HomeMy WebLinkAboutTNC_ENVIRONFLOW_PROJECT_(Meitzen)Kimberly Meitzen, Ph.D.
Hydrogeomorphological
TNC Freshwater Assessment
Cat Burns, Chuck Peoples, and Margaret Fields
Biodiversity and environmental condition
Cape Fear, Tar-Pamlico, Roanoke, Little
Tennessee River Basins
TNC Freshwater Resilience Project
1. Linear connectivity
2. Lateral connectivity
3. Water quality and land use/cover
4. Access to groundwater
5. Diversity of geophysical settings in the area
6. Naturally variable instream flow regime
E-Flows: Cape Fear
Little Tennessee,
Tar Pamlico, Roanoke
North Carolina Ecological Flows Science
Advisory Board (EFSAB)
In 2010 the North Carolina General Assembly directed the NCDENR DWR
to develop hydrologic models for all 17 basins as recommended by the
Environmental Review Commission (ERC)
Models should incorporate environmental flows that are needed to
maintain ecological integrity in surface waters
Creation of an Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB) to assist
NCDENR in assessing ecological flows
NCDENR required to report annually to ERC on model progress
Opportunity for TNC to apply elements of the resiliency study to help the
NCDENR DWR and EFSAB meet the objectives presented by the ERC
Natural Flow Regime and Environmental Flows
“ the quantity, timing and quality of water flows required to sustain
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihood and well-
being that depend on these ecosystems” – Brisbane Declaration, 2007
“ a naturally variable regime of flow, rather than just a minimum low flow,
is required to sustain freshwater ecosystems”– Poff et al., 1997, 2010
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
We are applying a derivative of the 4 step ELOHA method
Poff et. al. 2010
Project Outline
1. Conduct literature review and analyze biological data to develop
flow-ecology relationships
2. Model baseline
unaltered, and
current altered flow
scenarios
3. Analyze changes in
flow metrics among
simulation scenarios
5. Identify areas of resilience and vulnerability relative to flow
alterations and environmental flow management
6. Provide flow recommendations to the Ecological Flows Science
Advisory Board for NCDENR Division of Water Resources
4. Measure and
predict species
responses to flow
alterations.
Literature Review
Environmental Flow Projects and ELOHA Applications
U.S. Nationally and Globally
Flow-Ecology Relationships
North Carolina, adjacent states, southeastern to northeastern region
Flow Metrics, Statistics, and Analysis for Measuring Flow Alterations
U.S. Nationally and Globally
Geomorphology and Environmental Flows
U.S. Nationally and Globally
* Southeastern Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP) and South Atlantic
Landscape Conservation Cooperative (SALCC) bibliographic resources and
meta-analysis
Literature Review, cont.
> 223 references with linked pdfs in EndNote
Biological Data Evaluation
Creek chub sucker
Tar River spinymussel
NCDWQ wadeable streams
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 survey samples
Benthos taxonomy
Taxonomic ambiguities resolved using the DPACs_rmO_G method
(1) set the lowest taxonomic level to Genus (G),
(2) remove ambiguous taxa at and above the Order level (rmO)
(3) distribute the abundances of the ambiguous parents among the
children separately for each sample (DPACs)
Abundance conversions: rare=1, common=3, abundant=10
Resolved data was provided by Tom Cuffney, USGS
Biotic Changes Over Time
Fish and benthos
Diversity and abundance changes over time
Target species level abundance changes over time
Community level changes in diversity and abundance
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
Habitat-Guild Analysis
What is the percent occupancy by guild type at each survey site and
each survey date?
Is guild composition and percent distribution at a site consistent?
Possible controls on variation: Flow alteration, combined flow and habitat
changes, seasonality, life stage characteristics…
De
p
t
h
Velocity
Pool
Pool-Run
Riffle-Run
Margin
Riffle
Backwater
0
20
40
60
80
100
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
r
a
n
c
e
Guild
4/21/1999
4/22/2003
6/3/2009
Cape Fear
OID 2592
Flow-Ecology Relationships
How do biota (abundance and diversity) respond to changes in flow?
1. Analysis of USGS gage data in proximity to biological survey sites to
measure effect of inter-annual flow variability on biota
Previous 1-4 years of data from gages sites in closest proximity to biological
survey locations
Example 1: Site with samples from 1994, 1998, 2005 (gage data for 4 years
prior to sample)
Examples 2: Sites with samples from 2008, 2009 (gage data for 1 year prior
to sample)
IHA comparisons of flow metrics between flow periods
2. Analysis using simulated altered and unaltered flows, RTI WaterFALL
USGS gage data
How does the hydrology in year(s) proceeding surveys compare to
longer-term patterns?
