Session2.4 pp5 sašo šantl_mca approach

5/30/2012

mag. Sašo Šantl, Saša Erlih, Tina Mazi, dr. Nataša Žvanut Smolar

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Implementation of MCA approach for optimal

Minimum Instream Flow determination with mitigation measures planning

Institute

for Water of

the Republic

of Slovenia

Backgrounds page 2

• Hydropower is most important RES in Alpine regions • RES Directive <-> Water Framework Directive, Habitat Directive • Needs for clear and efficient tools to:

• Support decision making based on multicriteria approach • Evaluate impact on environment • Evaluate HP potential, • Evaluate mitigation measures

Aosta – 24th May 2012

page 3

Pilot case area

Section of analysis

Existing SHPP intakes.

Possible water intake location.

Possible water release location.

At the analysed saction there are 4 impasable weirs

Aosta – 24th May 2012

MCA – decision tree page 4

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Objective of this MCA is to

determine Residual flow

(acceptable for all stakeholders).

Alternatives are defined with

different values of residual flow.

Higher number of indicators

means more expert research

and work.

To make MCA more efficient

simplification of MCA tree can be

proceeded.

MCA – decision tree page 5

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Residual flow

Indic

ato

r score

Determination of trends of indicators (rising falling and neutral)

Example of criteria/indicators reduction according to the main conflict of interests,

indicator causal trends and their similarity.

MCA – decision tree page 6

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Habitat modelling (hydraulic model,

substrate, fuzzy sets and rules) -> suitabilty

(CASIMIR software)

MCA – decision tree page 7

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Expert determination (Institute for water of RS)

MCA – decision tree page 8

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Software for HP potential evaluation and

determination - VapIdroAste

page 9

HP potential calculation – VapIdroAste - results

Aosta – 24th May 2012

page 10

HP potential calculation – VapIdroAste - results

Aosta – 24th May 2012

10

100

1000

10000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Insa

lab

le p

ow

er

[kW

]

Progresive [km]

Technical potential of upper Kokra river according to the length of derivation

1000 m 2000 m 5000 m Nature value Ecological important area A < 10 km^2 or Qlow < 80l/s Reference section

Downstream Upstream

page 11

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Feasible potential:

~ 5200 kW

~ 30.000 MWh/year

Environment:

- additional costs for mitigation

measures

- exclusion of prohibit areas by

law (reference sections by River

Basin Manag. Plan)

HP potential calculation – VapIdroAste - results

MCA model page 12

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Model establishment and analysis – SESAMO software

MCA model page 13

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Criteria and indicator weighting

Nature preservation

Good water status

RE

S o

bje

ctive

Efficient energy use

Increase of RES

Eco

log

y v

alu

e

2/3

1/6

1/6

3/4

1/4

Weights

3/8

3/8

1/4

9/16

7/16

Weights

WECOLOGY = 9/16 ÷ 3/4 = 0.5625 + 0.1875 * (Lnatura/Lwater body)

WRES = 1/4 ÷ 7/16 = 0.4375 - 0.1875 * (Lnatura/Lwater body)

Phytobenthos 30

Fish 30

Temperature 20

Lateral connectivity 10

Longitudinal connectivity 10

Ann. Electr. Production 100

Results page 14

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Results for case without additional measures (fish pass planned only on intake weir)

No score for indicator

„longitudinal continuum“

Results page 15

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Results for case with additional measures (fish pass planned for 4 barriers in derivation section)

Score for indicator

„longitudinal continuum“ not

calculated only in case

without SHP scheme

Results page 16

Aosta – 24th May 2012

With implementation of additional

measure (assuring longitudinal

continuum along all derivation river

section) same result is assured with

app. 140 l/s less of Qres then

optimum value of Qres in the case

without additional measure.

Conclusions page 17

• Reduction of number of indicators is efficient • less indicators means less research work and expert

subjectivity • addition work: focus on the main conflict (water), indicator

trend analysis, searching for delegate indicators

• In the MCA the weighting is the most political phase

• Further MCA decision tree prunning (inclusion of

anthropogenic influences into final representative indicators)

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Conclusions page 18

1

2'

2''

1'''

1

2'

2''

1'''

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Example of inclusion of anthropogenic influences into representative indicator „Fish fauna“

win-win?

5/30/2012

mag. Sašo Šantl, Saša Erlih, Tina Mazi, dr. Nataša Žvanut Smolar

Aosta – 24th May 2012

Implementation of MCA approach for optimal

Minimum Instream Flow determination with mitigation measures planning

Institute

for Water of

the Republic

of Slovenia

Thank you for your attention.