Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy for Sustainable Development

Environmental risk assessment of small hydropower (SHP) plants:

A case study for Tefen SHP plant on Filyos River
Serhat Kucukali 1
Civil Engineering Department, Çankaya University, Eskisehir Yolu 29. Km., 06810 Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A multi-criteria scoring tool is used to assess the environmental risk level of small hydropower plants on the basis
Received 13 May 2013 of documented evidence, measured data, and on-site observations. The assessment is based on evaluating com-
Revised 22 December 2013 pliance with the standards of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The following
Accepted 22 December 2013
environmental criteria are assessed: environmental flow, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed
Available online 11 January 2014
protection, threatened and endangered species. I evaluated the Tefen hydropower plant, which has been in
Keywords:
operation on the Filyos River in northwestern Turkey since 2011. The assessment showed that the plant failed
Small hydropower all of the EBRD criteria.
Environmental risk assessment © 2013 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Turkey

Introduction monthly distribution, lack of control over environmental flow, high-

Small hydropower (SHP) projects receive considerable amount of
funds and financial supports from governments. However, despite their
doubtless advantages, SHP projects can lead to several environmental
risks such as: lower water quality, ecosystem destruction and biodiversi-
ty loss. There is no international consensus on the definition of small
hydropower. In China, it can refer to installed capacity of up to 25 MW,
and in India up to 15 MW. However, a capacity of up to 10 MW total is
becoming the generally accepted norm by the European Small Hydro-
power Association (ESHA), the European Commission (EU) and Interna-
tional Union of Producers and Distributors of Electricity (UNI-PEDE).
Secretariat of the convention of SBD-Secretariat of the convention of
Biological Diversity (2010) argues that biodiversity loss and climate
change must be addressed with same priority and close coordination.
So, one has to take into consideration that biodiversity in all projects
include those related to climate change mitigation. For example, a
hydropower scheme on the Malagarasi River in Tanzania was initially
approved for grant funding, but was subsequently rejected because of
the identification of potentially significant biodiversity impacts which
had not been adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) report (Hovland, 2010). In another example, the
administrative courts in Turkey issued a stay of execution for 33 small
hydropower plants although those schemes were licensed by the gov-
ernment agencies. The main justification for those decisions was the
irreversible alteration of the river ecosystems (Baris and Kucukali,
2012). Baskaya et al. (2011) reported the main negative environmental
impacts of small hydro power projects in Turkey as: lack of proper fish
and wildlife passages, inadequate quantity of environmental flow and
voltage power lines, inadequate rehabilitation and restoration of
habitat, illegal hunting, waste accumulation, dust, and noise pollution.
Karunarathna (2013) noted that the similar environmental impacts
are also observed in Sri Lanka in different degrees except illegal hunting
and he reported the foremost environmental impacts of small hydro-
power projects in Sri Lanka as hydrological changes along the affected
river section, soil erosion and siltation, and impacts on biodiversity
especially aquatic and terrestrial fauna and flora.
While standard environmental impact assessments may have been
enough in the past, more detailed guidelines on the evidence required
are now provided by international financial institutions such as World
Bank (2013), European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EBRD (2013), and European Investment Bank EIB (2013). Mitigating
the various negative environmental impacts of small hydro schemes is
vital to complete licensing procedures promptly and to secure funding
from international financial organizations (Ford, 2008).
Kucukali (2011a), on the basis of his survey results and detailed liter-
ature review, pointed out that the site geology and environmental issues
are the key risk factors for the success of a SHP project. Moreover,
Gronbrekk et al. (2010) reported that investors and project developers
stressing the importance of managing environmental risks in hydropow-
er projects. So it is crucial to assess the environmental risks of SHP plants
in an objective way by using relevant criteria. The central issue of the
paper is to assess the environmental risk level of Tefen SHP plant during
operation by using multi-criteria analysis on the basis of EBRD guidelines.
Methodology

E-mail address: kucukali@cankaya.edu.tr. A multi-criteria scoring tool is used to assess the environmental risks
1
Tel.: +90 312 2331404. of SHP plants. The environmental criteria are taken from globally

0973-0826/$ – see front matter © 2013 International Energy Initiative. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2013.12.010
 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110 103

Table 1
Environmental criteria for small hydro power projects of European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Source: EBRD (2013).

