Content uploaded by Gor Gevorgyan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gor Gevorgyan on Jan 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
EURASIAN JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE -AMERICAN
AGRICULTURE 1074-1998
0748, EISSN: -ISSN: 1995
2017, volume(11), issue(5): pages (59-67) Published Online in http://www.aensiweb.com/AEJSA/
67-59, Pages: 7201 September) 5(11EURASIAN JOURNAL OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. -AMERICAN Gor Gevorgyan et al, 2017
Hydroecological risk assessment of small
hydropower plants operation in Armenia
(Based on example of Vardenis,
Karchaghbyur and Arpa rivers)
1Gor Gevorgyan, 2Armine Hayrapetyan, 3Armine Mamyan, 4Bardukh Gabrielyan
1Gor Gevorgyan, Senior scientific worker, Department of Hydroecology, Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology of SCZHE of NAS RA,
Yerevan, Armenia,
2Armine Hayrapetyan, Senior scientific worker, Department of Hydrobiology, Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology of SCZHE of NAS
RA, Yerevan, Armenia,
3Armine Mamyan, Scientific worker, Department of Hydroecology, Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology of SCZHE of NAS RA,
Yerevan,
4Bardukh Gabrielyan, Director, Scientific Center of Zoology and Hydroecology of NAS RA, Yerevan, Armenia,
Received 12 July 2017; Accepted 30 September 2017; Published Online 7 October 2017
Address For Correspondence:
Gor Gevorgyan, Department of Hydroecology, Institute of Hydroecology and Ichthyology of SCZHE of NAS RA, 0014 Yerevan, Armenia,
E-mail: gev_gor@mail.ru
Eurasian Network for Scientific Information.-Americanby authors and 7Copyright © 201 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ABSTRACT
Investigating the mechanisms behind the hydroecological effects of small hydropower plants (SHPs) operation is urgently required since
increasing growth in the hydropower sector has become a serious threat to river ecosystems. The aim of the present study was to investigate
and assess the hydrobiological and –chemical risks of SHPs operation in Armenia. As model objects, we investigated the Vardenis,
Karchaghbyur and Arpa rivers in Armenia. Observations showed that in the Vardenis river site located downstream from the SHP (where
the water was taken in the SHP pipe), the aquatic ecosystem within a distance of a few kilometers was destroyed due to the intake of almost
all the quantity of the water by the SHP, and the fish passage system of the SHP had formal nature. If the fish passage system in the SHP
located on the Vardenis river had formal nature, then the SHP operating on the Karchaghbyur river didn’t even have a fishway, which
caused an obstacle for the migration and natural reproduction of Lake Sevan endemic fish species. Due to the operation of the SHP on the
Karchaghbyur river, the decreased river velocity and the increased water temperature in the site located downstream from the SHP caused
changes in planktonic organisms composition: increased growth of zooplankton led to the decreased quantitative and qualitative parameters
of phytoplankton in most cases. In other case, the quantitative and qualitative parameters of phytoplankton in the site located downstream
from the SHP increased, because in this case, the decreased river velocity was the main driver of phytoplankton growth. Hydrochemical
study in the Arpa river showed the increased level of mineral nitrogen and salts in the observation sites located downstream from all 3 SHPs
operating on the Arpa river, which was probably due to lower dilution rate caused by water intake by the SHPs. Based on the example of the
Vardenis, Karchaghbyur and Arpa rivers, it’s possible to state that SHPs operation on the Armenian river ecosystems leads to unpredicted
changes in the quantitative and qualitative compositions of hydrobiological communities such as phyto– and zooplankton, the absence of
environmental flow management and fish passage systems causes the destruction of river sections and blocks the fish migration preventing
their natural reproduction, decreased river velocity and discharge caused by SHPs operation results in anthropogenic pollution (mineral
nitrogen and salts) intensification due to lower dilution rate in river sections.
KEY WORDS
Armenia, rivers, small hydropower plants, effects, hydrobiological communities, hydrochemical parameters.
