This article came out last week -- and it's emblematic of what happens when we have a drought --- those who scream the loudest seem to get attention and those at the end of the river - those in the estuaries and bays will see less freshwater. Similarly we see major controversy over managing flows below a highly altered river systems in Virginia, Staunton River. Learn more about What's Behind the Water Wars. Here we average minimum of 650 cubic feet per second is required to be released from the dam unless there is a special variance related to drought conditions. Well won't we have a variance every time there is a drought??
This week we explore the many issues surrounding instream flows (in some places referred to as environmental flows) and read about the complexities of water resources management.
I will use the term "instream flow" because it is more common in the legal world though the term environmental flows is emerging throughout the world. The term "instream flow" is used to identify a specific stream flow (typically measured in cubic feet per second, or cfs) at a specific location for a defined time, and typically following seasonal variations. Instream flows are usually defined as the stream flows needed to protect and preserve instream resources and values, such as fish, wildlife and recreation. Instream flows are most often described and established in a formal legal document, typically an adopted state rule. I have personally witnessed the agonizing development of what is today referrred to as instream flow science as it is embedded in policy and law. As the cigarette commercial used to say "you've come a long way baby!"
Today, every state and Canadian province will understand the meaning of instream flow, even if their state statutes do not and some states have several specialists who do nothing but instream flow work. These specialists are organized as the Instream Flow Council which promotes awareness and sound science for protecting, maintaining and restoring aquatic ecosystems .
Sufficient water in streams is necessary to sustain both the natural environment and our community water supplies. We come to expect a continuous supply of freshwater and seldom think of it as an expensive commodity that we must pay for, such as electricity or oil. But that may change and droughts make us think about the finite nature of water -- and globally there are many severe problems outlined in the Report "Blue Gold" by Maude Barlow.
The instream flow council published a book of methods recently and has posted a 194 pages of references related to instream flows. I hope you find at least one interesting article on flow management to inform our discussion next Wednesday.
Click on comment and below and post your precis.
17 comments:
Pusey et al., in their article "Discharge variability and the development of predictive models relating stream fish assemblage structure to habitat in northeastern Australia" argue that discharge variability across river systems makes building predictive species richness and presence/absence models difficult using abiotic factors at the local or watershed scale. The authors used Mantel tests to assess the predictive power of habitat versus catchment variables in explaining fish assemblage structure. The writers admit that the data included in the models do not adequately describe the processes controlling species richness and presence because there is no evidence of a guild response, and they suggest that the examination of individual species may be more informative. The writer's purpose is to examine which habitat and watershed factors may affect species richness in four Australian rivers with different flow regimes.
Pusey, B.J., M.J. Kennard, H. Arthington. 2000. Discharge variability and the development of predictive models relating stream fish assemblage structure to habitat in northeastern Australia. Ecology of Freshwater Fish 9: 30-50.
their review article "River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making," Poff et al suggest that the emerging need in river science is for large-scale collaborative studies which can be integrated into broad understanding about river management. The authors support this assertion by pointing out the willingness of public and private groups to invest in ecological streams restoration, which requires a wide range of applicable information for managers and scientists who are asked to give advice for such projects. The authors acknowledge the difficulty and uncertainty in river resoration and insist that partaking in the management process is the only way to get science successfully integrated into policy and management of aquatic resources. The author's main purpose is to encourage both the large-scale science necessary for ecologically successful restoration, including opportunistic collection of data with dam removal or flow reallocation, for example, and the participation of scientists in the policy and management decisions that balance societal needs and scientific understanding.
Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.A. Palmer, D.D. Hart, B.D. Richter, A.H. Arthington, K.H. Rogers, J.L. Meyer, and J.A. Stanford. 2003. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:298-306.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. A. Palmer, D. D. Hart, B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, K. H. Rogers, J. L. Meyer, and J. A. Stanford. 2003. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 298-306
There are many conflicts over riverine water use which will only intensify with global changes and growing populations, but on the bright side there is growing public support for both stream ecosystem restoration and management that strikes a balance between satisfying human needs and maintaining ecosystem functionality. A sufficient conceptual framework (e.g. the flow regime) on which to base ecosystem restoration and management is now available; however, scientists need to take their work to the next level and apply those concepts to solve management problems, test assumptions and hypotheses, and built upon (or if need be replace) the current conceptual framework. Poff et al. (2002) argue that these goals can only be achieved by scientists taking a more active role in management and interacting with stakeholders and managers. Specifically they suggest that scientists need to:
1. move away from studies conducted on a limited spatiotemporal extent and take advantage of river management activities that effect entire systems, such as flow manipulation in regulated rivers, which are de facto constitute large ecological experiments;
2. play well with others—design studies and conduct research with scientists in all fields from hydrology to social science;
3. consider management studies or ecosystem experiments as parts of a greater effort to developing and testing ecological hypotheses—as such each studies need to be conducted in a way that will allow them to be combined in meta-analysis ;
4. find new ways to fund projects by being inventive and cooperative.
Richter, B. D., R. Matthews, D. L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13(1): 206-224
Richter et al. (2003) developed a six-step iterative process they call ecologically sustainable water management and present a case-study, where a plan is being developed to manage the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River (ACF) system, to illustrate its possible application and usefulness. Sustainable management is based on the assumption that the flow regime is the master variable which drives many components of an ecosystem, from flood plain interaction to channel morphology to biological productivity.
Step 1: Estimate Ecosystem Flow Requirements: Use available hydrology data and knowledge of relationships between flow and river processes (e.g. habitat creation and maintenance, geomorphology, biochemical processes, etc.) to estimate the range of flow—minimum flows to flood events—needed to sustain an ecosystem.
Step 2: Determine Human Influences on Flow Regime: Determine current and predict future (model) pressures on rivers that may alter the flow regime.
Step 3: Identify incompatibles between human and ecosystem needs: Use analysis from step 1 and step 2 to identify conflicts where ecosystem and human needs are mutually exclusive. Incompatibilities need to be spatially and temporally explicit.
Step 4: Find solutions: Stakeholders and managers work together toward a compromise that mitigates human impacts.
Step 5: Experiment: Address uncertainties about how compromises are executed. Test hypothesis proposed in Step 1 about how flow and river processes are associated.
Step 6: Design and implement an adaptive plan: This step is never completed, the iterative process of ecologically sustainable water management means that managers, scientists, and stakeholders can and will return to previous steps when necessary. All plans should be flexible enough to accommodate new knowledge.
Richter et al. (2003) used the ACF as a case study to 1) illustrate the complexity of an, at the time, ongoing effort to develop of a comprehensive plan for management, 2) demonstrate how their framework might be applied, and 3) identify the problems that might arise even when following a process similar to the one they proposed. Richter et al (2003) identified an early failure in the ACF planning process—there was no consensus on ecosystem flow requirements (Step 1). They identified uncertainty and disagreement about inputs to models used to assess human impacts as another stumbling block (Step2). The major incompatibility in the ACF, water use during drought, was identified (Step 3). However, without agreement on Steps 1 and 2, stakeholders (Georgia, Alabama, and Florida) viewed the conflict differently (Step 3) and subsequently their ability to reach a solution (Step 4) and progress toward a plan was severely hindered. As of the publishing date, some experimentation (Step 5) was being conducted to deal with uncertainties observed in Step 2.
Fast forward to 2007 . . . In a recent review of the ACF case for another class, I found that the process has stymied because negotiations on a plan had failed . . . horribly failed. Even recent negotiations initiated by the Secretary of the Interior following a heated conflict triggered by the 2007 drought had failed. Allocation of water among states (stakeholders) remains in litigation. And the Endangered Species Act is the most powerful regulation dictating instream flows for the ecosystem, not a plan among stakeholders to maintain flows to support the ecosystems of the ACF. Perhaps problems with steps 1 and 2 still need to be resolved.
Were these the problems that doomed the entire process?
How do restart this process after such a bitter battle over water? Can you still follow this process?
