1. IWC
Environmental Flows and Management
Scenarios
December 2009
Prof. Angela Arthington
Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University
Room 1.09C, Building N13
3735 7403
Management Scenario 1
Determining e-flows for a new reservoir
on a river like the Li Jiang
• Rapid assessment, with limited resources and data
DRIFT Methodology
Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformation
• Comprehensive assessment, with time to collect field data
ELOHA Framework
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
Environmental Flow Methodologies
Proactive approaches, used at planning stage of new
developments
Question:
How much can we change a river’s flow regime before
unacceptable ecological changes occur?
Examples:
DRIFT – South Africa
Benchmarking Methodology – Australia
ELOHA – Australia & USA
1

2. Natural annual flow pattern
3500
3000 Proactive
2500
Environmental
harge (m3 * 104)
2000
1500
Flow approaches
1000
are used at the
500 planning stage of
0
Jan F b M
J Feb Mar Apr M
A May J
Jun Jul
J l Aug S
A Sep O t N
Oct Nov D
Dec
new developments
Average Monthly Disch
Modified flow pattern
3500 Bankfull Water
Pulse
3000 Low and high flows
for human ‘uses’
2500
2000
1500
Water for
1000
river ecosystem
500
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
DRIFT - Scenario based-interactive approach
“
DRIFT provides an assessment of the ecological consequences of altering
the flow regime of river reaches or a single river system made up of several
reaches.
DRIFT employs an Expert Panel approach.
DRIFT is typically focused on alterations to flow volume due to water
storage, hence loss of flow downstream.
DRIFT flow components include:
dry and wet season low flows
flow pulses within the channel (within year floods)
floods of various return intervals, 1:2, 1:15; 1:10, 1:20
DRIFT SOLVER OUTPUT
Linking output to a river condition classification
Present River State = Near natural
0
-0.2
Near natural
-0.4 Note that
variation
-0.6 Moderately modified around the
core
mean increases
-0.8
-0 8
DRIFT Integrity Sc
with degree of
-1 departure of flow
Significantly modified volume from
-1.2 natural (100%)
-1.4
i.e. Experts less
-1.6 sure of ecological
response to large
-1.8
Highly significantly modified departures of flow
-2
volume from
0 50 100 150 200 (56%) 250 300 350 (99%) 400 natural.
Total volume used (MCM)
(Percentage MAR in brackets)
2

3. ELOHA - Regional
scale flow assessment
DRIFT studies for river by river
assessment are expert panel methods
Current regional-scale assessment
methods tend to be “rule of thumb” e.g.
% MAR
Regional e-flow “standards”
“Challenge paper”
Arthington, Poff, Bunn, Naiman (2006).
Ecol. Applications 16: 1311-18.
“The Ecological Limits
of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA): a
framework for developing regional
environmental flow standards”
Poff, Richter, Arthington et al. (2009)
Freshwater Biology Special Issue
Arthington, Bunn, Poff and Naiman 2006
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration - ELOHA
Poff, Richter, Arthington et al. FW Biology 2009
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS - ELOHA
Step 1. Hydrologic Foundation Step 2. Stream Classification
Baseline Stream Hydrologic Geomorphic
Hydrographs Classification Stratification
Hydrologic Model
and Stream Gauges Step 3. Flow Alteration
Degree of Hydrologic
Developed Hydrologic Alteration
Hydrographs Alteration by River Type
Monitoring
Step 4. Flow-Ecology Relationships
Flow - Ecology Flow Alteration-Ecological
Ecological Data
Hypotheses Response Relationships
and Indices
by River Type
SOCIAL PROCESS
Societal
Implementation Environmental Acceptable Values and
Flow Standards Ecological Conditions Management
Needs
Adaptive Adjustments
3

