The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNature_Conservancy_Env._Flows_(Meitzen)Kimberly Meitzen, Ph.D. A presentation to the NC Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board, February 19th TNC Freshwater Resilience Project 1. Linear and lateral functional connectivity 2.Diversity of geophysical riverine habitats 3. Water quality and riparian land use/cover 4. Natural flow patterns and flow alterations Environmental flow assessment E‐Flows: Cape Fear Little Tennessee, Tar Pamlico, Roanoke Goal is to identify stream reaches with the greatest resiliency and conservation potential for supporting healthy biodiverse freshwater ecosystems. TNC Environmental Flow Project Outline 1. Conduct literature review to develop flow-ecology relationships for NC riverine biota and physical stream processes 2. Analyze changes in (a.) flow patterns and (b.) biota over recent history of flow impacts 5. Identify areas of conservation priority relative to freshwater ecosystem resilience and vulnerability 6. Provide information and resources to the EFSAB to assists their environmental flow recommendation process 3b. Identify spatial and temporal patterns of flow changes 4. Develop flow-ecology criteria and flow recommendations to protect riverine ecosystem integrity characteristic of NC’s biotic and physiographic diversity (Decision Support System for Environmental Flows DSSEF) 3a. Identify patterns of biotic changes Biological Data Evaluation Creek chub sucker Tar River spinymussel NCDWQ wadeablestreams Fish >2 survey dates per site, 1990 ‐2011 Benthos >3 survey dates per site 1982 ‐2010 Biological Data Evaluation River Basin Fish Sites Fish Diversity Fish Density Benthos Sites Benthos Diversity Benthos Density Roanoke 27 58 1,218 23 338 4,938 Cape Fear 69 68 2,650 136 464 28,032 Tar Pamlico 33 59 1,740 25 330 5,887 Little Tennessee 12 36 415 50 350 12,043 Fish data: sites with >2 survey samples Benthos data: sites with > 3 surveys Species distribution by ecoregion NMS community ordination of species and sites: coastal plain (red), piedmont (yellow), and blue ridge (green), black dot represent species Fish Distribution by Guilds De p t h Velocity Pool Pool‐Run Riffle‐Run Margin Riffle Backwater Guilds developed by WRC for NC Adult/Juvenile Count Total %Spawn Count Total % backwater 14 17 backwater 20 22 13backwater; pool 2 10 backwater; pool 2 backwater; pool‐margin 1 pool 50 64 37 pool 29 36 21pool; backwater 5 pool; backwater 4 pool; pool‐margin 3 pool; margin 2 pool; pool‐run 6 pool; pool‐run 1 pool‐margin 2 2 1 pool‐margin 3 5 3pool‐margin; pool‐run 2 pool‐run 41 50 29 pool‐run 32 42 24pool‐run; backwater 1 pool‐run; backwater 1 pool‐run; pool 2 pool‐run; margin 2 pool‐run; riffle‐run 6 pool‐run; riffle‐run 7 riffle 12 15 9 riffle 13 21 12riffle; riffle‐run 3 riffle; riffle‐run 8 riffle‐run 19 25 14 riffle‐run 41 47 27riffle‐run; pool‐run 2 riffle‐run; pool‐run 2 riffle‐run; riffle 3 riffle‐run; riffle 4 riffle‐run; riffle; pool‐run 1 Calculated from fish presence data for Little Tennessee, Cape Fear, Tar‐Pamlico, and Little Tennessee Biological analysis: biotic changes over time Fish and benthos diversity and abundance changes over time Graphs for 141 fish sites and 234 benthos sites Calculated Coefficient of Variation (CV = st.dev/mean) to show variation in diversity and abundance among sample surveys Contemporary conditions and patterns of change R² = 0.6867 R² = 0.1636 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Co u n t Di v e r s i t y Diversity CountCape Fear Fish OID 18 Biotic changes over time: Fish Diversity Variation overtime between survey dates Coefficient of Variance, CV= standard deviation/mean Lower values = less change and higher values = more (0) (0.5) Low HighCV Biotic changes over time: Fish Abundance Variation overtime between survey dates Coefficient of Variance, CV= standard deviation/mean Lower values = less change and higher values = more (0) (0.5) Low HighCV Biotic changes over time: Benthos Diversity Variation overtime between survey dates Coefficient of Variance, CV= standard deviation/mean Lower values = less change and higher values = more (0) (0.99) Low HighCV Biotic changes over time: Benthos Abundance Variation overtime between survey dates Coefficient of Variance, CV= standard