/day

3. REVIEW OF EF IN SLOVENIA • 1992 - 1994: Criteria for minimum flows • 1992 - 2007: EF evaluation on more than 200 river sections with water abstraction/diversion • 2001 – 2005 EU projects • Development of new methods around the world • Results of fieldwork and experiences are selected criteria • Gap between MOP and interdisciplinarity; theory and practise

The starting points for selecting the criteria:  the importance of preservation and protection rivers, their habitats with flora and fauna and diversity of organisms  EAF should be determined before each impact in the river or in the area, which could have an influence on the structure and function of the river as the ecosystem.  The necessary of selected hydraulic, hydrological, morphological and ecological parameters on the sections concerned should be checked.  For each change of quality and quantity of water in the river a new assessment of EAF is required.

HYDROECOLOGICAL METHOD

ECOHYDROLOGICAL METHOD

WATER ABSTRACTION

ECOLOGY

HYDROMORPHOLOGY

HYDROLOGY

Hydroecological:143

1992 - 2006: 185

F >100 km2: 61

Ecohydrological:42

F <100 km2 : 124

Hunga Austria

Croatia

Locations of sites for EF evaluation

Values of EF expressed in percent v % sQn and % sQs Purpose of abstraction

Existing Existing Planned Planned abstractions abstractions abstractions abstractions EAF value EAF value EAF value EAF value (in % sQn) (in % sQs) (in % sQn) (in % sQs) power 4 - 90 2 - 18 27* 70*

Hydroelectric plants Small hydroelectric power plants Fish farms Drinking water Industrial use Other Range of value

23 - 273

3 - 45

51 - 353

3 - 58

13 - 90 0,7 - 150 66 - 133 22 - 125 0,7 - 273

10 - 21 18 - 37 3 - 30 7 - 23 2 - 45

40 - 80 27 - 353

6 - 23 3 - 70

LAMPREHTOV POTOK F = 6,9 km2 sQs = 0,260 m3/s sQnp = 0,100 m3/s EF = 0,060 m3/s

KORITNICA HPP Možnica, 1911 F sQs sQn nQn Q300 Q347

= 37,7 km2 = 3,00 m3/s = 1,07 m3/s = 0,65 m3/s = 1,35 m3/s = 0,85 m3/s

0,417 m3/s

L = 380 m Qi = 2,5 m3/s

EF = 0,20 m3/s • river bed (55 %, 13 %) • physico-chemical parameters

0,030 m3/s

VIPAVA HPP Gradišče, 1922

Water abstraction for HPP

L = 200 m F sQs sQn nQn

= 482,7 km2 = 14,24 m3/s = 1,92 m3/s = 0,98 m3/s

EF = 0,40 – 0,60

m3/s

Inflow of used water to Vipava HPP

Qi = 12 m3/s

KRKA 15 l/s

7 m3/s EF = 2,0 do 4,0 m3/s (123 – 245 % sQn)

2 m3/s 10 m3/s EF = 2,8 do 10,0 m3/s (100 – 357 % sQn)

5. CONCLUSIONS Water use: ecology and economy Values of EF: hydrological parameters are the basis Assessment of EF : interdisciplinarity time data (measurments, sampling, analyses) Sistematical evaluation of EF, every section of the river is treated separatelly Monitoring of EF and other mitigation measures

Thank you for the attention!