4. ELOHA - Scenario based-interactive approach
“ ELOHA provides an assessment of the ecological consequences of altering
the flow regime of rivers with different types of flow regime
ELOHA employs a Scientific Panel approach and more field work than
DRIFT
ELOHA considers all ecologically relevant features of the flow
regime, drawn from the Natural Flow Regime Paradigm and Bunn & AA
(2002), etc
ELOHA flow components include:
- magnitude (flow volume)
- timing, frequency and duration of any flow magnitude (i.e. low
flows, no flow, channel pulses, floods)
- rate of change in flow (e.g. hydrograph rise and fall)
- predictability of flow patterns over time (e.g. seasonal vs highly
variable)
ELOHA ADVANTAGES
River Discharge
8 Mississippi
Mekong
6
4
2
0
Time Time
ELOHA recognises that rivers have different types of flow regime
ELOHA classifies rivers according to their flow regime type
ELOHA seeks to develop flow alteration – ecological relationships based on
ecologically relevant flow metrics for each flow class
ELOHA’s flow alteration – ecological relationships are specific to each class of
river, and preferably, to each type of flow regime change
Classify rivers based on natural flows
(gauged or simulated)
30000
25000
20000
140000
15000
120000
10000 100000
5000 80000
60000
0
40000
1. Classification based on reference
20000
stream flow data
0
Class B
5000
Class A 4500
Axis II
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Class C
500
0
Axis I
4

5. Flow alteration – ecological response relationships
4. Flow-response relationships for ecological health data
from reference and flow-modified streams for each flow
Sustainable
variable
level of Health indicator 1 Unsustainable
change Mean and error for reference streams
1 2
 
 3 
4 5
Departure from reference health condition
Health indicator 2
Mean and error for reference streams
1 2 3
 
4
5
Departure from reference flow condition
(flow variable X)
Management Scenario 1
Determining e-flows for a new reservoir
on a river like the Li Jiang
Comprehensive ELOHA assessment
Develop flow alteration – ecological response relationships for
several similar rivers that have already been altered, to guide the
development of environmental flow rules on Li Jang River
ELOHA field trial SEQ

 


Research steps

 1. Classify natural flow regimes
 Six Mile 2. Identify flow regulation gradient
 
 
3. Establish referential field study design
Yabba 
   4. Explore ecological responses to natural flow

Obi Obi gradient
 
 5. Explore ecological responses to gradient of
flow regulation

 6.
6 Explore ecological responses to other factors
Measures of response
Channel/habitat structure
Water quality, temperature
Riparian & aquatic vegetation
Moogerah Fish


  Nerang
Regulated  
 Species richness, assemblage structure,

 native vs alien species richness/abundance,
 No   

  total abundance/density, biomass, guilds,
 Yes Maroon recruitment
5

6. Ordination (SSHMDS) of sites based on pre-development
(IQQM) metrics
2 dimensions, stress = 0.117
(a) 3 (b)
Teewah Ck CVDaily
Low discharge 4 441 MeanZeroDay
444442222
4 44
4 422 2
Low seasonality 2 422 2 1
2
High daily variability 21112111 5
331 11
22
31 1
11
LSNum
3111111 5 5 5
1 HSNum
1 1 555 5
5
5 5 6 MedAnnMax
55 5
5 HSDur
5 5 LSDur
SEASON
6 BFI MRateRise/Fall
MA7day Min ARI_1y r
6 6 Sp_MeanAnnMax
MA30day Min
MA1day Max
MA90day Min JDMin ARI_2y r
High discharge MDF_Sep MA3-90day Max
6 High seasonality ARI_10y r MDF_J,M,M,J,N
Axis 1 Low daily variability Axis 1
6 classes of pre-development flow regimes
1 = 26 nodes from all major rivers
Significantly correlated metrics, P≤0.02
2 = 17 nodes from Mary, Brisbane and Logan-Albert
3 = 5 nodes from Logan-Albert, lower Mary River, Teewah Creek Also a gradient of spell number and duration
4 = 17 nodes from Mary and Brisbane
5 = 18 nodes from Mary, Maroochy, Brisbane, Maroochy, Gold Coast
6 = 5 nodes from 5 catchments, 3 rising in Maleny plateau
Dam construction time line
Photo: seqwater.com.au
Photo: seqwater.com.au
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Gradient in flow regime alteration across SEQ study area
Two dimensional ordination (SSHMDS) of sites based on
historic (gauge) metrics
Teewah
1 Teewah Creek included
Stress = 0.084
MA30-90day Min
RateRise/Fall
MA1-7day Min
HSNum LSNum BFI PREDICT
MDF_Sep CONSTAN
MDF_Nov
MDF_Jul
MDF_Jan
MDF_Mar, May
1
1 MedAnnMax
MA30-90day Max
5 flow regime classes
4 3 11 ARI_1y r
5 3 1
3 SEASON
3 3 3 Sp_MeanAnnMax
3 33 33 3 2
43 3 2 2
ARI_10y r Class 1
5 55 4 3 3 3 2 22 2
5 5
44 4 4
4 3 2 222 HSDur
LSDur 4 regulated, Burnett Ck, Bris, Logan,Teewah
5 4 2
2 MeanZeroDay
5 4 2
5 4 4 Class 2
Axis 1 Axis 1 14 gauges Mary, Brisbane , 2 regulated
2
LSNum
1 1 2 2
22 Class 3
2 222
2 CONSTAN
22 HSDur 19 gauges Mary & Logan-Albert, Nerang reg.
11 3 3 PREDICT
1 33 3 2 2 LSDur
3
33 MeanZeroDay
3
3 4
33 3 4 4 4 Class 4
3 33
4 4
4 BFI
LSNum
12 gauges 5 catchments, Six Mile Ck reg.
4
3 4 MA1-7day Min
4 MA30day Min
4 4
5
MA90day Min
MedAnnMax
HSNum Class 5
5 SEASON
MDF_Sep
MDF_Jan,May ,Jul
RateRise/Fall
MA1-90day Max
6 gauges Maroochy (~ class 5), 2 regulated
5 5 5 5 ARI_1,2y r
ARI_10y r
5 5
MDF_Nov
MDF_Mar
5 Teewah Creek excluded
Axis 1
Stress = 0.082
6

