Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Arthington iwc e flows for delegation scenario 1 drift handout (2)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Arthington iwc e flows for delegation scenario 1 drift handout (2)

1,462
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,462
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. IWC Environmental Flows and Management Scenarios December 2009 Prof. Angela Arthington Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University Room 1.09C, Building N13 3735 7403 Environmental Flow Methodologies for River Ecosystem Management • Holistic Approach 1992 • Building Block Methodology (BBM) 1992 - 15 standard applications in Sth Africa - Logan River, SE QLD 1996 • Expert/Scientific Panel approaches 1994 • DRIFT - South Africa & Lesotho 1998 • Benchmarking Methodology – QLD 1998 • Flow Restoration Methodology – QLD 2000 • Flow Events Method - Victoria 2002 • DRIFT plus Bayesian methods – SA, Aust, UK 2004 • ELOHA – Aust, USA, Brazil, China 2006 Management Scenario 1 Determining e-flows for a new reservoir on a river like the Li Jiang• Rapid assessment, with limited resources and data DRIFT Methodology Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformation• Comprehensive assessment, with time to collect field data ELOHA Framework Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration 1
  • 2. Environmental Flow Methodologies Proactive approaches, used at planning stage of new developments Question: How much can we change a river’s flow regime before unacceptable ecological changes occur? Examples: DRIFT – South Africa Benchmarking Methodology – Australia ELOHA – Australia & USA Natural annual flow pattern 3500 3000 Proactive 2500 Environmental harge (m3 * 104) 2000 1500 Flow approaches, 1000 used at the 500 planning stage of 0 Jan F b M J Feb Mar Apr M A May J Jun Jul J l Aug S A Sep O t N Oct Nov D Dec new developmentsAverage Monthly Disch Modified flow pattern 3500 Bankfull Water Pulse 3000 Low and high flows for human ‘uses’ 2500 2000 1500 Water for 1000 river ecosystem 500 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lesotho Highlands Water Project • Lesotho Highlands Water Project • Objectives: – Export water to SA – Hydro-electricity in Lesotho • Multi Phase project – 6 Dams – Delivery & transfer Katse Dam tunnels – Infrastructure 2
  • 3. DRIFT - Downstream Response to Flow Transformations Designed by: – Southern Waters – SMEC – Metsi consultants Advise LHDA regarding flow requirements of rivers to be affected by LHWP Senqunyane/ Senqu DRIFT - Downstream Response to Flow Transformations • Scenario based approach – flow assessments • Evaluates consequences of flow alterations: – Biophysical – Social – Economic Senqunyane RiverLesotho DRIFT Project – 8 study sites below proposed new dams IFR = In-stream Flow Requirement site 3
  • 4. DRIFT – Downstream Response to Flow Transformations Describe Aquatic Ecosystem Describe river use, health & Hydrological relationships profiles & ID PAR Develop models to predict Develop predictive capacity flow related changes for social impacts Identify possible future flow scenarios Predict & rate biophysical Describe social consequences consequences Calculate compensation & mitigation Output to decision maker Scientific Panel approach Data: Hydrologist Hydraulician Geomorphologist Sedimentologist ach Biophysical Rea Habitat M H bit t Mapping/Modelling i /M d lli Biophysical site Water quality specialist Botanist Macroinvertebrate specialist Fish biologist Other•how the chemical and thermal regime of the river could change, including changes in the concentrations of specified nutrients and dissolved solids.•With all abiotc predictions now made, the vegetation specialist is the first to describe expected biotic responses by predicting how each vegetation zone could change location,•vegetative components of habitat could change, the invertebrate specialist predicts shifts in invertebrate communities, including the change in abundance of species that pose•If relevant, one or moe plankton specialists and microbiologists predict changes in these communities, including parasites, disease organisms, and toxic algae.