Session3.1 pp7 leopold fuederer_wp5

5/30/2012

River ecosystem requirements and SHARE MCA approach Project final meeting Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012 Leopold FÜREDER & Martin BALDES

SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012


Introduction

• The Alps are one of the most important biodiversity hotspots at a global level, but as a very complex system, it is also fragile and vulnerable to human impacts. Running waters have been strongly modified by man across the centuries for several purposes such as fisheries, navigation, irrigation, drainage, drinking water or waste disposal. With the beginning of the 20th century, hydropower became the most important source of electricity generation. The greatest proportion of electric power is generated by large plants, but many of the Alpine rivers are affected by many thousands of small hydropower plants.

Source: SHARE handbook

Introduction


o Rivers are ecosystems “a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities

and the nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems.

o Ecosystem services are “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include

provisioning services such as food and water; regulating services such as regulation of floods, drought, land degradation, and disease; supporting services such as soil formation and nutrient cycling; and cultural services such as recreational, spiritual, religious and other nonmaterial benefits.”

Source: Alcamo, J., et al., 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington. 245 pp.

Ecosystem services


o River Ecosystem services Products obtained from ecosystems

Food and fresh water

Biochemicals (Biothechnology, Medicines, Pharmaceuticals)

Genetic resources (Genetic information used for animal and plant breeding)

Benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes Climate regulation

Water regulation and purification

Nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems Recreation and ecotourismus

Aesthetic and inspiration

Cultural heritage

Services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services Soil formation

Nutrient cycling

Primary production

Source: Alcamo et al., 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington. 245 pp.

o Ecosystem requirements - important river components

Discharge conditions Natural flow regime in time and space

Hydromorphological conditions Longitunal, lateral, and vertical

connectivity well developed

Natural river bed dynamic

Natural bank dynamic

Chemical and physical conditions Natural chemical conditions of

organic and non-organic substances

Natural temperature conditions

Biotic conditions Typical fauna and flora

(benthic organisms, fish, plants)

River ecosystem requirements



Pressures and effects of hydropower facilities

o Ecological and biological effects of weirs and water intakes

o Effects of impoundments (run-off HPP) Rhithron Potamon

Decrease of habitat diversity and loss of typical invertebrate fauna

Change of fish fauna (rheophil limnophil)

Loss of river continuity

Interrupted fish migration and loss of spawning grounds

o Effects of sand traps basins The invertebrate fauna remain in float due to the turbulence

Remove from the river to reservoirs (in case of water intakes)

o Effect of morphology change Degradation of habitat diversity decreased biodiversity

Source: FORSTENLECHNER et al. (1997): Ökologische Aspekte der Wasserkraftnutzung im alpinen Raum, EAWAG


Pressures and effects of hydropower facilities

o Ecological and biological effects of residual water

o Reduction of floods Change of temperature regime increased algae bloom (summer) / increased ice cover (winter)

Reduction of floods river bed clogging an enrichment of silt loss of spawning habitats

Decreased sediment relocation and diversity lack of regulation of macroinvertebrates species composition

o Effects of sediment flushing High sediment flushing increasing drift, reduction of benthic invertebrates

High sediment concentration damaging of fish gills

o Effects of hydropeaking Clogging of sediment, loss of spawning habitats

Increased drift of benthic invertebrates

Stranding of fish and invertebrates

Source: Forstenlechner et al. (1997): Ökologische Aspekte der Wasserkraftnutzung im alpinen Raum, EAWAG

SHARE - solution

• Balancing river ecosystems and hydropower requirements, supporting the decision and making transparent and shared objectives

RIVER CONSERVATION

HP PRODUCTION

FARMING AND BREEDING

TOURIST FRUITION

FINANCIAL OUTCOMES

HYDROGEOLOGIC RISK

LANDSCAPE

©Groupe Energies Renouvelables, Environnement et Solidarités - 2012


• River ecosystems requirements - identify highly vulnerable river types - evaluate hydropower effects considering important river ecosystem components.

The SHARE Multi-Criteria-Analysis

The goal of a multi-criteria analysis is to compare different fields of interests and to find a balance between them.

Furthermore, it is also possible to compare different management alternatives (e.g. management of the residual water stretch).

RIVER CONSERVATION

HP PRODUCTION

FARMING AND BREEDING

TOURIST FRUITION

FINANCIAL OUTCOMES

HYDROGEOLOGIC RISK

LANDSCAPE

©Groupe Energies Renouvelables, Environnement et Solidarités - 2012


Criteria - Example: Assessment of the ecological status • Fish, benthic macroinvertebrates communities, and phythobenos communities to evaluate the

ecological status of rivers and streams. Furthermore, riparian vegetation, and arthropod communities can also used for the river stretch assessment.