deviation/mean Lower values = less change and higher values = more (0) (0.99) Low HighCV Fish diversity Low High Fish abundance Low High Benthos Diversity Benthos Abundance Low High USGS Stream Flow Gages 34 gages with 36 years of record, 1976‐2011 Period 1 (recent historic conditions): 1976‐1994 Period 2 (current contemporary conditions) : 1994‐2011 What are the changes in flow patterns over recent history (1976‐2011)? How do they vary spatially (among gaging sites) and temporally (months)? Contemporary conditions and patterns of change Examining spatial and temporal patterns of flow changes will inform management decisions on sustainable water use and environmental flow protection. USGS Stream Flow Gages Station ID Basin Longitude Latitude Station Name Drainage Area (mi2) Size Category Ecoregion 03504000 Little Tennessee ‐83.61900 35.12700 NANTAHALA RIVER NEAR RAINBOW SPRINGS, NC 51.9 small Blue Ridge 03500240 Little Tennessee ‐83.39430 35.15870 CARTOOGECHAYE CREEK NEAR FRANKLIN, NC 57.1 small Blue Ridge 03500000 Little Tennessee ‐83.37960 35.14980 LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER NEAR PRENTISS, NC 140.0 small Blue Ridge 03512000 Little Tennessee ‐83.35350 35.46150 OCONALUFTEE RIVER AT BIRDTOWN, NC 184.0 small Blue Ridge 03503000 Little Tennessee ‐83.52680 35.33650 LITTLE TENNESSEE RIVER AT NEEDMORE, NC 436.0 medium Blue Ridge 03513000 Little Tennessee ‐83.44740 35.42790 TUCKASEGEE RIVER AT BRYSON CITY, NC 655.0 medium Blue Ridge 02102908 Cape Fear ‐79.17750 35.18180 FLAT CREEK NEAR INVERNESS, NC 7.6 headwaterCoastal Plain 02093800 Cape Fear ‐79.95310 36.17290 REEDY FORK NEAR OAK RIDGE, NC 20.6 headwaterPiedmont 02097517 Cape Fear ‐79.01920 35.89350 MORGAN CREEK NEAR CHAPEL HILL, NC 41.0 headwaterPiedmont 02097314 Cape Fear ‐78.96580 35.88490 NEW HOPE CREEK NEAR BLANDS, NC 75.9 small Piedmont 02102192 Cape Fear ‐78.97340 35.55960 BUCKHORN CREEK NR CORINTH, NC 76.3 small Piedmont 02094500 Cape Fear ‐79.61670 36.17540 REEDY FORK NEAR GIBSONVILLE, NC 131.0 small Piedmont 02100500 Cape Fear ‐79.65530 35.72620 DEEP RIVER AT RAMSEUR, NC 349.0 medium Piedmont 02108000 Cape Fear ‐77.83300 34.82790 NORTHEAST CAPE FEAR RIVER NEAR CHINQUAPIN, NC 599.0 medium Coastal Plain 02106500 Cape Fear ‐78.28890 34.75490 BLACK RIVER NEAR TOMAHAWK, NC 676.0 medium Coastal Plain 02096960 Cape Fear ‐79.13360 35.76350 HAW RIVER NEAR BYNUM, NC 1275.0 large Piedmont 02102000 Cape Fear ‐79.11590 35.62740 DEEP RIVER AT MONCURE, NC 1434.0 large Piedmont 02102500 Cape Fear ‐78.81310 35.40630 CAPE FEAR RIVER AT LILLINGTON, NC 3464.0 large Coastal Plain 02105500 Cape Fear ‐78.82390 34.83490 CAPE FEAR R AT WILM O HUSKE LOCK NR TARHEEL, NC 4852.0 large Coastal Plain 02105769 Cape Fear ‐78.29360 34.40430 CAPE FEAR R AT LOCK #1 NR KELLY, NC 5255.0 large Coastal Plain 02084557 Tar‐Pamlico ‐76.74660 35.73040 VAN SWAMP NEAR HOKE, NC 23.0 headwaterCoastal Plain 02084160 Tar‐Pamlico ‐77.22830 35.56320 CHICOD CR AT SR1760 NEAR SIMPSON, NC 45.0 headwaterCoastal Plain 02081500 Tar‐Pamlico ‐78.58310 36.19490 TAR RIVER NEAR TAR RIVER, NC 167.0 small Piedmont 02082950 Tar‐Pamlico ‐77.87580 36.18570 LITTLE FISHING CREEK NEAR WHITE OAK, NC 177.0 small Piedmont 02081747 Tar‐Pamlico ‐78.29640 36.09290 TAR R AT US 401 AT LOUISBURG, NC 427.0 medium Piedmont 02083000 Tar‐Pamlico ‐77.69270 36.15100 FISHING CREEK NEAR ENFIELD, NC 526.0 medium Coastal Plain 02082506 Tar‐Pamlico ‐77.86550 35.89960 TAR R BL TAR R RESERVOIR NR ROCKY MOUNT, NC 777.0 medium Coastal Plain 02082585 Tar‐Pamlico ‐77.78720 35.95430 TAR RIVER AT NC 97 AT ROCKY MOUNT, NC 925.0 medium Coastal Plain 02083500 Tar‐Pamlico ‐77.53300 35.89410 TAR RIVER AT TARBORO, NC 2183.0 large Coastal Plain 02077200 Roanoke ‐79.19700 36.39930 HYCO CREEK NEAR LEASBURG, NC 45.9 headwaterPiedmont 02077670 Roanoke ‐78.87220 36.54070 MAYO CR NR BETHEL HILL, NC 53.5 small Piedmont 02077303 Roanoke ‐78.99640 36.52350 HYCO R BL ABAY D NR MCGEHEES MILL, NC 202.0 medium Piedmont 02071000 Roanoke ‐79.82610 36.41260 DAN RIVER NEAR WENTWORTH, NC 1053.0 medium Piedmont 02080500 Roanoke ‐77.63450 36.46050 ROANOKE RIVER AT ROANOKE RAPIDS, NC 8384.0 large Coastal Plain •Software for understanding hydrologic changes in ecologically relevant terms •Developed by TNC to quantify flow patterns and flow alteration•Metrics