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!