INTRODUCTION
Today, energy consumed all over the world comprises 34.5% liquids, 26% coal, 23.5% natural gas, 5.5%
nuclear and 10.5% renewable [1, 2]. The increasing demand of energy in many countries, especially in
60
developing countries has led to the acceleration of energetic sphere development rate. In recent years, increased
growth in the hydropower sector has been observed. The renewable energy technologies emerged as the most
important solution to the environmental problems caused by the conventional source of energy. Hydropower is
the most traditional clean renewable energy source and the most important for electrical power production
worldwide. The energy source of hydropower is running water from rivers or streams. In run-of-river small
hydropower schemes, part of the flow of the stream is diverted through a pipe, which takes the water to a
penstock, where it is forced to fall into hydro-turbines situated in the powerhouse. These turbines convert water
pressure into mechanical shaft power, which can be used to drive an electricity generator. Afterwards the flow
comes back to the stream [3]. International Energy Agency notes that small hydropower plant (SHP) tends to
have a relatively small and localized impact on the environment. However, a conflict between human demand
and ecological water requirement on aquatic ecosystems may increase [4]. Small hydropower is claimed to
cause negligible effects on ecosystems, although some environmental values are threatened [3]. Despite their
doubtless advantages, SHPs can lead to several environmental risks such as lower water quality, ecosystem
destruction and biodiversity loss [5]. Giving priority to the development of economic sphere, the possible
environmental effects of SHPs have been ignored or little attention has been paid. Some of environmental
impacts of SHPs start as soon the construction phase [6]. These impacts will of course vary from case to case
[7]. SHPs affecting the natural flow of rivers can change stream physicochemical characteristics and alter the
quantity and quality of aquatic habitat, with cascading impacts on stream biota [6, 8]. These energetic
constructions not only kill fish but also may block their migration in a riverbed. In the literature, there are some
hydrological, hydrophysical, –chemical, –biological, –ecological and methodological studies considering risk
analysis for SHPs, however such investigations are very limited [2–10]. The ecological impacts of these
hydropower constructions are poorly understood and are not being adequately studied [8].
The construction of SHPs in the Republic of Armenia (RA) is considered as a leading direction of the
development of renewable energy sector [11, 12]. Increasing number of SHPs on Armenian rivers is one of the
most important environmental issues in the country. In Armenia, there isn’t a methodology for the complex
evaluation of SHPs impact on ecosystems. Rivers are only considered as potential hydropower resources
without regard to their impact on the environment and communities. If more than 20% of river length is piped,
the river ecosystem will become stressed [11]. This norm isn’t taken into consideration in case of many
Armenian rivers serving as a renewable energy source [11, 13]. SHPs in Armenia don’t have environmental
flow management system. Incorrect project hydroeconomic estimates are other serious issues in relation to
aquatic ecosystem protection [13]. Due to the operation of SHPs, 16 river ecosystems are currently in critical
situation, and 3 rivers – in disastrous situation [11].
From the point of view of SHPs environmental effects, the Lake Sevan catchment basin situated in the
eastern part of the Republic of Armenia (Gegharkunik Province) is considered one of the most vulnerable areas.
Being a habitat for endemic fish species such as Khramicarp-Capoeta capoeta sevangi (Filippi), Sevan Barbel-
Barbus goktschaicus (Kessler), and Sevan Trout-Salmo ischchan (Kessler), it has been affected by SHPs [14,
15]. Fish passways in Armenia are projected under the existing standards, which, as a matter of fact, are mainly
developed for large rivers in plains [13]. However, not only in Lake Sevan catchment basin but also in the whole
country, rivers are small and mountainous. All of this may cause serious hydroecological and –biological
problems in the Lake Sevan catchment basin.
The Arpa river catchment basin situated in the southeastern part of Armenia is another vulnerable area as it
is overloaded with SHPs. More than 15 SHPs are operating on the Arpa river and its tributaries [16]. As of July
1, 2015, Public Services Regulatory Commission of the RA gave a license for constructing 8 additional SHPs on
the Arpa river and its tributaries the construction and operation of which will promote increased load on the
river ecosystems [12]. The Arpa river (total length – 126 km, in Armenia – 90 km) originated from south-east of
Vardenis mountain is one of the major tributaries of the transboundary Araks river in the territory of Armenia
[17]. It is one of the biggest rivers feeding Lake Sevan. As of December 31, 2014, water volume of 130.23 mln.
m3 entered into Lake Sevan through Arpa-Sevan water channel [12]. Taking into consideration the strategic
importance of the Arpa river as a transboundary river and an additional water supply for Lake Sevan, it’s very
important to implement a hydroecological investigation in the river affected by SHPs.
