Clean Techn Environ Policy (2016) 18:583–591
DOI 10.1007/s10098-015-1023-9
ORIGINAL PAPER
Environmental flow assessment for energy generation
sustainability employing different hydraulic evaluation methods:
Çambaşi hydropower plant case study in Turkey
Yakup Karakoyun1 • Zehra Yumurtaci1 • Aydın Hacı Dönmez1
Received: 21 January 2015 / Accepted: 13 August 2015 / Published online: 28 August 2015
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Abstract The operating principle of hydroelectric power
plants (HPP) is based on utilizing the potential energy of
water, which constitutes the basic component of the plant. In
other words, water is crucially important in energy production in hydroelectric power plants. The importance of water
is not only limited to the energy production, but also can
affect directly or indirectly all living things in the water
basin. This study deals with the methods of determining the
environmental flow, which will not damage the integrity of
the rivers and the ecosystem in HPPs, together with enabling
the sustainable electricity production as an indirect result.
Suggestions are made for determining the environmental
flow for Çambası regulator and Hydropower plant, a run-ofriver type power plant in Turkey, after reviewing commonly
used methods all over the world. Tennant, Tessmann, and
flow duration curve methods were used in determining the
environmental flow. Separate calculations were carried out
for Cambası and Ogene regulators, which constitute the
hydropower plant. The calculated values were compared
with the normal (regime) flow rates and project flow values.
As a result, Tessmann method, one of the hydrological based
environmental flow determination methods, and good category of Tennant method, 20 % of annual average flow in dry
period and 40 % of annual average flow in wet period, are
proposed for Çambaşı HPP.
& Yakup Karakoyun
ykara@yildiz.edu.tr
Zehra Yumurtaci
zyumur@yildiz.edu.tr
Aydın Hacı Dönmez
adonmez@yildiz.edu.tr
1
Mechanical Engineering Department, Yildiz Technical
University, Besiktas, 34349 Istanbul, Turkey
Keywords Environmental flow Environmental impact
assessment Hydroelectric power plant Hydraulic power Ecosystem
Introduction
Energy demand and energy consumption per capita are
rising day by day all over the world. As a consequence,
using renewable energy resources besides the conventional
ones becomes obligated. Estoperez and Nagasaka (2006)
mentioned that, using renewable energy sources like wind,
solar and hydraulic energy will play an important role in
energy production in the future. The rate of using the
existing water resources is consistently increasing for many
reasons around the world. Collecting or directing the water
in the rivers (dams, water channels, flood wall, etc.) causes
direct or indirect distortions in the structure of 60 % of the
rivers. Besides, the negative impacts on the environment
are not examined during the decision-making process.
Bare (2014) stated that, in taking such decisions which can
most of the time negatively affect the environment, the
impacts on the environment are not examined extensively. In
order to eliminate these possible negative environmental
impacts, inclusive plans must be achieved for sustainable
development. According to Jabber et al. (2004), this can be
possible with the sustainability of the clean energy resources.
Hydraulic energy has the lion’s share among the renewable energy resources. Hydroelectric power plants have the
biggest impact among all the other structures established in
the rivers. Hydroelectric power plants operate on the principle of damming water and using its potential energy. HPPs
are separated from the other plants because of their low rates
of fluctuations in the electricity production due to collecting
the water and their high levels of availability.
123
584
Apart from being a crucial element for hydroelectric
power plants, water also forms the basis of the sustainability of the ecosystem created by the river flow. Gilron
(2014) mentioned that water and energy production cannot
be considered separately. However, the more energy is
produced from water, the more it is used up. There are
many structures affected directly or indirectly on the river.
That is why the amount, quality, and the nutritional
structure of the water flowing through the river are essentially important for river ecosystems and its environment.
Determination of the environmental flow correctly will
help for not only the sustainability of the ecosystem but
also the energy production safety by protecting water cycle.
The importance of the environmental flow assessment is
not considered enough in Turkey, such a country planning
to use all its hydropower potential. The distortion of the
rivers in the last decade emphasizes the importance of the
environmental flow assessment in Turkey. Due to the
environmental laws in Turkey, 10 % of the annual average
flow is determined as the environmental flow. According to
the field studies, it is clearly seen that this amount of flow
was concluded to be insufficient. It was found that it is not
reliable to determine the flow rate just based on the table
values without making necessary ecological assessments.
