1.6.

2 Hydrologic interventions – Dams and reservoirs

Hydrologic interventions1 to regulate waters for irrigation and hydroelectricity production are
extensive in the Drin Basin and go back in time e.g. the diversion of the stream of Agios
Germanos from Micro to Macro Prespa in 1936.

The lake Micro Prespa was used for about 30 years as a reservoir to assure irrigation of Korca
fields in Albania. In the 70’s, a canal, equipped with a sluice gate connected the Devolli River
with the Micro Prespa Lake; the water that the lake was fed with during winter was abstracted
during summer to irrigate agricultural areas. Over the years, sediments carried by the Devolli
River, have been deposited and
filled up the shallow southern
part of Micro Prespa, along a
zone of 1 – 1.5 km and blocked
the underground freshwater
springs. The abstraction of
water from the lake became
increasingly difficult due to
siltation. This partial diversion
caused an abr
abrupt
upt alteration of
the character, ecology and
functions of the site,
transforming part of the lake
into a marshland, with
significant economic
socio-economic
impacts to the Albanian local
society. Since 2003, the water
works have been abandoned;
the supply of river water into
the lake had already ceased in
2001. Recent hydrological
interventions2 in the Greek part
of the lakes resulted in an
improved management of the
water level of the Micro Prespa
Lake.

1.6.27: Location of the Globocica HPP and Spilje

Figure 1.6. In 1962 the Sateska River in
HPP. FYR Macedonia, flowing until
then
then into the Black Drin River
Note: Globocica HPP is located upstream of the inflow of river
Selecka, about 30 km northern of Struga. Spilje HPP is located a (about 3 km beyond its outflow
few kilometers before the FYR Macedonian/Albanian
Macedonian Albanian borders from the lake), was diverted
(prepared with Google Earth) into the Ohrid Lake aiming to
exploit its waters for
hydroelectric power generation. In parallel, the outflow of the Ohrid Lake to the Black Drin

1
Human interventions serving public water supply, flood control and extraction of gravel are described in section 1.6.1
2
In 2002, the Society for the Protection of Prespa (SPP – Greek NGO) undertook the re-construction
re construction of the sluice between
the Micro and Macro Prespa; the activities were financed by an EC LIFE project. The aim was to conserve and protect the
biodiversity of the area while taking into account the irrigation needs. The sluice construction was completed in December
very efficient functionality so as to allow for a more effective and ecological management of the
2004 and today provides very t
water level of micro Prespa (www.spp.gr)
(www.spp.gr).

82
was regulated by an overflow
overflow structure in accordance to the water demands of the
“Globocica” and “Spilje” hydroelectric power plants (HPP)
(HPP),, situated upstream on the Black
Drin River
River,, maintaining at the same time the lake’s water level within optimal levels. The
diversion has ha
had
d several consequences: the Struga marshland has been drained (and turned
into arable land); the water inflow into the lake has increased by 25 25-30%
30% and the lake’s
watershed expanded by about 174%, resulting in increased agricultural runoffs and high
sediment
nt inputs ((Avramoski
Avramoski et al. 2005).
2005 The he limited erosion control measures and the
uncontrolled extraction of sand and gravel from the Sateska riverbed has raised further the
sediment load into Lake Ohrid. The re-diversion
re diversion of the Sateska River is currently under
un
consideration3.

In FYR Macedonia, hydropower accounts for 16% of the overall energy production. Energy
produced in Spilje and Globocica HPP (Figure
Figure 1.6.27
27, 1.6.28;; Table 1.6.17
1.6. 7)) represents 20% of
the total installed hydropower capacity in the country.