• Fish assessment methods: – ISECI (Index of the ecological status of ichthyic communities) [Italy]

– FIA (Fish Index Austria )

– IPR (Indice Poissons Rivière) [France]

– FiBS (The German assessment system for the quality element fish) [Germany]

– Fish-population-structure /(the sampling methods have already been adopted, evaluation methods are in development) [Slovenia]

• Benthic macroinvertebrates assessment methods: – STAR_ICMi (Multimetric intercalibration STAR index) [Italy]

– MacrOper [Italy]

– SMEIH (Slovenian multimetric index of Hydromorphologic alteration)

– Quality element macroinvertebrates (Module general degradation, Module saprobity, Module acidification, Module general pressure and organic pressure) [Austria]

– IBGA (Indice Biologique Global Adapté) [France]

– PERLODES (River assessment system for the Quality Element benthic invertebrates) [Germany]

– IOBS (Indice Oligochète de Bio-indication des Sédiments] [France]

Source: SHARE_WP5-Action 5.1_abiotic & biotic indicators SOLIMINI, A.G., CARDOSO, A.C., HEISKANEN, A.-S. (2006): Indicators and methods for the ecological status assessment under the Water Framework. Indicators and methods for the ecological status assessment. European Commission, Directorate-General Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability


Example: Assessment of the ecological status

• Phytobenthos assessment methods: – ICMi (Multimetric Intercalibration index) [Italia]

– Phytobenthos (Modul saprobic pollution SI, Modul trophic pollution TI [Slovenia]

– Quality element phytobenthos (trophic index, saprobic index, reference species) [Austria]

– IBD (Indice Biologique Diatomées) [France]

– PHYLIB (German river assessment system for the quality element macrophytes and phytobenthos)

• Riparian vegetation assessment methods: – IFF (Fluvial Functionality Index) [Italy]

– Quality element hydromorphology - Parameter group morphology (parameter riparian vegetation included) [Austria]

• Hydromorphological assessment methods – IARI (Hydrologic Regime Alteration Index) [Italy]

– IHA (Indicator of Hydrologic Alterations) [Italy]

– Slovenian parameter group hydrology - Q

– Quality element hydromorphology - Parameter group hydrology [Austria]

– SYRAH-CE and SEQ-Physique (System for Hydrology and Hydromorphology Assessment in rivers and streams) [France]

– Discharge and water withdrawal (minimum discharges) [Germany]

Source: SHARE_WP5-Action 5.1_abiotic & biotic indicators

Indicator database


• Indicator database for the SHARE MCA Listing of indicators and methods to evaluate the ecological and morphological

status of rivers.

Multi Criteria Analysis in SHARE


Combination of the single parameters assessment to the MCA

Two general applications in the SHARE project

1. Used for the identification of the vulnerability profile of river ecosystems in the Alpine area.

The classification of the vulnerability of river ecosystems based on existing assessments methods.

2. Evaluate hydropower effects considering important river ecosystem components (Software SESAMO)

11 Pilot case studies in the Alpine region


1. MCA – vulnerable river types

• Criteria: Located in protected areas

This criterion describes the protection by law of landscapes and the conservation of organisms (animals, plant and fungi). If rivers and brooks located in protected areas is maybe a no go area criterion for hydropower exploitation. Also a criterion for no go area is the occurrence of protected animals or plans.

• Natura 2000

• UN List of Protected Areas (IUCN)



• Criteria: Hydromorphological status

• Almost all pressures of hydropower relate to hydromorphology and are caused by damming, water abstraction, power peaking and canalization. The different effects can be assessed according to the intensity of their impact on different river components. Additionally the impacts on the flora and fauna are more or less all a consequence of alterations of the physical habitat, meaning overall riverbed structure, hydrology, and temperature and oxygen profile.

Example for the morphological

status

• Germany

• France



• Criteria: Frequency of river types (in the Alpine bioregions)

This criterion based on the Austrian typology for streams and rivers and the hydromorphological features of riverine systems (Wimmer et al. 2007). The criterion is defined by the relative length in percent of the river type in proportion to the total length of the riverine system of the related bioregion.

Example: definition of the rarity

• very rare: 1 - 10 %

• rare: 10 - 20 %

• moderate frequent: 20 - 40 %

• frequent: > 40 %



o Criteria: Biotic communities and ecological status

This criterion use fish, benthic macroinvertebrates communities, and phytobenthos communities to evaluate the ecological status of rivers and streams. Furthermore, riparian vegetation, and arthropod communities can also used for the river stretch assessment.

