Download - INVESTMENT PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK REPORT …
INVESTMENT PRIORITISATION FRAMEWORK REPORTSCENARIOS
PERFORMED ANALYSES INCLUDING HPPs & ENVIRONMETAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES
Dr Ing . Cane Čekerevac (STUCKY)
Dr Ing. Nenad Jaćimović (STUCKY)
Sarajevo, 05.07.2017
Hydropower
2
Existing HPPs
BiH 1 + 2 (transb.)Montenegro 1Serbia 5 + 2 (transb.)
Total 91,964 MW/ 333* MW (17%)
Planned HPPs (2014)
BiH 9 + 7Montenegro 6Serbia 3 + 7
Total 251,494 MW
+76% power
*Only “Višegrad” HPP is managed by ERS
Scenarios - overview
3
Selected scenario – generation/costs
4
REDUCED – OPTIMIZED SCENARIO – Var #1
HPP / SHPP Ni (MW) Ean (GWh) Costs (mil. EUR)
“Buk Bijela” (“low”) 93.50 375.33 195.50**
“Foča” (“low”) 44.15 199.24 119.09**
“Ustikolina” 60.48 235.29 109.00*
“Mrsovo” 36.80 141.00 94.00*
TOTAL 234.93 950.86 517.59
*Estimated based on methodology from IWRM Report** Taken from existing technical documentation upon request of ERS
Selected Scenarios – Env. and social main impacts
5
Impact assessment matrix for each HPPs forconstruction and operation phase without mitigationmeasures Scoring of the overall impacts
Scoring for the 3 HPPS scenarios weight application in the Multicriteria analysis
Population
Agriculture
Forestry
Fishing/Hunting
Water Resources/Use
Infrastructure
Energy Sources/Use
Health
Education
Ethnicity/Culture
Visual Aspects
Cultural Heritage/Tourism
Topography
Geology and Soils
Climate
Air Quality
Hydrology
Hydraulic regime of the River
Ground water level
Surface Water Quality
Ground water Quality
Terrestrial Vegetation and related habitats
Migration corridors
Terrestrial Fauna
Alluvial ecosystems
Aquatic Ecosystems
Conservation Areas
Landscape
LEGEND
Very high positive 4
High positive 3
Medium positive 2
Small positive 1
Insignificant 0
Small negative -1
Medium negative -2
High negative -3
Very high negative -4
Selected Scenarios – Water quality
6
• Change from lotic towards the lentic conditions;
• Significant eutrophication potential in the lower part of the Drina river and Cehotina river;
• In this cases, realization of eutrophication potential will depend on retention time and conditions for thermal stratification of reservoirs (from negligible for Rogacica, Tegare and Dubravica HPPs to 81.6 days
for Vikoc or 41.6 days for Sutjeska HPPs);
Parameters
LocationHPP
Dubravica
HPPTegar
e
HPPRogaci
ca
HPPKozluk
HPPDrina I
HPPDrina
II
HPPDrina
III
HPP Mrsov
oVolume mil. m3 - - - 49.8 85.0 120 160 7.7
Qsr (m3/s) 340.4 333.5 332.0 369.0 372.5 384.6 385.1 112.5Ret. time
(days)negl. negl. negl. 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.8 0.8
NO3-N (mg/L) 0.500 0.500 0.500 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.780 0.500NH4-N (mg/L) 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.058 0.080PO4-P (mg/L) 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.032
DIN/SRP 17.8 17.8 17.8 27.9 27.9 27.9 27.9 18.4TN/TP 8.6 8.6 8.6 20 20 20 20 10.1
Selected Scenarios – Water quality main impacts
7
Parameters
LocationHPPBuk
Bijela
HPPFoca
HPPPaunci
HPPUstikoli
na
HPPGorazde
HPPRogacic
a
HPPTegare
HPPDubravi
ca
Volume(mil. m3)
15.7 6.7 5.0 8.2 3.16 - - -
Qsr
(m3/s)
162.4
178.0 201.43 204.7 212.0 332.0 333.5 340.4
Ret. time
(days)1.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2
negligible
negligible
negligible
LocationHPPKozluk
HPPDrina I
HPPDrina II
HPPDrina
III
HPPSutjesk
a
HPPMrsov
o
HPPVikoc
HPPFalovic
iVolumemil. m3
49.8 85.0 120 160 52.1 7.7 146 24.0
Qsr
(m3/s)
369.0
372.5 384.6 385.1 14.5 112.5 20.7 18.2
Ret. time
(days)1.6 2.6 3.6 4.8 41.6 0.8 81.6 15.3
LocationReceptor
vulnerabilityMagnitude of Impact Overall significance
HPP Low-MediumInsignificant to
medium negativeNegligible to medium
negative
Selected Scenarios – Social main impacts
8
Construction and operation phases – Negative impacts
• Population (inundation and resettlement)
- Municipality of Foča with total of 19811 inhabitants of Foca-Ustikolina , next to Drina River with 2213
inhabitants affected by the six planned dams and reservoirs on their territory.