Criteria Requirement

1. Environmental flow The facility maintains a minimum flow in the river that is adequate for the existing fish population, wildlife and water quality taking into account seasonal
fluctuations in flow levels.
2. Water quality The facility does not contribute to deterioration of water quality either upstream or downstream of the facility.
3. Fish passage The facility has minimal impact on local fish populations, provides effective fish passage for local and migrating fish species and also protects fish from
entrainment.
4. River basin The facility does not negatively impact environmental conditions in the river basin and it does not affect the integrity of the existing ecosystem either
upstream or downstream of the facility.
5. Endangered species The facility is not constructed on a protected or sensitive river and it does not negatively impact any threatened or endangered species nor any areas
designated for their protection. Sensitive or protected areas on or around the river have been identified. The developer has assessed the potential impact of
the facility on any such areas or species.

recognized EBRD's eligibility criteria for SHP projects. Since most of the
developing countries have weaker regulatory regimes and institutional
frameworks, it can be a good strategy to use the internationally
acknowledged guidelines to ensure environmentally sustainable hydro-
power projects (Gronbrekk et al., 2010). EBRD (2013) follows five
environmental criteria during the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) of SHP projects. Those criteria are: environmental flow, water
quality, fish passage and protection, watershed protection, and threat-
ened and endangered species (Ford, 2008). Those parameters are de-
scribed in Table 1.
During the assessment, each environmental criterion is scored from
1 to 3, with 3 being significant gaps relative to basic good practice, 2
being minor gaps relative to good practice, and 1 being good practices
indicating that all the requirements of EBRD guidelines are fulfilled.
The same scoring principle is also used in Sustainability Assessment Pro-
tocol of International Hydropower Association (IHA, 2013). A 3-point
scale system enables one to determine the status of the each criterion.
For instance, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA, 2011) uses
a 3-point scoring system to assess the environmental impacts of infra-
structure projects around the world.
EBRD's document is a kind of guideline that enables one to develop
SHP plant with respect to natural environment. On the other hand, the
proposed methodology assesses the level of the environmental risk of
a SHP plant during operation by attaining scores. The higher project
scores indicate high environmental risks. Decision makers can use
those scores to evaluate the environmental performance of a SHP
plant in operation and they can take precautions to avoid those negative
impacts. Also, by using this methodology decision makers can make a
comparison between the environmental impacts of different SHP plants.
The Environmental Risk Score (ERS) of SHP plant is calculated by
taking the average of total scores and a 3-grade evaluation system is
established as follows: ERS b 1.5, low environmental risk, ERS is be-
tween 1.5 and 2, medium environmental risk, and ERS N 2, high envi-
ronmental risk. It should be noted that, although the SHP plant has a
low environmental risk score, if one of the environmental criterion
has a score of 3, the facility can still have significant environmental im-
pacts. Hence, each environmental criterion needs to be analyzed sepa-
rately and should have a value lower than 3.
Schmalz and Thürmer (2012) presented a good example for envi-
ronmentally sustainable SHP plant namely Döbritschen which is situat-
ed at the Saale River in the federal state of Thuringia, Germany. The
Döbritschen hydropower plant has following design characteristics
and operation conditions: an installed capacity of 300 kW, a design dis-
charge of 65% of annual average runoff, a blockage ratio of 12%, a very
short diversion channel on the river, an adequate environmental flow,
and a free-flow passage for sediment load through the facility (Fig. 1).
Here, blockage ratio defined as the obstructed river cross-sectional
area to free flow cross-sectional area (Kucukali and Cokgor, 2008). The
implementation of the Water Framework Directive of European Union
indicates that it would be not possible to obstruct the whole river
section for hydropower uses (Dimke et al., 2011). Also, an efficient
brush and vertical-slot fish passages were constructed and extensive

Fig. 1. An example of an environmentally sustainable SHP plant in Thurnigia, Germany. The facility fulfills all the environmental requirements of the EBRD guidelines.
Adapted from: Schmalz and Thürmer (2012).
104 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110

BLACK SEA N 0 100 km

13 Filyos River
1.MERIC SCALE

2
13 13-WEST
2 2-MARMARA 22-EAST
BLACK SEA 23-CORUH
2 BLACK SEA 24-ARAS
14-YESILIRMAK
2
12-SAKARYA
3-SUSURLUK 15-KIZILIRMAK
AEGEAN SEA