What inter-annual flow conditions support healthier communities?
Select gages with closes proximity to biological survey and 35 year record
30 year statistics and inter-annual statistics relative to survey dates
Example 1:
Site with samples from 1994,
1998, 2005
gage data for 4 years prior to
sample
Example 2:
Sites with samples from 2008,
2009
gage data for 1 year prior to
sample
Hydrologic Modeling and Flow Analysis
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) Water Flow and ALLocation model
(WaterFALL)
Model baseline unaltered flows and current altered flows scenarios
Make comparisons using TNC’s Indicator of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)
CapeFear_02105769
Environmental Flow Components (1976-2011)
10/1/197512/1/1977 2/5/1980 3/8/1982 4/9/1984 6/1/1986 7/1/1988 8/1/1990 9/1/1992 12/1/1994 3/1/1997 4/1/1999 5/1/2001 6/1/2003 7/1/2005 8/1/2007 9/1/2009
Flo
w
R
a
t
e
(
c
f
s
)
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Extreme Low FlowsLow FlowsHigh Flow PulsesSmall FloodsLarge Floods
Bi
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
va
r
i
a
b
l
e
Flow Alteration Metric
Baseline
unaltered flow
Altered flow
Simulations of Baseline and Altered Flows
RTI’s Water Flow and ALLocation model (WaterFALL)
1. Baseline Flows:
mid-1970’s land cover and no flow alterations
2. Altered Flows:
2006 land cover, scenarios with flow alterations (dams,
withdrawals/returns)
Model flows for the entire basin and compare flow alterations at
multiple points through the basin
Locations of biological surveys
Mainstem river channels
•Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)
•Compare IHA flow metrics among simulation scenarios
•1. At the location of the biological survey to examine at a site flow alterations
•2. Along the river network from headwaters to the relevant drainage point to
examine basin-scale patterns of flow alterations
•Hydrologic metrics that are:
•1. Most representative, unique, and useful for flow-ecology relationships •2. Provide useful indicators for measuring responses to flow alteration
•3. Amenable to management
Quantitative analysis and comparison of
flow metrics among simulation scenarios
•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
•3, 7, 30, and 90 day minimums and maximums
•Low pulse count, low pulse duration
•High pulse count, high pulse duration •Monthly metrics for the 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th
•Environmental Flow Component Metrics
•Extreme low flow peak, duration, frequency, and timing: calculated for 2
periods (1) July 1st –Sept. 30th and (2) Oct. 1st-June 30th •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
IHA metrics for quantifying flow alteration
between baseline and altered conditions
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)gfedcb
October (1976-2011)gfedcb
November (1976-2011)gfedcb
December (1976-2011)gfedcb
January (1976-2011)gfedcb
February (1976-2011)gfedcb
March (1976-2011)gfedcb
April (1976-2011)gfedcb
May (1976-2011)gfedcb
June (1976-2011)gfedcb
July (1976-2011)gfedcb
August (1976-2011)gfedcb
September (1976-2011)gfedc
90th 25th 75th 50th 10th
IHA Monthly Flow Duration Curves
10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th percentile flows for each month
CapeFear_02105769
Environmental Flow Components (1976-2011)
10/1/1975 12/1/1977 2/5/1980 3/8/1982 4/9/1984 6/1/1986 7/1/1988 8/1/1990 9/1/1992 12/1/1994 3/1/1997 4/1/1999 5/1/2001 6/1/2003 7/1/2005 8/1/2007 9/1/2009
Fl
o
w
R
a
t
e
(
c
f
s
)
55,000
50,000
45,000
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
Extreme Low FlowsLow FlowsHigh Flow PulsesSmall Floods
Large Floods
•Extreme low flows, low flows, high flow pulses, small floods, large floods
IHA Environmental Flow Components
Environmental Variables
Stream size by cumulative drainage area
Stream gradient, continuous values and categorical (6 classes)
% Natural land cover within active river area
Connectivity and amount of accessible river network
Linear Connectivity Analysis
Comprehensive barrier data for state
Upstream functional river network length calculated from dam to dam
Re-examination of flow ecology relationships
in context of simulated flows and IHA metrics
Can we make predictions regarding organism responses to different flow
scenarios, and what are these predictions?
Which metrics best inform these flow-ecology response relationships?
Is there an effect from the other environmental variables?
How much confidence do we have in these F-E relationships and
predicted responses?
•For TNC’s project, our goal is to include recommendations for all
components of the natural flow regime relevant to the organisms and
ecological interests we focus on.
