The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutProceedingsForumOnEcologicalFlowsSABFull416Proceedings of the IEI/SOG/NRLI Forum on the Report of the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board: What Does it Mean for Water Planning and Policy? Mary Lou Addor Natural Resources Leadership Institute Diane Cherry Institute for Emerging Issues Richard Whisnant UNC School of Government April 16, 2014 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Introduction North Carolina is blessed with abundant precipitation and water resources. To ensure that all water users will have ample fresh water supplies far into the future, the State has begun building hydrologic models for each of North Carolina’s major river basins. These models, coupled with demand projections from local water supply plans, give water resource managers the ability to accurately assess the probability that any given area of the state will face surface water shortfalls. Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board In 2010, the North Carolina General Assembly created a Science Advisory Board (SAB) to advise the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on ways to refine the State’s river basin hydrologic models. In the past, these models have looked only at extractive uses. The State had no method for assessing the many important in-stream uses of water other than costly, site-specific studies typically associated with permits. The legislature recognized the need to improve the State’s water planning by developing state-of-the-art ways to model in-stream needs, particularly the water needs for fish and other aquatic species. The legislature directed the SAB to be focused on science, rather than on water policy, with members required to have backgrounds in aquatic ecology or related fields. Appendix 1 contains the relevant portions of S.L. 2010-143, which directed the creation of the SAB. The sixteen members and their alternates represented a wide range of water users and scientific perspectives. Appendix 2 provides the full list of all SAB members. DENR created a supporting webpage, http://www.ncwater.org/?page=366, to post SAB proceedings, detailed summaries of its twenty-eight meetings, and the final comprehensive report. The SAB met twenty-eight times over the three-year period. The Natural Resources Leadership Institute at NC State University administered and facilitated each of the meetings. In addition, other organizations such as Research Triangle Institute, the U.S. Geological Survey, The Nature Conservancy, and DENR itself, conducted and reviewed research outside formal meetings that were summarized and presented back to the entire SAB. Some of this work is important enough in the field of aquatic ecology to stand on its own and will likely result in independent scientific journal publications. As part of its work, the SAB reviewed the science of ecological flow analysis and attempts by other states to incorporate it into their water resources planning. The SAB considered studies in North Carolina and elsewhere on the relationships between flow and habitat and between flow and biological condition. The various lines of inquiry are detailed in the SAB report, submitted to DENR in the fall of 2013. At the forum, they were summarized by Chris Goudreau, Special Projects Coordinator of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. His presentation is provided in Appendix 5 (Goudreau presentation to forum). Page 2 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Recommendations of the SAB to DENR The SAB reached a consensus on recommendations to DENR. The four primary recommendations were as follows: (1) to use a flow-by percentage between 80 and 90% as an indicator of potential low-flow related problems; (2) in considering the cumulative impact of present and future withdrawals, to use the date of the authorizing legislation (2010) as a baseline for identifying areas of possible concern; (3) to augment the flow-by analysis with some accounting for critical low flows; and (4) to flag areas with a predicted 5-10% reduction in biological response. The SAB also identified areas where the data did not allow clear conclusions on ecological flows, suggesting the need for further research. Chief among these gaps were coastal and headwaters streams. The SAB report was submitted to DENR in the fall of 2013. Following its receipt, DENR requested and received public comments on the report in late 2013. Stakeholder forum At a forum held on March 21, 2014, hosted by the Institute for Emerging Issues at N.C. State University in partnership with N.C. State’s Natural Resources Leadership Institute and the UNC School of Government, a diverse group of stakeholders was asked to respond to the SAB report. The forum planners and authors of this document believed there was a need to bring the work of the SAB to the attention of a wider group of people interested in water resource planning and policy in North Carolina. The forum was designed to give those people a summary of the SAB work, an update on DENR’s response to the SAB report, and a chance to give feedback on the report and its potential use. Forum attendees included representatives of local government and public utilities, state government, public interest groups, researchers, consultants and engineers. Appendix 3 provides a list of registered forum attendees and the forum agenda. The forum began with a summary of the SAB process (see Appendix 5), DENR’s plans in response to the SAB report (see Appendix 6), and a structured means for the participants to give feedback. That feedback is recorded and presented in the section below. Tom Fransen presented DENR’s response to the SAB work (see Appendix 6). He made clear that DENR sees the SAB report as a planning tool, not a substitute for existing permit or environmental review processes. The ecological flows analysis provides a way to determine which, if any, areas of the state need closer scrutiny when there are changes in flow regimes. DENR plans to use the flow-by recommendation, with a trigger level of 85% (absent an existing flow-by requirement), as a marker for stream reaches where closer scrutiny is needed. DENR does not plan to implement the biological response or critical low-flow recommendations at this time, pending further evaluation. Next steps for DENR include a peer review of the SAB report and a technical memo outlining its use in conjunction with the hydrologic models. Page 3 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Recommendations from forum participants As the planners had hoped, the forum participants’ responses provide a rich and diverse set of recommendations on qualities, problems and possible refinements to the SAB report. Anyone interested in water resources planning in the Southeastern United States would benefit from reading the responses in full. Many of them are aimed at particular facets of the water planning, policy and research worlds. On the whole, the forum participants were supportive of the SAB’s work and report. Most concerns centered on how the report will be used and how it will be understood by elected officials and others who may not be steeped in the science of aquatic ecology or hydrology. As a result of this primary set of concerns, one important general recommendation emerged: DENR should move quickly to prepare a technical memo explaining how the SAB report will be used in conjunction with its hydrologic models, and should also prepare some simpler explanation for interested persons to better understand the context for ecological flows analysis as a planning tool. This simpler explanation should help allay fears that the SAB report will create new regulatory hurdles. In fact, the SAB work was designed from the outset to provide a planning tool that simply helps assure all North Carolina water users—urban and rural, businesses and residences—that they will have the fresh water they need for decades to come. The work of the SAB should help State government focus its limited resources on areas that might, someday, experience water shortages. At the forum, Tom Fransen indicated that a draft technical memo was already in preparation, along with training materials for interested members of the public. Responses to the SAB report The participants broke into three discussion groups to give their responses to the report. The responses were focused on four questions: 1. What’s valuable in the report and why? 2. What concerns do you have about the report and why? 3. What do you understand the least and/or need more education about? 