Transcript Present - Global Institute of Sustainability

Maintaining nature’s benefits
Environmental Flow Science, Opportunities and
Barriers
Jeanmarie Haney [email protected]
Summary
 Situational analysis
 Freshwater ecosystem services
 How human’s have changed Arizona’s rivers
 How The Nature Conservancy does its work
 The natural flow paradigm
 The science of environmental flows
 Discussion
Damsel fly
Arizona’s Population in 2000
Population (Millions)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1900
1925
1950
U.S
Census
U.S
1975
2000
Census
Year
2025
2050
Arizona’s Future Population
Population (Millions)
14
12
10
8
6
4
U.S
Census
2
0
1900
1925
1950
1975
Year
2000
AZ
Dept.
Economic
Security
2025
2050
Red Rock Crossing with Cathedral Rock
Kayaking the Verde River through Cottonwood
Golf course – Verde Santa Fe, Cottonwood
Orchards and pasture in Camp Verde
Choices for Our Changing Rivers
Past
Flowing Rivers
Choices for Our Changing Rivers
Present
Flowing Rivers
Lost Rivers
Human Footprint
Choices for Our Changing Rivers
Future Choices
Flowing Rivers
Lost Rivers
Threatened Rivers
Human Footprint
The mission of The Nature
Conservancy is to conserve the lands
and waters on which all life depends.
TNC’s Role
Promote water management that
considers human and
ecosystem water needs
San Pedro River basin, Cochise County
Science and Policy
 Science
 Where water comes from
Cottonwood
 Where it is going
 How much water do the rivers need
 Meeting human and ecosystem needs
 Policy
 Understand community values
 Develop collaborative partnerships
 Support integrated water management
Ecosystem Water Needs
 What are the spatial and temporal patterns of
surface and sub-surface water needed to maintain
the integrity and long-term viability of riparian and
aquatic ecosystems?
Environmental Flows
 The provision of water in sufficient quality,
quantity, timing and duration to maintain
freshwater ecosystems and their benefits.
 The allocation of water to achieve a desired
environmental condition.
Definition from World Conservation Unit
Rivers and Groundwater
ENVIRONMENTAL
FLOW
Environmental
FlowCOMPONENTS
Components
7000
Output from TNC’s IHA
software
Large flood
6000
Streamflow (cfs)
River Flow (cfs)
Streamflow Regime
5000
4000
3000
Small flood
High
flow
pulse
Extreme
low flow
Low
flow
2000
1000
0
For each:
Day of
of Year
Day
Year
Low Flow
High Flow Pulses
Large Flood
Extreme Low Flow
Magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, rate of change
Small Flood
Natural Ranges of Variation
Minimum
Integrity
Thresholds
Tying Biologic Needs to Hydrologic Conditions
The Verde River – three USGS gages
100000
1000
100
10
Paulden
Clarkdale
Camp Verde
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1
1998
Discharge, cfs
10000
Verde River Measured and Adjusted Discharge
120
110
Hickey Ditch
20
10
Cottonwood Ditch return flows
Beasley Flats
Camp Verde gage
W. Clear Creek
Eureka Ditch
OK Ditch
30
Diamond S Ditch
40
Cottonwood Ditch
50
Tunnel Diversion
60
Clarkdale gage
70
3
7
10
13
16
16
17
19
22
24
27
28
29
32
33
35
37
38
38
38
39
40
41
41
42
46
49
0
51
Discharge, cfs
80
Verde (Woods) Ditch
90
Beaver Creek
Oak Creek
100
Miles Upstream from Camp Verde gage
Measured Streamflow
Reconstructed Streamflow
Data from Bills, D. 2008. Summer base
flow evaluation of the Middle Verde River.
How do we DO it?
 2003: Global review found 207 methodologies applied
in 44 countries in six world regions.
Tharme, R.E. 2003. A global
perspective on environmental
flow assessment: River Res.
Applic. 19: 397–441
Poff, et al 2009. The ecological
limits of hydrologic alteration
(ELOHA): a new framework for
developing regional
environmental flow standards.
