Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Arthington iwc e flows for delegation scenario 1 eloha handout

984 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Arthington iwc e flows for delegation scenario 1 eloha handout

  1. 1. IWC Environmental Flows and Management Scenarios December 2009 Prof. Angela Arthington Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University Room 1.09C, Building N13 3735 7403 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 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 1
  2. 2. Natural annual flow pattern 3500 3000 Proactive 2500 Environmental harge (m3 * 104) 2000 1500 Flow approaches 1000 are 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 developments Average 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 DRIFT - Scenario based-interactive approach “ DRIFT provides an assessment of the ecological consequences of altering the flow regime of river reaches or a single river system made up of several reaches. DRIFT employs an Expert Panel approach. DRIFT is typically focused on alterations to flow volume due to water storage, hence loss of flow downstream. DRIFT flow components include: dry and wet season low flows flow pulses within the channel (within year floods) floods of various return intervals, 1:2, 1:15; 1:10, 1:20 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) 2
  3. 3. ELOHA - Regional scale flow assessment DRIFT studies for river by river assessment are expert panel methods Current regional-scale assessment methods tend to be “rule of thumb” e.g. % MAR Regional e-flow “standards” “Challenge paper” Arthington, Poff, Bunn, Naiman (2006). Ecol. Applications 16: 1311-18. “The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA): a framework for developing regional environmental flow standards” Poff, Richter, Arthington et al. (2009) Freshwater Biology Special Issue Arthington, Bunn, Poff and Naiman 2006Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration - ELOHA Poff, Richter, Arthington et al. FW Biology 2009 SCIENTIFIC PROCESS - ELOHA Step 1. Hydrologic Foundation Step 2. Stream Classification Baseline Stream Hydrologic Geomorphic Hydrographs Classification Stratification Hydrologic Model and Stream Gauges Step 3. Flow Alteration Degree of Hydrologic Developed Hydrologic Alteration Hydrographs Alteration by River TypeMonitoring Step 4. Flow-Ecology Relationships Flow - Ecology Flow Alteration-Ecological Ecological Data Hypotheses Response Relationships and Indices by River Type SOCIAL PROCESS Societal Implementation Environmental Acceptable Values and Flow Standards Ecological Conditions Management Needs Adaptive Adjustments 3
  4. 4. ELOHA - Scenario based-interactive approach“ ELOHA provides an assessment of the ecological consequences of altering the flow regime of rivers with different types of flow regime ELOHA employs a Scientific Panel approach and more field work than DRIFT ELOHA considers all ecologically relevant features of the flow regime, drawn from the Natural Flow Regime Paradigm and Bunn & AA (2002), etc ELOHA flow components include: - magnitude (flow volume) - timing, frequency and duration of any flow magnitude (i.e. low flows, no flow, channel pulses, floods) - rate of change in flow (e.g. hydrograph rise and fall) - predictability of flow patterns over time (e.g. seasonal vs highly variable) ELOHA ADVANTAGES River Discharge 8 Mississippi Mekong 6 4 2 0 Time TimeELOHA recognises that rivers have different types of flow regimeELOHA classifies rivers according to their flow regime typeELOHA seeks to develop flow alteration – ecological relationships based onecologically relevant flow metrics for each flow classELOHA’s flow alteration – ecological relationships are specific to each class ofriver, and preferably, to each type of flow regime change Classify rivers based on natural flows (gauged or simulated) 30000 25000 20000 140000 15000 120000 10000 100000 5000 80000 60000 0 40000 1. Classification based on reference 20000 stream flow data 0 Class B 5000 Class A 4500 Axis II 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Class C 500 0 Axis I 4