4-AEGEAN
5-GEDÝZ 21-EUPHRATES 25-VAN
11-AFYON LAKE
7-BIG
4 18-SEYHAN
MENDERES
6-SMALL 16-ANATOLIA 26-TIGRIS
MENDERES 10-BURDUR 20-CEYHAN
LAKE
9-MIDDLE
MEDITERRANEAN
8-WEST 19-HATAY
17-EAST
MEDITERRANEAN MEDITERRANEAN

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

Fig. 2. River basins of Turkey and location of the Filyos River.

investigations were carried out for up- and downstream fish migration
and fish injuries. Vertical-slot fish passes consist of a rectangular chan-
nel with a sloping bed and a water jet is formed at each slot and the
energy dissipated in the pool below. On the other hand, the brush fish
passages consist of a sloping channel into which bristle brushes are
fixed which provide velocities of less than 1 m/s and prevent flow sep-
arations for easing the upstream migration of fishes (Environment
Agency, 2010). The field study of Schmalz and Thürmer (2012) at
Döbritschen SHP plant showed that for downstream migration, 76.3%
of fishes (2189 fishes, 16 species) used brush-type fish passage and
23.7% (679 fishes, 9 species) used vertical-slot fish way. On the other
hand, for downstream migration, 40% of the fishes used the weir and
35% of fishes used brush-type fish passage. Those data are indicating
the functionality and efficiency of the brush-type fish passage.
The Döbritschen SHP Plant fulfills all the requirements of EBRD
guidelines and all the environmental criteria have a score of 1. The
ERS of the Döbritschen SHP is calculated as 1, indicating that the facility
has low environmental risk.
SHP plants in Turkey
Turkey has a land area of 769,632 km2 and the country is divided
into 26 river basins (Fig. 2). Turkey aimed to harness its total hydropow-
er potential without taking into account the environmental constraints.
Turkish Renewable Energy Law (Law No. 5346) enacted in May 2005
and hydropower plant operators received a guaranteed price of
73 $/MWh for the generated electricity under the scope of the law
for 10 years without a limitation for the installed capacity. Addition-
ally, 85% discount has been being applied for forest land acquisition
to build SHP plants. Table 2 clearly shows the influence of the Renewable
Energy Law on the development of small hydropower plants in Turkey.
The hydropower potential increased 15% in 2007 as compared to
2006. Moreover, the construction of hydropower plants increased
by a factor of four in 2007 as compared to 2006 and the planned
plants are almost doubled. By June 2012, hydropower has the highest
share with 89% among renewable energy sources in Turkey in terms of
installed capacity. 290 hydropower plants have been in operation with
a total installed capacity of 16,265 MW and 589 power plants have
been in the construction stage under the scope of the Renewable Energy
Law (EMRA, 2012).
Since the installed capacity of a hydropower plant is linearly corre-
lated with the discharge and head, plant operator is expected to have
a tendency to maximize those parameters by reducing the amount of
environmental flow and increasing the head by selecting diversion
type SHP plant. Assessments of Baskaya et al. (2011), and Bobat
(2012) confirmed this tendency. Akarca et al. (2012) reported that
fish passages in Turkey are not allocated and dimensioned properly in
order enable its full functionality, and there is a lack of monitoring in
hydropower schemes. Baskaya et al. (2011) conducted a field survey
in East Black Sea Basin and they pointed out that SHP plants caused
significant environmental impacts such as habitat deterioration, inter-
ruption of fish and wildlife passages, and inadequate environmental
flow in the bypassed reach. Moreover, Bobat (2012) reported that
about 1500 plant species, in which 70 of them are endemic, are going
to be affected from SHP development on the East Black Sea Basin.
There have been intense protests against building new hydropower
plants in Turkey since they disturb natural assets, the natural protected
areas and their ecology. The protests have been focused especially on
the East Black Sea Basin where 20% of the projects developed by private
sector have been planned for this basin since it has a high capacity fac-
tor. The most known protests have been rising over Firtina Valley which
is located in Rize and is known to be one of the 200 ecological region
having top priority in the world (Baris and Kucukali, 2012).
Turkey does not have stable and sufficient regulations for the
devolvement of SHP and for the environmental issues. Electricity
Market Law (Law No. 4628) has changed 8 times since 2001 and EIA
Regulation (Regulation No. 25318) has changed 13 times since 1994.
The frequency of annual legislation change is 0.72. For example, EIA
report was not required for hydropower plants with less than 50 MW
installed capacity before 17 July 2008. The regulation was changed on
this date stating that hydropower plants having an installed capacity
between 0.5 MW and 25 MW have to undertake an EIA.