For conserving water and hydrobiological resources, the investigation of the ecological aspect of SHPs
operation in Armenia is urgently required. The aim of the present study was to investigate and assess the
hydrobiological and –chemical risks of SHPs operation in Armenia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
As model objects, we investigated the Vardenis and Karchaghbyur rivers in the Lake Sevan watershed basin
and the Arpa river. For assessing the hydrobiological and –chemical impacts of SHPs on the river ecosystems,
phyto–, zooplankton and fish studies in the Karchagbyur and Vardenis rivers and organic (BOD5), nutrient
61
(mineral nitrogen and phosphorus) and salt (EC) pollution investigations in the Arpa river were carried out.
Observations, measurements and sampling were done in the river sites situated upstream and downstream
(where the certain volume of the water was taken in the SHP pipes) from the SHPs located on the rivers in
different seasons of 2013, 2014 and 2016 (Table 1).
Table 1: Coordinates of rivers investigated site.
Sampling site number
N/Lat
E/Long
River site location
1
40°05'32.3"
45°27'49.3"
Vardenis river site located upstream from the SHP
2
40°05'35.3"
45°27'57.0"
Vardenis river site located downstream from the SHP
3
40°09'45.1"
45°35'05.7"
Karchaghbyur river site located upstream from the SHP
4
40°10'27.4"
45°34'58.4"
Karchaghbyur river site located downstream from the SHP
5
39°52'17.4"
45°42'54.9"
Arpa river site located upstream from the SHP-1
6
39°52'06.4"
45°42'38.9"
Arpa river site located downstream from the SHP-1
7
39°41'33.0"
45°27'06.6"
Arpa river site located upstream from the SHP-2
8
39°42'54.4"
45°24'53.5"
Arpa river site located downstream from the SHP-2
9
39°43'55.8"
45°12'02.8"
Arpa river site located upstream from the SHP-3
10
39°43'49.4"
45°11'50.3"
Arpa river site located downstream from the SHP-3
For the calculation of river velocity in the investigation sites, a bobber was vented from the selected point
of the rivers, and a stopwatch was started. The watch was stopped after the bobber passed the selected distance.
The river velocity was determined by dividing the selected distance by the time recorded on the watch. River
discharge in the investigation sites was measured by the following formula:
Q = ω × V (1)
... where Q is the river discharge, ω is the cross-sectional area of the river at the point of flow measurement, V is
the velocity at which the water travels across that section. The cross-sectional area of the river was calculated by
multiplying the water level by the river width. River water level was measured by a water level meter. As only
one measurement of the water level was taken, therefore an approximation in calculating the river cross section
was considered. All the hydrological parameters were measured at the centre of river width.
For the phytoplankton analysis, a 1-liter water sample taken from each site was preserved with 40%
formaldehyde solution (0.4% final concentration) and stored in a dark place. Further study was carried out under
laboratory conditions. The fixed phytoplankton samples were settled in a dark space for 10–12 days, and then
the volume of the experimental samples was decreased from 1000 ml to 100 ml by a siphon (50 µm). Repeating
the same process for the second time, the volume of the experimental samples was reduced to 10 ml [18]. The
qualitative and quantitative analyses of phytoplankton were executed under a microscope (XSZ-107BN-C)
using Nageotte chamber.
For the zooplankton analysis, water samples were taken with a bucket, and they were filtered through a
plankton net (50 µm) and fixed with formalin solution (4–5% final concentration). The further processing of the
samples was carried out by the standard methods accepted in hydrobiology [19–21]. The qualitative and
quantitative analyses of zooplankton were done under a microscope (XSZ-107BN-C) using Bogorov camera.