1.6.17: Basic characteristics of Globocica and Spilje hydropower plants

Table 1.6.
Basic characteristics HPP Globocica HPP Spilje
Location Struga Debar
River Basin Black Drin Black Drin
Power Plant Type Accumulation-derivative
Accumulation derivative Dam – accumulation
Number of units 2 3
84 MW (increased from
Installed capacity 42 MW
66 MW in 1999)
Average annual production 191 GWh 300 GWh
Year of commissioning 1965 1969
Net head 95.29 m 91.30 m
Installed inflow 50 (2x25) m3/sec 108 (3x36) m3/sec
Source: Adapted from http://www.elem.com.mk/en/HydroGlobocica.asp & http://www.elem.com.mk/en/txt-
http://www.elem.com.mk/en/txt
HidroSpilje.html, accessed on 21/12/2010

Figure 1.6.28.1:
1.6. Globocica
bocica Dam
Source: V.Stojov

3
A project proposal has been prepared by the Water Development Institute in FYR Macedonia for the restoration/re
restoration/re-
diversion
sion of Sateska River but is still in blueprint.

83
 1.6.28.2: Spilje HPP and dam
Figure 1.6.
Source: V.Stojov

Globocica and Spilje are among the seven older (operating for more than 40 years) HPP
HPPs in
FYR Macedonia that have been rehabilitated during the period 2001 - 20054. The monitoring
system in the dams was recently rehabilitated.
Several small HPPs
HPP exist apart from Globocica and Spilje. One of the oldest is HPP Pesocani
(installed
installed capacity of 3,5 MW - in operation since 1951
1951)) on the Pesocanka
ka River, in Debarca
Municipality.

characteristics of Pesocani HPP

1.6.18: Basic characteristics
Table 1.6.

Basic characteristics HPP Pesocani

Location Pesocani - Debarca Municipality
River Basin r.Pesocanka/r.Sateska
Power Plant Type erivative
Derivative
Number of units 4
Installed capacity 2,74 to 3,5 MW
Average annual production 10,3 to 11,8 GWh
Year of commissioning 19551
Reconstruction 2007
Head
ead 300 m
Installed inflow 1,5 m3/sec

Hydro power potential in the catchment of Black Drin is not in full use. Construction of
additional Small Hydro-Power SHPP) is planned. The total number of SHPPs
Hydro Power Plants ((SHPP SHPP that
have been or will be constructed in the catchment of Black Drin is 44 ((see
see Table 1.6.19
1.6. - So
far, 5 tenders have been launched); 402 SHPPsSHPPs will be constructed in total in FYR
Macedonia
Macedonia.

4
A loan of 61.5 million DEM from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the World Bank
was provided in this regard

84
Table 1.6.19: List of small hydro-power plants in the catchment of Black Drin FYR Macedonia (some
of them are constructed/under construction)5
N1 E N1 E
No SHPP kWh10
3 No SHPP kWh10
3
kW kW
1 Krakornicka 432 1843 23 Elevska 346 1494
2 Tairovska 337 1439 24 Novak Deresi 328 1416
3 Tairovska 214 911 25 Kodjadjicka 294 1269
4 Izvorska 526 2243 26 Kociska I 351 1515
5 Jamska 793 3384 27 Kociska II 486 2098
6 Jadovska I 1563 6665 28 Papradnicka 431 1951
7 Jadovska II 1061 4524 29 Bajramovska 193 820
8 Tresonecka 576 2455 30 Pesocanska I 590 2546
9 Galicka I 1800 5905 31 Pesocanska II 312 1347
10 Galicka II 1800 7270 32 Mramorecka 252 1088
11 Galicka III 1800 7270 33 Slatinska 719 3108
12 Kranska 478 1929 34 Visenska 407 1759
13 Brajcinska I 410 1653 35 Ljubojno 2800 15000
14 Brajcinska II 921 3711 36 Radomirovo 1400 8000
15 Esence 284 1227 37 Jablanica 1059 4588
16 Grmesnica 578 2496 38 Zbazdi 3500 18000
17 Skrebatska 301 1302 39 Gari 4300 18000
18 Zli Dol 569 2463 40 Nistrova 3400 15000
19 Modricka 484 2091 41 Ribnica 5000 25000
20 Recica 158 681 42 Belicka 199 867
21 Golema Reka 1090 4716 43 Belicka 2 491 2123
22 Selecka 387 1672 44 Belicka 3 703 3037

The preparation of EIA prior to the construction of the planned small and mini HPPs is
mandatory. The current legal framework also provides for the maintenance of biological
minimum flow.
In addition, two new big projects the Lukovo Pole6 and Boskov Most7 Renewable Energy
projects are planned. The first involves the diversion of a part of the flow of Radika River in
the Vardar catchment; according the World Bank, preliminary assessments indicate that “the
proposed project would have limited impact on the amount of water diverted from the Radika
River; the amount is expected to be well below the 8.0 cubic meters that is the second ceiling
for water diversion established in the 1962 International Agreement between Albania and then
Yugoslavia (subsequently ratified by FYR Macedonia) and currently in effect”8.