Table 2
The status of hydropower plants in Turkey in 2006 and 2007 after the enactment of Renewable Energy Law by May, 2005 (data source: Kucukali and Baris, 2009).

In operation (2006) In operation (2007) Under Construction (2006) Under Construction (2007) Planned (2006) Planned (2007)

Total number 142 148 40 158 573 977

Installed capacity (MW) 12,788 13,306 3197 6564 20,765 22,260
 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110 105

Istanbul A In Operation
SE
A CK Under Construction
BL Station No:1335
Izmir

FÝLYOS
CASE STUDY

RIVER
N
TEFEN (101 m)
0 20 km YENICE
RIVER

RIV VREK
SUÇATI (190 m)

ER
Station No:1341 YALNIZCA (220 m)
EREN (420 m)

DE
PÝRÝNÇLÝK (290 m)

I
E N ÇAY
ME NG

Fig. 3. Filyos River basin and the distribution of the small hydropower (SHP) plants that were under construction and in operation by May 2012.

Table 3
Mean monthly values for Filyos River. The data are based on the measurements at gauging station 1335 covering the period of 1975–2005. Data source: DSI (2013).

Month 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
3
Discharge (m /s) 108 132 185 219 116 100 39 23 18 26 52 89
Sediment load (ton/day) 5229 15,783 29,235 30,152 10,216 29,739 1940 1236 584 2341 2269 7833

Since Turkey is a European Union (EU) candidate, its laws and poli- major tributaries, Devrek and Yenice. After the combination of those
cies are expected to be consistent with those of EU (Baris and Kucukali, two tributaries, the Filyos River follows through the Caycuma plane
2012). European Union adopted the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for 34 km and discharges into the Black Sea in Filyos (Kucukali, 2008).
in October 2000 which constitutes that a good ecological status for all The discharge and suspended sediment of the river is measured
aquatic ecosystems must be sustained. In this respect, EU countries systematically by State Hydraulics Works of Turkey (DSI) with monthly
must prepare their integrated river basin management plants and es- intervals at gauging station 1335 was established by the General Direc-
tablish their monitoring networks. Turkey has begun to adopt the torate of Electrical Resources Survey Administration of Turkey (EIE) in
Water Framework Directive in its legislation system by 2012 with the 1961. The river discharge values are determined by velocity-area method
enactment of Regulation on Protection of Water Basins and Preparation by using a current meter. Suspended sediment sampling is undertaken
of Management (Official gazette no. 28444, 17 October 2012). In the by depth-integration method by using USDH-48 and USD-49 sampling
near future, it is highly possible that small hydropower plants may sus- equipment and concentrations of sediment samples are determined by
tain their current operational conditions and be largely developed in using filtration and size gradation techniques.
Turkey if they generate electricity with respect to the environment On the basis of the discharge and the sediment data covering the
and meet the ecological requirements (Kucukali, 2011b). period of 1975–2005; the annual average river discharge was computed
as 92 m3/s which varied from 18 m3/s in September to 219 m3/s in
Assessment of Filyos River basin April. The suspended sediment load of the river, which is mainly com-
posed of a mixture of clay and sand, is about 2,000,000 m3/year and it
The Filyos River located at the West Black Sea River Basin in Turkey varies considerably throughout the year (Table 3).
has a drainage area of 13,300 km2 and length of 312 km extended over
31°11′–33°42′ E longitude and 40°29′–41°36′ N latitudes (Fig. 3). Due to
the topographical features of the region, there are significant differences Table 4
existing in the terrestrial flora and fauna richness. The upper part of Design characteristics of small hydropower plants in Filyos River basin⁎.
basin that contains many different biotopes is rich in biodiversity. The SHP name Q (m3/s) H (m) P (MW) L (km) Phase
Filyos Delta, a natural site with an undisturbed flora and fauna, covers
Tefen 90 45 33 11.5 In operation (January, 2011)
an area of 70,000 ha and 121 bird species were discovered in this area Yalnızca 75 26 15 2.15 In operation (September, 2009)
(CFCU, 2011). Suçatı 110 49 43 7.7 Under construction
The Filyos River follows a mountainous landscape and 70% of the Pirinclik 50 58 22.5 7.7 Under construction
basin area is covered with forested mountains. Nearly half of the basin's Eren 34 127 35 33.9 Under construction

elevation distributes in the range of 1000–1500 m. Filyos River has two ⁎ Q: design discharge, H: gross head, P: installed capacity, L: diversion length.
106 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110

Power House
Head Water

W
O
FL
T
N
A
Fine Se

PL
diment
Diversion Channel Captur

ER
e

W
PO

WEIR
RIVER FLOW
ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW
Coarse Sediment
RIVER FLOW Capture
GTH
CH LEN
ED REA
BYPASS

Fig. 4. Layout of the Tefen hydropower plant.