  5. 5. Flow alteration – ecological response relationships 4. Flow-response relationships for ecological health data from reference and flow-modified streams for each flow Sustainable variable level of Health indicator 1 Unsustainable change Mean and error for reference streams 1 2    3  4 5 Departure from reference health condition Health indicator 2 Mean and error for reference streams 1 2 3   4 5 Departure from reference flow condition (flow variable X) Management Scenario 1 Determining e-flows for a new reservoir on a river like the Li Jiang Comprehensive ELOHA assessment Develop flow alteration – ecological response relationships for several similar rivers that have already been altered, to guide the development of environmental flow rules on Li Jang River ELOHA field trial SEQ      Research steps   1. Classify natural flow regimes  Six Mile 2. Identify flow regulation gradient     3. Establish referential field study design Yabba     4. Explore ecological responses to natural flow  Obi Obi gradient    5. Explore ecological responses to gradient of flow regulation   6. 6 Explore ecological responses to other factors Measures of response Channel/habitat structure Water quality, temperature Riparian & aquatic vegetation Moogerah Fish     Nerang Regulated    Species richness, assemblage structure,   native vs alien species richness/abundance,  No       total abundance/density, biomass, guilds,  Yes Maroon recruitment 5
  6. 6. Ordination (SSHMDS) of sites based on pre-development (IQQM) metrics 2 dimensions, stress = 0.117 (a) 3 (b) Teewah Ck CVDailyLow discharge 4 441 MeanZeroDay 444442222 4 44 4 422 2Low seasonality 2 422 2 1 2High daily variability 21112111 5 331 11 22 31 1 11 LSNum 3111111 5 5 5 1 HSNum 1 1 555 5 5 5 5 6 MedAnnMax 55 5 5 HSDur 5 5 LSDur SEASON 6 BFI MRateRise/Fall MA7day Min ARI_1y r 6 6 Sp_MeanAnnMax MA30day Min MA1day Max MA90day Min JDMin ARI_2y r High discharge MDF_Sep MA3-90day Max 6 High seasonality ARI_10y r MDF_J,M,M,J,N Axis 1 Low daily variability Axis 16 classes of pre-development flow regimes1 = 26 nodes from all major rivers Significantly correlated metrics, P≤0.022 = 17 nodes from Mary, Brisbane and Logan-Albert3 = 5 nodes from Logan-Albert, lower Mary River, Teewah Creek Also a gradient of spell number and duration4 = 17 nodes from Mary and Brisbane5 = 18 nodes from Mary, Maroochy, Brisbane, Maroochy, Gold Coast6 = 5 nodes from 5 catchments, 3 rising in Maleny plateau Dam construction time line Photo: seqwater.com.au Photo: seqwater.com.au 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Gradient in flow regime alteration across SEQ study area Two dimensional ordination (SSHMDS) of sites based on historic (gauge) metrics Teewah 1 Teewah Creek included Stress = 0.084 MA30-90day Min RateRise/Fall MA1-7day Min HSNum LSNum BFI PREDICT MDF_Sep CONSTAN MDF_Nov MDF_Jul MDF_Jan MDF_Mar, May 1 1 MedAnnMax MA30-90day Max 5 flow regime classes 4 3 11 ARI_1y r 5 3 1 3 SEASON 3 3 3 Sp_MeanAnnMax 3 33 33 3 2 43 3 2 2 ARI_10y r Class 15 55 4 3 3 3 2 22 2 5 5 44 4 4 4 3 2 222 HSDur LSDur 4 regulated, Burnett Ck, Bris, Logan,Teewah 5 4 2 2 MeanZeroDay 5 4 2 5 4 4 Class 2 Axis 1 Axis 1 14 gauges Mary, Brisbane , 2 regulated 2 LSNum 1 1 2 2 22 Class 3 2 222 2 CONSTAN 22 HSDur 19 gauges Mary & Logan-Albert, Nerang reg. 11 3 3 PREDICT 1 33 3 2 2 LSDur 3 33 MeanZeroDay 3 3 4 33 3 4 4 4 Class 4 3 33 4 4 4 BFI LSNum 12 gauges 5 catchments, Six Mile Ck reg. 4 3 4 MA1-7day Min 4 MA30day Min 4 4 5 MA90day Min MedAnnMax HSNum Class 5 5 SEASON MDF_Sep MDF_Jan,May ,Jul RateRise/Fall MA1-90day Max 6 gauges Maroochy (~ class 5), 2 regulated 5 5 5 5 ARI_1,2y r ARI_10y r 5 5 MDF_Nov MDF_Mar 5 Teewah Creek excluded Axis 1 Stress = 0.082 6
  7. 7. Referential field study designGower Metric - multivariate metric of degree of flow regulation Hydrological Class 2 Hydrological Class 1 Reynolds Hydrological Class 5 0.3 0.25 Obi Obi Gow metric 0.2 Nerang Yabba 0.15 wer Brisbane River 0.1 Burnett 0.05 Six mile 0 Munna Ck Mary R (Fish.Pckt) Mary R (Bellbird) Mary (Dagun Pckt) Coomera R Brisbane R (Linville) Logan R (Round Mt) Logan R (Forest Home) Canungra Ck Tinana Ck (Bauple) Kandanga Ck Mary (Moy Pckt) Brisbane R (Gregors) Albert R (Lumeah) Logan R (Rathdowney) Mary R (Miva) Moololah R Petrie Ck Logan R (Yarrahap.) Stanley R Amamoor Ck Wide Bay Ck (Kilkiv.) Caboolture R Back Ck Emu Ck Eudlo Ck North Maroochy R Albert R (Bromfleet) Six Mile Ck Teviot Bk (Overflow) Bremer R (Walloon) Teewah Ck Tinana Ck (Tagigan) Glastonbury Ck Wide Bay Ck (Brooyar) Bremer R (Adams Br.) Currumbin Ck Brisbane R (Savages) Sth Maroochy R (Kiamba) Mudgeeraba Ck South Pine R Burnett Ck (Maroon Dam) Brisbane R (Wivenhoe Dam) Lockyer Ck Yabba Ck (Borumba Dam) Nerang R Running Ck Obi Obi Ck Reynolds Ck Class 1 = 2 reg. samples (Obi Obi, Six-Mile), Class 2 = 3 reg. samples (Reynolds, Yabba, Burnett), Class 4 = Brisbane River, studied