7. Referential field study design
Gower Metric - multivariate metric of degree of flow regulation
Hydrological Class 2
Hydrological Class 1 Reynolds
Hydrological Class 5
0.3
0.25
Obi Obi
Gow metric
0.2 Nerang
Yabba
0.15
wer
Brisbane River
0.1
Burnett
0.05
Six mile
0
Munna Ck
Mary R (Fish.Pckt)
Mary R (Bellbird)
Mary (Dagun Pckt)
Coomera R
Brisbane R (Linville)
Logan R (Round Mt)
Logan R (Forest Home)
Canungra Ck
Tinana Ck (Bauple)
Kandanga Ck
Mary (Moy Pckt)
Brisbane R (Gregors)
Albert R (Lumeah)
Logan R (Rathdowney)
Mary R (Miva)
Moololah R
Petrie Ck
Logan R (Yarrahap.)
Stanley R
Amamoor Ck
Wide Bay Ck (Kilkiv.)
Caboolture R
Back Ck
Emu Ck
Eudlo Ck
North Maroochy R
Albert R (Bromfleet)
Six Mile Ck
Teviot Bk (Overflow)
Bremer R (Walloon)
Teewah Ck
Tinana Ck (Tagigan)
Glastonbury Ck
Wide Bay Ck (Brooyar)
Bremer R (Adams Br.)
Currumbin Ck
Brisbane R (Savages)
Sth Maroochy R (Kiamba)
Mudgeeraba Ck
South Pine R
Burnett Ck (Maroon Dam)
Brisbane R (Wivenhoe Dam)
Lockyer Ck
Yabba Ck (Borumba Dam)
Nerang R
Running Ck
Obi Obi Ck
Reynolds Ck
Class 1 = 2 reg. samples (Obi Obi, Six-Mile), Class 2 = 3 reg. samples (Reynolds, Yabba, Burnett),
Class 4 = Brisbane River, studied previously, Class 5 = 1 reg. sample (Nerang)
Fish survey methods (based on Pusey et al.
1993, 2004)
Multiple pass electrofishing & block seine
flow
Total surveyed is usually 60 80m stream length
60-80m seine haul after e-fishing
e fishing
Fish sampled at pool-riffle-run
sequences, where possible
Fish identified, counted, measured,
returned to site
Samples kept for condition, diet and
reproductive status
Habitat structure assessed in-stream
and along banks
Habitat Assessment
An assessment of habitat is
Bank habitat 
In-stream habitat
sample sampling point performed at 100 ‘nodes’
randomly placed along
transects within the total
40 
length of sampled area