Fish hunting was implemented by a fishing net. They were fixed with 4% formaldehyde solution for further
taxonomic identification under laboratory conditions. The qualitative analysis of fish was executed by using
different types of microscopes (MC-2-Zoom Digital, XSZ-107BN-C). Taxonomic groups of phyto–,
zooplankton and fish were identified by using the keys/determinants of freshwater systems [22–28].
Water samples for BOD5 and nutrient (nitrate, nitrite, ammonium and phosphate ions) analyses were taken
with cleaned polythene bottles (1 liter). In the laboratory, BOD5 values were determined according to the
standard method [29]. Initial dissolved oxygen (DO) and residual DO after five days incubation at 20°C were
measured by the electrochemical probe method by using a water oximeter (HI98193) [30]. The contents of
nitrate (cadmium reduction method), nitrite (diazotization method), ammonium (Nessler method) and phosphate
(ascorbic acid method) ions were determined by a multi-parameter photometer (HI83200) [31]. All the
glassware and sampling bottles were pre-washed in acid before use. Water temperature (T) and electrical
conductivity (EC) measurements were conducted in field conditions. T was determined using a digital
thermometer (ST9265), and EC using multi-parameter tester (HI98129).
RESULTS AND DISSCUSION
During the investigation period, the zooplankton quantitative (abundance – 15-152 individuum/m3, biomass
– 0.023-0.300 mg/m3) and qualitative (species number – 1) parameters registered in the Vardenis river site
62
located upstream from the SHP (No. 1) were quite low, and no one animal was recorded in December 2013.
Comparatively high quantitative and qualitative values of planktonic algae (abundance – 239-1508 cell/ml,
biomass – 1.0294-6.4550 g/m3, species number – 8-20) were registered in this observation site. Only fish
species hooked from this site was Salmo trutta fario (Linnaeus 1758). In the Vardenis river site located
downstream from the SHP (No. 2), the aquatic ecosystem within a distance of a few kilometers was destroyed
due to the intake of almost all the quantity of the water by the SHP (Fig. 1). Although there was a fish passway
in the Vardenis river SHP, however it had formal nature, and the SHP didn’t ensure fish migration along the
river. Even inadequate water released to and the inadequate design of fishways or fish ladders may cause a
problem [2, 5]. Investigations conducted by Kucukali S. have shown that in the Tefen SHP located on the Filyos
river (Turkey), the fish passage system doesn’t correspond to a standard fish-passage type and blocks fish
migration, endangering their presence in the region [5]. It has been reported that even the most appropriate fish
passages in France create at least some delay in migration, and the plant turbines cause fish deaths. According to
Baskaya S. et al, in Turkey, control over environmental flow is a highly serious environmental problem in plants
already in the production phase. There is no strict control over the amount of environmental flow. Even the
required 10% environmental flow, which is considered insufficient by the majority of public, sometimes isn’t
released into riverbeds for several days [2].
During the investigation period, the quantitative and qualitative parameters of zooplankton according to the
Karchaghbyur river sites located upstream (No. 3) and downstream (No. 4) from the SHP increased, because the
water (river velocity) and thermal regimes in the site located downstream from the SHP were more favorable for
the growth of zooplanktonic organisms (Fig. 2, Table 2). The decreased river velocity and the increased water
temperature accelerated the growth rates of zooplankton [32–35]. In the Karchaghbyur river site located
downstream from the SHP, a decrease in the river velocity and an increase in the water temperature were mainly
due to the intake of certain volume of water by the SHP and because of the reservation of water before the
intake (Table 2). The investigations conducted in Fall 2013 and Winter 2013–2014 showed that the quantitative
and qualitative parameters of phytoplanktonic organisms according to the Karchaghbyur river observation sites
located upstream and downstream from the SHP decreased, which is explained by the pressure of zooplanktonic
organisms, which are the main phytoplankton grazers (Figs. 2 and 3) [36, 37]. In Spring 2014, the quantitative
and qualitative parameters of phytoplankton according to the observation sites located upstream and
downstream from the SHP increased (Fig. 3). In this case, the decreased river velocity was the main driver of
the increased growth of phytoplankton (Table 2). It’s known that phytoplankton as well as zooplankton grow
well in the conditions of low water velocity [32, 33, 35]. It is necessary to mention that an increase in the
phytoplankton quantitative parameters was slightly expressed, which is explained by the pressure of the main
phytoplankton grazers – zooplanktonic organisms (Figs. 2, 3a,b) [36, 37]. It’s worthy to note that investigations
on the hydrobiological impacts of SHPs operation are mainly devoted to fish and benthic communities [2–6, 8–
10]. Nevertheless, plankton is very much sensitive to hydrological parameters and can undergo significant
changes due to SHPs operation [17, 38–40]. From this point of view, the obtained results are very important and
valuable.