5
Operational: Kranska, Brajcinsa, Selecka, Tresonecka, Pesocanska 1, Pesocanska 2. Under construction: Golema Reka,
Brajcinska, Galicka, Recica, Koselska
6
In Lukovo Pole a discharge of 8,0 m3/sec of water will be diverted from the Adriatic to the Aegean basin. It is in accordance
with the International Agreement concluded in 1948 between Albania and the former Yugoslavia.
7
HPP Boskov Most will be constructed on the river Mala Reka, near Debar and the main road Skopje-Debar-Ohrid.
8
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/01/24/world-bank-statement-on-proposed-lukovo-pole-hydropower-
project

85
 1.6.20:: New HPP planned to be constructed in the
Table 1.6. In Kosovo, HPPs produce 3-5%
3
White Drin Basin in Kosovo of the annual electricity needs.
Name Power Energy River A small HPP operates in the
(Million kWh) Drin Basin at Kozhnjer in
Kuqishta 3,900 17 Lumëbardhi i Decans Lake, producing 6.4
Drelaj 6,200 27 Pejës
Shtupeq 7,600 35
MW. The estimated
Bellaje 5,200 25 Lumëbardhi i hydroenergetic potential of the
Decan 8,300 39 Deçanit White Drin is 554 GWh/y and a
Llocan 3,100 14 Lumëbardhi i represents aalmost
lmost half of
Lloçanit Kosovo’s
Kosovo’s potential. Several
Mal 4,000 18 Erenik plants are planned to be
Erenik 2,000 9.0
constructed in the White Drin
Jasiq 1,900 9.7
Dragash 2,200 10 Plavë River watershed ((Table
Table 1.6.20;
1.6.
Orcush 5,600 25.6 Figure 1.6.29
29).
Recan 1,500 6.7 Lumëbardhi i
Prizrenit
Mirush 4,600 22 Drini i Bardhë
dhe L. Deçanit
Total 56,100 258
Source: The State of Water in Kosovo, 2010

Figure 1.6.29:
1.6. New hydropower plants planned
ned to be built in Kosovo
86
Note: The White Drin watershed extends to the left part of the map
Source: The State of Water in Kosovo, 2010
 A number of
interventions in
the Albanian
part have
changed the
hydrologic
regime of the
Drin Basin over
the years. Floods
in the early ‘50s
in the
he Zadrima
agricultural
fields in the Drin
i Lezhes River
catchment
resulted in the
decision to
divert the
t
remaining flow
of the Drini i
Lezhes and the
Figure 1.6.30: Position of the dam constructed in 1956 to divert the remaining
Gjadri River into
flow of the old arm of Drin towards the arm flowing in the Buna/Bojana River.
the main channel
of the Drin River
that flowss towards Shkoder.Shkoder This
diversion rendered
render the Drin i Lezhes
River into a drainage channel9 (see Figure
1.6.30
1.6.30). The The interruption of the
connection between the Drini i Lezhes
River and the main Drin River, in
combination with other anthropogenic
activities10 have created a sediment deficit
that affect the coastal dynamics (see
F
Figure 1.6.3131 below). Currently there is a
predominantly erosional regime in the
Kune Vaini coastal sector. Erosion rates
Kune-Vaini
are estimated at 2-3
2 m/yr at the mouth of
the Drin i Lezhes River (Ndini and
Mucaj, 2010) and parts of the coast is
believed to have eroded 400m between
1936 and 1989 (i.e.
( 7.5 m/yr).
Figure 1.6.31: Old Drin River delta – coastal
erosion in the period 1971-
1971 2007
The construction of the cascade of dams
Note: Eroded areas are shown in red color areas; of Vau i Dejes, Koman and Fierza (the
depositions and advancement of land towards the sea is
colored in green.
first became operational in 1973 and the
Source: K. Zaimi

9
The flow of Drin i Lezhes is low and even very low for about 9 - 10 months per year. year The river is rejuvenated in winter with
the increase
crease of precipitation.
10
Destruction of sand dunes, creation of small villages, roads for access to beaches as well as construction of many small
irrigation reservoirs in the hilly areas, close to the alluvial plain, caus
causeeaa reduction of sediments carried to the sea.