4. Do you have suggestions for further research or refinement of this work? The discussion groups were facilitated by Mary Lou Addor, Diane Cherry, and Richard Whisnant; the responses were generated by the participants; and Alexia Kelley, Allison Hawkins, and Grizel Gonzalez-Jeuck recorded the responses for the forum proceedings. Page 4 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report 1. WHAT’S VALUABLE IN THE REPORT AND WHY? General perceptions about the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board • Overall impressive job by SAB. • Range of engagement/expertise included to produce report info is positive. • Looked broadly at a significant set of information to come to an informed decision based on science. General perceptions about value of the report • Great report on best available science. • The report itself- one of the first efforts in the South. • Good baseline report. • Up to this point there was nothing in the planning process to deal with ecological considerations – this is a huge leap forward. A gap has been filled with this report – the information gap. Need action to come from the report. Ecological flows were taken into account before, but had no baseline. Now that all this information has been consolidated this will be a tremendous resource. • Excellent effort to evaluate the extent to which “ecological flow” can be accurately defined. • Establishes baseline that will not continually shift. • Creates an adaptable process. • Comprehensive but digestible summary of state of science around ecological flows. • Ecological health ......gives helpful information. • The science behind ecological flow. • The report gives ecological flows a place at the table. • The report represents a starting point for the stream flow conversation. • Developed with input from various stakeholders. • Report shows state of science, valuable background information and pushes science forward. Planning vs policy emphasis • Emphasis that the report should be used as a planning tool. • Planning approach captures/accounts for cumulative impacts. • Planning approach allows “flags” or concerns to hopefully be addressed before impacts to ecological integrity occur. • Report provides a platform for NC to make a much needed policy on instream/ecological flows. Page 5 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Practical/useful information in the report • Places scientific findings in terms relevant to water resources management and policy. • Flow classification is useful. • Glossary. Glossary. Glossary. • Definitions are valuable. • Graphs illustrating habitat of various flows. • Graphic Illustration in general. Review of strategies in other states • Identifies strategies being used elsewhere that are not justifiable in NC, based on analysis of NC data. • Examination (limited) of methods used in other places for same issue. • The report has screened various approaches to establishing ecological flows and provided recommendations as to their applicability in NC. Applicability to North Carolina • Understanding of NC knowledge base. • Provides state of the science understanding of the ecological flow needs in NC rivers and streams using NC data. • Approach shown to protect North Carolina resources (i.e. tested with PHABSim or biological sampling data). Applicability to DWR’s Work • Tool will allow DWR to incorporate updates to tool in regard to on-the-ground changes. • Potential to move resources planning to a sustainable basis. • May help to avert litigation over endangered species, water rights. • Provided a resource tool that DENR can put into practical use when making decisions. • The review of eco flow approaches is valuable, as well as the recommendation for ecological flows planning approach. Why: A planning approach will help target limited DWR resources to the places in greatest need on more-intense in-stream flow studies. • The report is critical to future water use in NC because it can provide a basis for ensuring provision of ecosystem services for future generations. DENR should go ahead and adopt all the recommendations. • Provides DWR with quality methods for flow planning. • Could ensure sustainability of flows in NC – DENR should adopt. • Need to understand what basic level of stream water supports all uses. • Need to understand existing demands • Need to prioritize uses if possible Page 6 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Applicability to Local Government • Could assist local government and utilities for planning best water sources in future. • May help to avert litigation over endangered species, water rights. • Creates a critical data point to add to water management discussions. Applicability to Researchers • Will be used to fill data gaps. • Valuable to document research and information gaps and needs that may guide future investments to improve/refine and extend ecological flows discussion and impacts (for example, coastal information gaps, additional metrics needed). • Identifies additional information and knowledge needed to refine quantification of ecological flows. Process that supported/continue to support the work of the EFSAB • Begins to engage community, water users and the public. • As a process person, good to understand how recommendations developed. • Good transparent process to develop report recommendations. • Report can be used to engage scientific community, water users, and public. • Group with diverse backgrounds came together and reached consensus. Responsiveness to ecological considerations (not in lieu of other interests but in tandem with them) • Advanced water planning may allow for targeted investments that both support economic growth (through information) and protect environmental values (open space, healthy rivers). • Shines light on relative importance of maintaining flow for ecological needs. • History and need for ecological flow development. • Protection of natural flow variability. • Shows the benefits of protecting natural flows, problems deviating from those flows. Specific science-based generated information • Research into correlating biological response to degree of flow alteration is very valuable; it’s ground breaking work. • Tying the ecological health to a flow-by % gives modelers a relatively simple parameter to utilize in gauging withdrawal impacts. • Flow-by approach to ecological flows is a very important, positive development in how we look at stream flow in NC. • Actual predictions of flow that are needed to maintain ecological integrity. • Different methods to determine appropriate flow regimes. Page 7 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Results from the report found to be of value • Trend setting analysis to establish correlation between biotic and hydrologic data alterations. • Relationships between statistics and ecology. • Scientifically-credible in-stream flow recommendations. • The attempt to figure out how stream flow characteristics are related to ecological habitat function and set a framework for its evaluation and acknowledging that we as a society need to balance our water needs and patterns of use with ecosystem health. • Highlights the needs of headwaters streams. • Provides strategy for assessing amount of water needed in streams to maintain ecological integrity. • Discussion of cumulative impacts and baseline “status” is valuable for discussion. 2. WHAT CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE ABOUT THE REPORT AND WHY? Postponement of Critical Low-Flow Component • Concerned that critical low flow piece is not being implemented – understand the desire for more analysis, but the [component] need not be lost. • Two categories: threatened and endangered – important regulatory system already in play. Of more concern: Fishable use in Clean Water Act and how critical low flow may impact that. DENR could investigate these • Concern with low flow, especially headwaters – reasonable that at certain times flow will be zero and wild swings in natural regimes. Further conceptual challenges from a water planning perspective. • Drought response plans address critical low-flow but they don’t address ecological flow for local governments. • Threshold needs to be integrated into model to protect species from “crisis”. Postponement of Biological Response Component • Not going to use the info on biological response, which is a critical data point in determining ecological health. Process to Determine When Evaluation Occurs • Determine how these flags are going to translate into running out of water, etc. • Use of a daily step/interval results in large fluctuations, but the Corp of Engineers requires and focuses on a consistent flow in highly managed basins such as the Neuse. Wild fluctuations could cause “more study required” too often. • For red bin sites, it is vague as to whether additional study may lead to