35


30 Physical variables, substrate
Distance upstrea (m)


composition and
am
25  
 Flow
 microhabitat structure are
20 

measured / estimated
15 


10 
Bank habitat sampling occurs

5 
 every 10m on both banks


0
E D C B A Methods described in
Transect Pusey et al. (2004)
Right bank Left bank
7

8. Fish Data Collection
At the completion of each sampling trip, the following
fish and habitat information is available:
• CPUE, species richness, fish assemblage structure and
other ecological metrics
• Length histograms of all fish captured
• Fish biomass may also be obtained through previously
defined length weight relationships (Pusey et al. 2004)
• Fish associations with habitat at a range of spatial scales
• Fish condition, reproductive status and diet (from
laboratory analysis)
M. adspersa - gudgeon
L. unicolor - spangled perch
T. tandanus - eel-tailed catfish
M. duboulayi - rainbowfish
Native fish families (11) and species (21) and
number of sites where present in 2008 surveys
19/21
16/21
18/21
15/21
2/21 sites 10/21 sites
Introduced families (2) and species (4)
B. Cowell
Box and whisker plots of important metrics driving gauge
classification, identified by clustvarsel
9 metrics
6 = discharge magnitude
2 = high & low flow spell duration
1 = discharge constancy
Class 1 streams
4 regulated
High values for MA1dayMin & constancy
Low zero flow days, low LS duration
(suggests water releases from dams)
Low values for high spell duration
Low values for ARI_1yr & ARI_10yr
(indicates high flows are stored)
1 unregulated
Teewah Ck has high groundwater flow
8

9. Ordination of Fish Abundance (CPUE) Data
Submerged Veg
1 L. unicolor
3 2
H. gallii
1 M. duboulayi Mud
3 M. adspersa
22
3
Hypsel. sp 1
G. holbrooki
Site scale
5 3 3 2 12
44
5
A. agassizii
Macrophytes
3 dims, stress=0.168
4 13
X. maculatus
3 3 5 25 G. australis
43 3 5 P. signifer H. compressa
43
5
R. ornatus H. klungzing. Gauge flow classes
4 5 5
5 1
3
5
Water Velocity
Width
shown
A.reinhardtii
1
Axis 1 Axis 1 Alien taxa in red text
Flow Metrics
HSDur
LSDur
MeanZeroDay
90


LSNum 60


HSNum MedAnnMax
30 


0 


-30 
MA1dayMin -60

MA1-7dayMax
CPUE MA3dayMin -90 

MA7dayMin ARI-1yr -120 
MDF_May/Jul -150
Axis 1 Axis 1
More zero flow days
In some regulated sites
0 200 400
Results of fish assemblage ordination
1. Ordination of fish assemblage structure at all reference and regulated sites based on CPUE
shows distinctive spatial patterns in fish assemblages
2. Flow metrics (6 of 9) are consistent between altered hydrological classification and those
significantly correlated with the ordination patterns for fish assemblages.
- hi h spell d i
high ll duration
- low spell duration
- zero flow days
- MA1dayMin, median annual maximum flow
- ARI_1yr
3. All of these metrics have been altered from natural, and are affecting the structure of fish
assemblages
4. Alien fish species are associated with regulated sites, indicating poor ecological health
Plotting flow alteration – ecological response
relationships
Within IQQM hydrological class Between IQQM hydrological classes
1
reference steams
Observed
bserved /
temporal samples (4x2 ref. sites
O pected
x 4 surveys = 32)
regulated streams
exp E
O
/
Ob
Obi Obi
Reynolds
Departure from reference Departure from reference flow condition
flow condition e.g. Gower metric for regulated study sites
Hydrological class 1
Within hydrological class can compare raw reference and regulated site data.
Only need to divide observed (regulated) by expected (reference) if exploring flow-
ecological response along the entire flow regulation gradient, e.g. along the Gower
gradient, or a gradient based on an individual, driving flow metric.
9

10. Change in 1 year ARI (% difference from IQQM values)
(IQQM-Gauge) x100
IQQM
100  

80 

60 
 Gauge value for 1less than smaller than IQQM value
Gauge ARI is year ARI Natural ARI
40 

20 


0 

-20 

-40

-60
-80 Gauge value for 1 yGauge ARI is greater than Natural ARI
-100 ear ARI larger than IQQM value
-120
-140 
Change in 10 year ARI flood (% difference from IQQM
values)
(IQQM-Gauge) x100
IQQM
100 