previously, Class 5 = 1 reg. sample (Nerang) Fish survey methods (based on Pusey et al. 1993, 2004) Multiple pass electrofishing & block seine flowTotal surveyed is usually 60 80m stream length 60-80m seine haul after e-fishing e fishing Fish sampled at pool-riffle-run sequences, where possible Fish identified, counted, measured, returned to site Samples kept for condition, diet and reproductive status Habitat structure assessed in-stream and along banks Habitat Assessment An assessment of habitat is Bank habitat  In-stream habitat sample sampling point performed at 100 ‘nodes’ randomly placed along transects within the total 40  length of sampled area  35   30 Physical variables, substrateDistance upstrea (m)   composition and am 25    Flow  microhabitat structure are 20   measured / estimated 15    10  Bank habitat sampling occurs  5   every 10m on both banks   0 E D C B A Methods described in Transect Pusey et al. (2004) Right bank Left bank 7
  8. 8. Fish Data CollectionAt the completion of each sampling trip, the following fish and habitat information is available:• CPUE, species richness, fish assemblage structure and other ecological metrics• Length histograms of all fish captured• Fish biomass may also be obtained through previously defined length weight relationships (Pusey et al. 2004)• Fish associations with habitat at a range of spatial scales• Fish condition, reproductive status and diet (from laboratory analysis) M. adspersa - gudgeon L. unicolor - spangled perch T. tandanus - eel-tailed catfish M. duboulayi - rainbowfish Native fish families (11) and species (21) and number of sites where present in 2008 surveys 19/21 16/21 18/21 15/21 2/21 sites 10/21 sitesIntroduced families (2) and species (4) B. Cowell Box and whisker plots of important metrics driving gauge classification, identified by clustvarsel 9 metrics 6 = discharge magnitude 2 = high & low flow spell duration 1 = discharge constancy Class 1 streams 4 regulated High values for MA1dayMin & constancy Low zero flow days, low LS duration (suggests water releases from dams) Low values for high spell duration Low values for ARI_1yr & ARI_10yr (indicates high flows are stored) 1 unregulated Teewah Ck has high groundwater flow 8
  9. 9. Ordination of Fish Abundance (CPUE) Data Submerged Veg 1 L. unicolor 3 2 H. gallii 1 M. duboulayi Mud 3 M. adspersa 22 3 Hypsel. sp 1 G. holbrooki Site scale 5 3 3 2 12 44 5 A. agassizii Macrophytes 3 dims, stress=0.168 4 13 X. maculatus 3 3 5 25 G. australis 43 3 5 P. signifer H. compressa 43 5 R. ornatus H. klungzing. Gauge flow classes 4 5 5 5 1 3 5 Water Velocity Width shown A.reinhardtii 1 Axis 1 Axis 1 Alien taxa in red text Flow Metrics HSDur LSDur MeanZeroDay 90   LSNum 60   HSNum MedAnnMax 30    0    -30  MA1dayMin -60  MA1-7dayMax CPUE MA3dayMin -90   MA7dayMin ARI-1yr -120  MDF_May/Jul -150 Axis 1 Axis 1 More zero flow days In some regulated sites 0 200 400 Results of fish assemblage ordination 1. Ordination of fish assemblage structure at all reference and regulated sites based on CPUE shows distinctive spatial patterns in fish assemblages 2. Flow metrics (6 of 9) are consistent between altered hydrological classification and those significantly correlated with the ordination patterns for fish assemblages. - hi h spell d i high ll duration - low spell duration - zero flow days - MA1dayMin, median annual maximum flow - ARI_1yr 3. All of these metrics have been altered from natural, and are affecting the structure of fish assemblages 4. Alien fish species are associated with regulated sites, indicating poor ecological health Plotting flow alteration – ecological response relationships Within IQQM hydrological class Between IQQM hydrological classes 1 reference steamsObserved bserved / temporal samples (4x2 ref. sites O pected x 4 surveys = 32) regulated streams exp EO / Ob Obi Obi Reynolds Departure from reference Departure from reference flow condition flow condition e.g. Gower metric for regulated study sites Hydrological class 1 Within hydrological class can compare raw reference and regulated site data. Only need to divide observed (regulated) by expected (reference) if exploring flow- ecological response along the entire flow regulation gradient, e.g. along the Gower gradient, or a gradient based on an individual, driving flow metric. 9