more regulation for users affecting those nodes. • Unclear how models will be implemented in terms of application and enforcement. Page 8 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Process to Distribute Water Allocations • How are water flow allocations going to be worked out? • It is focused on ecological flows and doesn’t deal with allocation of flow resources. • Relationship between other “needs” not explored. • Unclear how much consideration is given to robust water supply efforts already being done (these efforts may be addressed during implementation). Implications Concerns on Economic Development • Will the report or the manner in which it is used result in negative impacts of our state’s efforts to expand economic development? • From an economic perspective, it gives specific information to companies coming, which can be seen as encouraging because there is less unknown. • How will planning-aspect bleed over into regulation? Will having this plan dissuade outside companies from coming into the state? Further published guidance explaining how the report will be used could mitigate this. • But there is still a concern that the companies will write off NC before getting to see this, if the report and its context are not properly presented. Communication of the Report • Transparency is very important for future use of the report. • This is such a scientific document. Translating it into a language that can be understood by a majority of legislature/government officials not involved in this program [could be difficult]. • Report is nested within other decisions within DWR, so the SAB worked very hard to just focus on the science so that others could determine the use of the information. Implementation Concerns for the Report Misinterpretation of the report • Misinterpretation of the report as policy or regulatory rather than recommendations as a planning tool. • This report would become part of the permitting process causing further delays and increasing the cost to determine the best sources of water for a community. • Misinterpretation of statute and the planning purpose, and fear of impact on permitting will stifle efforts moving forward. • How will the report and models ultimately feed into regulatory programs. Page 9 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Will not be implemented • Report recommendations may not be implemented. • A major concern is that it could wind up sitting on the shelf and not be implemented; however, it sounds from the presentations that this is not likely to happen since DENR has already embraced at least portions of the recommendations. • Implementation won’t occur by DENR because resources get shifted to other hot topics and political pressures. • Implementation of models/plans doesn’t stand up to permittee demands. • Science will be discounted and no policy put in place • Recommendations will not be implemented over time. Did not consider all constraints in statute • Did not examine all constraints in statute in recommendations. • Comparisons to South Carolina, which had less focus on ecological flow. • Myopic – no allocation system, so only deals with one small aspect. Moving from riparian state to flow state. Branching out to other aspects, not just ecological flow, is important. • Basin models do incorporate other aspects, than just flow. • The report does not answer the biggest question – How will DWR implement an eco-flows analysis in its basin planning? Why: Certain people have raised big concerns. Implications for local water supply. Use of broad-brush approach • Acts as a de facto rule since uniform recommendations for all waters instead of unique recommendations for each basin. Resources to Implement Report • What support, internal or external to DWR can be identified to move forward with report’s next steps or needs? • The need for integration of this into water management as a whole. • There are tens of thousands of days in the period of record in these basin models and the driving criteria for bin categorization for each model node can be determined by any one of these days. As such, the DWR is probably going to have to develop additional criteria to really sort out where the problems are – otherwise they may be creating an overwhelming amount of additional analysis and work for themselves • DWR needs to develop additional criteria to determine where problems are. • Do we need further DENR study? Especially with the current political situation at DENR • Limited resources to carry forward. Page 10 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Unclear Timeline for Implementation • Unclear what (if any) time frame for DWR actions – to incorporate recommendations and/or complete additional research to address recommendations is defined as “open ended” timeline will be challenging to execute/implement for DWR. Contributions of Organizations • Perhaps does not fully describe/detail the somewhat piecemeal nature of the assorted work efforts that contributed to the report. Future Opportunities for the EFSAB • How the report will be implemented and future opportunities for the EFSAB to contribute to the process. • Role of the board after completion is unclear. To date it seems DWR is expected to defend the science of the report but they may not know the details enough to do this. o Pro: Protects the integrity of science and the process of Board. o Con: may be unable to use tool if not defended appropriately. Aspects of Offline Storage • Does not account for skimming to offline storage at higher rates during flood conditions. • Offline storage can help reduce problems, but model doesn’t allow for more than 15% storage. This strategy should be incorporated into the models. • Response: 15% at high flow is a lot of water. • It’s not that models can handle more than 15%, it’s how model is parameterized. Not just skimming, but also reallocation. Limitations of the Research Lacks peer review • The peer review – reviews can be greatly influenced by the personalities and/or ideologies of the reviewers – I encourage careful selection of objective, credible, rational reviewers – preferably selected by some independent third party, not DENR. • Fail to understand the need/value in further DENR study, especially in view of the lack of credibility that DENR top level management have engendered with the public by their shift in philosophy under the present administration. • Sounds like during public comment there was a question about reviewing science. Is the science under review too? • Review process needs improvement. Page 11 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report More site specific studies • Any determination of whether flow-by is good enough? Possible for further research section • Insufficient model runs to understand application consequences. • Need site specific studies • Minimal data points in Catawba and Yadkin basins. Species Data • Was impact mitigated with other habitat? • Were species native to area? Age of Data • How old was data used in education? Baseline Data Approach • DWR needs to also model natural conditions as well as baseline to do comparisons. • Needs to model natural condition as well as baseline (2010). • 2010 data used in baseline....Was there enough water in the stream to protect the biological communities in 2010? Larger Bodies of Water Data • Majority of data is from wadeable water bodies – what about larger bodies of water? • Applicability of approach to large rivers because there’s little data to show how large rivers respond. Lack of Eco-region representation • DWR modeling just assumes 85% randomly – should be more basin-specific. • Prevailing ecological conditions were based on only 14 sites? • More observed data would strengthen models. • Lack of data to represent all the ecoregions of the state equally. • The assumption that coastal streams are less “altered” in terms of hydrology and salinity. Data not included • Ambient data was not used. • No climate projection, predictions, or input. • Not very much emphasis on restoration of impacted ecology due to inadequate flows. Page 12 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report 3. WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE LEAST AND/OR NEED MORE EDUCATION ABOUT? Application of the Recommendations by DWR Use in long-range water planning • • How DWR will use results. • How will agency really use this? • How DWR application will impact offline storage alternative. • How is flow-by assessed? • How water allocation decisions will actually be made as we approach limits of sustainability in some basins. • How is adaptive management going to be implemented? • Will this promote more wastewater treatment discharge, make available? • Will