In Filyos River basin, two SHP plants have been in operation; while,
three SHP plants have been under construction on Yenice tributary by
May 2012 (Fig. 3). The design characteristics of those SHP plants are
presented in Table 4. Tefen SHP plant was approved by Turkish Energy
Market Regulatory Authority on May 2006. It was constructed be-
tween October 2007 and May 2011 and it began operation by January
2011.
Environmental risk assessment of Tefen hydropower plant
A field survey was conducted on 7 October 2011 to the Tefen hydro-
power plant by the author in order to assess the environmental risks of
the scheme. The field survey is financed by the author's institution. In
the field study, a great attention is given to the layout of the Tefen
SHP plant, fish passage structure, the environmental flow, and how
the scheme affects the sediment transport characteristics of the Yenice
River. For this purpose, the discharge and sediment data of Gauging Sta-
tion 1335 are also used.
The location of the hydropower plant is shown on map in Fig. 3. It
can be clearly seen from the layout of the SHP plant in Fig. 4 that the
facility affects the integrity of the existing river ecosystem. The design
discharge of the facility is 1.8 times higher than the corresponding
annual average river flow (Fig. 5) and the river flow is diverted into an
artificial channel and a tunnel through the forest land with a total length
of 11.5 km (Fig. 6a). Additional components of the facility, e.g. access
roads, power lines, and generation facilities, also have adverse impacts
on the riparian environment.
The Tefen SHP totally blocks the entire cross-section of the river and
the weir of the facility acts as a barrier reducing the flow velocities and
creating a pool at the upstream of the facility (Fig. 6b). The environmen-
tal flow was released under the radial gate and the facility lacked from a
monitoring system in order to control the downstream flow regimes
(Fig. 6c). Also, this flow conditions likely to affect the temperature and
dissolved oxygen levels at the upstream and downstream of the facility.
It is evident in Fig. 6d that a minimum wetted channel perimeter was
not maintained and an adequate flow was not provided in the bypassed
reach. During the site survey, the author observed that the river bed
dried in the bypassed reach and the discharge was in the order
0.1 m3/s. Also, a decrease in the flow velocity may lead to a decline in
the dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. It should be stressed that DO criteria
for fish populations, good abundance and species diversity were report-
ed as above N5 mg/L (Welch and Jacoby, 2004) and especially in the
summer, when DO has low levels, self-aeration process by stream
flow is vital for fishes to survive.

140 134

130
120 114

110
100
90 SHP plant capacity: 90 m3/s
Discharge (m3/s)

83
80
70
60 56
52
48
Annual average river flow: 50 m3/s
50
40
33
30
22 22
20
11 12
9
10
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Time (Month)

Fig. 5. Hydrological variation of runoff in Yenice River. The runoff data were based on the measurements at Gauging Station 1341 covering the period of 1970–2005.
 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110 107

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Photos from Tefen SHP. (a) Construction of diversion channel on the riparian environment. (b) upstream of the facility, (c) flow in the bypassed reach, (d) environmental flow by
7 October 2011.

The scheme also interrupted the sediment transport mechanism of
the river. It tapped and stored the fine and coarse sediments. Hence,
the weir caused upstream sediment surplus and downstream sediment
deficit (Fig. 5). Then the accumulated volumes of sediments are released
into the river bed rapidly when there is a high flow. Fig. 7 highlights this
pattern that the sudden changes in suspended sediment concentrations
were observed at Gauging Station 1335 after the Tefen hydropower
plant began operation. Under the current operation conditions, the facil-
ity is expected to change the morphology of the river downstream and
the river sediment transport characteristics.
The Tefen hydropower plant contains a fish passage structure but it
was not placed, dimensioned, and designed properly in order to enable

1600
Tefen SHP began operation
1400

1200
Suspended Sediment (mg/L)

1000

800

600

400

200

0
24.03.2006 28.04.2007 01.06.2008 06.07.2009 10.08.2010 14.09.2011 18.10.2012
Time (months)