Fig. 1: Vardenis river site located downstream from the SHP.
63
a) b)
c)
Fig. 2: Quantitative and qualitative parameters of zooplankton in the Karchaghbyur river.
Table 2: Hydrological and thermal regimes in the Karchaghbyur river.
Sampling site number
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb 2014
May 2014
River velocity (m/s)
3
0.75
0.73
0.69
0.62
0.66
1.03
4
0.50
0.43
0.38
0.37
0.43
0.83
Water temperature (°C)
3
8.0
6.5
2.0
0.9
1.8
9.5
4
10.0
9.0
4.5
2.8
5.9
11.0
a) b)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb 2014
May 2014
Abundance (individuum/m3)
Upstream from SHP
Downstream from SHP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb2014
May 2014
Biomass (mg/m3)
Upstream from SHP
Downstream from SHP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb 2014
May 2014
Species number
Upstream from SHP
Downstream from SHP
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb 2014
May 2014
Abundance (cell/ml)
Upstream from SHP
Downstream from SHP
0
2
4
6
8
10
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb 2014
May 2014
Biomass (g/m3)
Upstream from SHP
Downstream from SHP
64
c)
Fig. 3: Quantitative and qualitative parameters of phytoplankton in the Karchaghbyur river.
During the investigation period, no one fish species was registered in the investigated sites of the
Karchaghbyur river. The races Salmo ischchan gegarkuni (Kessler) and Salmo ischchan aestivalis (Fortunatov)
of the Lake Sevan endemic fish species Salmo ischchan spawn in the lake tributaries, where the sources are
considered as the most favorable places for spawning. Salmo ischchan gegarkuni (Kessler) spawns in Fall and
Winter, and Salmo ischchan aestivalis (Fortunatov) spawns in Spring [14]. In the spawning period of Salmo
ischchan gegarkuni (Kessler) and Salmo ischchan aestivalis (Fortunatov), no one specimen of these fish species
was registered in the studied observation sites of the Karchaghbyur river, which allows to conclude that the SHP
located on the river prevented the migration of the fish along the river. According to the laws of Armenia, it’s
essential to ensure fish movement. To this end, the construction of fishways for fish migration is essential.
However, our observations showed that there wasn’t a fish passway in the Karchaghbyur river SHP, and the
dam height of more than 1 meter was a real obstacle for ensuring the free movement and natural reproduction of
endemic fish species (Fig. 4). If fish passways in many SHPs located on Armenian rivers don’t perform their
main aim – to bridge fish species inhabiting in different sections of a river for their free movement and the
preservation and natural reproduction of fish reserves, then the Karchaghbyur river SHP didn’t even have a fish
passage system [13].
Fig. 4: SHP operating on the Karchaghbyur river.
For assessing hydrochemical effects of SHPs operation, organic (BOD5), nutrient (mineral nitrogen and
phosphorus) and salt (EC) pollution investigations in the Arpa river were carried out. The results of the
hydrochemical study showed that mineral nitrogen and salt pollution degree in the observation sites located
downstream from all 3 SHPs operating on the Arpa river (Nos. 6, 8, 10) increased, which was probably
conditioned by an elevated anthropogenic nitrogen and salt pollution level in the conditions of a decrease in the
river velocity and discharge (Tables 3–5). The pollution was intensified due to lower dilution rate in the river
observation sites located downstream from the SHPs. In case of organic matter content, this regularity was only
registered in the observation site No. 8 affected by the SHP-2 (Table 4). In other cases, no obvious regularity in
changes in the concentrations of chemicals was observed (Tables 3 and 4).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Oct 2013
Nov 2013
Dec 2013
Jan 2014
Feb 2014
May 2014
Species number
Upstream from SHP
Downstream from SHP
65
Table 3: Nutrient regime in the Arpa river.