this improve assimilative capacity in streams for WUT? Timeline for review of recommendations DWR put on hold • The critical low flow component. • As Tom indicated there will be times when flows get below this level but could it still be useful for planning if tweaked? • For the portion of the flow that is below the critical low-flow threshold how will further study be done? Linking all water uses (essential and ecological) • What is DENR’s intention with implementing these results and what does this do for flows planned at water treatment facilities not yet used? • Discussion of essential uses as compared to all uses and modeling approach and implementation. • How is model used/applied under DWR for emergency water allocations requests? (also in relation to essential needs considerations). • The “direct” line between guidance “rule” “law” and how this will affect the interested community. • As time goes on and water users (e.g. municipalities/utilities) start the permitting process for future supplies identified in their local supply plans, if those water supply projects turn out to force “red bin” conditions at model nodes and additional study is required, will DWR be asking the utilities to pay for the additional studies? Will bin conditions be used as reason for determining preferential water supply projects? • Droughts plans may be instituted by water providers, but what if there is no significant reduction in water usage by customers? Page 13 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report In working with other agency mandates • How will DWR apply results in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ mandated flow regions? In working with current projects • How will it affect “new” projects, such as the Cleveland County project? Approval by EMC • What does the EMC’s approval of the models actual mean? Approve it as planning process or impose flow-by-requirements? Treatment of Existing/Prevailing Conditions • Under existing conditions how often do streams/river basins fall below the flow needed for ecological integrity? Only during drought years? Or more regularly? • Unclear about permit “conditions” and how grandfathering will work when assessing prevailing conditions. Some withdrawals have a minimum and maximum so conditions will alter based on what operation is in use currently. • How much difference is there between existing permit conditions and new flow-by conditions? • What if the baseline is already stressed? Additional Explanations Modeling • How model can effectively apply daily flow-by when not designed to do so. • How data inputs into the flow models can affect the outcome. What is the quality of the data? What are the sources? Is any of the data subjective? • Interaction of “flashiness” with ecological flows analysis. About the Report • It is not likely the report or the issues will be understood by local and state level policy makers and elected officials. • The statistics behind the biological response curves are complex and while I trust them, they need to be made understandable by the public. • The science! • I don’t entirely understand where things go from here and how much more study DENR intends to conduct on those recommendations they chose to adopt at this juncture. • Importance of eco-flows to protect aquatic life and down-stream users (public education is needed). • How ecological flows can be used to assure higher flows as well as protect from dewatering streams. Page 14 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Work of RTI • Influence of upstream land use conditions on calculated eco-deficits. • Would be helpful to have more information/explanation on the flow ecology graphs that came out of the RTI research. • The statistical analysis data filtering associated with the biological response thresholds. Classification of Rivers and Streams • Scientific rationale for not proposing any type of stream classification; deviation from ELOHA framework. • Headwaters- what different questions were posed? Can you prioritize? • Coastal plain reactions/impact from upstream flow changes. 4. DO YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH OR REFINEMENT OF THIS WORK? Furthering the Work Next Steps for DWR • DWR/EMC should publish a TM (technical memo) that describes the way it will implement ecological flows analysis in its basin plan. • Eco-flows should be integrated in some hydrological models [now] so that we can learn from and improve them. • See how implementation works in modeling/planning for one or two basins and adjust if needed. • EMC help [support] DENR. • Interested in bringing up level of understanding of competing demands for water. Ensure Legal Analysis • Re-examine statutory mandate vs. results. • Legal analysis of whether uniform standard is de facto rule and thus banned. • Emphasize/make part of law that SAB recommendations can’t be used for water use permitting/how DENR responds to water availability measures. Next Steps for EFSAB • Bring EFSAB back together or keep group together as recommendations are implemented and where are opportunities for future contribution. Coordination of Future Research • How can we coordinate efforts to get more intensive research conducted? • What proactive steps can be made to address “gaps” in next steps outlined in report? • Define next steps or opportunities for additional research and the specific research needed. Page 15 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Strategies for Monitoring • Determine what additional monitoring is needed in order to improve the knowledge needed that will assist in better understanding the impacts of flow on biological communities. Advise the division of Water Resources to make these a priority. • How can the efforts of DWR to incorporate these recommendations be evaluated over time to understand their impact on planning efforts? Public outreach and education • Hold workshops after public hearing and peer review. Addendums to Report • Add the term “flow-by” to glossary. Peer Review • Should the Instream Flow Council be considered as the only peer group to involve? Expand Understanding/Knowledge About: Adaptive Management • Adaptive management: what do models say? What does field response say? How is the information fed back into the model or expressed in permitting? Coastal and Headwaters Research and Ecological Flows • Examine how results are applied for fishable use under CWA. • Additional research pertaining to how to plan for streams that fall outside scope of report: 1. Coastal, 2. Headwaters. • Planning for changes in flows along coast as sea level rises. • Coastal area recommendations should at some point be developed. Land Use Change and Ecological Flows • Model land use change and water for planning. • Research limitations, limited exploration of impact of variables (indirect), such as climate change, land use change, integration of water quality with flow (see refinement of work). • Land use change increases storm water run-off, surface and groundwater recharge and alters flows. • Future incorporation of land use and population change and climate variability projection will be important components. • Useful to have a credible way to integrate impervious surface/changes to baseflow. Page 16 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Climate Change and Ecological Flows • Implications of climate change (use downscale climate models to change inflow)? Economic Benefits and Ecological Flows • Economic benefits of protecting river flows and river ecology. • Further conversation/study may be needed on the relationship between ecological flows and ground water levels. Minimum, Low and Critical Flows • Impact of setting minimum flow thresholds. • Were drought plans intended to address ecological flow? • Define critical low flows to augment flow-by approach. • Will stream reaches be able to be impaired because of low flow? Current PHABSIM Data • Analyze additional PHABSIM sites for habitat response to different flow management strategies. • Re-run some of the remaining PHABSIM sites that are left on the shelf. • Does reduced ecological flow help replace nature habitat if reduced and get rid of invasive species? Continued Biological Sampling • More biological sampling to cover parts/systems in the state that are underrepresented. • More long term data sets to collect biological samples at sites as flow conditions change over time. • Expand number of fish monitoring sites to adjacent states. • Develop curves for additional species/guilds/taxa. Eco-deficit Approach • Further refinement, peer review of eco deficit approach. • Quantify change in geographic prevalence and magnitude of eco-deficits under future climate and economic development