Bunn, Stuart E., “Basic Principles and Ecological Consequences of Altered Flow Regimes for Aquatic Biodiversity” (2002) presents some valid reasoning with regards to stream ecology and biodiversity opposing the alteration of stream flow. The author conducts a literature review in order to establish four main principles that the mechanisms of stream flow regulate, and altering this natural stream flow could cause serious problems:
1. flow is a major determinant of physical habitat in streams, which in turn is a major determinant of biotic composition.
2. aquatic species have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response to the natural flow regimes
3. maintenance of natural patterns of longitudinal and lateral connectivity is essential to the viability of populations of many riverine species and finally
4. the invasion and success of exotic and introduced species in rivers is facilitated by the alteration of flow regimes.
The author intends to stress the importance of natural flow management that could otherwise be compromised by dams, for example, in order to draw attention to this matter and protect the indigenous species that inhabit waters that could be within question. This article should be taken into consideration by river managers that wish to change flow patterns to manipulate rivers and streams that believe they can change the flow without consequence, even to the smallest degree, even though the may not realize the indirect or even direct results until a much later time, due to lag.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. A. Palmer, D. D. Hart, B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, K. H. Rogers, J. L. Meyer, and J. A. Stanford. 2003. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 298-306.
The authors begin by outlining some current water crises and stating that many agencies are willing to spend lots of money to protect biota (i.e. 2.5 million in a week). The authors propose a 4-step process for science and society to better manage flows. 1) use more large-scale experimentation to determine the impacts of flow regulation; 2) approach the problem with points of view from all stakeholders; 3) integrate specific case studies into broad concepts; 4) find new and innovative funding resources. Poff et al conclude that we must integrate our broad understanding of flow regulation into our modern practices, that we must broaden the spatial scale at which we view these problems, and make partnerships that involve all stakeholders.
Mary Freeman and Paula Marcinek (2006), in their journal paper ‘Fish Assemblage Responses to Water Withdrawals and Water Supply Reservoirs in Piedmont Streams‘, assert that increasing permitted water withdrawal levels and construction of instream water supply reservoirs are likely to result in local loss of stream fish species, specifically fluvial-dependent species. They support this assertion via an extremely rigorous study in which they determine the combined and singular effects of factors like water withdrawal, reservoirs and site level variables (drainage area, percentage urban land use and mean bed sediment size) on hydraulic habitat conditions (mean depth and velocity) and environmental variables (stream discharge, water temperature, turbidity and dissolved oxygen). The authors then determine the singular and combined effects of all these factors on fluvial specialist and habitat generalist fish richness. They readily admit that model selection uncertainty and sampling error contributed to uncertainty in the estimated effects of water supply variables on stream fishes. Also, estimates of effect sizes of withdrawals and reservoirs on fluvial specialist fishes reflect considerable uncertainty, resulting in part from the broad array of factors that may influence stream fish assemblages. Freeman and Marcinek ‘s main purpose is to improve understanding of the biological effects of water withdrawal by quantifying variation in fish assemblages across streams that are differentially used for municipal water supply.
Freeman M. C and P. A. Marcinek (2006). Fish Assemblage Responses to Water Withdrawals and Water Supply Reservoirs in Piedmont Streams, Environmental Management, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 435–450. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0169-3
Richter, Brian D., “Ecologically Sustainable Water Management: Managing River Flows for Ecological Integrity” (2003) asserts that flow regimes are crucial to the animals that inhabit streams and that as the human population grows, as does our demand for water, which puts huge amounts of stress on our freshwater systems. Richter uses the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River case study to point out ideas that were facilitated well and also to point out short comings that should be conducted differently, and also to show that flow is the main driving force that controls biotic and abiotic activity within a freshwater system, and should be at the forefront of our considerations when we manipulate streams for our benefit. The author lays out a six-step process, but understands the level in which humans require freshwater, in order to ensure that flow is not overly compromised by human interaction:
1.Estimate ecosystem flow requirements
2.Determine human influences on the flow regime
3.Identify incompatibilities between human and ecosystem needs
4.Collaboratively search for solutions
5.Conduct water management experiments
6.Design and implement and adaptive water management plan
This article was intended to be used by stakeholders and river managers that make the decisions regarding the flow regimes of waterways.