87
second in 1979) altered completely the hydrology in the basin.

88

Figure 1.6. 2: Hydropower plants in Albania

1.6.32:
There are 44 dams, 4 for energy production and 40 for irrigation purposes in the he Drin River
watershed that extends in Albania. Ninety-five
Ninety five (95) percent of the country’s energy
production derives from HPP
HPPs (Figure 1.6.32).
1.6. ). Hydropower produced in the Drin River
watershed accounts for 92 percent of the Albania’s hydropower production aand nd represents 77
percent of the estimated potential of the area. The list of the hydropower plants in Drin Basin
in Albania is given in Annex 17
17.

Three large HPP

HPPs (Table 1.6.21
21),
), the Fierza HPP, the Koman HPP and the Vau Dejes HPP,
are located in the Drin River. The cascade is fed by Fierza reservoir, whose active storage is
about 35 percent of the mean annual inflow.

In the Shkoder area,

area the hydro
hydro-energetic
energetic potential is estimated to be 5 x 106 MWh/year. For
estimated
6
comparison, approximately 3 x 10 MWh/year are produced in Koman and Vau Dejës HPPs.
A number of small HPPs (Selca, Vermoshi, Vukli, Bena, Ndërlysa, and Mosli) produce some
25 x 103 MWh/year.

1.6.33: The dams in Fierza (up)) and Koman (down

Figure 1.6. down)

89
 1.6.21:: Basic characteristics of the large hydropower plants in Drin River sub
Table 1.6. sub-basin
basin in Albania
Basic characteristics HPP Fierza HPP Koman HPP Vau Dejes
Construction year 1973-1979
1973 1980-1988
1988 1971-1973
1973
Plant Flow (m3/s) 4 x 123,5 4 x 180 5 x 113
Height 167 133 56
Nominal Head (m) 118 96 52
Number Type of turbine 4 x Francis 4 x Francis 5 x Francis
Capacity (MW) 4 x 125 4 x 150 5 x 50
Annual production (GWh) 1138 1500 878
Reservoir total storage (mi. m3) 2700 430 623
Reservoir active storage (mi. m3) 2350 250 310
Type of dam Rockfill Rockfill, concrete 2 Rockfill,
ockfill, 1 earth
facing
Water level (a.s.l.) 295 172 76
Source: (adapted from) Drin River Hydropower Plants, KESH 2006

An additional HPP in Drin River at Ashta area

area, a few kilometers away from the Lake
Shkoder/Skadar
Shkoder/Skadar, became operational in 2011.
2011. The installed capacity is downscaled to 48.2
MW from 80 MW originally planned, after consultations with the Montenegrin authorities.
authoriti

Plans for additional HPPs include the construction of the Skavica plant (estimated production
350 MW) after the confluence of the White Drin and Black Drin. The process for the
expression of interest was initiated in 2008. The plan for the Skavica HP
HPPP and reservoir dates
back to 1990 but was abandoned due to the lack of financial support. In 2008, the private
sector expressed interest to finance the project (estimated cost ~ 200 Million Euros).

Montenegro has an annual average energy production of approximately 2,900 GWh, of which
about 60 percent comes from two large hydropower facilities (“Piva” HPP and “Perucica”
HPP
HPP) and 40% from a single coal fired
power generating station (TPP in Pljevlja).
Power consumption was increased
relatively fast in the period 2003 – 2006
(2003: 4,406 GWh – 2006: 4,685 GWh).
The high deficit is covered by imports of
electrical power.

The Skadar/Shkodra sub basin

sub-basin in
M ontenegro hosts the hydropower plant
Montenegro
“Perucica” and 5 “small” HPPs (that
(that have
minor influence to the overall electrical
balance).