Fig. 7. Time series of suspended sediment rate for Filyos River. The samples were collected at gauging station 1335. Tefen hydropower plant began operation on January 2011.
108 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110

Fig. 8. Photo of the inefficient fish passage of Tefen SHP.

effective fish passage (Fig. 8). A fish passage will only serve its purpose if
it provides favorable hydraulic conditions and is located at sites where
fish look for entry. For this reason, the following design criteria are of
importance: directional flow field without excessive turbulence, suffi-
cient water depth, sufficiently large and well-distributed tranquilize
sections, moderate velocities, adequate escape and shelter opportuni-
ties within the device.
In Tefen SHP plant, the fish passage does not correspond to a stan-
dard fish-passage type and flow depths are not sufficient for the migra-
tion of aquatic fauna. The facility is located in the low trout zone and the
minimum necessary flow depth is 25 cm for this zone (Heimerl et al.,
2008). At the existing fish passage: flow depth is less than 10 cm, no hy-
draulic elements are installed and flow is highly turbulent, and low-flow
velocity area is not provided (resting pool). Moreover, information was
not gathered on both the local and migrating fish populations during
the project planning phase. This inadequate fish passage design blocks
the migration of fishes and endangers their presence in the region.
Sözen (2011) identified endemic species which are in danger of extinc-
tion and critical habitats (e.g. wetlands and dune areas) at the Filyos
River delta nearly 36 km downstream of the facility. However, the
potential impacts of the facility on such critical habitats and endangered
species were not assessed.
On the basis of the documented evidence, measured data, and obser-
vations during the site survey, environmental risk of the hydropower
plant was scored from 1 to 3 for the each criterion. For the all environ-
mental criteria, the Tefen hydropower plant does not meet the environ-
mental requirements of EBRD guideline and it has significant gaps
relative to basic good practice. The scheme has the highest scores for
the all environmental criteria yielding the Environmental Risk Score
(ERS) as 3. The justifications of the given scores are summarized in
Table 5. The ERS of the Tefen SHP plant indicates that the facility has
high environmental risk and it can lead to habitat destruction and biodi-
versity loss during its current operational conditions. However, it should
be noted that the 300 kW installed capacity of Döbritschen SHP plant is
only about 1% of the rated capacity of the Tefen SHP plant and small
installed capacities will generally have lower environmental impacts
than large projects.
To enhance the environmental performance of the Tefen SHP plant,
the environmental flow must be quantified on the basis of the relevant
formulas and an adequate fish passage must be built. Table 6 presents

Table 5
Environmental risk scorecard for the Tefen hydropower plant.

Environmental Criterion Scorea Evidence

1. Environmental flow
2. Water quality
3. River basin
4. Fish passage
5. Endangered species
a
Scoring scale is in the range of 1–3 where 3 being significant gaps relative to basic good practice.
3 The blockage ratio of the weir is 100% and the design discharge is 1.8 times higher than the annual average river flow. The environmental flow is
released under a radial gate. The facility does not maintain a minimum flow in the bypassed reach that is minimum flow required for river to
sustain existing environment. Cyclic flows are lost in the bypassed reach. A flow monitoring system was not established.
3 The facility does not maintain a minimum flow in the bypassed reach that is adequate for the water quality taking into account seasonal
fluctuations in flow levels. A low water level in the diverted reach carries the risk of critical water temperature and dissolved oxygen contents in
summer period. The facility contributed to deterioration of water quality at the upstream of the power plant by reducing the flow velocities and
creating a pool. Also biodegradable oil is not used in hydro turbines.
3 Sediment passage is blocked and sediments are temporary stored in the settling basin and at the upstream of the facility. Then the accumulated
sediments are released when there is a high flow. The natural sediment transport regime of the river has been altered. The loss of forest land
caused by the construction of 11.5 km diversion channel likely to increase sediment loads. Additional components of the facility e.g. access
roads, power lines, and generation facilities have significant impact on the riparian environment.
3 Information had not been gathered on both the local and migrating fish populations. Fish passage was not allocated and dimensioned properly
in order to enable its full functionality. The width of the fish passage is 0.5 m while the facility has a catchment area of 8310 km2.
3 Sözen (2011) identified endangered species and critical habitats (e.g. wetlands and dune areas) at the river mouth nearly 36 km downstream of
the facility. The developer has not assessed the potential impact of the facility on such critical habitats and endangered species.