scenarios. Larger River Data • More basin specific. • Larger water bodies, original focus was mainly on wadeable. • Large river data. Page 17 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Aspects of Modeling • Examine whether OASIS model can achieve statutory requirement of ecological flow determinations. • How will model represent quality and quantity if not site specific? • Applying the findings of the SAB, do the model results (i.e. predictors) match up well with the WQ sampling and biodiversity sampling for certain stream segments where such sampling has been completed? This may have been done already? • Ability of hydrologic models to capture future land use changes and resulting flow changes because they use historical flow records. • More modeling should be undertaken to incorporate watershed condition into water resource planning in addition to the flow considerations. • Need to determine whether analysis of nodes on a daily basis is going to be productive or going to bog down the analysis/planning • Examination of “unaltered” hydrology. Page 18 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Appendices 1. Session Law 2010-143 (in relevant part), directing the creation of the Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board 2. List of EFSAB members and alternates 3. Registered participants at the forum 4. Forum agenda 5. Presentation by Chris Goudreau summarizing the SAB report 6. Presentation by Tom Fransen explaining DENR’s plans for report implementation Page 19 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report App. 1 Relevant parts of legislation creating the EFSAB (emphasis added) SESSION LAW 2010-143 HOUSE BILL 1743 The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts: …. SECTION 2. G.S. 143-355 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(o) Basinwide Hydrologic Models. – The Department shall develop a basinwide hydrologic model for each of the 17 major river basins in the State as provided in this subsection. (1) Definitions. – As used in this subsection: a. "Ecological flow" means the stream flow necessary to protect ecological integrity. b. "Ecological integrity" means the ability of an aquatic system to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization comparable to prevailing ecological conditions and, when subject to disruption, to recover and continue to provide the natural goods and services that normally accrue from the system. c. "Groundwater resource" means any water flowing or lying under the surface of the earth or contained within an aquifer. d. "Prevailing ecological conditions" means the ecological conditions determined by reference to the applicable period of record of the United States Geological Survey stream gauge data, including data reflecting the ecological conditions that exist after the construction and operation of existing flow modification devices, such as dams, but excluding data collected when stream flow is temporarily affected by in-stream construction activity. e. "Surface water resource" means any lake, pond, river, stream, creek, run, spring, or other water flowing or lying on the surface of the earth. …. (4) Ecological flow. – The Department shall characterize the ecology in the different river basins and identify the flow necessary to maintain ecological integrity. The Department shall create a Science Advisory Board to assist the Department in characterizing the natural ecology and identifying the flow requirements. The Science Advisory Board shall include representatives from the Divisions of Water Resources and Water Quality of the Department, the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission, and the Natural Heritage Program. The Department shall also invite participation by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; the National Marine Fisheries Service; representatives of organizations representing agriculture, forestry, manufacturing, electric public utilities, and local governments, with expertise in aquatic ecology and habitat; and other individuals or organizations with expertise in aquatic ecology and habitat. The Department shall ask the Science Advisory Board to review any report or study submitted to the Department for consideration that is relevant to characterizing the ecology of the different river basins and identifying flow requirements for maintenance of ecological integrity. The Department shall consider such other information, including site specific analyses, that either the Board or the Department considers relevant to determining ecological flow requirements. Page 20 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report App. 2 Science Advisory Board members and alternates Page 21 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Page 22 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report App. 3 List of Registered Forum Participants Name Title Organization Mary Lou Addor Director & Specialist NC State University, Extension, Natural Resources Leadership Institute Robin Aldina Energy Analyst North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association Robert Belk Associate Hazen and Sawyer Tim Broome Water Resources Engineer Johnston County, Department of Public Utilities David Brown Project Director University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Government Diane Cherry Environments Policy Manager Institute for Emerging Issues, NC State University Chandra Coats Director of Public Utilities Johnston County Ray Cox Engineer Highfill Infrastructure Engineering Vernon Cox Director North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Plant Industry Division Nora Deamer Water Basin Planner Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Shannon Deaton Program Manager North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Scott Farmer Water Resources Engineer City of Greenville Public Utilities Bob George President The George Institute Grizel JeuckConzalez Master’s Degree Candidate & Facilitator NC State University Chris Goudreau Special Projects Coordinator North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Kevin Greer Assistant Public City of Hickory Page 23 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Services Director Pat Harris Director North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Soil and Water Conservation Bill Holman North Carolina Director The Conservation Fund Preston Howard President North Carolina Manufacturers Alliance Jeff Hughes Director University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center Jim Johnson Partner Blount Street Advisors Alexia Kelley Facilitator Natural Resources Leadership Institute Keith Larick Environmental Programs Specialist North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services George Matthis President River Guardian Foundation Grady McCallie Policy Director North Carolina Conservation Network Dan McLawhorn Associate City Attorney City of Raleigh Jim Mead (Retired) Water Resources Specialist North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources Sydney Miller Water Resources Engineer Town of Cary Steven Nebiker Water Resources Engineer HydroLogics Reed Palmer Senior Principal Engineer Hazen and Sawyer Heather Patt Water Basin Planner Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Sam Pearsall Scientist North Carolina Environmental Defense Fund Amy Pickle Director of State Policy Duke University, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions Page 24 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report Peter Raabe North Carolina Conservation Director American Rivers Rhett Register Science Writer & Editor Water Resources Research Institute, University of North Carolina System Heather Saunders Benson Senior Planner, Water Resources Triangle J Council of Governments Adam Sharpe Project Manager CH2M Hill Nancy Sharpless Facilitator Natural Resources Leadership Institute David Springer Water Resources Plant Engineer City of Greenville Utilities Commission Vann Stancil Special Project Coordinator North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Fred Tarver Aquatic Ecology Specialist North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources Ivan Urlaub Executive Director North Carolina Sustainable Energy Association Kenneth Waldroup Assistant Public Utilities Director City of Raleigh Forrest Westall Executive Director Upper Neuse River Basin Association Richard Whisnant Prof. of Public Law & Policy UNC Chapel Hill School of Government Susan White Executive Director Water Resources Research Institute, University of North Carolina System & North Carolina Sea Grant Program Anthony Whitehead Water Quality Manager City of Greenville Utilities Commission David Williams Deputy Director