1.6.34: Electricity production facilities in

Figure 1.6.
Montenegro

90
Table 1.6.22: Basic characteristics of the hydropower production in Skadar /Shkodra sub-basin in
Montenegro
Basic characteristics HPP “Perucica” “Small HPPS”11
Catchment area 850 km²
Niksic, Danilovgrad Cetinje,
Location Niksic
Kolasin
Skadar/Shkoder sub-basin – Higher
River Basin Skadar/Shkoder sub-basin
Zeta River catchment
Power Plant Type Accumulation-derivative Run-off river plants
Number of units 7 5
Installed capacity 307MW ~10 MW
Potential annual production 1,300 GWh
Average annual production 894 GWh 8,5 GWh
Year of commissioning 1960 1939-1987
Net head 550 m
Installed inflow 68 m3/sec
Average annual discharge 34,8 m³/s

HPP “Perućica” is the oldest large hydropower plant in Montenegro and produces more than
55 % of the total annual hydropower in the country. The HPP “Perućica” uses 3
accumulations (Table 1.6.23).

Table 1.6.23: Dimensions of HPP “Perućica” accumulations

Krupac Slano Vrtac
Water volume (m³) 42,1 x 106 111,2 x 106 71,9 x 106
Dam length (m) 1480 1629 2383
Dam height (m) 19,5 21,20 16,5

Moraca River has long been considered to have a considerable potential for hydropower
production. Many investigations have been undertaken and project plans elaborated since the
1950’s, but to date none of these plans has been realized. The Detail Spatial Plan (DSP)
developed by the Government of Montenegro in 2008 in accordance with the Energy
Development Strategy (EDS until 2025) proposes a cascade of four dams with associated
HPPs (Figure 1.6.35). The originally planned height for the most upstream dam, the
“Andrijevo”, was 150 m; it was decided this to be decreased to 135 m. The estimated cost is
at the order of 500-550 Million Euros. The overall installed capacity of the scheme would be
238.4 MW with an estimated generation of about 700 GWh/year. The energy produced would
assist Montenegro in eliminating its current energy import dependency.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), developed in 2010 considers a series of

socio-economic mitigation measures during the pre-construction, construction and operational
phases of the plants. The Montenegrin Government issued a Concession Act. International
and local organizations and NGOs have raised several arguments against the construction of
the HPPs; according to independent assessments, the construction of the Moraca dams could
have an impact on the ecosystem of the Shkoder/Skadar Lake. There was no interest
expressed by investors in the related tender and the project is currently on hold. According to
experts, the reason was the technical parameters set by the government.

11
Sumarized for following mHPPs: Rijeka Crnojevica, Slap Zete, Glava Zete, Podgor and Mušovića rijeka

91
 Furthermore, 16 concessions have
ha
been granted for 38 small HPPs.
Several of them are located in the
Skadar/Shkodra sub-basin
sub
(Montenegrin side).

The alterations of the water regime in

the Drin River Basin due to the
anthropogenic interventions (mainly
dam construction) have had
environmental impacts as well as
socio-economic
economic implications. As an
Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) at the time of cconstruction
onstruction of
most of dams was not required by
law, no mitigation measures to
prevent, reduce or offset the negative
impacts had been considered. The
adverse effects include:
i. Prevention of fish migration to
spawning grounds upstream (e.g. eels
migrated to Ohrid Lake to spawn
1.6.35: Proposed sites for the construction of dams
Figure 1.6. before the construction of the dams);
and associated HPPs in the Moraca River ii. Flooding of vast forested and
agricultural areas, both upstream and
downstream the dams12;
iii. Perturbation of the flow regime downstream; it could have been compensated by
maintaining minimum flows;
iv. R etention of sediments in the reservoirs. The siltation gradually reduces the storage
Retention
capacity of the reservoirs, in particular that of the Spilje and Globocica in FYR
Macedonia, and decreases the ability of electricity production;
v. Reduction of the sediment load downstream13.

Additional interventions have been made by Albania in Buna/Bojana River area in

response to 2010 floods – see Box 1.6.6
1.6. below.