Example for biotic communities

and ecological status

• Ecological quality

• Aquatic flora

• Fish fauna

• Benthic invertebrates



o Criteria for the vulnerability typology categorizations



• Vulnerability typology categories

High vulnerable river ecosystem. Natural rives with high ecological importance.

Moderate vulnerable river ecosystem. Low influenced rivers with moderate ecological importance.

Less vulnerable river ecosystem. Heavily influenced rivers with minor ecological importance.

2. MCA – Ecosystem requirements - hydropower


2. Ecosystem requirements and hydropower effects - pilot case studies

11 pilot case studies in the Alpine region

(Picture: TIWAG)

Picture: tiris

2. MCA – Ecosystem requirements - hydropower


The MCA decision tree

The SHARE MCA provides a decision tree composed of an interrelated set of weighted criteria and

indicators tailored to the requirements of each specific case and adaptable to every river situation.

SHARE MCA decision tree generally implies:


Example for the decision support system (SESAMO) in the special case of the PCS Inn and the application of the habitat modeling software CASIMIR.

Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander)

Criteria: Hydraulic habitat modeling for

different fish species and life stage.

Hydraulic habitat modeling for different benthic macroinvertebrates

Ecological minimum flow requirements for fish habitats

River connectivity (fish bypass)

Landscape aesthetic value

Energy production in the relation to the dotation water



2,1 m³/s 7,1 m³/s

72,5 m³/s 18,5 m³/s

Bildnachweis: Baldes



2,1 m³/s 7,1 m³/s

72,5 m³/s 18,5 m³/s

Bildnachweis: Baldes


Habitat modeling CASiMiR


The hydraulic habitat suitability (HHS) based on the parameters: Flow velocity

Water depth

Grain size

Fish species Barbus barbus

Chondrostoma nasus

Hucho hucho

Benthic macroinvertebrates species Baetis alpinus (Ephemeroptera)

Allogamus auricollis (Trichoptera)


Example: Spawning habitat suitability for Barbus barbus


2,1 m³/s 30,0 m³/s

10,0 m³/s 72,5 m³/s

18,5 m³/s Hydraulic habitat suitability using the example of spawning habitats of the barbel (Barbus barbus) - fitness classes calculated from habitat preferences of species. picture: IWS Stuttgart, Kopecki

Habitat suitability


Example: Habitat suitability for Allogamus auricollis


2,1 m³/s 30,0 m³/s

10,0 m³/s 72.5 m³/s

18,5 m³/s Hydraulic habitat suitability using the example of Allogamus auricollis - fitness classes calculated from habitat preferences of species. picture: IWS Stuttgart, Kopecki

Habitat suitability


Results SESAMO (adult + juvenile fish keyspecies)

Analyses in SESAMO

Management alternatives: Actual situation:

Discharge 2.1 m³/s, no fishpass Alternative 1: 5.0 m³/s, Fishladder Alternative 2: 10.0 m³/s, Fishladder Alternative 3: 15.0 m³/s, Fishladder Alternative 4: 5.0 m³/s, near-natural

fishpass Alternative 5: Abfluss 10.0 m³/s, near-

natural fishpass Alternative 6: Abfluss 15.0 m³/s, near-

natural fishpass

Homogene weight of criteria: Habitat modeling: 33,3% Minimum flow: 33,3% Fishpass: 33.3%

Management alternatives

Rankin

g


Analyses in SESAMO

Results SESAMO (spawning habitats)

Management alternatives: Actual situation:

Discharge 2.1 m³/s, no fishpass Alternative 1: 5.0 m³/s, Fishladder Alternative 2: 10.0 m³/s, Fishladder Alternative 3: 15.0 m³/s, Fishladder Alternative 4: 5.0 m³/s, near-natural

fishpass Alternative 5: Abfluss 10.0 m³/s, near-

natural fishpass Alternative 6: Abfluss 15.0 m³/s, near-

natural fishpass

Homogene weight of criteria: Habitat modeling: 33,3% Minimum flow: 33,3% Fishpass: 33.3%

Management alternatives

Rankin

g

Conclusion


• SHARE identified ecosystem requirements based on the ecological status (indicator database, assessment methods, indicators).

• SHARE modeled habitat requirements of indicator organisms.

• SHARE developed a decision support system (MCA – SESAMO) for the evaluation of hydropower effects considering important river ecosystem requirements.

Rivers ecosystems services can be fully considered in SHARE MCA

Ecological components: presupposing a good data availability and quality

5/30/2012

Thank you for your attention


Technology

Session3.1 pp7 leopold fuederer_wp5