Sampling site number
May 2016
July 2016
Nov 2016
Mineral nitrogen (mg N/l)
5
0.60
0.42
0.61
6
0.69
0.85
0.70
7
0.85
1.10
1.32
8
0.87
1.97
2.65
9
0.78
2.40
2.51
10
1.02
2.60
2.60
Mineral phosphorus (phosphates) (mg/l)
5
0.17
0.21
0.14
6
0.19
0.09
0.10
7
0.09
0.18
0.21
8
0.11
0.09
0.55
9
0.21
0.67
0.12
10
0.13
0.22
0.15
Table 4: EC and BOD5 values in the Arpa river.
Sampling site number
May 2016
July 2016
Nov 2016
EC (µS/cm)
5
58
70
68
6
64
78
76
7
134
290
280
8
254
622
912
9
156
418
350
10
182
520
376
BOD5 (mgO/l)
5
1.9
1.8
2.1
6
2.1
1.9
2.0
7
2.2
2.0
3.4
8
2.2
2.6
3.7
9
2.0
2.2
3.3
10
2.4
2.0
3.0
Table 5: Hydrological regime in the Arpa river.
Sampling site number
May 2016
July 2016
Nov 2016
River velocity (m/s)
5
1.90
1.25
0.84
6
0.80
0.28
0.43
7
1.80
0.98
0.76
8
1.20
0.40
0.47
9
1.14
1.05
0.91
10
0.73
0.36
0.59
River discharge (m3/s)
5
13.20
5.53
3.32
6
8.10
0.47
0.34
7
19.10
9.18
5.70
8
10.86
1.12
0.63
9
22.80
14.36
12.12
10
13.14
6.75
7.26
Conclusion:
Observations showed that the Vardenis river section within a distance of a few kilometers was destroyed
due to the intake of almost all the quantity of the water by the SHP, and the fish passage system of the SHP had
formal nature. The SHP operating on the Karchaghbyur river didn’t even have a fishway and caused an obstacle
for the migration and natural reproduction of endemic fish species. Due to the operation of the SHP on the
Karchaghbyur river, the decreased river velocity and the increased water temperature in the site located
downstream from the SHP caused changes in plankton community: increased growth of zooplankton led to the
decreased quantitative and qualitative parameters of phytoplankton in most cases. In other case, the quantitative
and qualitative parameters of phytoplankton according to the observation sites located upstream and
downstream from the SHP increased, because the decreased river velocity was the main driver of phytoplankton
66
growth. Hydrochemical study in the Arpa river showed the increased level of mineral nitrogen and salts in the
observation sites located downstream from all 3 SHPs operating on the Arpa river, which was probably due to
lower dilution rate caused by water intake by the SHPs. Based on the example of the Vardenis, Karchaghbyur
and Arpa rivers, it’s possible to state that SHPs operation in Armenian river basins may cause a variety of
environmental effects: unpredicted changes in the quantitative and qualitative compositions of hydrobiological
communities such as phyto– and zooplankton; the destruction of river sections; the increased level of
anthropogenic pollutants especially mineral nitrogen and salts; an obstacle to the migration and natural
reproduction of fish species. Thus, the investigation on SHPs hydroecological risks has revealed a threat not
only to hydrobiological components but also water qualitative properties. SHPs operation in Armenian river
basins may cause water degradation, not only directly affecting river ecosystems but also intensifying
anthropogenic pressure on them. Increasing growth in the Armenian hydropower sector will undoubtedly result
in the acceleration of this process. To mitigate such environmental risks, responsible authorities need to develop
and implement a new policy for SHPs operation, which will take into consideration not only economic benefits
but also environmental safety. Therefore, further comprehensive investigation on the ecological aspect of SHPs
operation will be implemented for the precise understanding of all sides of SHPs environmental effects. From
the scientific point of view, the study results also have high international importance, since most such published
works are for large hydroelectric units on big rivers, and the data presented for small hydropower units on small
streams aren’t common and can be very important.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by research project № YSSP-13-12 (NFSAT/YSSP) and the State Committee of
Science of MES RA, research project № 15T–1F312.