Beechie et al.’s 2006 article “Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversty” analyzes relationships between environmental factors (stream hydrology) and several life history traits (spawn timing, age at spawning, age at outmigration, and body size) of Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawystscha) and suggests that strategies to conserve this species will be more successful if it emphasizes preserving genetic and life history options. The authors identified three hydrologic regimes surrounding the Puget Sound (snow-melt dominated, precipitation-dominated, and transitional), measured life history characteristics of 22 populations and compared the differences in life history characteristics between populations found within each hydrologic regime using ANOVA analysis. The analysis identified two groups of Chinook salmon that have different life history characteristics (ocean-type and river type) and the authors describe how these two life history types are potentially the result of quick adaptation to environmental factors. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that allowing Chinook populations to occupy historical habitats will aid in the conservation of both life-history types.
Beechie, T., E. Buhle, M. Ruckelshaus, A. Fullerton, L. Holsinger. 2006. Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity. Biological Conservation 130: 560-572
In the article “A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations,” Richter et al. assert that dams provide water managers with adequate control for an adaptive management strategy for the optimal riverine flow. The authors propose a five step process :1) orientation meeting, 2)Literature Review, 3) Recommendation Workshop, 4) Implementation, and 5) Monitoring, with a feedback loop from step five to step three using a case study from the Georgia to provide support for this model. The authors admit that many managers are hesitant to make quantitative flow recommendations and that implementation of flow recommendations can be very difficult in some situations. The purpose of the article is to provide a framework for scientists and managers to manage flow regimes to provide maximum anthropogenic and ecological benefits.
Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.A. Palmer, D.D. Hart, B.D. Richter, A.H. Arthington, K.H. Rogers, J.L. Meyer, and J.A. Stanford. 2003. River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision making. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6:298-306.
In “Fish assemblage response to water withdrawls and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams,” Freeman and Marcinek argue that reservoirs and water withdraws negatively influence fluvial fishes. The researchers sampled fish in 28 Georgia streams over three years and found that creating reservoirs and removing water alters flow regimes in a way that reduce the richness of fluvial specialists including many cyprinids and catostomids. The authors admit that the large array of factors influencing fluvial fishes and the uncertainty in the model selection caused some uncertainty in the estimation of the influence of water use on fluvial fishes. The authors purpose was to provide empirical evidence to the effects of water uptake and storage on fish that specialize in riverine systems.
Freeman, M.C. and P.A. Marcinek. 2006. Fish assemblage response to water withdrawls and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environmental Management 38:435-450.
The article “A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations” by Richter et al. contend that water supply are in a unique position that allows them to not only provide services for developed areas but also apply an adaptive management strategy that could potentially restore flow regimes that can improve ecosystem health downstream of a dam structure. The authors describe a five-step process that leads to the development of an adaptive management plan for a river system: 1) hold an orientation meeting, 2) conduct a literature review and summary of existing knowledge of the river system, 3) organize a workshop to develop objectives and initial flow recommendations, 4) implement those initial recommendations, and 5) monitor the systems response and adjust flow levels accordingly. The authors provide a case study from the Savannah River and dispute the common thought that implementing this process will prove to be expensive and time-consuming. The purpose of this article is to provide a framework for water managers to develop adaptive management strategies that meet requirements for water needs as well as improve freshwater ecosystems that have been impacted by human development.
Richter, B. D., A. T. Warner, J. L. Meyer, K. Lutz. 2006. A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Research and Applications 22: 297-318
In “Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity”, Beechie et al (2006) discuss a wide range of pacific salmon life history traits, including length, spawning period, age at first spawning, and migration age to categorize these fish into life history groupings to increase conservation efforts. Hydrologic patterns appeared in this study, and within these patterns, pattern subdivisions. The patterns focused on preferred population habitat of snowmelt-dominated, rainfall-dominated, and transitional, which showed significant differences in mean spawning date and percent stream-type spawners. Stream-type is based on length of residence in stream habitat, with stream being greater than 1 year and ocean-type being less than 1 year. Age structures for spawning assembledges were greater in stream-type habitats, but these were less numerous. Stream-type and ocean-type show low genetic variability, possibly suggesting recolonization efforts may be successful in degraded areas, interchanging stream-type residents with ocean-types.