•The fish ecologist predicts changes in fish communities, including shifts in community composition, species abundances, and condition. Steps in DRIFT Methodology•If relevant, specialists on amphibians, reptiles, water birds, semi-aquatic mammals, and other river-dependent wildlife predict how they would be affected. 1. Hydrologist describes the flow regime and the changes that could occur in each surface flow category 2. The geohydrologist predicts changes in subsurface flow and height / location of the water table. 3. The hydraulic modeler converts the surface flows to hydraulic conditions. 4. The fluvial geomorphologist predicts how the channel could respond to changed hydraulic conditions, including in-filling or flushing of pools, scouring of riffles, changes in mobility and size-sorting of different-sized particles, loss or gain of flood-terrace deposits, and changes to muddy deposits. 5. The water-quality specialist predicts how the chemical and thermal regime of the river could change, including changes in the concentrations of specified nutrients and dissolved solids. 4
  • 5. •The fish ecologist predicts changes in fish communities including shifts in community composition species abundances and condition•The the chemical reptiles, water birds, semi-aquatic mammals, including changes in the concentrations of specified nutrients and dissolved solids.•how samphibians, and thermal regime of the river could change,and other river-dependent wildlife predict how they would be affected. •The geohydrologist, if plankton specialists and microbiologists predict changes in these communities, including parasites, disease organisms, and toxic algae.•With all abiotic predictions now made, the vegetation specialist is the first to describe expected biotic responses by predicting how each vegetation zone could change location, •he hydrologist decribes the changes that could occur in each surface flow category.•Knowing how the abiotic and vegetative components of habitat could change, the invertebrate specialist predicts shifts in invertebrate communities, including the change in ab•If relevant, one or more plankton specialists and microbiologists predict changes in these communities, including parasites, disease organisms, and toxic algae.•The fish ecologist predicts changes in fish communities, including shifts in community composition, species abundances, and condition. Steps in DRIFT Methodology•If relevant, specialists on amphibians, reptiles, water birds, semi-aquatic mammals, and other river-dependent wildlife predict how they would be affected. 6.. With all abiotic predictions now made, the vegetation specialist is the first to describe expected biotic responses by predicting how each vegetation zone could change location, width,or some other characteristic, and which plant species may become more or less abundant. 7. Knowing how the abiotic and vegetative components of habitat could change, the invertebrate specialist predicts shifts in invertebrate communities, including the change communities in abundance of species that pose health risks.•The hydrologist decribes the changes that could occur in each surface flow category.•The geohydrologist, if relevant and particularly for ephemeral rivers, predicts changes in subsurface flow and the height and location of the water table. 8. If relevant, one or more plankton specialists and microbiologists predict changes in•The hydraulic modeler converts the surface flows to hydraulic conditions.•The sedimentologist and fluvial geomorphologist predict how the channel could respond to these changed hydraulic conditions, including by in-filling or flushing of pools, sedim these communities, including parasites, disease organisms, and toxic algae.