This study is related to the methods of determining the
environmental flow in hydroelectric power plant projects.
Studies were conducted on the Çambaşı hydroelectric
power plant in Turkey to determine environmental flow
with different hydrological methods, and calculated environmental flow values were compared with project flow
values. Finally, after the comparisons, recommendations
were made for Çambaşı HPP.
Review of existing environmental flow methods
Although environmental flow assessment is a new concept
for hydrology, it was considered to be vital and necessary
in researches and field studies conducted all around the
world. The importance of the environmental flow concept
should be realized before the distortion of the rivers.
According to the studies of Postel (1998), for
researching and protecting water resources worldwide, it
was found that more than half of the water resources are
consumed and this consumption rate will increase to 70 %
by 2025. Rosenberg et al. (2000) indicated that factors such
as derivations, usage of underground water, agricultural
irrigation, power production, and industrial and residential
usage can be the reasons of the unexpected effects of the
changes in natural source regimes and on river ecosystems.
Revenga et al. (2000) concluded that nearly 60 % of the
rivers in the world lost their unity due to an exposure to a
hydrological distortion and 46 % of the 106 primary
123
Y. Karakoyun et al.
watersheds have at least one big dam. According to the
studies of Bergkamp et al. (2000) on 225 watersheds
worldwide, 37 % of the watersheds are exposed to a high
degree of external influence while 24 % of them have mild
degree of external influence.
In an ecosystem-based study conducted on two biggest
projects on Yangtze River in China, Gezhouba Dam and
Three Gorges, it was observed that these projects had
benefits (flood prevention, water provision, and safe
transportation) for the local people as well as physiological
changes in Yangtze River. Four types of carp live in the
river ecosystem of the Yangtze, which are very important
for Chinese freshwater fishing. According to the studies on
carp, it was found that the amount of carp fished in
Tongting Lake decreased gradually. Yujun et al. (2010)
found that the main reason why this type of fish has
decreased was that the spawning area of the fish was
spoiled due to the dam.
The environmental problems created by the rapidly
increasing number of hydroelectric power plants have
made it necessary to scientifically determine the hydraulic
benefiting rates for the sustainability of the rivers. This
situation is stated by Yiping et al. (2010).
Hai et al. (2015) took into account the environmental
flow concept for their proposed ecological information
analysis model in China. Moreover, according to a study
made with 272 water experts in 64 countries by Moore
(2005), most of the experts (88 %) agreed that environmental flow is the basic parameter for the success of sustainable water resources.
It is nearly impossible to determine the single and best
method to be used in environmental flow assessment.
Each method, approach, or framework is proper for a
certain set of conditions. Gupta (2008) mentioned that, in
order to determine a special method, approach, or
framework, it is necessary to find expertise, time, financial
means, and the legislative framework. According to
Tharme (2003), the concept of environmental flow
became evident in the western side of the USA in 1940s.
After 1970, except for the United States, the development
of environmental flow methods was weak. In many
countries (Australia, England, New Zealand, and South
Africa), the process was taken as a process in 1980s.
Brazil, Czech Republic, and Japan followed these countries. The remaining parts of the world, Eastern Europe,
most countries in South America, Africa, and Asia
showed only small developments.
The most extensive study among all developed methods
for determining the environmental flow was conducted by
Tharme. These methods were classified under six main
groups: hydrological methods, hydraulic rating methods,
habitat modeling methods, holistic methods, combination,
and other methods.
Environmental flow assessment for energy generation sustainability employing different…
There are several classifications according to different
scientific groups. Mielach et al. (2012) summarized this
situation in Table 1 below.
Tennant method
Tennant method, which is also called Montana method, is
the most widely used method in the world (Tharme 2003).
In the Tennant method, the annual average flow value is
determined based on certain rates and the biological
integrity of the river. Linnansaari et al. (2012) mentioned
that, while forming this method, Tennant (1976) benefitted
from 11 different rivers in Montana, 58 cross-sectional
areas, 33 different flows, and hundreds of observations. In
addition, data from 21 countries were used. After these
observations, flow percentages were determined. As stated
in Table 2, Karakoyun (2014) reported that flow was
divided into two different flow groups from optimum rate
(annual average rate 60–100 %) to weak and very low
(annual average flow 10 % or zero flow). In the Tennant
method, the year is divided into two parts, that is 6 months.