North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Soil and Water Conservation Page 25 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report App. 4 Forum Agenda James B. Hunt, Jr. Library, NC State University Rooms B & C, Second Floor 8:15 a.m. Breakfast Served Provided by Institute for Emerging Issues, Natural Resources Leadership Institute and School of Government 8:40 - 8:50 a.m. Welcome & Goals of the Meeting Diane Cherry, Environments Policy Manager, Institute for Emerging Issues & Mary Lou Addor, Director, Natural Resources Leadership Institute & Extension Organizational Development • Understanding the charge and the work of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) • Understanding the Ecological Flows Report • Implications for DENR’s work • General comments on the report and understanding how to become better educated about it 8:50 - 9:20 a.m. North Carolina Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board Recommendations Chris Goudreau, Special Projects Coordinator, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission • How the SAB came to be • SAB’s work • Recommendations in the report 9:20 - 9:50 a.m. Implementation of the Report & Recommendations Tom Fransen, Water Resources Section Planning Chief, Division of Water Resources, NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources • How DENR will implement the report and its use in hydrologic modeling • What are DENR’s next steps 9:50 – 10:00 a.m. Break 10:00 - 10:20 a.m. Clarifying Questions for Chris & Tom Page 26 Proceedings of the Forum on the NC EFSAB Report ver 2.0 for review and comment only; do not copy or distribute Page 27 Facilitated by Richard Whisnant, Professor of Public Law and Policy, UNC Chapel Hill School of Government 10:20 - 11:20 a.m. Breakout Sessions: Rooms 4101, 4105, and 4107 Facilitated by Richard Whisnant, Diane Cherry & Mary Lou Addor Recorders: Allison Hawkins, Institute for Emerging Issues; Grizel Gonzalez- Jeuck, Natural Resources Leadership Institute; Alexia Kelley, Natural Resources Leadership Institute Break into three concurrent groups to answer these questions below. Please note your affiliation when you answer the questions (public interest groups, researchers, consultants, local government & public utility, state government, other): 1.What’s valuable in the report and why? 2.What concerns do you have about the report and why? 3.What do you understand the least and/or need more education about? 4.Do you have suggestions for further research or refinement of this work? Highlight within each group what you would like reported out 11:20 – 11:45 a.m. Small Group Report Back •Group 1 •Group 2 •Group 3 11:45 a.m. Next Steps & Adjourn •Conference proceedings available on the EFSAB website •Summary of work available for public distribution App. 5 Presentation by Chris Goudreau summarizing the SAB report Ins$tute for Emerging Issues March 21, 2014 Chris Goudreau N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission Background  Session Law 2010-‐143  Requires DENR to develop basinwide hydrologic models for each of the 17 major river basins in NC  Simulate flows to determine if adequate water is available to meet all needs, including essen$al water uses and ecological flows  Does not:  replace site-‐specific studies  vary exis$ng permits/licenses 2 What are Ecological Flows?  The Session Law defines ecological flow as “the stream flow necessary to protect ecological integrity.”  Ecological integrity is defined (in S.L.) as “the ability of an aqua$c system to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adap$ve community of organisms having a species composi$on, diversity, and func$onal organiza$on comparable to prevailing ecological condi$ons and, when subject to disrup$on, to recover and con$nue to provide the natural goods and services that normally accrue from the system.”  “prevailing” not in original def. (Karr and Dudley 1981) 3 Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board  SL 2010-‐143 directs DENR to “create a Science Advisory Board to assist the Department in characterizing the natural ecology and iden$fying the flow requirements.”  Role:  water resource planning  recommend scien$fically-‐based methods or approaches and ecological flow requirements  Not a role:  water-‐use permiang  recommending how DENR responds to a water-‐availability issue  advising DENR on how to use the EFSAB recommenda$ons 4 Makeup of the EFSAB 1. Academic Research – Duke University 2. Agriculture – NC State University; NC Division of Soil and Water Conserva$on 3. Electric Public U$li$es – Duke Energy Carolinas 4. Environmental NGOs – Environmental Defense Fund; The Nature Conservancy 5. Local Governments – Hazen & Sawyer; Mecklenburg County 6. NC American Water Works Associa$on – CH2M HILL 7. NC Division of Water Resources 8. NC Division of Water Quality 9. NC Environmental Management Commission 10. NC Forestry Associa$on – NC Forest Service; USDA Forest Service 11. NC Natural Heritage Program 12. NC Marine Fisheries Commission – East Carolina University; NC Division of Coastal Management 13. NC Wildlife Resources Commission 14. US Geological Survey 15. US Fish and Wildlife Service 16. US Na$onal Marine Fisheries Service Facilita$on provided by N.C. State University’s Natural Resources Leadership Ins$tute and NCSU Coopera$ve Extension Met 28 $mes between November 2010 and October 2013 5 Importance of Flow  “Master variable” of riverine systems  Determines water quality, biology, physical habitat, and energy transfer  All components of the flow regime (magnitude, dura$on, frequency, $ming, and rate of change), including natural variability, are important to maintaining ecological integrity  Natural variability of flows includes intra-‐annual and inter-‐annual variability and consists of extreme low flows, low flows, high flow pulses, small floods, and large floods  Collec$vely, these concepts are known as the “natural flow paradigm” 6 Flow Regime Tied to Ecology Base Flows Subsistence Flows Overbank Flows High Flow Pulses Conserve biological func$on Conserve biological diversity, habitat diversity and water quality Provide for life history and geomorphic processes Maintain floodplain Moisture and nutrients to floodplain Riparian recruitment Water quality tolerances Key habitat thresholds Flow-‐dependent habitat Bank storage/moisture Suitable temperatures & DO Fish spawning cues Maintain channel Sediment/nutrient transport Sound Ecological Environment 7 Flow Components Many studies have shown that altering one or more flow regime components can significantly impact biota 8 ELOHA (Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Altera$on)  Start with regional hydrologic models  Iden$fy stream types expected to respond differently to flow altera$on  Model ecological responses to flow altera$on for each stream type  Use ecological models with socially-‐determined objec$ves to decide on flow requirements  Monitor outcomes, improve models, repeat 9 ELOHA 10 Advancing the Science: Stream Classifica$on  DWR worked with a consultant to characterize and classify North Carolina streams based on flow characteris$cs from USGS gage data  Resulted in a classifica$on scheme comprised of seven stream classes that generally reflected stream size and flow stability 11 Class Characteris$cs – Hydrologic 12 Advancing the Science: Stream Classifica$on Problems  Classes generated from hydrology derived from USGS gages onen differed from hydrology created from the WaterFALL rain-‐runoff model  Stream hydrology classifica$on approach should not be extrapolated beyond the USGS gages to ungaged sites  Dropped this approach 13 Characterizing Stream Ecology  Covered in DENR basin water quality plans  In light of other findings, EFSAB report gives summary descrip$ons based on eco-‐region and stream size 14 Basic Streams in NC Mountain • Less altered • Steep • Cold-‐Cool Piedmont • More altered • Moderate • Cool-‐Warm Coast • Less altered • Flat • Warm • Tidal / non-‐$dal Headwater • Drainage area <10 km2 • All parts of the state • Comprise majority of mileage • Limited hydrologic and biologic data 15 Types of Eco-‐flow Recommenda$ons  Minimum Flow Threshold  Sta$s$cally-‐based Standard  Percent of Flow Standard 16 Minimum Flow Threshold  May be a single value or seasonally adjusted (e.g., South Carolina)  Can be based on low-‐flow sta$s$c (e.g., 7Q10) or a percentage of mean annual flow (MAF)  Reduces inter-‐ and intra-‐annual variability  Can “flat-‐line” the hydrograph if withdrawal is large 17 Sta$s$cally-‐Based Standard  Flow components include:  Cri$cal low, low, high flow pulses, small floods, high floods  Wet, normal, dry years  For each component, includes magnitude, dura$on, frequency, season  Tied to ecologically significant events  e.g., spawning, floodplain rejuvena$on, fry/juvenile growth, migra$on, sediment movement, channel maintenance  Hard to implement in a model 18 Percent of Flow Standard  Remove X% of water flowing by for a given $me step  X generally 6 – 20%  Time step can be daily, weekly, etc.  