Session3.2 pp2 alessandro vianello_wp7

SHARE MCA experimentation in different alpine Pilot Case Studies supported by SESAMO software

Project final meeting Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012 Author

Dr. Alessandro Vianello ARPA Veneto

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

Project Partner Pilot Case Study

LP Arpa VdA Dora Baltea

Chalamy

PP1 Regione Piemonte Dora Riparia - Chisone

PP2 ArpaV Cordevole - Cordon

Astico

PP4 - PP5 E_Zavod + Ljubljana University Sava - Kokra

PP6 TUG Mur

PP7 - PP11 Innsbruck University Inn

PP9 Grenoble University Arc-Isère

PP10 GERES Var

PP11 Stuttgart University Lech

SHARE PILOT CASE STUDIES


PPs – Pilot Case Studies

LP – DORA BALTEA (802 km2)

4 HP along Dora Baltea

+ 1 HP along Chalamy river


PP1 – CHISONE (116 km2)

1 existing HP


PP2 – ASTICO (536 km2)

1 existing HP


PP2 – CORDON (7.7 km2)

1 existing SHP +

1 planned SHP

Cordon stream

SHP

Withdrawal

point


PP4&PP5

KOKRA (128 km2)

1 planned HP


PP6 – MUR (1360 km2)

4 existing HP


PP7 – INN (9313 km2)

1 existing HP



PP9 - ARC-ISERE (11800 km2)

HP system

ARC river



PP11 – LECH

(1800 km2)

1 existing HP

PP10 – VAR (346 km2)

many SHPs


PPs-PCS – HP plants

Pilot Case Study ex ante / ex post Catchment area (km2) HP installed power (MW)

Dora Baltea 5 existing plants 802.0

La Salle (Champagne II) 27.0 MW Nus (Saint-Clair) 31.0 MW

Saint Clair (Montjovet) 50.0 MW Montjovet (Hone I) 18.5 MW

Bard (Bard) 3.2 MW

Chalamy 1 existing plant 47.0 Champdepraz 2.3 MW

Chisone 1 existing plant 116.0 Pourrières 17.0 MW

Cordon 1 existing plant + 1 planned plant 7.7 (6.9) 0.19 MW

Astico 1 existing plant 536.4 Bessè 2.88 MW

Sava (Kokra) 1 planned plant 128.0 1.0 MW

Mur 4 existing plants 1360.0

(Bodendorf)

Bodendorf 7.0 MW St. Georgen 6.0 MW

Murau 4.4 MW Untzmarkt 4.6 MW

Inn 1 existing plant 9313.0 Kirchbichl 24.0 MW

Arc-Isère big existing HP plants system 11800.0 2520.0 MW

Var micro - HP plants 346.5 < 1.0 MW

Lech 1 existing plant 1200.0 Dessau 10.3 MW


PPs-PCS – HPP and Alternatives

Project Partner Pilot Case Study HPP Alternatives

LP ArpaVdA Dora Baltea 5 existent plants MIF release amount

Chalamy 1 existent plant MIF release amount

PP1 Regione Piemonte Chisone 1 existent plant planned plant

configuration/management

PP2 ArpaV

Cordon (Cordevole)

1 existent plant + 1 planned plant

planned plant configuration

Astico 1 existent plant MIF release amount

PP4 & PP5 E-Zavod & Ljubljana

University Kokra (Sava) 1 planned plant

MIF release amount (+ planned plant configuration)

PP6 TUG Mur 4 existent plants sediment management

PP7 & PP11 Innsbruck University &

Stuttgart University Inn 1 existent plant

MIF release amount + plant configuration change

(fish ladder)

PP9 Grenoble University Arc-Isère existent plants discharge and sediment

management

PP10 Geres Var micro HP plants discharge and sediment

management

PP11 Stuttgart University Lech 1 existent plant hydropeaking discharge

management


PPs-PCS – HP plants


• ANALYSIS OF THE MCA ALTERNATIVES

► TWO MAIN GROUPS Existent hydropower plants

- Sediment management

- Discharge management

(MIF, hydropeaking)