for Magnitude, Duration, Frequency, Timing, Rate of Change •33 Metrics calculated for the period of record •34 Environmental Flow Component (EFC) Metrics calculated for 5 discrete groups: Extreme Low Flows, Low Flows, High Flows, Small Floods, Large Floods •Applied in numerous e‐flow studies nationwide Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration IHA Version 7.1 IHA software download: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/iha/documents/index/view.html •Standard metrics •Monthly metrics for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th (60 metrics) •3, 7, 30, and 90 day minimums and maximums •Low pulse count, low pulse duration •High pulse count, high pulse duration •Environmental Flow Component Metrics •Extreme low flow peak, duration, frequency, and timing: •High flow peak duration, frequency, and timing •Small flood peak, duration, timing, and frequency •Large flood peak, duration, timing, and frequency•Extreme low flow, low flow, and high flow thresholds•Small flood and large flood minimum peak flow•Calculated annually and for 2 periods: July 1st –Sept. 30th and Oct. 1st‐June 30th IHA metrics for quantifying flow alteration between baseline and altered conditions IHA Monthly Flow Duration Curves Exceedance Probabilities for the 90th, 75th, 50th, 25th, 10th %tile Flows CapeFear_02105769 Monthly Flow Duration Curves Exceedance Probability 9590858075706560555045403530252015105 Fl o w r a t e ( c f s ) 1,000 10,000 Annual (1976-2011)October (1976-2011)November (1976-2011)December (1976-2011)January (1976-2011)February (1976-2011)March (1976-2011)April (1976-2011)May (1976-2011)June (1976-2011)July (1976-2011)August (1976-2011)September (1976-2011) 10th75th 25th50th90th Mid‐Range Flows Wet Conditions High Flows Dry Conditions Low Flows Flow Duration, Percentile Changes Blue line: historic recent (1976‐1993) Black Line: contemporary conditions (1994‐2011) Graphs will be expressed as % change from historic to contemporary Positive change Negative change Changes to the 90th percentile: highest flows > 25 % (+ or ‐) represents significant amount of change, < 25% natural inter‐annual variability (outliers reduced to 200% change) ‐100% ‐75% ‐50% ‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334 October November December January February March April May June July August September Cape Fear 7‐20 Roanoke 30‐34Lt. Tenn. 1‐6 Tar‐Pam 21‐29 Changes to the 90th percentile: highest flows Average % change for all months (calculated from absolute values) Note: 0.5 ‐125% range (10%) (125%) Low High Changes to the 75th percentile: wet conditions > 25 % (+ or ‐) represents significant amount of change, < 25% natural inter‐annual variability (outliers were reduced to 200% change) ‐100% ‐75% ‐50% ‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 October November December January February March April May June July August September Cape Fear 7‐20 Roanoke 30‐34Lt. Tenn. 1‐6 Tar‐Pam 21‐29 Changes to the 75th percentile: wet conditions Average % change for all months (calculated from absolute values) Note: 0.5 ‐150% range (0.5%) (150%) Low High Changes to the 50th percentile: moderate flow > 25 % (+ or ‐) represents significant amount of change, < 25% natural inter‐annual variability ‐100% ‐75% ‐50% ‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334 October November December January February March April May June July August September Cape Fear 7‐20 Roanoke 30‐34Lt. Tenn. 1‐6 Tar‐Pam 21‐29 Changes to the 50th percentile: moderate flow Average % change for all months (calculated from absolute values) Note: 0.5 ‐130% range (0.5%) (130%) Low High Changes to the 25th percentile: dry conditions > 25 % (+ or ‐) represents significant amount of change, < 25% natural inter‐annual variability ‐100% ‐75% ‐50% ‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334 October November December January February March April May June July August September Cape Fear 7‐20 Roanoke 30‐34Lt. Tenn. 1‐6 Tar‐Pam 21‐29 Changes to the 25th percentile: dry conditions Average % change for all months (calculated from absolute values) Note: 8 ‐60% range (8%) (60%) Low High Changes to the 10th percentile: lowest flows > 25 % (+ or ‐) represents significant amount of change, < 25% natural inter‐annual variability ‐100% ‐75% ‐50% ‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 012345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334 October November December January February March April May June July August September Cape Fear 7‐20 Roanoke 30‐34Lt. Tenn. 1‐6Tar‐Pam 21‐29 Changes to the 10th percentile: lowest flow Average % change for all months (calculated from absolute values) Note: 10 ‐100% range (10%) (100%) Low High Cumulative at a gage change for all percentiles Low High Monthly patterns of flow change Average % of change for each month and each percentile category Management Q: What % change can we allow each month? Management Q: How much change to a given percentile will the ecosystem tolerate? 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 90th 75th 50th 25th 10th Human impacts 1. Dams 3. Land use 8.95% 1.56% 3.83% 0.45% 1.23% 2.84% 81.14% Public Water Supply Domestic Industrial Mining Livestock Irrigation Thermoelectric 47.48% 8.29% 20.31% 2.38% 6.50% 15.05% Public Water Supply Domestic Industrial Mining Livestock Irrigation 2. Water withdrawals NC water use 2005 with and without thermal http://ncdenr.org Physiographic variability Blue Ridge Coastal Plain 2. Drainage Basin Area 3. Stream Gradient Piedmont 1. Ecoregions Decision Support System for Environmental Flows: 5 component criteria Blue Ridge Coastal Plain 1. Who: species/Guild/Process Piedmont 4. Where: Eco-region and Drainage Basin area De p t h Velocity Pool Pool‐Run Riffle‐Run Margin Riffle Backwater •<50 mi2 •50‐250 mi2 •250 – 1000 mi2 •>1000 mi2 Oct.Nov.Dec.Jan.Feb.Mar.Apr.May Jun.Jul.Aug Sept 2. What: Life-history, biological cue, or behavior strategy or functional process 3. When: or seasonality: Inter- and intra- annual variability 5. How: Flow protection criteria relative to percentile flows: 10% of the 50th until flows reach the 25th ‐100% ‐75% ‐50%‐25% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Exceedance Probability 9590858075706560555045403530252015105 Flo w r a t e ( c f s ) 1,000 10,000 Annual (1976-2011)October (1976-2011)November (1976-2011)December (1976-2011)January (1976-2011)February (1976-2011)March (1976-2011)April (1976-2011)May (1976-2011)June (1976-2011)July (1976-2011)August (1976-2011)September (1976-2011) * TNC Decision Support System for Environmental Flows (DSSEF) 5 components that drive environmental flow protection: 1. Who: species or guild Riffle and riffle‐run 2. What: biological or physical process Spawning 3. When: timing, seasonality March ‐May 4. Where: ecoregion and drainage basin area Blue Ridge > 50 mi2, Piedmont > 50 mi2 , Coastal Plain < 1,000 mi2 5. How: % change tolerance or % allowable extraction using percentiles Allow 10% of median flow to be withdrawn until flows reach 25th percentile •For TNC’s project, our goal is to include recommendations for all components of the natural flow regime relevant to the organisms, guilds, and ecological interests we focus on. •Quantify contemporary conditions and patterns of recent change •Develop flow recommendations using the DSSEF criteria•Provide supporting resources and information to the EFSAB to help them identifying critical thresholds for regulatory water management. Project Goals Schedule: 18 month timeline Literature Review Select Priority Basins from Freshwater Assessment Biological Data Evaluation Flow‐Ecology Relationships (from literature review) Flow Analysis of USGS data and Baseline and Altered Flows using IHA Quantifying Flow Metrics and Flow‐ Ecology Relationships January – September 2012 March 2012 April – September 2012 April – September 2012 August – November 2012 October 2012 –March 2013 *Present project methodology to NC’s Ecological Flows Science Advisory Group (EFSAB) and solicit input for how TNC’s project can help them meet their needs: August 28th, 2012 Develop flow recommendations January‐April 2013 *Follow up presentation with EFSAB February 19th, 2013 Draft report and distribution for comments: April –May 2013 Project Completion: June 2013 Me t h o d s Re p o r t i n g Mi l e s t o n e s Acknowledgements: Cat Burns, Becca Benner, Jason Taylor, Tara Moberg, Eloise Kendy, Kat Hoenke, and Alex Cohn, TNC Martin Doyle and Amy Pickle, Duke Fred Tarver and Jim Mead, NCDENR Sam Pearsall, EDF Chris Goudreau, NCWRC Tom Cuffney, USGS Mary Davis, SARP