Session3.1 pp7 leopold fuederer_wp5
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Session3.1 pp7 leopold fuederer_wp5

on

  • 420 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
420
Views on SlideShare
370
Embed Views
50

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

2 Embeds 50

http://www.share-alpinerivers.eu 33
http://www.sharealpinerivers.eu 17

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Session3.1 pp7 leopold fuederer_wp5 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. River ecosystem requirements and SHARE MCA approach Project final meeting Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012 Leopold FÜREDER & Martin BALDESSHARE,5/30/2012 Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 2. 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 handbookSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 3. Introductiono 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.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 4. Ecosystem serviceso 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 productionSource: Alcamo et al., 2003. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment – Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington. 245 pp.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 5. River ecosystem requirementso 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)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 6. Pressures and effects of hydropowerfacilitieso 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, EAWAGSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 7. Pressures and effects of hydropowerfacilitieso Ecological and biological effects of residual watero 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 compositiono Effects of sediment flushing High sediment flushing  increasing drift, reduction of benthic invertebrates High sediment concentration  damaging of fish gillso 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, EAWAGSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 8. SHARE - solution• Balancing river ecosystems and hydropower requirements, supporting the decision and making transparent and shared objectives LANDSCAPE FARMING AND BREEDING HYDROGEOLOGIC RISK FINANCIAL TOURIST OUTCOMES FRUITION RIVER HP PRODUCTION CONSERVATION ©Groupe Energies Renouvelables, Environnement et Solidarités - 2012
  • 9. The SHARE Multi-Criteria-Analysis  The goal of a multi-criteria analysis is to compare different fields of interests and to find a balance FARMING LANDSCAPE between them. AND BREEDING HYDROGEOLOGIC RISK  Furthermore, it is also possible to FINANCIAL OUTCOMES TOURIST FRUITION compare different management alternatives (e.g. management of RIVER HP PRODUCTION the residual water stretch). CONSERVATION ©Groupe Energies Renouvelables, Environnement et Solidarités - 2012• River ecosystems requirements - identify highly vulnerable river types - evaluate hydropower effects considering important river ecosystem components.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 10. 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 SustainabilitySHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 11. 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 indicatorsSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 12. Indicator database• Indicator database for the SHARE MCA  Listing of indicators and methods to evaluate the ecological and morphological status of rivers.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 13. 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 regionSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 14. 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)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 15. 1. MCA – vulnerable river types • 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 • FranceSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 16. 1. MCA – vulnerable river types • 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 %SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 17. 1. MCA – vulnerable river types 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 invertebratesSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 18. 1. MCA – vulnerable river types o Criteria for the vulnerability typology categorizationsSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 19. 1. MCA – vulnerable river types• 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.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 20. 2. MCA – Ecosystem requirements - hydropower 2. Ecosystem requirements and hydropower effects - pilot case studies 11 pilot case studies in the Alpine region Picture: tiris (Picture: TIWAG)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 21. 2. MCA – Ecosystem requirements - hydropowerThe 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:SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 22. Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander)Example for the decision support system (SESAMO) in the special caseof the PCS Inn and the application of the habitat modeling softwareCASIMIR.  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 waterSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 23. Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander) 2,1 m³/s 7,1 m³/s 18,5 m³/s 72,5 m³/s Bildnachweis: BaldesSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 24. Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander) 2,1 m³/s 7,1 m³/s 18,5 m³/s 72,5 m³/s Bildnachweis: BaldesSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 25. Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander)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)SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 26. Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander)Example: Spawning habitat suitability for Barbus barbus 2,1 m³/s 30,0 m³/s 10,0 m³/s 72,5 m³/s Habitat suitability 18,5 m³/s Hydraulic habitat suitability using the example of spawning habitats of the barbel (Barbus barbus) - fitness classes calculated from habitat picture: IWS Stuttgart, Kopecki preferences of species.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 27. Pilot case studies (example Tyrolean Inn meander)Example: Habitat suitability for Allogamus auricollis 2,1 m³/s 30,0 m³/s 10,0 m³/s 72.5 m³/s Habitat suitability 18,5 m³/s Hydraulic habitat suitability using the example of Allogamus auricollis - fitness classes calculated from habitat preferences of picture: IWS Stuttgart, Kopecki species.SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 28. A n a l y s e s i n S ESA M OResults SESAMO (adult + juvenile fish keyspecies) 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 Ranking  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 alternativesSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 29. Analyses in SESAMOResults 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 Ranking  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 alternativesSHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 30. 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 qualitySHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012
  • 31. Thank you for your attentionSHARE,5/30/2012 Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012