•The water-quality specialist predicts how the chemical and thermal regime of the river could change, including changes in the concentrations of specified nutrients and dissolve•With all abiotic predictions now made, the vegetation specialist is the first to describe expected biotic responses by predicting how each vegetation zone could change location,•Knowing how the abiotic and vegetative components of habitat could change, the invertebrate specialist predicts shifts in invertebrate communities, including the change in ab•If relevant, one or more plankton specialists and microbiologists predict changes in these communities, including parasites, disease organisms, and toxic algae. 7. The fish ecologist predicts changes in fish communities, including shifts in community•The fish ecologist predicts changes in fish communities, including shifts in community composition, species abundances, and condition.•If relevant, specialists on amphibians, reptiles, water birds, semi-aquatic mammals, and other river-dependent wildlife predict how they would be affected. composition, species abundances, and condition. 8. If relevant, specialists on amphibians, reptiles, water birds, semi-aquatic mammals, and other river-dependent wildlife predict how they would be affected. Step 1. Identify and isolate parts of the flow regime Flow component Discharge Number per (Q) in m3 s-1 year Dry season low 0.1 - 16 flows Wet season low 0.1 - 50 flows Within-year flood I 17- 48 6 Within-year flood II 49 - 95 3 Within-year flood III 96 - 190 3 Within-year flood IV 191 - 379 2 1:2 year flood 380 1:5 year flood 530 1:10 year flood 665 1:20 year flood 870 DRIFT Scenarios and Database FLOW REGIME WSLF DSLF CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 1:2 1:5 1:10 1:20 CH 1 CH 2 CH 3 CH 4 Scenarios: Geom. WQ Veg. Macro. Fish 1. Volume Alien spp. Pool spp. Riffle spp. 2. Condition 3. Design limit. Generic and site specific explanation 5
  • 6. Identify and isolate parts of the flow regime Flow component Discharge Number per (Q) in m3 s-1 year Dry season low 0.1 - 16 flows Wet season low 0.1 - 50 flows Within-year flood I 17- 48 6 Within-year flood II 49 - 95 3 Within-year flood III 96 - 190 3 Within-year flood IV 191 - 379 2 1:2 year flood 380 1:5 year flood 530 1:10 year flood 665 1:20 year flood 870 Predict consequences of flow regime changes for fish5.0                Maximum depth (m)                    -1     Mean velocity (m.sec )          1.0       2  Wetted perimeter (m x 10 )                                                                   D    0.1               Ecological (a)0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0 requirements 10 Discharge (m 3.s ec-1 ) affected - reduction Impacts on fish 8 in floods i fl d Change in health 6 Change in mortalities 1:20 4 1:10 1:5 1:2 2 (b) Ecological 0 0 50 Distance (m) 100 150 requirements 3 (IV) affected - reduction 2 (III) in low flows Severity/ confidence (II) (i) (I) 1 (iii) (vi) (v) (ii) (iv) (c) 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Distance (m) Social consecquence Identify and isolate parts of the flow regime Flow component Discharge Number per (Q) in m3 s-1 year Dry season low 0.1 - 16 flows Wet season low 0.1 - 50 flows Within-year flood I 17- 48 6 Within-year flood II 49 - 95 3 Within-year flood III 96 - 190 3 Within-year flood IV 191 - 379 2 1:2 year flood 380 1:5 year flood 530 1:10 year flood 665 1:20 year flood 870 6
  • 7. Fish Component Arthington, Rall, Kennard & Pusey (2003) Fish & habitat surveys – Sampling – electroshock, seine net, gill net – Description of habitat and habitat use • width • depthp • velocity • substrate composition • in-stream and bank cover Literature reviews Literature reviews – for each fish species • Dietary requirements • Life history • Predation • Spawning habitats • Competition • Timing of spawning • Disease • Larval requirements • Effects of alien species • Movement patterns Fish habitat flow preferences in riffles, runs and pools run riffle • intermediate # species • streamlined body • few species pool • streamlined body form • many species • diverse body shapes Images: Mark Kennard & Brad Pusey, Griffith University Position in Rainbowfish Water Column (open water schooling species) Purple spotted gudgeon (benthic species)Water surface 0.2 0.4Relativewater 0.6depth 0.8 1 0 10 20 30Stream bed 0 20 40 60 Frequency (% of individuals) Images: Mark Kennard & Brad Pusey, Griffith University 7
