPP schemes. The framework leads the decision maker through four key steps which act to characterise, risk-assess (and prioritise) the scheme(s) together with the identification of the most appropriate and potential-ly cost-effective mitigation options addressing the hazards and impacts arising due to the na-ture and context of the specific scheme(s).

The final FIThydro decision-support tool is based on the project management approach and outlines the steps that should be undertaken for the initial screening of a project to appraise the impacts, risks and scope options for further diagnosis and mitigation. Question catalogues, risk assessments and filtering tools are produced which cover aspects of ‘initial screening’, ‘ecological impacts’, ‘environmental status’, ‘mitigation measures’, and ‘risk and uncertainty’. Taken together, these aid the production of a project screening/scoping report designed to provide a systematic approach to decision-making for proposals relating to hydropower schemes and their mitigation. The Decision Support System (DSS), is presented in the form of an open access web-based tool which utilises and showcases some of the tools and out-puts produced by the FIThydro project and which will act as a structured gateway to the wid-er project results.
''

Baffle fishways

2020-03-11T13:52:02Z

Hanywafa:

=Introduction=
[[file:nature_likeshway_gunz_square.jpg|thumb|250px|Figure 1: ]]

Baffle fishways, including Denil passes is also referred to as countercurrent fishways since it consists of special deflectors that lead to helical countercurrent currents, high energy conversion and reduced water velocities in the main stream. Fish species with high swimming capacity can swim right up in the water stream and a baffle fishway can be constructed relatively steep for salmon (gradient 0.2-0.25). However, the remaining current conditions are still turbulent and often water velocities are above 2 m/s. It has been shown that baffle fishways are unsuitable for most fish species and juvenile fish, including all carp fish, eels, white fish and grayling (DWA 2014). AG-FAH (2011) indicates that baffle fishways have not proven to work in practice. Armstrong (2010) writes that specially designed low gradient Denil fishways can work for several species, but they require certain hydraulic ramifications and are therefore not suitable for varying water discharges (Armstrong et al., 2010). The baffle fishway can be used at particularly steep fishway sites and may be suitable for adult salmon and trout for limited space and steep terrain. However, in most cases, other fishway types should be chosen.

=[[Methods, tools, and devices]]=

==During planning==
Planning of a baffle fishway will start with mapping and surveying of the barrier itself and the river reach upstream and downstream of the barrier, including information about the hydropower scheme. Surveying must also be conducted in the area of the river bank where the fishway is planned, including geological surveying. Geographic data should be handled in GIS software for further planning and analyses. The design of the fishway should be conducted with conventional hydraulic- and civil engineering calculations and drawing. All material used in a fishway must be planned to withstand physical strain from water, floods and frost. Monitoring facilities should basically be planned in the upper part of the fishway.

==During implementation==
Physical implementation of pool-type fishways requires heavy machinery suited for the river size and its surrounding terrain, such as excavators and lorries. Work with explosives is relevant in most cases and blasted rocks and transportation of material out from the site is common. Surplus rocks should not be disposed at site because of pollution risk. The construction phase includes construction of concrete formwork, casting of concrete and iron reinforcement work.

==During operation==
Injuries on baffle fishways from physical wear must be monitored and repaired in order to secure regular fish migration. Maintenance work normally require hand-tools more than heavy equipment but casting of concrete is typical. Depending of the site, removal of sediment, branches, logs and floating debris in pools and fishway entrance is common. Monitoring systems require regular inspection, depending on product and system.

=Relevant MTDs and test cases=
{{Suitable MTDs for Baffle fishways}}
=Classification table=
{{Baffle fishways}}

==Relevant Literature==

[[category:Upstream fish migration measures]][[category:Measures]]