Table 6
Different formulas used by Turkey and some of the European countries to determine environmental flow (Qe) and calculation of Qe (m3/s) for Tefen SHP based on those formulas. Source
for formulas: ESHA (2013).

Country Formula Qe (m3/s) for Tefen SHP

Turkey Qe N 1/10 of annual mean flow. Qe N 4.97 m3/s

France Qe N 1/10 of annual mean flow; for annual average discharges higher than 80 m3/s: Qe N1/20 of annual mean flow. Qe N 4.97 m3/s
Norway Qe N Q96 (flow rate that is equaled or exceeded on average more than 96% of the year.) Qe N 5.79 m3/s
Switzerland Qe N Q95 (flow rate that is equaled or exceeded on average more than 95% of the year.) Qe N 6.72 m3/s
 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110 109

160

140

120

Discharge(m3/s)
100

80

60

40

20

0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent of time indicated flows are equaled or exceeded of the year
Fig. 9. Flow duration curve for gauging station 1341. Period of measurement: 1975–2005.

the different formulas used by Turkey and some of the European coun-
tries to calculate environmental flow (Qe). The discharge data and flow
duration curve of the gauging station 1341 (Fig. 9) are used to deter-
mine the environmental flow of Tefen SHP plant. The outputs of the for-
mulas in Table 6 indicate that the scheme must release a minimum
environmental flow of 5 m3/s but it was observed that the discharge
was 0.1 m3/s during the field survey. Accordingly, a monitoring system
must be established at the downstream of the weir to control the
environmental flow throughout the year. Moreover, a brush-type fish
passage is designed for the Tefen SHP based on the fish zone of the facil-
ity. The advantages of this fish passage type are: suitable for a wide
range of species and sizes of fish, provides habitat for fish and inverte-
brates, and conjunctive use with boats (Environment Agency, 2010).
The functionality of this fish passage is tested in several weirs in Conti-
nental Europe (Fig. 10). The hydraulic design parameters are calculated
on the basis of the guidelines given by Hassinger and Kraetz (2006) and
the results are presented in Table 7.
Conclusions and recommendations
A multi-criteria scoring tool is proposed to assess the environmental risks
of SHP plants by using internationally recognized environmental criteria. The
proposed multi-criteria scoring tool can help the investors, banks, representa-
tive government agencies, and project developers to assess the environmen-
tal risks of SHP plants in a practical and an objective way.
The recent trends in SHP development and findings of the case study
indicated that in order to develop small hydropower in a sustainable
manner: (i) a detailed Environmental Impact Assessment report must
be prepared supported with systematic measurements on site address-
ing the biodiversity issues, (ii) site-specific ecological conditions and
river characteristics must be taken into account during the project plan-
ning and design phase, (iii) the impacts of the SHP plant on river basin
conditions must be assessed, and (iv) a monitoring system must be
established at the SHP plant to control the flow, sediment and fish
passages and water quality parameters.