REFERENCES
[1] The International Energy Outlook. International energy markets through 2035. Independent Statistics and
Analysis, 2010. US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Washington, D.C., USA.
[2] Baskaya, S., E. Baskaya, A. Sari, 2011. The principal negative impacts of small hydropower plants in
Turkey. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(14): 3284-3290.
[3] Valero, E., 2012. Characterization of the water quality status on a stretch of River Lerez around a small
hydroelectric power station. Water, 4(4): 815-834.
[4] Vaikasas, S., N. Bastiene, V. Pliuraite, 2015. Impact of small hydropower plants on physicochemical and
biotic environments in flatland riverbeds of Lithuania. Journal of Water Security, 1(1): 1-13.
[5] Kucukali, S., 2014. Environmental risk assessment of small hydropower (SHP) plants: A case study for
Tefen SHP plant on Filyos River. Energy for Sustainable Development, 19: 102-110.
[6] Curtean-Banaduc, A., S. Pauli., D. Banaduc, A. Didenko, J. Sender, S. Maric, P. Del Monte, Z. Khoshnood,
Sh. Zakeyuddin, 2015. Environmental aspects of implementation of micro hydro power plants – A short
review. Transylvanian Review of Systematical and Ecological Research, 17(2): 179-198.
[7] Zelenakova, M., L. Zvijakova, P. Purcz, 2013. Small hydropower plant – Environmental impact assessment
– Case study. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, 3(4): 35-42.
[8] Anderson, E.P., M.C. Freeman, C.M. Pringle, 2006. Ecological consequences of hydropower development
in Central America: Impacts of small dams and water diversion on neotropical stream fish assemblages.
River Research and Applications, 22(4): 397-411.
[9] Benejam, L., L. Saura-Mas, M. Bardina, C. Sola, A. Munne, E. Garcia-Berthou, 2016. Ecological impacts
of small hydropower plants on headwater stream fish: from individual to community effects. Ecology of
Freshwater Fish, 25(2): 295-306.
[10] Xiaocheng, F., T. Tao, J. Wanxiang, L. Fengqing, W. Naicheng, Zh. Shuchan, C. Qinghua, 2008. Impacts
of small hydropower plants on macroinvertebrate communities. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 28(1): 45-52.
[11] Burnazyan, V., T. Grigoryan, M. Yeritsyan, 2014. Analysis of the social-ecological impact of small
hydropower plants. Open Society Foundations-Armenia, Yerevan [In Armenian]. Available at:
http://www.osf.am/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/VictoriaBurnazyan-policyPaper.pdf
[12] National Statistical Service of the RA: Socio-economic situation of the Republic of Armenia, January-
December 2014, 2015. Yerevan, Armenia [In Armenian].
[13] Support to SHPP-relating reforms through the dialogue of public and RA Nature Protection Ministry for
sustainable use of river ecosystems. Handbook, 2016. Yerevan. Available at:
http://www.ecolur.org/files/uploads/pdf/dzernarkangleren.pdf
[14] Gabrielyan, B.K., 2010. Fish of Lake Sevan. Yerevan: Gitutyun [In Russian].
67
[15] Gevorgyan, G.A., A.S. Mamyan, L.R. Hambaryan, S.Kh. Khudaverdyan, A. Vaseashta, 2016.
Environmental risk assessment of heavy metal pollution in Armenian river ecosystems: Case study of Lake
Sevan and Debed River catchment basins. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 25(6): 2387-2399.
[16] Public Services Regulatory Commission of the RA: Based on licenses given by Public Services Regulatory
Commission of the RA the main parameters of small hydropower plants producing electrical energy
according to operating companies as of July 1, 2015, 2015. Yerevan, Armenia [In Armenian].
[17] Hayrapetyan, A.H., S.E. Bolotov, G.A. Gevorgyan, B.K. Gabrielyan, 2016. Investigation of different
environmental factors role in the formation of zooplankton community in the Arpa River (Armenia) and its
main tributaries. Proceedings of the Yerevan State University, 241(3): 53-59.