•For the EFSAB however we will provide a set of recommendations
targeted to moderate and low flow conditions with the intention of
identifying critical thresholds where regulatory water management and
allocation is a necessary action.
Providing flow recommendations to the EFSAB
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 –
December
2012
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
Compile report of flow recommendations for the NCDENR DWR EFSAB December-March 2013
Draft report and distribution for comments: March – April 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, Eloise Kendy, Kat
Hoenke, and Alex Cohn, TNC
Martin Doyle, Duke
Jim Mead and Fred Tarver, NCDENR
Bob Dykes, Michelle Cutrofello,
and Jen Phelan, RTI
Sam Pearsall, EDF
Chris Goudreau, NCWRC
Tom Cuffney, USGS
Mary Davis, SARP
Discussion Questions:
What are the implications of these evaluations for
EFSAB’s work?
What information from TNC’s proposed project do the
board members anticipate will be most useful for the
EFSAB management objectives?
How can TNC better accommodate and assist with
meeting the objectives of the EFSAB and ERC?
•1,797 square miles in North Carolina
•89% land cover is forested
•74 native fish species, 21 non-native fish species
•Cullasaja, Nantahala, Tuckasegee, Cheoh major tributaries
•Tuckasegee, Panthertown Valley, contains over 20 miles of native brook-
trout streams classified as “Outstanding Resource Waters” by NCDENR
•Nantahala National Forest
•Great Smoky Mountains National Park
•Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest
•10 dams in NC
•Fontana, Santeetlah, Nantahala, Glenville, Emory
•Unimpounded Little Tennessee and Tuckasegee above Fontana support
one of the most biodiverse aquatic communities in the Blue Ridge
•Cheoh and Santeetlah dam is already a focus for environmental flows
(Alcoa, 2004)
•Conservation Activities: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife
Resource Commission, Priority Area for TNC
Little Tennessee River Basin
NCDENR, 2012
Little Tennessee Basin Number of sites with specified sampling frequency
Frequency of sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Fish 39 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
Invertebrates 172 32 14 18 7 6 1 2 1 1 254
Little Tennessee River
Cape Fear River Basin
•9,164 square miles
•Deep and Haw rivers form the headwaters, other major
tributaries include the Black and Northeast Cape Fear rivers
•108 native fish species, 22 non-native fish species
•42 Rare, threatened, and endangered
•Shortnose sturgeon, Cape Fear shiner
•Several Large Reservoirs
•B. Everett Jordan Reservoir 46,768 acres
•Three major lock and dam structures have potential for removal or
restoration of fish passage
•1/5th the states population resides in the basin among
Greensboro-Burlington-High Point, Durham-Chapel Hill,
Fayetteville, and Wilmington
•Contains nearly 60% states swine livestock populations
NCDENR, 2012
Cape Fear River Basin
Number of sites with specified sampling frequency
Frequency of visits 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Total
Fish 49 31 22 8 4 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 118
Invertebrates 320 121 63 32 24 16 18 6 3 2 3 0 0 0 1 1 610
Cape Fear River
Tar-Pamlico River Basin
•6,148 square miles
•Tar River 3,750 square miles
•Swift, Fishing, and Tranters tributaries
•89 native fish species, 10 non-native fish species
•Recreational sport fish
•17 rare freshwater mussels
•Tar River spinymussel, Dwarf wedgemussel
•No Major Reservoirs
•Floodplain habitat in Coastal Plain
NCDENR, 2012
Tar-Pamlico Basin Number of sites with specified sampling frequency
Frequency of
sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Total
Fish 34 19 3 9 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67
Invertebrates 256 29 15 14 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 321
Tar Pamlico River
Roanoke River Basin
•9,680 square miles (3,493 in North Carolina)
•100,000 acre area protected by TNC, USFWS, NC WRC, private
conservation easements, Georgia Pacific Corporation
•21,000 acres Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge
•> 235 square miles of intact hardwood and cypress-tupelo
bottomland forest
•137 mile of corridor of riparian habitat
•USACE 1953 John H. Kerr Dam, 1955 Lake Gaston, 1963 Roanoke
Rapids Lake and Dam
•Flood control, hydroelectric, recreation
•113 native fish species, 24 non-native fish species
•Floodplain habitat
•TNC has existing involvement with environmental flows and the
Corps (USACE)
•
NCDENR, 2012
Roanoke River Basin Number of sites with specified sampling frequency
Frequency of sampling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total
Fish 17 22 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 44
Invertebrates 96 30 10 9 5 3 1 1 2 157
Roanoke River