X can differ by season  Percent-‐of-‐flow is easiest way to maintain all five flow components and variability  aka “flow-‐by” 19 Strategies to Determine Ecological Flows  Reviewed many other states and regions  Habitat response models  Habitat quan$ty and quality are measured rela$ve to flow  Indirect and intermediate measure of expected biological response  Biological response models  Composi$on and structure of the biological community is measured rela$ve to flow 20 Strategies to Determine Ecological Flows  Coastal systems  Low gradient and $dally-‐influenced streams func$on differently from other inland streams  Flow may play a secondary role to other factors including $des, salt concentra$on, and community structure and func$on  Approaches  Inflow-‐based – keep flow within prescribed bounds  Condi$on-‐based – set flow to maintain a specified condi$on (e.g., salinity) at a given point in the estuary  Resource-‐based – sets flow based on the requirements of specific resources (e.g., shrimp) 21 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Habitat Rela$onships  Habitat response models  Uses a suite of biota habitat preference curves to ensure that all types of habitat are represented  PHABSIM  Common habitat model  Used in NC for hydro relicensing and water withdrawal studies 22 Flow-‐Habitat Studies in NC 23 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Habitat Rela$onships 24 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Habitat Rela$onships 25 Percent of Piedmont Sites not Protec$ng 80% of Habitat for Deep Guild 26 Percent of Mountain Sites not Protec$ng 80% of Habitat for Shallow Guild 27  Generally, flow scenarios that deviate most from the unaltered condi$on were least protec$ve of habitat (i.e., more water is berer)  Less clear, which flow scenarios were consistently best when considering all permuta$ons of region, season, guild group  More could be done to expand the number of sites, but these are intensive efforts; the easiest sites have been done Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Habitat Rela$onships 28 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Ecology Rela$onships  Ecological integrity inferred from fish or benthic macroinvertebrate community structure metrics  Two basic approaches  Relate biological condi$ons to flow across a range of flow condi$ons (space for $me)  Relate changes in biological condi$on to flow at a site over $me  Organiza$ons outside of the EFSAB tried both approaches and reported their results to the Board  RTI Interna$onal (RTI) and USGS – used space for $me  The Nature Conservancy – used both approaches 29 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Ecology Rela$onships  649 fish and 1,227 benthos “wadeable” sites across NC  RTI/USGS conducted numerous sta$s$cal analyses to find meaningful rela$onships between fish/benthos and flow metrics  Significant rela$onships were found between six flow metrics and:  Shannon-‐Weaver Diversity Index of the riffle-‐run fish guild  EPT taxa richness  Flow metrics – annual and seasonal ecodeficits and reduc$ons in the average 30-‐day minimum flow  Arempted to include other explanatory factors (e.g., stream size and basin characteris$cs), but these were unsuccessful 30 Fish Dataset  NCDWQ wadeable streams data; not trout 31 32 Fish Benthos Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Ecology Rela$onships  Ecodeficit – sum of reduc$ons in flow between altered and unaltered flow dura$on curves  Auto-‐correla$on among 100+ flow metrics 33 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Ecology Rela$onships  The Nature Conservancy  Fish diversity and abundance  141 wadeable sites in Roanoke, Cape Fear, Tar, and Lirle Tennessee basins  Compared to flow for the period of 1992 – 2009  Many sites saw lirle change in fish diversity/abundance over $me  However, fish abundance and diversity declined in por$ons of the Cape Fear and Tar basins  To understand the direct influence of water withdrawals, only sites located downstream of known water withdrawals were analyzed further (N=14)  Nega$ve rela$onship between fish diversity and the rela$ve size of the water withdrawal; sta$s$cally significant, but low explanatory power  10% ↓in MAF → 5-‐10% ↓ in species diversity  50% ↓in MAF → 25-‐ 30% ↓ in species diversity 34 Advancing the Science: Flow-‐Ecology Rela$onships 35 Advancing the Science: Coastal Considera$ons 36 Advancing the Science: Coastal Considera$ons EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow (1)  Default statewide approach  80-‐90% of the instantaneous modeled baseline flow  Why a range?  No apparent threshold from habitat response analyses  Flow-‐by percentages >80% were most consistently protec$ve  No consensus on a single flow-‐by percentage by the EFSAB  Similar to values from other jurisdic$ons  DENR discre$on to select the most appropriate value for planning purposes 37 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow (2) 38 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow (3)  “Instantaneous” = normal $me step of the model (typically daily)  Model cumula$ve effects to avoid impacts of a series of withdrawals 39 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow (4)  Combine with a cri$cal low-‐flow component  Protect the aqua$c ecosystem during periods of drought  Prevent increasing the frequency or dura$on of extreme low flows that are damaging to ecosystem health  Use 20th percen$le flow as a cri$cal low flow (by month)  Ecological flow threshold is the larger of the flow-‐by and cri$cal low-‐flow values 40 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow (5)  Model should include following flow regimes  natural (without any withdrawals or returns)  baseline (with current withdrawals and returns)  projected (with current and future withdrawals and returns)  Comparisons  baseline:natural = how much hydrology has already been altered  baseline:future = effects of future withdrawals and returns  Model updates should keep baseline as 2010 condi$ons to avoid comparisons to a con$nually shining “current” condi$on 41 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow (6)  Run basin model with 2 hydrology datasets – full and trimmed (10-‐90%) 42 # $mes threshold exceeded Condi$on DENR Ac$on Full Trimmed 0 0 Green None 1+ 0 Yellow Begin review of water usage that may be contribu$ng to the devia$ons. Management tools, including water shortage and drought response plans, should be evaluated for the purpose of maintaining ecological integrity. 1+ 1+ Red Addi$onal review could include ac$ons such as conduc$ng site-‐specific evalua$ons or review and modeling of any biological data that are available EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Biological Response  DENR should evaluate the use of these models to assess changes in biological condi$ons associated with projected changes in flow  A 5-‐10% change in biological condi$on suggested as an ini$al criterion for further review  Based on average range of EPT richness within the invertebrate condi$on classes (Excellent, Good, Good-‐Fair, Fair, and Poor) as defined by DENR  The 5-‐10% criterion represents a change of one-‐quarter to one-‐half of the width of a condi$on class 43 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Biological Response 44 19% ∆ 7% ∆ Exceeds 10% “flag” EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Excep$ons – Coastal  No numerical standards proposed  Consider the following 45 Origin Gradient Ecological Flow Approach Statewide Recommenda$on Habitat Rela$onship Downstream Salinity Overbank Flow Piedmont Medium X X X Coastal Plain Medium X X X Coastal Plain Low X X X Coastal Plain Wind or $dally driven flow X X EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Ecological Flow Standard Excep$ons – Headwaters  Streams with drainage basins <10 km2, DENR should conduct addi$onal analyses to determine the poten$al for impact  Limited biological and hydrologic data  Higher vulnerability to disturbance  Statewide approach may not adequately protect 46 EFSAB Recommenda$ons: Other  Listed Species  For planning purposes, por$ons of basins (e.g., nodes) that include listed species should be treated by DENR as needing addi$onal analysis in consulta$on with WRC, NMFS and USFWS  Adap$ve Management  Emphasize new data (hydrologic and biological) collec$on and evalua$on in headwaters, in the coastal plain, and in large rivers  Validate ecological thresholds  Track impact of flow changes  Modify characteriza$ons, target flows, and thresholds based on new data, changing condi$ons and lessons learned 47 Thanks!  