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Brush type fish passage: (a) under construction and (b) in operation at Hann. Münden Weir, Fulda River in Germany. Design characteristics: flow depth = 50 cm, bristle
height = 47 cm, bed slope = 4%, discharge = 300 L/s, channel width = 1.2 m.
Source: Hassinger and Kraetz (2006).
110 S. Kucukali / Energy for Sustainable Development 19 (2014) 102–110
Table 7
Hydraulic design parameters for the brush-type fish passage of Tefen SHP plant.
Zone Average flow depth (cm) Bristle height (cm) Hydraulic element submergence ratio
Lower trout zone 50 47 1.06
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to sincerely thank Dr. Kemal Baris and the re-
viewers for their valuable and constructive comments.
References
Akarca E, Heimerl S, Kohler B, Beceren G. Evaluation of environmental and social aspects
for hydropower projects in Turkey within the financing process of international
public banks. Proc., ICCI 2012, 42–44, Istanbul, Turkey; 2012.
Baris K, Kucukali S. Availability of renewable energy sources in Turkey: current situation,
potential, government policies and the EU perspective. Energy Policy 2012;42:377–91.
Baskaya S, Baskaya E, Sarı A. The principal negative environmental impacts of small
hydropower plants in Turkey. Afr J Agric Res 2011;6(14):3284–90.
Bobat A. The triple conflicts in hydro projects: energy, economy, and environment. Proc.,
12th Energy Conf. of Turkey, 1–21, Ankara, Turkey; 2012.
CFCU. New port in Filyos: environmental impact assessment, study report; 2011.
Dimke S, Weichbrodt F, Froehle P. Environmentally compatible hydropower potential in
the estuary of the river Ems — analysis for a floating energy converter. Proc., World
Renewable Energy Congress, Linköping, Sweden; 2011.
DSI. General directorate of state hydraulics works in Turkey. Database of rivers in Turkey;
2013.
EBRD. Eligibility criteria for small hydro power projects. Available from:http://www.
midseff.com/downloads/eligibility_criteria.pdf, 2013. [Accessed; December 2013].
EIB. The EIB statement of environmental and social principles and standards. Available
from:http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_statement_esps_en.pdf, 2013.
[Accessed; December 2013].
EMRA. The database of the power plants that obtained license from Energy Market Reg-
ulatory Authority of Turkey. http://www2.epdk.org.tr/lisans/elektrik/lisansdatabase/
verilentesistipi.asp, 2012. [accessed June 2012].
ESHA. Hydropower and environment: technical and operational procedures to better in-
tegrate small hydropower plants in the environment. Available from:http://www.
esha.be/fileadmin/esha_files/documents/SHERPA/Annex_XII_Environmental_Report.
pdf, 2013. [Accessed; December 2013].
Environment Agency. Environment Agency fish pass manual. Available from:http://cdn.
environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0910btbp-e-e.pdf, 2010. [Accessed; December
2013].
Ford N. Europe seeks small hydro, water power & dam construction; 2008 [May].
Unit discharge (m3/s.m) Channel width (m) Bed slope
0.25 1.2 1:25
Gronbrekk W, Barton H, Khoury RH. International sustainability tools for hydropower
role, relevance and industry reporting trends. Proc., Hydro 2010 Conf., Lisbon,
Portugal; 2010.
Hassinger R, Kraetz D. The canoe-fishway — a combination of fish migration facility and
canoe passage in the same channel. EIFAC, 24th EIFAC symposium on hydropower,
flood control and water abstractions; implications for fish and fisheries, Mondsee;
2006.
Heimerl S, Krueger F, Wurster H. Dimensioning of fish passage structures with perturba-
tion boulders. Hydrobiologia 2008;609:197–2004.
Hovland VL. Addressing biodiversity issues early in hydropower project development
cyle — case study from Malagarasi, Tanzania. Proc., Hydro 2010 Conf., Lisbon,
Portugal; 2010.
IHA. International hydropower association, hydropower sustainability assessment proto-
col. http://www.hydrosustainability.org/Protocol-Assessments.aspx, 2013. [accessed
15 April 2013].
JICA. Japan International Cooperation Agency. The study on optimal power generation for
peak demand in Turkey; 201110–134 [IDD: JR].
Karunarathna MMSI. Current status, issues and challenges in assessing environmental im-
pacts of small hydro power projects in Sri Lanka. Proc., Hydro 2013 Conf., Innsbruck,
Austria; 2013.
Kucukali S. Forecasting the river discharge, thermal and sediment load characteristics: a
case study for Filyos River. Proc., 15th River Flow Conf., vol. 3; 2008. p. 1975–81.
Kubaba Congress Department and Travel Services. Cesme, Turkey.
Kucukali S. Risk assessment of river-type hydropower plants by using fuzzy logic
approach. Energy Policy 2011a;39(10):6683–8.
Kucukali S. The implementation of the EU Water Framework Directive and small hydro-
power plants: situation in Turkey. Proc., Hydro 2011 Conf., Prag; 2011b.
Kucukali S, Cokgor S. Boulder-flow interaction associated with self-aeration process.
J Hydraul Res 2008;46(3):415–9.
Kucukali S, Baris K. Assessment of small hydropower (SHP) development in Turkey: laws,
regulations and EU policy perspective. Energy Policy 2009;37(10):3872–9.
SBD-Secretariat of the convention of Biological Diversity. Global biodiversity outlook 3;
2010 [Montréal].
Schmalz M, Thürmer K. Long term investigations at the small hydropower plant
Döbritschen/Germany. Proc., 2012 HidroEnergia Conf., Wroclaw, Poland; 2012.
Sözen M. Biological assessment report II for the Filyos port project; 2011.
Welch EB, Jacoby JM. Pollutant effects in freshwater: applied limnology. London and
New York: Spon Press; 2004.
World Bank. Environmental strategy. Available from:www.worlbank.org, 2013. [Acessed;
October 2013].