Freshwater Biology: 1365-2427
2009
Generic Freshwater Integrity Diagram
Climate
Precipitation Temperature Regime
Non-Native Species!
Precipitation Chemistry Regime
Precipitation Event Regime
Freeze/Thaw Regime
Hydrology
Water Flow Regime
Energy Inputs
Water Elevation Regime
Solar Radiation Influx Regime
Water Circulation Regime
Geothermal Energy Regime
Surface/Groundwater Exchange
Regime
Sediment &
Geomorphology
Bed Sediment Porosity-Texture
Regime
key ecological
factors of
Biological
Composition and
Structure,
& Biotic
Interactions
Bed/Bank Sediment Chemistry
Regime
Bed Sediment Erosion-Deposition
Regime
Coarse Organic Matter
Accumulation Regime
Ice Transport Regime
Water Chemistry
All Water Chemistry Regimes
Water Temperature Regime
Water-Borne Organic Matter
Regime
Connectivity
Drainage Channel Connectivity
Regime
Flood Inundation-Recession
Connectivity Regime
Water Turbidity/Clarity Regime
Verde River Ecological Flows Workshop
Experts created conceptual models of hydrology-biology relationships
Authors
•
Jeanmarie Haney
– The Nature Conservancy
•
Dale Turner
– The Nature Conservancy
•
Abe Springer
– NAU, PI
•
Julie Stromberg
– ASU
•
Larry Stevens
– Museum of N. Arizona
•
Phil Pearthree
– Arizona Geological Survey
•
Vashti Supplee
– Audubon Arizona
www.azconservation.org
speckled dace
Sonora sucker
Bald Eagle
Skipper butterfly
Ruby spot damsel fly
Wood duck
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Yellow-billed Cuckoo
©Jack Mills
Critical Thresholds
 Ecological processes and states have “natural
ranges of variation”
 Critical thresholds can be defined from an
understanding of the natural ranges of variation
 If a key ecological factor exceeds these limits,
target will lose its integrity
 You can not restore target integrity so long as
an altered factor remains outside a critical
threshold
Flow-ecology response curves for native fish and garter snake
Flow-ecology response curves for cottonwood (seedlings and mature
trees), tamarisk, and mesquite
Well Point Installation
Campbell Ranch
Middle Verde
Phase II
Three Study Sites
- riparian vegetation
- fish
- aquatic insects
West Clear Creek
Phase II
• Vegetation measured in plots
Elevation (m)
•
(stream edge to terrace)
For each plot:
- depth to water table
interpolated
- flood frequency estimated
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
Distance (m)
Cross section
Vegetation plots
Piezometers
Interpolated MaxGW
InterpolatedAvgGW
Phase II
Depth-to-water for riparian trees and shrubs
varies among species and functional types
ra
a
ns
gy
m
e
i
o
a
i
c
n
a
ti
s
a
is
iss
im
tin
gii
ta
tin
on
r
be
ar
mo
lic
o
os
ss
u
n
a
i
u
u
e
l
i
l
a
l
t
d
m
a
l
m
p
s
e
u
e
ajo
n
e
a
lin
a
l
re
v
c
v
dd
u
a
i
r
f
m
c
ir s
t
r
s
o
s
g
s
is
o
s
e
u
o
s
ix
e
si
a
re
sti
op
en
ar
inu
ulu
is
rn
ch
op
xg
nth
lan
s
x
e
l
t
i
i
l
c
l
p
m
m
r
e
a
g
o
a
l
Ba
Sa
Po
Fr
Ta
Ac
Ch
Ai
Fo
Hy
Ce
Pr
Ju
Maximum seasonal depth to water table (m)
lia
ifo
0
-2
-4
Hydric pioneers
-6
e.g. cottonwood, willow
-8
Verde River
Goodding’s willow
Salix gooddingii
Mesic
pioneer
Xeric
pioneer
e.g. tamarisk, boxelder, ash, ailanthus
e.g. mesquite, walnut, hackberry
Fremont cottonwood
Populus fremontii
Desert willow
Chilopsis linearis
Netleaf hackberry
Celtis laevigata var. reticulata
Herbaceous wetland p
Threshold response
Herbaceous wetland perennial cover (%)
Low-flow channel zone,
pre-monsoon season
100
San Pedro R.