  10. 10. Change in 1 year ARI (% difference from IQQM values) (IQQM-Gauge) x100 IQQM 100    80   60   Gauge value for 1less than smaller than IQQM value Gauge ARI is year ARI Natural ARI 40   20    0   -20   -40  -60 -80 Gauge value for 1 yGauge ARI is greater than Natural ARI -100 ear ARI larger than IQQM value -120 -140  Change in 10 year ARI flood (% difference from IQQM values) (IQQM-Gauge) x100 IQQM100   50  Gauge value for 10 year ARI smaller than IQQM value   0    -50 -100-150-200 Gauge value for 10 year ARI larger than IQQM value-250-300 -350 Change in mean number of zero days (Difference from IQQM value) (IQQM-Gauge) 90   60  30    0    -30  -60 More zero flow days in some regulated sites  -90 Higher number ofof zero flow days in IQQM flow record mber zero flow days in gauge flow record   -120  -150 10
  11. 11. Change in low flow spell duration (% difference from IQQM values) (IQQM-Gauge) x100 IQQM 200 0    -200   -400  -600 -800  -1000 -1200 Longer low flow spells in gauge record than IQQM record -1400  -1600 Does ecological response change along flow alteration gradients within flow classes? Within IQQM hydrological class Between IQQM hydrological classes 1 reference steamsObserved bserved / temporal samples (4x2 ref. sites O pected x 4 surveys = 32) regulated streams exp EO / Ob Obi Obi Reynolds Departure from reference Departure from reference flow condition flow condition e.g. Gower metric for regulated study sites and across the full flow regime gradient?Flow alteration – ecological response relationships 4. Flow-response relationships for ecological health data from reference and flow-modified streams for each flow Sustainable variable level of Health indicator 1 Unsustainable change Mean and error for reference streams 1 2    3  4 5 Departure from reference health condition Health indicator 2 Mean and error for reference streams 1 2 3   4 5 Departure from reference flow condition (flow variable X) 11
  12. 12. De velop flow rules for SEQ Rivers Tentative findings to protect the ecological health of fish assetsKeep the following flow metrics within specified % change from natural High spell duration Low spell duration Zero flow days MA1dayMin Median annual maximum flow ARI_1yrRepeat analysis for short-term flow metrics, at defined antecedent flow intervals, e.g. leading up to spawning period.Compare with results for riparian vegetation, aquatic plants ELOHA SUMMARY Advantages of ELOHA“ ELOHA employs a Scientific Panel approach and can be as rigorous as funds allow. ELOHA provides an assessment of the ecological consequences of altering the flow regime of rivers with different types of flow regime. ELOHA considers all ecologically relevant features of the flow regime, drawn from the Natural Flow Regime Paradigm and Bunn & AA (2002), etc ELOHA can consider any abiotic or ecological feature or asset of the river ecosystem. ELOHA methods gather strength from the study of several rivers with altered flow regimes. Flow alteration – ecological response plots are very useful to guide scenario assessment. e.g. what will happen to water quality in pools if small flows are taken out of the river and stroed in a reservoir? e.g. what will happen to fish diversity or fisheries biomass if ARIs of floods are reduced? e.g. what will happen to prawn biomass if there are many more days with zero flow? 12
  13. 13. Outcomes of ELOHA studies ELOHA is being trialled in several parts of the USA, setting rules for pumping of groundwater and abstractions from surface flows The Murray-Darling Basin’s Water Plan is applying an ELOHA-type approach to assess the flow requirements of the Basin’s rivers The SEQ study is the first full trial of the ELOHA framework in AustraliaPublications on the ELOHA FrameworkArthington, Angela H., Stuart E. Bunn, N. LeRoy Poff, Robert J. Naiman (2006). Thechallenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. EcologicalApplications 16 (4): 1311-1318.Arthington A.H., R.J. Naiman, M.E. McClain and C. Nilsson (2009). Preserving the biodiversityand ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. FreshwaterBiology, Special Issue on Environmental Flows; Science and Management.Poff N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S.E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M.Acreman, C. Apse, B.P. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G.Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O’Keeffe, J. D. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme and A Warne(2009). The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework fordeveloping regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology, Special Issue onEnvironmental Flows; Science and Management. 13

×