1. 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

2. SHARE PILOT CASE STUDIES
Project Partner Pilot Case Study
Dora Baltea
LP Arpa VdA
Chalamy
PP1 Regione Piemonte Dora Riparia - Chisone
Cordevole - Cordon
PP2 ArpaV
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, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

3. PPs – Pilot Case Studies
PP1 – CHISONE (116 km2)
1 existing HP
LP – DORA BALTEA (802 km2)
4 HP along Dora Baltea
+ 1 HP along Chalamy river
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

4. PPs – Pilot Case Studies
Cordon stream
Withdrawal
point
PP2 – ASTICO (536 km2)
1 existing HP
SHP
PP2 – CORDON (7.7 km2)
1 existing SHP +
1 planned SHP
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

5. PPs – Pilot Case Studies
PP6 – MUR (1360 km2)
4 existing HP
PP4&PP5
KOKRA (128 km2)
1 planned HP
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

6. PPs – Pilot Case Studies
PP7 – INN (9313 km2)
1 existing HP
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

7. PPs – Pilot Case Studies ARC river
PP9 - ARC-ISERE (11800 km2)
HP system
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

8. PPs – Pilot Case Studies
PP11 – LECH
(1800 km2)
1 existing HP
PP10 – VAR (346 km2)
many SHPs
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

9. PPs-PCS – HP plants
Pilot Case Study ex ante / ex post Catchment area (km2) HP installed power (MW)
La Salle (Champagne II) 27.0 MW
Nus (Saint-Clair) 31.0 MW
Dora Baltea 5 existing plants 802.0 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
Bodendorf 7.0 MW
1360.0 St. Georgen 6.0 MW
Mur 4 existing plants (Bodendorf) 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
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

10. PPs-PCS – HPP and Alternatives
Project Partner Pilot Case Study HPP Alternatives
Dora Baltea 5 existent plants MIF release amount
LP ArpaVdA
Chalamy 1 existent plant MIF release amount
planned plant
PP1 Regione Piemonte Chisone 1 existent plant
configuration/management
Cordon 1 existent plant +
planned plant configuration
PP2 ArpaV (Cordevole) 1 planned plant
Astico 1 existent plant MIF release amount
E-Zavod & Ljubljana MIF release amount
PP4 & PP5 Kokra (Sava) 1 planned plant
University (+ planned plant configuration)
PP6 TUG Mur 4 existent plants sediment management
MIF release amount
Innsbruck University &
PP7 & PP11 Inn 1 existent plant + plant configuration change
Stuttgart University
(fish ladder)
discharge and sediment
PP9 Grenoble University Arc-Isère existent plants
management
discharge and sediment
PP10 Geres Var micro HP plants
management
hydropeaking discharge
PP11 Stuttgart University Lech 1 existent plant
management
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

11. PPs-PCS – HP plants
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

12. PPs-PCS – HP plants
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

13. PPs-PCS – HPP and Alternatives
• ANALYSIS OF THE MCA
ALTERNATIVES
► TWO MAIN GROUPS
 Existent hydropower plants
- Sediment management
- Discharge management
(MIF, hydropeaking)
 Planned hydropower plants
- Location
- Structure
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

14. MCA application spatial scale
• “Large” application scale • “Little” application scale
– Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1) – Lech (PP11)
► It considers the HP effect both ► Effects of different HP and
in the derived reach and in the water release management
reach downstream the release – Astico (PP2)
– Arc-Isère (PP9) ► Effects of different MIF amount
► It considers the whole river on the derived reach
basin – Inn (PP7)
– Mur (PP6) ► Effects of different MIF amount
► It consideres a sequence of 4 on the derived reach
HPP, involving a 40 km long – Chalamy (LP)
river reach
► Effects of different MIF amount
– Kokra (PP4-PP5) on the derived reach
► It considers the insertion of a – Dora Baltea (LP)
new SHP inside an existing
► Effects of different MIF amount
long sequence of SHPs
on the derived reach
– Cordon (PP2)
► It considers the exploitment of
a longer river reach, in
comparison with the existing
situation
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

15. HPP locations
Is the Hydropower Plant installed on a little stream or is it installed on a big
river? Upper basin or lower basin?
• Whole basin
• Upper basin • Lower basin
– Kokra (PP4-PP5) – Dora Baltea (LP)  Arc-Isère (PP9)
– Cordon (PP2) – Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1)
– Mur (PP6)
– Chalamy (LP)
– Lech (PP11)
– Astico (PP2)
– Inn (PP7)
– Var (PP10)
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

16. Hydromorphological indicators
Do the considered alternatives influence the formative hydrological regime
and change river morphological conditions?
• May be
• Yes
– Dora Riparia-Chisone (PP1) – Lech (PP11)
► With the dam or without the dam?
– Arc-Isère (PP9) – Astico (PP2)
► With energy production or without
energy production – Cordon (PP2)
– Mur (PP6)
► Flushing management effect – Chalamy and Dora Baltea (LP)
– Kokra (PP4-PP5)
► Impact of a new SHP
– Inn (PP7)
► Morphological effects on the
meander
– Var (PP10)
► Impact on sediment budgets
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

17. 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)
being the majority located into the upper part of the basins
• Cordon (PP2)
(steep mountain streams)
• Kokra (PP4-PP5)
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

18. 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
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

19. MCA – Decisional trees
MCA decisional trees GENERAL TREESTRUCTURE
SESAMO software
ENERGY
- evaluation matrix – indicators data ECONOMY
- UF for each indicator ENVIRONMENT
RIVER REACH
SUSTAINABILITY
- weights  weighted objectives EVALUATION
RIVER FRUITION
matrix
LANDSCAPE
- alternatives ranking analyzed
and sensitivity analysis COMPETING
WATER USES
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

20. MCA – Decisional
Tree
ENERGY
ECONOMY
ENVIRONMENT
OTHER USES
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

21. MCA – Decisional
Tree
INDICATORS EVALUATION
(Evaluation Matrix) - DATA
UTILITY FUNCTION
NORMALIZED DATA
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

22. MCA – Decisional
Tree
WEIGHTED MATRIX
WEIGHTING
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS - correlations
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

23. MCA – PCS decisional trees
N° levels
PCS PPs (Criteria, sub-cr., N° indicators
ind., sub-ind.)
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.)
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

24. Competing uses
Which are the competing uses to be considered inside decisional trees?
PILOT CASE STUDY IRRIGATION FACTORIES POLLUTANT DRINKING
DILUTION 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
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

25. 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
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

26. Landscape & Risk
Risk and Landscape indicators to be considered inside decisional trees?
PILOT CASE STUDY RISK LANDSCAPE
MANAGEMENT
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
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

27. Landscape
Landscape indicators….proposal
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

28. MCA – Criteria & sub-criteria
ENVIRONMENT
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
ENVIRONMENT
PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL
HYDROLOGICAL
MORPHOLOGY
MACROBENTHOS
FISH
GLOBAL
REGIME
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

29. MCA – Criteria & sub-criteria
OTHER USES
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FACTORIES
LANDSCAPE
RISK
DILUTION
IRRIGATION
DRINKING
FISHING
TOURISM
SPORTS
WATER
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012

30. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!!!
SHARE, Final meeting – Aosta – Italy, 24th May 2012