According to Arthington (2012), when Tennant and its
derivatives are examined around the world, it was seen that
these time intervals were changed by considering seasonal
changes. On the other hand, while creating the Tennant
flow model, it was stated that overflow and maximum
(200 % of the annual average flow) values also have positive effects on the sustainability of the habitat quality.
In determining percentages, 10 % of the annual average
flow defines the shortest momentary flow amount for
585
Table 2 Tennant (Montana) method (Karakoyun 2014)
Dry season (%)
Wet season (%)
Flushing or maximum
200
200
Optimum range
60–100
60–100
Outstanding
40
60
Excellent
30
50
Good
20
40
Fair or degrading
10
30
Poor or minimum
10
10
Severe degradation
0–10
0–10
sustaining short-term water life, and 30 % or more of the
annual average flow is thought to be the necessary for
providing the biological integrity of the river and its sustainability. In some countries, 25 % of the annual average
flow is considered as the minimum rate.
Tessmann method
While the Tennant method carries out the evaluation over
different rates of annual average flow amounts in determining environmental flow, the Tessmann method does
these assessments based on monthly average flows. It may
be said that Tessmann method is a changed version of
Tennant method in 1980 and it has a relatively common
usage area. When environmental flow is determined by this
method, three different criteria are assessed. These criteria
are as follows:
Table 1 Classification of environmental flow methods (Mielach et al. 2012)
Method
Dyson (2003) and
Ancreman and
Dunbar (2004)
King, Brown, and Sabet (2003)
and Davis and Hirji (2003),
and Gupta (2008)
Q95
Look-up tables hydrological
Hydrological index
Tharme (2003) and Dyson
(2003) and Arthington (2006)
*
Hydrological index
Tennant
RVA
Desktop analysis
Wet perimeter method
Hydrological
LIFE
Hydraulic
BBM
Functional analysis
*
Hydraulic rating
Hydraulic rating
*
Holistic approach
Expert panel
*
Holistic methodologies
Interactive approaches
Scientific panel
*
Benchmarking
*
FEM
WUA
PHABSIM
*
Habitat modeling
Habitat modeling
MesoHABSIM
IFIM
Interactive approaches
*
*
*
*
*
Frameworks
DRIFT
ELOHA
Habitat simulation methodologies
Holistic methodologies
*
Holistic approach
*
*
* Classifications marked with an asterisk were not included in the above-stated literature and are suggestions of the authors
123
586
I.
II.
III.
Y. Karakoyun et al.
If the monthly average flow is less than 40 % of the
annual average flow, monthly average flow is taken
as the environmental flow.
If the monthly average flow is more than 40 % of the
annual average flow and less than the total annual
average flow, 40 % of the annual average flow is
taken as the environmental flow.
If the monthly average flow is more than annual
average flow, 40 % of the monthly average flow is
taken as the environmental flow.
This method is used in Manitoba (Canada) where flow
regime is continuous (Anonymous 2007).
Flow duration curve method
Flow duration curve (FDC) method provides information
about the behavior of the flow in a specified section based
on all the observed flows between the lowest and highest
flows in a river. FDC, obtained from daily flow series,
shows the percentage of available time of any desired flow
rate (Çimenci 2011). In the FDC, the symbol Qx is used. In
this indication, ‘x’ signifies the overflow percentage within
time. Q95 and Q90 flows are considered as low-flow indicators in academic studies and in public institutions in
different countries.
FDC can be formed based on daily, weekly, or monthly
flow data. FDCs based on long years of data are more
proper in terms of usage and application. One relatively
negative effect of data acquisition based on long years is
that living and nonliving environment can change over
time.
Q95 and Q90 are the most commonly used flow values.
These indices can be calculated using a 10-day or monthly
flow data. For a more reliable FDC, at least 20 years of
data should be used.
Hydropower plant projects—EIA
and environmental flow concept
Decision makers have to cooperate for improving environmental policies, which is necessary for a sustainable
development (Fiksel et al. 2014). In Turkey, according to
Article 10 of Environmental Law No. 2872, the institutions, corporations, and companies that may create problems in the environment as a result of their plans are liable
to prepare an environmental impact assessment (EIA)
report or project description file.