50  Gauge value for 10 year ARI smaller than IQQM value


0 


-50 
-100
-150
-200
Gauge value for 10 year ARI larger than IQQM value
-250
-300

-350
Change in mean number of zero days
(Difference from IQQM value)
(IQQM-Gauge)
90


60

30 


0 


-30 
-60
More zero flow days in some regulated sites 
-90 Higher number ofof zero flow days in IQQM flow record
mber zero flow days in gauge flow record


-120 
-150
10

11. Change in low flow spell duration
(% difference from IQQM values)
(IQQM-Gauge) x100
IQQM
200
0 


-200 

-400

-600
-800 
-1000
-1200 Longer low flow spells in gauge record than IQQM record
-1400 
-1600
Does ecological response change along flow
alteration gradients within flow classes?
Within IQQM hydrological class Between IQQM hydrological classes
1
reference steams
Observed
bserved /
temporal samples (4x2 ref. sites
O pected
x 4 surveys = 32)
regulated streams
exp E
O
/
Ob
Obi Obi
Reynolds
Departure from reference Departure from reference flow condition
flow condition e.g. Gower metric for regulated study sites
and across the full flow regime gradient?
Flow alteration – ecological response relationships
4. Flow-response relationships for ecological health data
from reference and flow-modified streams for each flow
Sustainable
variable
level of Health indicator 1 Unsustainable
change Mean and error for reference streams
1 2
 
 3 
4 5
Departure from reference health condition
Health indicator 2
Mean and error for reference streams
1 2 3
 
4
5
Departure from reference flow condition
(flow variable X)
11

12. De velop flow rules for SEQ Rivers
Tentative findings to protect the ecological health of
fish assets
Keep the following flow metrics within specified % change from natural
High spell duration
Low spell duration
Zero flow days
MA1dayMin
Median annual maximum flow
ARI_1yr
Repeat analysis for short-term flow metrics, at defined antecedent flow
intervals, e.g. leading up to spawning period.
Compare with results for riparian vegetation, aquatic plants
ELOHA SUMMARY
Advantages of ELOHA
“ ELOHA employs a Scientific Panel approach and can be as rigorous as funds allow.
ELOHA provides an assessment of the ecological consequences of altering the flow regime of
rivers with different types of flow regime.
ELOHA considers all ecologically relevant features of the flow regime, drawn from the Natural
Flow Regime Paradigm and Bunn & AA (2002), etc
ELOHA can consider any abiotic or ecological feature or asset of the river ecosystem.
ELOHA methods gather strength from the study of several rivers with altered flow regimes.
Flow alteration – ecological response plots are very useful to guide scenario assessment.
e.g. what will happen to water quality in pools if small flows are taken out of the river and stroed in
a reservoir?
e.g. what will happen to fish diversity or fisheries biomass if ARIs of floods are reduced?
e.g. what will happen to prawn biomass if there are many more days with zero flow?
12

13. Outcomes of ELOHA studies
ELOHA is being trialled in several parts of the USA, setting rules for
pumping of groundwater and abstractions from surface flows
The Murray-Darling Basin’s Water Plan is applying an ELOHA-type
approach to assess the flow requirements of the Basin’s rivers
The SEQ study is the first full trial of the ELOHA framework in Australia
Publications on the ELOHA Framework
Arthington, Angela H., Stuart E. Bunn, N. LeRoy Poff, Robert J. Naiman (2006). The
challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological
Applications 16 (4): 1311-1318.
Arthington A.H., R.J. Naiman, M.E. McClain and C. Nilsson (2009). Preserving the biodiversity
and ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshwater
Biology, Special Issue on Environmental Flows; Science and Management.
Poff N. L., B. D. Richter, A. H. Arthington, S.E. Bunn, R. J. Naiman, E. Kendy, M.
Acreman, C. Apse, B.P. Bledsoe, M. C. Freeman, J. Henriksen, R. B. Jacobson, J. G.
Kennen, D. M. Merritt, J. H. O’Keeffe, J. D. Olden, K. Rogers, R. E. Tharme and A Warne
(2009). The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for
developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology, Special Issue on
Environmental Flows; Science and Management.
13