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

3. 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.
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

4. 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.
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

5. River ecosystem requirements
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)
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

6. 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
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

7. 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, 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 Sustainability
SHARE, 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 indicators
SHARE, 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 region
SHARE, 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
• France
SHARE, 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 invertebrates
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

18. 1. MCA – vulnerable river types
o Criteria for the
vulnerability
typology
categorizations
SHARE, 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 - 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:
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 case
of the PCS Inn and the application of the habitat modeling software
CASIMIR.
 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
SHARE, 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: Baldes
SHARE, 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: Baldes
SHARE, 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 O
Results 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 alternatives
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

29. 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
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 alternatives
SHARE, 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
quality
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

31. Thank you for your attention
SHARE,5/30/2012
Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012