Hassayampa R.
Verde R.
Cienega Ck.
Santa Cruz R.
Regression line
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
80
2)
Stream flow permanence (%)
100
Herbaceousspecies
wetlandrichness
perennial(no.
cover
Herbaceous
per(%)
m2)
Streamside herbaceous species
2)
Phase II
40
20
Linear
response
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
60
60
80
80
100
100
Low-flow channel zone,
Stream
flow permanence
(%)
pre-monsoon
season
100
8
80
6
60
San Pedro R.
Hassayampa R.
Verde R.
Cienega Ck.
Santa Cruz R.
Regression line
40
4
20
2
0
0 0
0
20
20
40
40
Stream flow permanence (%)
Stream flow permanence (%)
Phase II
Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
25
Log10 Den
20
Total No. Spp
Density/m2 or
Species Richness
Velocity consistently
positively related to
macroinvertebrate
variables
15
y = 3.492x + 4.7634
R² = 0.1354
10
y = 0.6912x + 2.2112
R² = 0.1197
5
Velocity (m/s)
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Velocity (m/s)
1.2
1.4
1.6
Hydrology- fish relationships
13 native + 30 nonnative fish species in watershed
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
17
00
19
26
19
38
19
57
19
63
19
67
19
71
19
76
19
80
19
84
19
88
19
92
19
96
20
00
20
04
Number of Sampling Sites
Fish Sampling Site Distribution
©Jeanmarie Haney/TNC
Year
Conclusions: Verde River flows and biodiversity
Vegetation
Water table decline- thresholds of mortality of
cottonwood, willow, shifts to shrubbier species
Base flow decline – thresholds of mortality of
bulrush, other streamside wetland plants
Increased stream intermittency- species richness
and total cover show linear response
Birds
Decline of obligate riparian birds as forests
decrease in structural complexity
Aquatic
Velocity positively correlated to density, species
invertebrates richness and diversity.
Fish
Habitat-flow associations, native/non-native
competition
Phase III - USGS
Determining flow-ecology
associations
 Habitat models
 Multivariate analyses
 Hydrological and
biologic metrics
 Hydraulic models
How does stream flow affect habitat
availability?
U.S. Examples
 Texas “Environmental flow standards”
 Connecticut “Flow regulation for all rivers and stream
systems”
 Florida “Minimum flows and levels”
 Michigan “Withdrawals from new large capacity wells
cannot decrease flows such that stream functionally
would be impaired.”
The best way to predict the future
is to invent it.
Alan Kay
Verde River – Dead Horse Point State Park
Jeanmarie Haney
[email protected]
nature.org
azconservation.org
Verde River – Beasley Flat
Example Freshwater Conservation Targets
 Gila River riverine habitat
 Gila Basin fish community:
Gila chub, spikedace,
loach minnow, desert pupfish, Gila topminnow, longfin dace,
desert sucker, Sonoran sucker
 Fremont cottonwood / Goodding willow forest
 Mesquite bosque
 Giant sacaton grassland
 Riverine marsh
 Riparian scrub
 Groundwater fed cienegas
A Framework for
Assessing Target Integrity
 Identify the “Key Ecological Factors”
for each conservation target
 Identify one or more “Indicators”
for each factor
 Identify critical conservation “Thresholds”
and “Management Goals” for these indicators
 “Rate” target integrity using the indicators to
assess target status
Key Ecological Factors
Those critical features of the
target and its environment
that we must maintain, in
order to ensure its long-term
integrity
Key Ecological Factors
• Size
Abundance or area
• Condition
Biological composition
Spatial structure
Biotic interactions
• Landscape context
Environmental regimes and constraints
Environmental connectivity