• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Environment Agency Provides Consent to Massacre Eels on the Trent

Ray Walton

Ray Walton

Senior Member
Press Release from Angling Trust - 16 Nov 2010
Environment Agency Provides Consent to Massacre Eels on the Trent
The Angling Trust has learned that the Environment Agency has granted licences to the Small Hydro Company, working with British Waterways, for two hydropower plants on the river Trent at Sawley and Gunthorpe which allow up to 100 fish – including eels – to be killed at each of two plants in any 24 hour period.

While this doesn’t suggest that the Environment Agency (EA) is directly licensing the killing of fish, it appears to allow the developers to keep generating even where fish are being killed – except where they exceed the 100 mark in 24 hours. The licence also allows up to 10 game fish to be killed in a 24 hour period before the turbines are stopped. Eels are particularly vulnerable to turbines because of their length and their ability to get through screens designed to protect fish (see picture).

European eel stocks are at an all time low. In response, the Environment Agency has recently banned anglers and commercial eel fishermen from taking eels, and on the Trent there is a ban on any eels being taken above the tidal limit at any time. In this context, the Angling Trust finds this decision to allow so many fish to be sliced up in hydropower turbines in a year perverse. In 2005, only 140 Kg of silver eel were caught in the lower Trent for the whole year; these turbines could legally destroy a far greater number.

The hydro schemes also sit uneasily with the UK government’s obligations under various EU laws which require the EA to protect and enhance fisheries, including the Water Framework Directive.

Mark Lloyd, chief executive of the Angling Trust said “We have a situation here where one EA Department has introduced measures to protect the eel, which we support, and another department has given permission for a development which could see eels and other fish slaughtered in massive numbers. Could government be any less joined-up? Hydropower developments should not be licensed to kill; they must be designed so that they don’t damage fish and their habitats.”

Alan Butterworth, technical director at the Angling Trust added: “Current research, and a Europe-wide working group on eels, recommends a screen gap of no more than 15mm to safeguard migrating silver eels, and the Agency's own hydropower Good Practice Guide stipulates 12.5mm for the type of turbine to be used at Gunthorpe and Sawley. The screens proposed have a 20mm wide gap, which would allow eels to enter the turbine channel where they are at risk of being mutilated or killed.”

Fish Legal – the legal arm of the Angling Trust – is now considering a case against the EA on behalf of a member club whose fishing will be damaged by the scheme. The Angling Trust has recently made a series of detailed proposals to change the EA’s guidelines to developers of hydropower schemes. http://mail.aol.com/32843-111/aol-1...rchIn=none&searchQuery=&start=0&sort=received
 
Last edited:
I suppose an unlimited amount of coarse fish can be killed also with no concern to the EA! They won't be checking or anyone else.
 
Can anyone tell me exactly what the aim of these Hydro schemes is? Having read the previous threads on the subject, and the bumf that was put out by the companies concerned, they APPEAR, on a cursory look anyway, to be non profit making, and desperately trying to claim 'green' credentials.

The fact that they are obviously going to decimate the eel population (A listed, seriously endangered species) on the rivers where they are installed brings the green bit into serious doubt....and my cynical nature rings loud alarm bells in my head when I am told that, in particular in these times of economic uncertainty, something is 'Non profit making'.....

So...if their claim of being 'green' is highly dubious, and the amount of electricity they generate is so small as to be irrelevant, and they are 'Non profit making'...then WHY are they being built at all, and WHY are they being supported by the EA?

There may well be answers to these questions that I am unaware of, hence my questions....but I have a sneaky suspicion that someone, somewhere, is making a shed load of money, and to hell with the consequences.

I could be pleasantly surprised....it could turn out to be well intentioned, genuine 'goodness of their heart', ecologically sound and sensible stuff, with no pot of gold in sight.....there is a first time for everything, they tell me :rolleyes:

Anyone know?

Cheers, Dave.
 
David Gauntlett said:
So...if their claim of being 'green' is highly dubious, and the amount of electricity they generate is so small as to be irrelevant, and they are 'Non profit making'...then WHY are they being built at all, and WHY are they being supported by the EA?
.
Click to expand...

'Green' is a much-abused word. Nuclear power is 'green' if you are worried about carbon emissions. Obviously not 'green', however, if you are concerned about the long term storage of spent nuclear fuel. So, from the point of view of the wider strategy of diversifying the energy supply mix, water turbines are 'green'. Also, if you build them on a river, a lot cheaper than building a hyro power plant on a dam. I suppose there is a bigger picture, which the eels are considered to be an insignificant part of by the decision makers.
As for the non-profit bit, maybe they are going to put any profits straight back into building more turbines on rivers? In this way, maybe they can claim to be non-profit making. Maybe in the future they can stop claiming to be 'not for profit' and start raking it in.

Or am I just cynical?
 