According to EIA regulation, run-of-river type power
plants with 50 MW and over are listed in Annex-I, while
the ones with 10 MW and more are listed in Annex-II and
the HPP projects smaller than 10 MW installed capacity
123
are exempted from EIA process. According to the
amendments in July 17, 2008, power plants with installed
capacity of 25 MW and more are listed in the projects in
Annex-I, while run-of-river type HPPs with an installed
capacity of 0.5 MW are listed in Annex-II. However,
projects accepted before this date are subject to previous
bylaw and exempted from the EIA process. And according
to the last environmental impact assessment published in
the official journal in 03.10.2013 with no. 28784, the lower
limit of 0.5 MW in the installed capacity was increased to
1 MW (Karakoyun 2014).
The regulation on the amount of water to be left
downstream in the riverbeds having a hydropower plant to
sustain natural life takes its most current state with the
Article 7 of The Directive on Making Modification on the
Directive on the Procedures and Principles about Water
Usage Right Agreement for Production Activity in Electricity Market. In this article, it is stated that the amount of
water to be left downstream for sustaining natural life must
be at least 10 % of the annual average flow in the last ten
years (Anonymous 2015). Considering ecological needs in
the EIA process, if it is determined that this amount will
not be sufficient, the amount may be increased. The other
water rights in the downstream flow must be added to this
amount, and the absolute project studies must be made
considering this total amount of flow. Moreover, it is
mentioned that, if the average flow of the last ten years in
the river is less than 10 %, whole water must be left
downstream to sustain the natural life.
The evaluation of Çambaşı hydroelectric power
plant according to predetermined methods
Çambaşı regulator and hydroelectric power plant
Çambaşı regulator and hydropower plant are located on
Solaklı stream and its branches in Trabzon, Çaykara. It is
composed of Çambaşı regulator, Ögene regulator, and a
hydropower plant with an installed capacity of 45 MW.
Çambaşı hydropower plant is composed of two different
regulators. Ögene regulator is located on Solaklı stream
which transfers the water it takes through transmission
tunnels to Çambaşı regulator, located on Haldizen, which
is another branch of Solaklı stream. The location of the
Çambaşı HPP is shown in Fig. 1, and the properties of
installed HPP are given in Table 3.
Water usage
Water taken through Ögene regulator is transferred to
Çambaşı regulator via transmission tunnels of 1952.2 m.
The water transferred to Çambaşı regulator and the existing
Environmental flow assessment for energy generation sustainability employing different…
587
Fig. 1 The location of Çambaşı hydropower plant
water in the regulator are transmitted to the power plant
through the transmission tunnel of 6380.3 m.
The water is directed to an 8332-m-long tunnel instead
of the riverbed. Therefore, a significant decrease in the
amount of water occurs due to this transmission. In order to
compensate the adverse effects of this problem, the water
released downstream by the company from Ögene and
Çambaşı regulators is at least 0.6 m3/h (July–March,
9 months) during the dry period and 1.2 m3/h (April–June,
3 months) during the wet period.
A Water Utilization Agreement was signed between the
company and State Hydraulic Works (SHW) on 14th of
March, 2008. In accordance with the agreement’s mandatory provisions, the amount of water to be released from
the regulator downstream has to be at least 10% of the
annual average flow based on the project for the purposes
of sustaining the natural habitat. The data of the last
10 years of the stream were gathered by the Alçakköprü
stream gauge station on Ögene and Şerah stream gauge
station on Haldizen via SHW.
Hydrological flow classifications
Pastor et al. (2014) classified the river flow as low-flow (LF),
intermediate-flow (IF), and high-flow (HF) months. According to that classification, if mean monthly flow is less than
40% of the mean annual flow, then the river flow is defined as
LF. In a similar manner, if mean monthly flow is between 40
and 80 % of the mean annual flow, it is considered as IF. In
addition, HF is the case when mean monthly flow is more then
80 % of the mean annual flow. According to these definitions,
in addition to the mean annual flow, LF and HF ranges of the
rivers are calculated. Moreover, the numbers of HF, IF, and
LF months are determined. LF–HF values and the number of
HF, IF, and LF months of Haldizen and Solaklı streams are
listed in Table 4.