- Municipality of Gorazde
- Villages Kozluk, Trsic and Tabanci
• Loss of agricultural land (mainly in lower Drina)
• Touristic manifestations (e.g. Drina Regatta) could be affected.
Selected Scenarios – Env. and social main impacts
9
Parameter/Indicator
RefNo MaxHPP#1 MaxHPP#2 MaxHPP#3 MaxHPP#4 MaxHPP#5 MaxHPP#6 MaxHPP#7 MaxHPP#8 MaxHPP#9 MaxHPP#10MaxHPP#11MaxHPP#12MaxHPP#13MaxHPP#14MaxHPP#15MaxHPP#16
NameofHPP HPP"BukBijela"("low")HPP,"Foca"("niska")HPP,"Paunci"HPP,"Ustikolina"HPP,"Gorazde"HPP,"Rogacica"HPP,"Tegare"HPP,"Dubravica"HPP,"Kozluk"HPP,"DrinaI"HPP,"DrinaII"HPP,"DrinaIII"HPP,"Sutjeska"HPP,"Mrsovo"HPP,"Falovici"HPP"Vikoc(Luke)"
GeologyandSoils 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 0 -1
Climate -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
AirQuality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hydrology 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
HydraulicregimeoftheRiver -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2
SurfacewaterQuality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2
GroundWaterQuality 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
TerrestrialVegetationandrelatedhabitats -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1
Migrationcorridors -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -3 -3 -3 -2 -2 -2 -4 -4 -4 -4
TerristrialFauna -3 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -3 -3 -3 -3
Alluvialecosystems -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -3 -3 -1 -1 -1 -1
AquaticEcosystems -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -4 -4 -3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -4 -4 -4 -4
ConservationAreas -3 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 -3 0 0 0
Landscape -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
Population 1 -2 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Agriculture 0 -1 1 0 0 0 1 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Forestry 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1
Fishing/Hunting -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Infrastructure -1 -1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
EnergySources/Use 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Health 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Education 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ethnicity/Culture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
VisualAspects 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1
CulturalHeritage/Tourism 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
OVERALLIMPACTASSESSMENTDURINGOPERATIONSTAGE
ENVIRONMENTIMPACT
SOCIALANDECONOMICIMPACT
Selected Scenarios – Mitigation measures
10
The most of considered impacts can be partially offset or completely mitigated by adopting the measures implemented in the mitigation plan during the construction and operational phases of the planned development.
Examples of mitigation measures:o Guarantee of a minimal environmental flowo Construction of adapted fishladderso Management of fish stocking programso Monitoring of aquatic ecosystems o Monitoring of flora and destruction of all invasive specieso Control hydropeaking and management of flushingo All liquids , material and wastes in the plants are
suitable stored and treated sytemso Employment of local populationo Improving of local infrastructureo Education programso Improving of supply of local electricity
Indicator Main expected impact Recommendation/mitigation measures Responsibility
Water quality Eutrophication processes,
accidental pollution (during
maintenance work)
• Broader water management activities, including waste and wastewater management, erosion control, etc. All hazardous material manipulation activities have to conducted at designed and equipped locations;
• A dispatch plan of the water release with the relative constant water level as the main criteria. Relative stability of the water surface level is very important for the preservation of the integrity and stability of the lake ecosystem, especially in small water basins.
• Macrophyte bio-manipulation where required.
• Liquid wastes/oil/chemicals to be stored in tanks or drums located in bounded areas which can hold 110% of the total storage volume.
• Spill kits to be available at all times.
Contractor and
relevant
Stakeholders