Last edited:
Mike Webb said:
As for the non-profit bit, maybe they are going to put any profits straight back into building more turbines on rivers? In this way, maybe they can claim to be non-profit making. Maybe in the future they can stop claiming to be 'not for profit' and start raking it in.

Or am I just cynical?
Click to expand...

The point is Mike, that judging by the published figures for the amount of electricity these things generate (can't remember the exact figures off the top of my head) they are never going to make much of a profit...it really is a spit in the ocean. You would need massive numbers of these things to make a significant contribution to our power requirements....and each one would be prohibitively expensive to install. I really think that unless I have misunderstood the figures somewhere, there must be a hidden agenda lurking and biding it's time in the background :(

Cheers, Dave.
 
The companies that manufacture the generators, the screws, etc.... together with the construction companies installing them make good profits, that is why they are not viable as far as business case goes, the time required to provide a return on investment is longer than the lifespan of the equipment.

Playing devils advocate for a moment though, the only issue being raised here is the size of mesh in the guard screens, this could be resolved in a one hour meeting with the design authority, nothing would have been manufactured yet!! Talk about missing the point..................which for me is the effect on the river flow and further compoundment needed to ensure these schemes work all year round. We have enough river flow problems with abstraction without schemes like these!!

With current multiplying rates of abstratction, who says there will be enough water flowing down the rivers in 10 years time to drive these screws at all??
 
Bleak future for EELS

I read this article in the Sunday Express last week..
The slimy eel, mainstay of East End cuisine, is facing an uncertain future because of over fishing and EU dithering.
Eel numbers across Britain & Europe have crashed by 90% in recent years because of the huge numbers being caught and exported.
As the new winter eel fishing season starts, the EU is spurning its own scientists warnings and has failed to put a quota on export figures.
Between 1998 and 2008 more than 2 billion juvenile eels were shipped abroad most of them to China, while even greater numbers are consumed within the EU.
From what i can see no one really cares including the EA & more so the EU,just so long as someone makes a profit which in turn means the EA & EU make profits also..I have said this before that in my opinion the EA do more harm than good..But hey we can all find reasurance in the form of "better the devil you know", and at least we only pay under £30 a year for that bit of paper that says we can fish..Im sure that will solve the problems which many rivers are facing now and more than likely many more rivers will be facing alot sooner than we all think..:eek:
 
Yep, the good old EA, supporters of commercial interests, no regard for individual anglers, or it would seem the law?, The Salmon & freshwater fisheries act, doesn,t that state thats its illegal to inhibit or stop the migration of fish?(certainly salmon), this scheme and no doubt many more would appear to be doing just that, maybe they can,t read!!!!!!!!!!!!!
peter
 
the only issue being raised here is the size of mesh in the guard screens, this could be resolved in a one hour meeting with the design authority, nothing would have been manufactured yet!!
Click to expand...

Ian, I think if screens were that were fine enough to prevent mature eel passage
were incorporated into the design, the screen would become blinded with debris in a very short time preventing any water getting through to provide the power.

Matt

edit - there may be ways of diverting fish around the turbines?
 
Suggest people start reporting salmon/sea trout being killed, E/A will sharp change their position. Mention interference with migratory fish in the NE and the EA moves faster than $h!t off of a shovel.

Tell the fisheries manager in the Newcastle office that game anglers are throwing barbel/chub up the bank during the close season and he doesn't even know the fish should be returned. That dear friends is as true as day follows night.
 
I've spoken to people in the EA at top level and they know its a waste of money and they do kill fish but it's all about doing something thats green.

All EA staff are legally gagged about commenting on the effects these Hydros have on a weir environment, like killing or stunning fish and silting up of the weir pool.

Its rock solid FACT, they will never make a profit nor much electricity but its not about making money or profit. Its about doing something green and looking good in the media.

If they were viable you would of seen them installed years ago.

I own a domain called www.SayNoToHydro.co.uk, its got joomla installed and Im willing to let a group or person with knowledge to take it on
 
Matt Smith said:
Ian, I think if screens were that were fine enough to prevent mature eel passage
were incorporated into the design, the screen would become blinded with debris in a very short time preventing any water getting through to provide the power.

Matt

edit - there may be ways of diverting fish around the turbines?
Click to expand...

Matt, my point was that the AT complaint is just about the screens whereas they should be objecting to the whole negative picture they paint..........I should probably have made that clearer
 
All EA staff are legally gagged about commenting on the effects these Hydros have on a weir environment

Its rock solid FACT, they will never make a profit nor much electricity but its not about making money or profit. Its about doing something green and looking good in the media.
Click to expand...

Glenn, the first part of your post I quote is not true. The second part possibly implies that it's the EA who are installing hydro systems on weirs, which isn't the case. They're private ventures and somebody must be making money out them, even if it's just through a subsidy payment!

Matt, my point was that the AT complaint is just about the screens whereas they should be objecting to the whole negative picture they paint..........I should probably have made that clearer
Click to expand...

Ian, understood!

Matt :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top