123
588
Y. Karakoyun et al.
Table 3 Çambaşı regulator and hydropower plant (Karakoyun 2014)
Location
Solaklı stream/Çaykara/Trabzon
Installed capacity
45 MW
Energy production
190 GWh/year
Plant components
Ögene regulator (Intake)
Çambaşı regulator (Intake)
Transmission tunnels
Penstock and spillway
Powerhouse
Transmission (water) channel
Length: 8332.5 m
Width: 3.5 m
Penstock and spillway
Length: 931.9 m
D: 2.3 m
Settling basin
Çambaşı/6 m 9 130 m (2 Part)
Ögene/5 m 9 16.05 m (2 Part)
Forebay
Çambaşı/15 m 9 10 m 9 0.4 m
Project flow
Çambaşı: 20 m3/h (Plant)
Ögene: 12 m3/h
Environmental flow
July–March: 0.6 m3/h
April–June: 1.2 m3/s
Results and discussion
Tennant method was used at the project planning stage to
determine the environmental flow for Çambaşı regulator
and hydropower plant. Different amounts of environmental
flow are suggested for dry and wet seasons of the year. The
environmental flow is determined as 0.6 m3/h for the dry
period (July–March) and 1.2 m3/h for the wet period
(April–June). The values specified above correspond to
10 % of the flow rate for dry period (9 months) and 21 %
for wet period (3 months). In other words, this situation
indicates that a flow amount above the flow required by the
agreement with SHW is determined for the rainy period.
The study started with the calculations of mean annual
flow, LF, IF, and HF for both Çambaşı regulator located in
Haldizen stream and Ögene regulator in Solaklı stream. All
calculations gave similar results due to the similar flow
regime of the streams. Mean annual flows for Çambaşı and
Ögene are 5.54 and 5.75 m3/s, respectively. While HF and
LF values of Çambaşı are 1.7 and 11.5 m3/s, the results of
Ögene are 1.8 and 12.5 m3/s, respectively. The number of
HF months is 4 for both Çambaşı and Ögene.
Various hydrological methodologies were used for new
calculation of the environmental flow of Çambaşı HPP.
Tennant, Tessmann, and flow duration curve methods were
used to make these calculations.
These methods were picked up due to their extensive
application areas. Tennant method is applied both in Turkey as well as in several countries together with its different variations. The flow percentages were determined by
considering good category. In other words, 20 and 40 % of
the mean annual average flow are set as environmental flow
for dry and wet seasons, respectively. In contrast to Tennant method, Tessmann method suggests a mean monthly
flow for the analysis of stream records and determines a
monthly flow. The basis of using flow duration curve
(FDC) is the assessment of Q90 and Q70 flow rates
according to ecological maintenance. The value of Q90 as a
stream flow is found to be inappropriate, while the value of
Q70 is considered to be an average rate for the ecology.
The flows for Çambaşı regulator are shown in Table 5
according to the methods applied. In addition to the calculated flows, normal (regime) flow and the flow amounts
considered appropriate for the project are shown on a
monthly basis in the table below.
The flow calculated through different methods for
Çambaşı regulator is shown as graphical data in Fig. 2. In
addition to calculated flows, the values for the normal flow
and project flow are also shown in Fig. 2.
The calculations made for Çambaşı regulator are also
applied for Ögene regulator as well. The values attained
after the calculations are shown in Table 6.
The results and updated conditions for Ögene regulator
are shown in Table 6 presented as graphical data in Fig. 3.