Planned hydropower plants

- Location

- Structure

PPs-PCS – HPP and Alternatives


http://www.share-alpinerivers.eu/pp-area/WP3/images/related-pictures-and-videos/pilot-case-study-isere-pp9/2006-06-27 11-05-57_69.JPG/image_view_fullscreen

http://www.share-alpinerivers.eu/pp-area/WP3/images/related-pictures-and-videos/pilot-case-study-isere-pp9/2009-02-28_14-11-07.JPG/image_view_fullscreen

• “Little” application scale

– Lech (PP11)

► Effects of different HP and water release management

– Astico (PP2)

► Effects of different MIF amount on the derived reach

– Inn (PP7)


– Chalamy (LP)


– Dora Baltea (LP)


MCA application spatial scale

• “Large” application scale

– Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1)

► It considers the HP effect both in the derived reach and in the reach downstream the release

– Arc-Isère (PP9)

► It considers the whole river basin

– Mur (PP6)

► It consideres a sequence of 4 HPP, involving a 40 km long river reach

– Kokra (PP4-PP5)

► It considers the insertion of a new SHP inside an existing long sequence of SHPs

– Cordon (PP2)

► It considers the exploitment of a longer river reach, in comparison with the existing situation


HPP locations

• Lower basin

– Dora Baltea (LP)

– Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1)

– Mur (PP6)

– Lech (PP11)

– Astico (PP2)

– Inn (PP7)

– Var (PP10)

• Upper basin

– Kokra (PP4-PP5)

– Cordon (PP2)

– Chalamy (LP)

Is the Hydropower Plant installed on a little stream or is it installed on a big

river? Upper basin or lower basin? • Whole basin

Arc-Isère (PP9)


Hydromorphological indicators

• Yes

– Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1) ► With the dam or without the dam?

– Arc-Isère (PP9) ► With energy production or without

energy production

– Mur (PP6) ► Flushing management effect

– Kokra (PP4-PP5) ► Impact of a new SHP

– Inn (PP7) ► Morphological effects on the

meander

– Var (PP10) ► Impact on sediment budgets

• May be

– Lech (PP11)

– Astico (PP2)

– Cordon (PP2)

– Chalamy and Dora Baltea (LP)

Do the considered alternatives influence the formative hydrological regime

and change river morphological conditions?


http://www.share-alpinerivers.eu/pp-area/WP3/images/related-pictures-and-videos/pilot-case-study-isere-pp9/2010-08-03_17-03-36.jpg/image_view_fullscreen

Ecological relevance

The Environmental Criteria and sub-Criteria have a great relevance for the river reaches

considered in those Pilot Case Studies where important is the river natural status

mantainance, such as:

• Chalamy (LP)

• Cordon (PP2)

• Kokra (PP4-PP5)

being the majority located into the upper part of the basins

(steep mountain streams)


SHARE Project’s WP7

• WP7 is focused on testing of adaptive management measures & decision making procedure in national case studies through MCA analysis

• The Pilot Case Studies will concern basins with existing or planned HP plants and significant historical information related to river ecosystems

– Action 7.1 and 7.2: set of databases of each test basin and HP plant and relatives implemented MCA indicators

– Action 7.3: appliance of MCA methodology on 11 national basins


MCA decisional trees SESAMO software

- evaluation matrix – indicators data

- UF for each indicator

- weights weighted objectives

matrix

- alternatives ranking analyzed

and sensitivity analysis

RIVER REACH SUSTAINABILITY

EVALUATION RIVER FRUITION

LANDSCAPE

ENVIRONMENT

COMPETING WATER USES

ENERGY

ECONOMY

MCA – Decisional trees

GENERAL TREESTRUCTURE


ENERGY

ECONOMY

ENVIRONMENT

OTHER USES

MCA – Decisional Tree


INDICATORS EVALUATION (Evaluation Matrix) - DATA

UTILITY FUNCTION

NORMALIZED DATA





WEIGHTING

WEIGHTED MATRIX

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - correlations

MCA – PCS decisional trees


PCS

PPs

N° levels

(Criteria, sub-cr.,

ind., sub-ind.)