DWR Website of EFSAB: hrp://ncwater.org/?page=366 Chris Goudreau Special Projects Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission 828-‐652-‐4360 chris.goudreau@ncwildlife.org 48 App. 6 Presentation by Tom Fransen explaining DENR’s plans for report implementation Report of the Ecological Flows SAB What does it mean for water planning and policy? March 21, 2014 Institute of Emerging Issues UNC School of Government Natural Resources Leadership Institute Tom Fransen Division of Water Resources, NC DENR 1.How is DWR going to use the EFSAB’s report recommendations? 2.How the pieces fit together. 3.Next Steps Presentation Outline Background The ERC’s 2008 Report of the Water Allocation Study resulted in several session laws passed in 2009 And 2010. Session law 2010-143 was one of these Bills. In addition to setting up the EFSAB, session law 2010-143 also included: •Requirements for DENR to do a hydrologic model for each major river basin. •The models need to answer 3 questions: 1. Locations and time ecological flows may be adversely impacted. 2. Locations and time yield may be inadequate to meet all essential uses. 3. Locations and time yield may be inadequate to meet all needs. •EMC model approval. •Model approval is not rule making. •The models and EFSAB report will not vary any existing or impose any additional regulations. How will DWR implement an EFSAB recommendation? Modeling and Planning Modeling and Planning Can Help Prevent This … When Instream Flows are Included in the Equation Planning tool Will not override existing permits, such as FERC license. Will not replace site specific studies. Will not change the SEPA minimum criteria – 20% 7Q10 During the planning process if ecologic integrity is determined or projected to be adversely impacted, we will flag the river reach for additional studies. How will DWR implement the EFSAB recommendation? EFSAB Recommendations: Ecological Flow Standard Biological Response DENR should evaluate the use of these models to assess changes in biological conditions associated with projected changes in flow A 5-10% change in biological condition suggested as an initial criterion for further review Based on average range of EPT richness within the invertebrate condition classes (Excellent, Good, Good-Fair, Fair, and Poor) as defined by DENR The 5-10% criterion represents a change of one-quarter to one-half of the width of a condition class DWR needs to do additional evaluation before we include in our planning process. 6 EFSAB Recommendations: Ecological Flow Standard Percentage of Flow Combine with a critical low-flow component Protect the aquatic ecosystem during periods of drought Prevent increasing the frequency or duration of extreme low flows that are damaging to ecosystem health Use 20th percentile flow as a critical low flow (by month) Ecological flow threshold is the larger of the flow-by and critical low-flow values 7 DWR is going to use an 85% flow-by without the critical low-flow. We need to do additional evaluation before including in our planning process. DWR is going to use the flow-by approach for planning purposes if there are no existing permitted flow requirements. EFSAB’s report gave the range of 80% to 90%. Based on reviewing NC site specific study results we are going to use an 85% flow-by. Initial Planning Approach For modeling purposes we will use ECOFLOW-2010 as the prevailing ecological conditions. We will evaluate ecological flows at all river nodes as follows: Use the ecological flow requirements in permits, for example FERC licenses. Ecological flow is adversely impacted if the permitted flow requirements are violated. If there are no permitted flows, ecological flow is adversely impacted will be evaluated using the approach of an 85% flow by requirement. Example Using the 85% Flow-By # Times Threshold Exceeded Condition ActionFullTrimmed 10% ‐90% 00Green None 1+ 0 Yellow Review existing management policies and water usage to determine what maybe contributing to the deviations. 1+1+Red Additional review needed. Review could include review of existing biological data, or site‐specific evaluation. 85% Flow-By Example Water Resources Planning & Modeling Water Supply Planning River Basin Modeling Hydrologic Cycle Water Balance Model Inflow – Outflow = Change in Storage Model is like a checkbook Inflow = Salary Outflow = Expenses Storage = Bank Account The complexity is developing the data and equations to describe the 3 variables. “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” Andrew Gelman, Professor of statistics at Columbia 13 Model Basics: Models water quantity as water moves downstream considering additions and deletions at specified locations. Built on OASIS with OCL™ platform developed by HydroLogics, Inc. Not for flood analysis Does not model water quality Does not directly model ground water 14 Hydrologic Model Historical Flows Operation Guidelines Water Use Local Water Supply Plans Agriculture Self-supplied Industry Other Registered Withdrawers Evaluation Criteria 15 Examples Quantity and timing of specific flows Aquatic habitats Water quality protection Intake coverage Recreation Reservoir water level limits and timing Structural limits Aquatic habitat protection Intake coverage Boat ramp access Authorized purposes and storage allocations Operations Guidelines 16 Principle Data Water Withdrawal Registrations Agriculture > 1,000,000 gallons per day Non-agriculture > 100,000 gallons per day Local Water Supply Plans Local Government Water Systems Other Large Community Water Systems Water Use Municipal & Industrial Withdrawals DWR Water Users Wastewater Discharges (NPDES) DWQ Dischargers Agricultural Water Use National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Ag Statistics from NC Dept. of Agriculture (NCDA) Ag Extension Agents and Questionnaire Data Sources 17 Municipal & Industrial Data Analysis Withdrawals & Discharges 1930s to Current Year Monthly Time Series Fill Gaps in Series Linear Interpolation – Census Data User Records of Facility Start/Stop Dates 18 BRWA System - SimplifiedFlow from upstream Broad River Spindale sales/wastewater discharge to 2nd Broad Rutherfordton sales/wastewater discharge BRWA total withdrawal Broad River flow 19 Demand Pattern 20 Tar Basin 2030 - Eco-Flow Impacts Yield to meet all needs All withdrawals - run the model without drought plans. Meets all withdrawals if no shortages. Combine the withdrawal and ecological flow analyzes to determine if the yield for all needs are met. Yield to meet essential needs Essential withdrawals - run the model with drought plans. Meets essential withdrawals if no shortages. Combine the withdrawal and ecological flow analyzes to determine if the yield for essential needs are met. Yield To Meet All Needs and Essential Needs Withdrawals to meet all needs (Model without drought plans.) Withdrawals to meet essential needs (Model with drought plans.) Yield may be adequate to meet all needs. Yield may be adequate to meet all needs but needs additional review. Yield may be inadequate to meet all needs. Yield may be adequate to meet essential needs. Yield may be adequate to meet essential needs but needs additional review. Yield may be inadequate to meet essential needs. No Shortages 33 33 33 Shortage or minimum flow violation or reservoir depletion.11 1 1 All days able to meet permitted flow requirements.3 3 3 One or more days not able to meet permit requirements.1 1 1 No flows below 85% of the eco‐flow 2010 baseline.3 3 3 No flows between the 10th and 90th percentile below 85% of the eco‐flow 2010 baseline.2 2 2 One or more days flows between the 10th and 90th percentile are below 85% of the eco‐flow 2010 baseline.1 1 1 Composite Node Rating 321321 Ecological Flows Evaluation Non‐Permitted Ecological Flow Nodes Permitted Ecological Flow Nodes Withdrawals Nodes All Needs EvaluationAll Needs EvaluationWithdrawal Evaluation Division of Water Resources Initial Basin Planning Yield and Ecological Flow Node Evaluation Procedure New Integrated River Basin Planning Vision The concern about basin scale won’t be an issue. Data will carry 3 geospatial tags. •HUC •Hydrogeological •Political We will be able to provide assessments by river basin, watershed, a ground water prospective, county, or group of counties. Eventually allow user defined assessments areas. The Division only collects and maintains data we use. We don’t ask for and store the same information multiple times in multiple locations. Questions Contact Information Tom Fransen, Water Planning Section Chief Tom.Fransen@ncdenr.gov 919-707-9015