[18] Abakumov, V.A. (edtd.), 1992. Guide on the hydrobiological monitoring of freshwater ecosystems. St. Petersburg:
Gidrometeoizdat [In Russian].
[19] Abakumov, V.A. (edtd.), 1983. Guide on methods for the hydrobiological analysis of surface water and
bottom sediments. Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat [In Russian].
[20] Balushkina, E.V., G.G. Vinberg, 1979. Relationship between the body length and weight of planktonic
crustaceans. In book: Experimental and field studies on biological bases of lake productivity. Leningrad:
Publishing House of the Zoological Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, pp: 58-72 [In Russian].
[21] Mordukhai-Boltovski, F.D. (edtd.), 1975. Method for studying inland water biogeocenoses. Moscow:
Nauka [In Russian].
[22] Alekseev, V.A., S.Ya. Tsalolikhin (edtd.), 2010. Determinant of zooplankton and zoobenthos in the
freshwater of European Russia. Vol. 1. Zooplankton. Мoscow: Tovarischestvo nauchnych izdaniy KMK [In
Russian].
[23] Borutskiy, E.V., L.A. Stepanova, M.S. Kos, 1991. Determinant of Calanoida of the freshwaters of the
USSR. Leningrad: Nauka [In Russian].
[24] Dadikyan, M.G., 1986. Fish of Armenia. Yerevan: AN ArmSSR [In Russian].
[25] Korovchinskiy, N.M., 2004. Cladocerans of the order Ctenopoda of the world fauna. Moscow: KMK [In
Russian].
[26] Proshkina-Lavrenko, A.I., 1968. Plankton algae of the Caspian Sea. Leningrad: Nauka [In Russian].
[27] Tsarenko, P.M., 1990. Short guidebook of the chlorococcal algae of the Ukrainian SSR. Kiev: Naukova
dumka [In Russian].
[28] Zabelina, M.M., I.A. Kiselev, A.I. Proshkina-Lavrenko, V.S. Sheshukova, 1951. Determinant of the
freshwater algae of the USSR. Diatom algae. Issue 4. Moscow: Sovetskaya nauka [In Russian].
[29] Clesceri, L.S., A.E. Greenberg, A.D. Eaton (edtd.), 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 20th edition. Washington, D.C.: APHA (American Public Health Association), AWWA
(American Water Works Association) and WEF (Water Environment Federation).
[30] Water quality – Determination of dissolved oxygen – Electrochemical probe method. Norm ISO 5814:2012,
2012. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization Publ.
[31] Instruction manual. Available at: http://hannainst.com/downloads/dl/file/id/1168/man83200_18_04_12.pdf
[32] Konstantinov, A.S., 1986. General hydrobiology. Moscow: Vysshaya shkola [In Russian].
[33] Krylov, A.V., 2005. Zooplankton of lowland small rivers. Moscow: Nauka [In Russian].
[34] Richardson, A.J., 2008. In hot water: zooplankton and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science,
65(3): 279-295.
[35] Sanderson, R.J., 1998. Ecology of freshwater plankton in contrasting hydraulic environments. PhD thesis,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
[36] Garzio, L.M., D.K. Steinberg, M. Erickson, H.W. Ducklow, 2013. Microzooplankton grazing along the
Western Antarctic Peninsula. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 70(3): 215-232.
[37] Goldyn, R., K. Kowalczewska-Madura, 2008. Interactions between phytoplankton and zooplankton in the
hypertrophic Swarzedzkie Lake in western Poland. Journal of Plankton Research, 30(1): 33-42.
[38] Dekate, H.M., R.N. Baviskar, 2016. Diversity and ecology of zooplankton in Mumbri creek of South
Konkan, Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Life Sciences, 4(2): 310-313.
[39] Feipeng, L., Zh. Haiping, Zh. Yiping, X. Yihua, Ch. Ling, 2013. Effect of flow velocity on phytoplankton
biomass and composition in a freshwater lake. Science of the Total Environment, 447: 64-71.
[40] Haiping, Zh., Ch. Ruihong, L. Feipeng, Ch. Ling, 2015. Effect of flow rate on environmental variables and
phytoplankton dynamics: results from field enclosures. Chinese Journal of Oceanology and Limnology,
33(2): 430-438.