N° indicators

Dora Baltea LP 4 13 (+ 24 sub-ind.)

Chalamy LP 4 13 (+ 24 sub-ind.)

Chisone PP1 5 15 (+ 19 sub-ind.)

Cordon PP2 4 14 (+ 4 sub-ind.)

Astico PP2 4 11 (+ 5 sub-ind.)

Kokra PP4&PP5 5 6 (+ 11 sub-ind.)

Mur PP6 4 11 (+ 6 sub-ind. + 3 sub-sub-ind.)

Inn PP7 5 6 (+ 10 sub-ind. + 8 sub-sub-ind.)

Arc-Isère PP9 6 28 (+ 20 sub-ind. + 10 sub-sub-ind.)

Var PP10 3 15

Lech PP11 4 5 (+ 10 sub-ind.)

Competing uses

Which are the competing uses to be considered inside decisional trees?

PILOT CASE STUDY IRRIGATION FACTORIES POLLUTANT DILUTION

DRINKING WATER

Chalamy (LP) NO NO NO NO

Dora Baltea (LP) NO NO NO NO

Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1) NO NO NO NO

Astico (PP2) NO NO NO NO

Cordon (PP2) NO NO NO NO

Kokra (PP4-PP5) NO NO NO NO

Mur (PP6) NO NO NO NO

Inn (PP7) NO NO NO NO

Arc-Isère (PP9) YES YES NO YES

Var (PP10) YES YES NO NO

Lech (PP11) NO NO NO NO


River fruition

Which are the river fruition activities to be considered inside decisional trees?

PILOT CASE STUDY TOURISM FISHING CANOING AND WATER SPORTS

Chalamy (LP) YES YES NO

Dora Baltea (LP) YES YES NO

Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1) YES YES NO

Astico (PP2) NO YES NO

Cordon (PP2) NO YES NO

Kokra (PP4-PP5) YES YES NO

Mur (PP6) YES YES NO

Inn (PP7) NO NO NO

Arc-Isère (PP9) YES YES YES

Var (PP10) YES YES NO

Lech (PP11) YES YES NO


Landscape & Risk

Risk and Landscape indicators to be considered inside decisional trees?

PILOT CASE STUDY RISK MANAGEMENT

LANDSCAPE

Chalamy (LP) NO YES

Dora Baltea (LP) NO YES

Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1) NO NO

Astico (PP2) NO YES

Cordon (PP2) NO YES

Kokra (PP4-PP5) NO NO

Mur (PP6) YES NO

Inn (PP7) NO YES

Arc-Isère (PP9) YES YES

Var (PP10) YES NO

Lech (PP11) NO NO


Landscape

Landscape indicators….proposal


MCA – Criteria & sub-criteria


ENVIRONMENT

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

HY

DR

OL

OG

ICA

L

RE

GIM

E

MO

RP

HO

LO

GY

PH

YS

ICA

L/C

HE

MIC

AL

FIS

H

MA

CR

OB

EN

TH

OS

GL

OB

AL

EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

MCA – Criteria & sub-criteria


OTHER USES

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10IR

RIG

AT

ION

FA

CT

OR

IES

DIL

UT

ION

DR

INK

ING

TO

UR

ISM

FIS

HIN

G

WA

TE

R

SP

OR

TS

RIS

K

LA

ND

SC

AP

E

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!!!


Session3.2 pp2 alessandro vianello_wp7

Technology

Transcript of Session3.2 pp2 alessandro vianello_wp7