  • 8. Hydraulic Habitat Methods Wetted aquatic Perimetervegetation snag gravel and rocks zero flow Wetted Perimeter Method P1 P2 P3 P4 ter Wetted perimet Inflection point Discharge PHABSIM predicts change in usable habitat for fish species with change in flow 50 Melanotaenia 40 Craterocephalus WUA (%) 30 Philypnodon A Hypseleotris 20 Retropinna Food producing 10 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Flow (discharge) m3s-1 8
  • 9. Life History and Recruitment Strategies Low flow recruitment Spawn during stable low flows in spring & summer, window of opportunity to access habitat/food for larval N. Armstrong fishesNo flow recruitment N. ArmstrongSpawning in standing water bodieswith no flow, e.g. river pools,waterholes on floodplains Merrick & Schmida Flow / flood pulse recruitment Spawn during rising water levels or floods in spring & summer, recruitment enhanced by backwater & floodplain inundationSeasonal reproductive cycles of fish species in the Fitzroy River system, QLD A. ag A. per Ar. g. G. apr. p H. lep. Hyp. c. M. mog. N. ater Ox. lin. P. gr. Scl. l. Sc. h. T. tan. J A S O N D J F M A M J low & stable flows wet season Spring temps Summer temps Fish Life History Timetable Month Reproductive processes April End of the breeding season for most native species; trout beginning to increase in GSI and maturity class. July Flows expected to be low at this time, but can be erratic. Most native species reproductively inactive, but trout could be breeding? This time period could p p provide useful data on how native species p use habitat when trout are using redds. Are native species forced into marginal habitats? What amount of water would the native species need if this occurs? October Reproductive activity beginning for all native species. Migration and spawning events may be triggered in relation to first spring rains and freshets or small floods. December Reproductive activity at a peak (?), habitat use by fish larvae and new recruits may be observable. February Reproductive activity declining. Surveys should provide data on habitat use by young of the year and juveniles. 9
  • 10. Single consequence entry1 Site 22 Flow reduction level and Reduction level 4 of dry-season low volume flows3 Specialist Invertebrates4 Generic list entry Simulium nigritarse5 Direction of predicted Increase change6 Severity of predicted Critically severe change7 Conversion to 501% - infinity percentage8 Ecological significance Filter-feeder in slow, eutrophic water9 Social significance Blood-sucking pest of poultry 10
  • 11. DRIFT Database FLOW REGIME WSLF DSLF CLASS 1 CLASS 2 CLASS 3 CLASS 4 1:2 1:5 1:10 1:20 CH 1 CH 2 CH 3 CH 4 Scenarios: Geom. WQ Veg. Macro. Fish 1. Volume Alien spp. Pool spp. Riffle spp. 2. Condition 3. Design limit. Generic and site specific explanation DRIFT SOLVER SPREADSHEET DRIFT Input volume EXAMPLE RIVER SOLVER P LE A SE F ILL IN P E S : B of water Va ria ble c ha nge d in S o lv e r is "Indic a t o r f o r le v e l" M ax 5 M A XM A X T he we ight e d sum o f s c o re s ( in ye llo w) is t he t a rge t whic h is m a xim is e d M in -5 M IN M IN allocated Yo u ca n c ha nge T E F v a lue s t he n <t o o ls > <s o lv e r> [ s o lv e ] We ight e d s um o f c o m po ne nt s c o re s sum o f max flo ws sum o f min flo ws 61 v M A R 1 2 5.2 %M A Rused 554 74.1 to river ( wt ) 10 Ecosystem component 10 10 10 10 10 1 A llo wed Dev o f vo lume 0 1.05 Target Environmental Flow (TEF) 0.95 A llo c a t e d Env iro nm e nt a l F lo w ( A EF ) 410 93 410.41 wt 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.143 0.1 Result DEV of vo lume 4 4.41 F lo w remaining (o f M A R ) 143.59 T a rge t t o m a xim is e : - 0 .23 7 IN T EG R IT Y S C O R E F lo w c o m po Wet lo wflo ws P D 1 0 0 234 192 -0.50 0 0 -0.5 0 -0.1 0 -0.6 -0.2 0 0 0 0 0 -0.27 0 -2.37 0.1 -0.24 A ve o f max A v e o f m in ( wt ) wt - 0 .19 - 0 .2 9 Maximised 2 3 1 0 32.6 9.09 -2.63 -3.75 -2.5 -3.1 -1.7 -2.2 -3.1 -3.9 -3.2 -4 -1 -2.25 .5 -2 -2.5 -2.37 -3.09 Wet lo wflo ws Dry lowflo ws 20 20 0.1 0.1 PD 2 Overall Dry lo wflo ws P D 4 0 1 900 51 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 -9 0 0 0.1 0 1 Freshes SC1 Freshes SC2 20 20 0.1 0.1 PD PD Integrity 1 2 0 0 37.3 12.4 -0.5 -2.3 -0.2 -0.6 -0.1 -2.1 -0.3 -3.4 -2.9 0 -1 0 .5 -0.3 -2.5 -0.2 -2.19 Freshes SC3 Freshes SC4 20 20 0.1 0.1 PD PD Score for 3 4 0 0 6.09 900 -3.5 -9 -0.8 -9 -2.8 -9 -4.3 -9 -4 -9 -3.75 -9 -3.1 -9 -3.17 -9 Flo o ds 1 1 Flo o ds 1 :2 :5 20 20 0.1 0.1 PD PD the given Freshes SC1 P D 1 1 0 35 21 -1 0 .40 -2.00 0 -0.75 0 -0.68 0 -0.70 0 -2.00 0 -0.08 0 -1 0 .09 -0 0.1 -0 Flo o ds 1 0 Flo o ds 1 :1 :20 20 20 0.1 0.1 PD PD volume of 2 3 0 0 7 0 -2.40 -3.60 -3.00 -4.00 -2.1 -2.33 7 -1.93 -2.91 -2.20 -3.40 -4.00 -4.00 -1.56 -2.1 9 -2.46 -3.21 200 water 4 0 900 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 1 Freshes SC2 P D 1 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 Volum e u 1 0 28 -0.50 -0.33 -1.00 0.00 -0.1 0 -0.25 0.00 -0.31 0 50 100 2 0 14 -1.80 -1.33 -1.83 -1.27 -1.60 -2.25 -0.54 -1.52 0 3 0 0 -3.30 -2.33 -2.25 -2.18 -3.70 -3.75 -1.63 -2.73 4 0 900 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 1 Freshes SC3 P D 1 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 1 0 56 -0.38 -0.33 -1.92 0.00 0.00 -0.50 0.00 -0.45 -0.5 2 0 28 -1.75 -1.33 -2.58 -1.64 -2.60 -2.25 -0.64 -1.83 3 0 0 -3.00 -2.33 -2.92 -2.48 -4.40 -3.25 -1.57 -2.85 1 Freshes SC4 P D 1 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 -1 1 0 50 -1.50 -1.00 -1.75 0.00 -1.60 -1.00 0.00 -0.98 d sum) 2 0 0 -3.20 -2.25 -2.83 -1.77 -2.80 -2.75 -1.00 -2.37 3 0 900 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 1 15 DRIFT SOLVER OUTPUT Linking output to a river condition classification Present River State = Near natural 0 -0.2 Near natural -0.4 Note that variation -0.6 Moderately modified around the core mean increases -0.8 -0 8DRIFT Integrity Sc with degree of -1 departure of flow Significantly modified volume from -1.2 natural (100%) -1.4 i.e. Experts less -1.6 sure of ecological response to large -1.8 Highly significantly modified departures of flow -2 volume from 0 50 100 150 200 (56%) 250 300 350 (99%) 400 natural. Total volume used (MCM) (Percentage MAR in brackets) 11
  • 12. Sociological studies DEFINE THE PAR Biophysical Reach h Biophysical it Bi h i l site Data: Sociologist/Anthropologist resource utilisation - corridor of river use Medical practitioners - public health Veterinarians - livestock health Economist - prices/alternatives Outcomes of Lesotho E-flows The EFA for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) was the first EFA that describes and quantifies the biophysical consequences of various development scenarios, and also the social and resource-economic consequences. Losses of river resources (e.g. food fishes) and health benefits were ( g ) converted to compensation estimates for riparian people. The first tranche payments totalling about US$ 3 million were made in 2004. The payments were vested in local legal entities or community trusts . This study is widely used by the World Bank as a training example for flow Assessments In 2007 an independent audit concluded that the LHWP’s approach to flow assessments for people and nature was at the forefront of global practice (Institute of Natural Resources 2007). Publications on DRIFTArthington, A.H., J.L. Rall, M.J. Kennard and B.J. Pusey (2003). Environmental flow requirements of fish in Lesotho Rivers using the DRIFT methodology. River Research and Applications 19 (5-6): 641-666. King J. M. Brown, C.A. & Sabet, H. (2003) A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for regulated rivers. Rivers Research and Applications19 (5-6): 619-640.King J.M. & Brown C.A. (2006) Environmental flows: striking the balance between development and resource protection. Ecology and Society 11(2): 26 (online). 12