When Çambaşı regulator, constructed on Haldizen
stream which is a branch of Solaklı stream, is analyzed, it
could be observed that the project flow is different from
calculated flows and normal (regime) flows. The application of the Tennant method resulted in rates of 2.22 and
1.11 m3/h, respectively, when mean annual flow is taken
40 % for the wet period and 20 % for the dry period. The
project flow for comparison is given as 1.2 m3/h for the dry
period and 0.6 m3/h for the wet period. According to the
Table 4 LF–HF values and the number of HF, IF, and LF months of streams
Mean annual flow (LF–HF) (m3/s)
Number of HF months
Number of IF months
Number of LF months
Çambaşı (Haldizen stream)
5.54 (1.7–11.5)
4
5
3
Ögene (Solaklı stream)
5.75 (1.8–12.5)
4
3
5
123
Environmental flow assessment for energy generation sustainability employing different…
Table 5 The comparison of
flows for Çambaşı regulator
589
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Avg
Tennant
2.22
2.22
2.22
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
1.11
5.54
Tessmann
3.44
6.63
5.67
2.66
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
2.21
1.53
1.61
2.21
5.54
Q90
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
1.34
5.54
Q75
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
5.54
Project flow
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
5.54
Normal flow
8.61
16.57
14.19
6.65
2.86
2.63
2.96
3.24
1.87
1.53
1.61
3.77
5.54
Fig. 2 Comparison of flows for
Çambaşı regulator
16.0
Normal Flow
14.0
Tennant
Flow rate (m3/s)
12.0
Tessmann
10.0
Q90
8.0
Q75
6.0
Project Flow
4.0
2.0
0.0
Apr.
May.
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Months
Table 6 The comparison of
flows for Ögene regulator
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Avg
Tennant
2.30
2.30
2.30
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
5.75
Tessmann
5.76
8.19
4.14
2.30
1.95
1.75
2.30
2.30
2.03
1.48
1.77
2.30
5.75
Q90
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
1.23
5.75
Q75
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.79
5.75
Project flow
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
5.75
Normal flow
14.39
20.49
10.34
3.90
1.95
1.75
2.51
3.43
2.03
1.48
1.77
4.97
5.75
good category of the Tennant method, there is a discrepancy rate of approximately 50 %. Similar conditions are
acquired when a comparison for Ögene regulator is made
with the application of the Tennant method. When the
calculations are done according to Tennant method’s category of good which is the same category applied to
Çambaşı regulator, the mean annual flow is detected to be
2.30 m3/h for the wet period and 1.15 m3/s for the dry
period. The project flow for Ögene regulator is also 1.2 m3/
h for the wet period and 0.6 m3/h for dry period. The data
for Ögene regulator are similar to those obtained for
Çambaşı regulator. In other words, there is a discrepancy
rate of 50 % between the calculated flow and project flow.
When the project flow and the flow calculated by the
Tennant method are compared with the normal flow, it is
observed that there are great differences between the flow
rates especially during the wet period.
As a result of comparison, it is clearly seen that Tessmann method has a parallel situation with average monthly
flow (normal flow). Tessmann method is considerably
distinguished from other methods, particularly for the wet
period. This situation is valid for both regulators.
Although there are considerable differences between the
normal flow and the flow calculated by the application of
the Tennant method in wet season, the differences are
reduced significantly in the dry period.
Q90 and Q75, the values obtained through an FDC, are,
respectively, 1.34 and 1.79 m3/h for Çambaşı regulator and
1.23 and 1.79 m3/h for Ögene regulator. Although Q75 flow
is below the flow calculated by the Tennant method in wet
period, it is higher than the flows in dry period. The flow of
the dry period presents values close to mean monthly flow
for the specified period. The Q90 flow shows a parallel
tendency to the rate of the dry period calculated by Tennant
123
590
Y. Karakoyun et al.
Fig. 3 Comparison of flows for
Ögene regulator
16.0
Normal Flow
Flow ( m3/s)
14.0
Tennant
12.0
Tessmann
10.0
Q90
Q75
8.0
Project Flow
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Apr.
May.
Jun.
Jul.
Aug.
Sep.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Month
method. Q90 flow is considerably below the mean monthly
flow for the wet period.
Conclusion
The determination of the environmental flow is made using
four different hydrological methods in two streams which
regulators located in. These methods are Tennant, Tessmann, Q90, and Q75. Calculations and comparisons specified above showed that Tessmann method can be used for
determining the environmental flow of the hydropower
power plant in Çambaşı, even if its flow values are below
the average monthly flows. However, when the Tennant
method is considered in determining the environmental
flow, it is suggested to apply the rates of 20 % for the dry
period and 40 % for the wet period based on the good
category rather than the poor.