12
fter the construction of Fierza dam, the lower part of the White Drin and extended areas of agricultural land in the
After
territory of Kosovo had flooded (Pllana et al., 2010). Also the intensity of the floods in Lake Skadar/Shkoder and
Buna/Bojana River area in both Albania and Montenegro has increased – the most severe floods in the recent years were
those of January and December 2010.
13
rding to Pano (1998) alterations to the Drin River and its catchment have resulted in a 19
According fold reduction in water
19-fold
discharge and a 13 fold reduction in suspended sediment discharge.
13-fold

92
 1.6.6: Flood Management Studies and Works following the December 2010 floods
Box 1.6.

The December 2010 event prompted the Government of Albania ((at at that time the Ministry of
Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection (MAFCP)) to undertake a program of Emergency
Flood Management Studies and Works with the assistance of the World Bank, in order to reduce
the risk of repeated flood damage during the 2011/12 wet season.

A system of flood protection dikes had been constructed at the downstream reaches of the Buna
River to protect against flooding. These dikes have been relatively effective
effective, however breaches
have occur
occurred
red during the 2010 flood events. Emergency
mergency work undertaken to reduce the
immediate risk of flooding comprised of:
• Improvements to the Belaj
Belaj-Dajc-Shirqi
Shirqi Dike and Erosion Protection;
• Improvements to River Conveyance in Derragjat Area;
• Improvements to the Murtemza Collector System;
• Improvements to the Viluni Dike and Channel; and
• Improvements to the Torovica Dike.

Over the upstream reach of the Buna River, from Bahcallek to Shirqi there are no flood
protection dikes. The reason was that it was feared that increased water levels resulting from the
construction of dikes would lead to increased
increased levels in Lake Shkodra and, consequtevely, to
increase
increased risk of flooding for the City of Shkodra and the surrounding area.

Furthermore the dikes: Sukobin, Sveti

Sveti-Dobro
Dobro and Sveti –Nikola
Nikola dikes on the Montenegrin side
were rehabilitated. The location of flood protection dikes in the study area is shown in the figure
below..

As the sediment load is reduced downstream, erosion is more distinct on the river banks and
on islands, resulting also to the loss of the riparian habitats; for example, the Drin River
downstream the Vau Dejes dam has almost lost the braided zones, and almost one main
channel has remained.
remained

93
Erosion phenomena are intensified by, in addition to the construction of dams, human
activities such as extraction of inert materials from the riverbanks, damage of barriers, etc.

The balance between the accumulation of sediments in Drin and Buna/Bojana

Buna/Bojana, reduced
14
sediment load reaching the mouth of the Buna/Bojana in the Adriatic Sea Sea,, the water flow
regime in the Shkoder/Skadar – Drin –Buna/Bojana
Buna/Bojana system and the variability of the wave
activity and sea level in combination with short-term
short term events (storm waves and tides) and long-
long
term proc
processes
esses (sea transgressions), defines the morphology, the hydrography and the related
values of the whole Drin – Buna/Bojana deltaic complex.

Overall, there
here is erosion in some parts of the Buna/Bojana Delta while there are sand
depositions in other parts (see Figure 1.6.36
1.6.3 below).

Figure 1.6.36: Buna delta change between 1971 and 2007

Note: Eroded areas are shown in red color areas; depositions and advancement of land towards the sea is colored
in green.
Source: K. Zaimi

he sea advanced inland 2.5 m/y; it is estimated that since 1936 the sea line has
In some areas, tthe
progressed 400 m (Figure 1.6.
1.6.37).

14
According to some authors there is a 13 fold reduction compared to 1854, when the Drin River was naturally diverted to
Buna/Bojana River
River.

94
 1.6.37: Coastal erosion in a ten years period (~1985 - ~2005) at the
Figure 1.6. the Ada beach at the main
delta island of Bojana-Buna
Bojana Buna in Montenegro
Source: EuroNatur, 2009

Plans to dredge the Buna/Bojana River, as a flood prevention measure, will have severe
effects to the riverine ecosystem and the delta; it is questionable whether this measure will
sufficiently reduce the flood risk since fresh sediment
sediment coming from the Drin River, due to
erosion in its lower part will fill the river bed.

95