Beechie, T., E. Buhle, M. Ruckelshaus, A. Fullerton, and L. Holsinger. 2006. Hydrologic regime and the conservation of salmon life history diversity. Biological Conservation 130: 560-572.
In “A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations”, Richter et al (2006) addresses the need for a system to assess flow requirements to sustain ecosystem health through adaptiveness and collaboration. The flow system has to be adaptive because it allows for important changes to be made as a flow project progresses and collaborative to develop the system broadly with much input from different sources. Five steps occur with this flow regime system: 1) orientation to the flow situation, 2) learn about the present organism needs and historic flow conditions, 3) collaboratively develop acceptable parameters for the system, hydrologically and biologically, 4) experimentation, 5) monitoring, reaching conclusions, and possibly more research. As conducted for a reach on the Savannah River, this system provides a functional system of flow based ecological process needs.
Richter, B.D., A.T. Warner, J.L. Meyer, and K. Lutz. 2006. A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Research and Applications 22: 297-318.
In their journal paper, ‘a Collaborative and Adaptive Process for Developing Environmental Flow Recommendations’, Richter et al. (2006) argue that an inter-disciplinary, collaborative, adaptive approach is beneficial to all stakeholders involved in the determination of flow for different purposes. They support this assertion by first all proposing a generic process for developing environmental flow recommendations that embodies the essential aspects of adaptive management, which comprises five steps:
(1) convene an orientation meeting to custom-tailor the process to the needs and limitations of the particular project to which it will be applied;
(2) prepare a literature review and summary of existing knowledge about the flow-dependent biota and ecological processes of concern;
(3) convene a workshop to develop ecological objectives, initial flow recommendations, and key information gaps;
(4) implement the flow recommendations on a trial basis to test hypotheses and reduce uncertainties; and
(5) monitor system response and conduct further research as warranted.
The writers then test this approach on a case study. Richter et al. readily admit that since their process involves many scientists and agencies it may seem onerous and time-consuming, but in practice, the contrary is the case. The main purpose of the writers is to develop a process that enables adaptive management to get underway as soon as possible, thereby providing opportunity to learn by doing.
Richter B. D., A. T. Warner, J. L. Meyer and K. Lutz (2006). A Collaborative and Adaptive Process for Developing Environmental Flow Recommendations, River Res. Applic. 22: 297–318, DOI: 10.1002/rra.892
Richter, B. D., R. Matthews, D. L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. 2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13(1): 206-224.
Richter et al begin by describing the variable effects of altered flow regimes in streams. They then introduce a 5-step process toward developing flow reccomendations: 1) holding an orientation meeting; 2) do an extensive literature reiview about ecological effects of flow effects; 3) have a workshop to determine ecologial objectives and flow reccomendations; 4) do an experimental implementation of the new flow regime; 5) monitor system responses. They then outline a case study in which stakeholders and the Corps of Engineers used this process to implement more ecologically-minded flow management regimes in the Savannah River. They believe the poject was a success because the new plan was implemented.
Richter et al. in their article “Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity” argue that ecologically sustainable water management is feasible and necessary in order to preserve both ecological and human water needs in aquatic systems around the world. The authors support their plan for sustainable flows by creating a framework for ecosystem management, which includes 1. Estimating flow required by natural ecosystems, species and communities, 2. Determining the influences of water withdrawl on the flow regimes, 3. Identifying areas of incompatibilities between the two as a starting point for planning, 4. Searching for solutions through group discussions and planning, 5. Conducting experiments in the water management to estimate effectiveness of planned water management guidelines, and 6. Adaptive management plan design and implementation. The authors are hopeful that by following these guidelines, effective water management can be implemented and sustained in the long-term. The purpose of this article is to outline an effective path for water management teams to come to a successful conclusion in water management projects.
Richter, B.D., R. Mathews, D.L. Harrison, and R. Wigington. Ecologically sustainable water management: managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications 13: 206-224.
Post a Comment