References
La Salle Redboine Conservation District (2007) La Salle river
watershed. http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardship/iwmp/white
mud/documentation/summary_lasalle.pdf. Accessed 19 Nov
2013
Republic of Turkey Prime Ministery (2015) Elektrik piyasasinda üretim
faaliyetinde bulunmak üzere su kullanım hakkı anlaşması imzalanmasına ilişkin usul ve esaslar hakkında yönetmelik.
http://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/Metin.Aspx?MevzuatKod=7.5.20546&
MevzuatIliski=0&sourceXmlSearch=. Accessed 10 Jan 2015
Arthington AH (2012) Environmental flows: saving rivers in the third
millennium. University of California Press, Berkeley
Bare JC (2014) Development of impact assessment methodologies for
environmental sustainability. Clean Techn Environ Policy
16:681–690
Bergkamp G, McCartney M, Dugan P, McNeely J, Acreman M
(2000) Dams, Ecosystem functions and environmental restoration. wcd thematic review-environmental issues II.1. http://acad.
123
carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio252/DamsReport.pdf.
Accessed 23 April 2014
Çimenci V (2011) Küçük hidroelektrik santraller ve dere yatağında
bırakılması gereken can suyu miktarı. Dissertation, İstanbul
Technical University
Estoperez N, Nagasaka N (2006) An artificial neural network based
micro-hydropower generation scheduling: considering demand
profile and environmental impact. Clean Technol Environ Policy
8:123–130
Fiksel J, Bruins R, Gatchett A, Gilliland A, Brink M (2014) The triple
value model: a systems approach to sustainable solutions. Clean
Technol Environ Policy 16:691–702
Gilron J (2014) Water-energy nexus: matching sources and uses.
Clean Technol Environ Policy 16:1471–1479
Gupta AD (2008) Implication of environmental flows in river basin
management. Phys Chem Earth 33:298–303
Hai R, Shi H, Zhang B, Zhai Y, Li Y, Wang W (2015) An ecological
information analysis-based approach for assessing the sustainability of water use systems: a case study of the Huaihe River
Basin. Clean Technol Environ Policy, China. doi:10.1007/
s10098-015-0944-7
Jaber JO, Badran OO, Abu-Shikhah N (2004) Sustainable energy and
environmental impact: role of renewables as clean and secure
source of energy for the 21st century in Jordan. Clean Technol
Environ Policy 6:174–186
Karakoyun Y (2014) Hidroelektrik santrallerde çevresel akış miktarının belirlenmesi ve çambaşı hes örneği. Dissertation, Yildiz
Technical University
Linnansaari T, Monk WA, Baird DJ, Curry RA (2012) Review of
approaches and methods to assess environmental flows across
Canada and internationally. www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/library/348885.
pdf. Accessed 12 Nov 2013
Mielach C, Schinegger R, Schmutz S (2012) Comparative analysis of
methodologies for the implementation of environmental flows
(EF) according to the WFD http://www.seehydropower.
eu/project/files/36/SEE_HYDROPOWER_WP4_D4.1_BOKU_
120823_final.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2014
Moore M (2005) Perceptions and interpretations of environmental
flows and implications for future water resources management-A
survey study. Dissertation, Linkoping University
Pastor AV, Ludwig F, Biemans H, Hoff H, Kabat P (2014)
Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water
assessments. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:5041–5059
Postel SL (1998) Water for food production: will there be enough in
2025? Bioscience 48:629–637
Environmental flow assessment for energy generation sustainability employing different…
Revenga C, Brunner J, Henninger N, Kassem K, Payne R (2000) Pilot
analysis of global ecosystems: freshwater ecosystems. world
resources institute. http://sustentabilidad.uai.edu.ar/pdf/info/
page_freshwater.pdf. Accessed 2 Sept 2014
Rosenberg DM, McCully P, Pringle CM (2000) Global-scale
environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction.
Bioscience 50:746–751
Tharme R (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow
assessment: emerging trends in the development and application
591
of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl
19:397–441
Yiping F, Mingjie W, Wei D, Keyan X (2010) Exploitation scale of
hydropower based on instream flow requirements: a case from
southwest China. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14:2290–2297
Yujun Y, Zhaoyin W, Zhifeng Y (2010) Impact of the Gezhouba and
Three Gorges dams on habitat suitability of carps in the Yangtze
river. J Hydrol 387:283–291
123