7. holistic methods for efa - bueno

7/30/2019 7. Holistic Methods for EFA - BUENO

1/19

HOLISTIC METHODS OFHOLISTIC METHODS OF

EFAEFA

Jay OKeeffe,

UNESCO-IHE

&Rebecca Tharme,

The Nature Conservancy

Curso Caudales Ambientales,Lima, Per,

25 27 Noviembre, 2009


2/19

Holistic Methodologies:Holistic Methodologies:

Addresses resource limitations (e.g. biophysical data)Addresses resource limitations (e.g. biophysical data)

relevant in developing countriesrelevant in developing countries

Maintenance of whole ecosystem, not economicallyMaintenance of whole ecosystem, not economicallyimportant single speciesimportant single species

Well developed links between flow regimeWell developed links between flow regime

character and biophysical responsescharacter and biophysical responses Explicit link (in some) between biophysicalExplicit link (in some) between biophysical

response to flow change and effects onresponse to flow change and effects on subsistencesubsistence

users who depend directly on river for livelihoodsusers who depend directly on river for livelihoods


3/19


ExamplesExamples Building Block Methodology (BBM)Building Block Methodology (BBM)

Downstream Response to Imposed Flow TransformationDownstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformation(DRIFT)(DRIFT) Benchmarking MethodologyBenchmarking Methodology

Savannah Process (ESWM) (TNC)Savannah Process (ESWM) (TNC)

-2

-1.8

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0 50 100 150 200 (56%) 250 300 350 (99%) 400

Total volume used (MCM)

(PercentageMARin brackets)

Near natural

Significantly modified

Moderately modified

Highly significantly modified

Present River State = Near natural

DRIFT Downstream Response to Imposed FlowTransformation

King et al. 2003; 2006

Arthington et al. 2003

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 50 100 150

Distance(m)

D

0.0

0.1

1.0

5.0

0.0 0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0 1000.0

Discharge

Maximumdepth(m)

Meanvelocity

Wettedperimeter

(m.sec-1)

(mx 102)

(m3.sec-1)

1:21:5

1:101:20

0

1

2

3

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Distance(m)

(i)

(iii)

(ii)(iv)

(v)

(I)

(II)

(III)

(IV)

(vi)

(a)

(b)

(c)

Ecological

requirements

affected - reductioninlow flows

Ecologicalrequirements

affected - reduction

in floods

Impacts on fish

Change in health

Changein

mortalities

Severity/confidence

Socialconsecquence

Flow c omponent Discharge

(Q) in m3 s-1

Number per

yearDryseason low

flows

0.1- 16

Wet season lowflows

0.1- 50

Within-year floodI 17- 48 6

Within-year flood II 49 - 95 3

Within-year flood III 96 - 190 3

Within-year floodIV 191 - 379 2

1:2 year flood 380

1:5 year flood 530

1:10year flood 665

1:20year flood 870

Benchmarking Methodology -7 key flow statistics

Mean annual flowFlow regime classAnnual Proportional Flow Deviation - APFD1:5, 5, 20 year ARIMean wet season flow


4/19


EvolutionEvolution Originally developed in South Africa andOriginally developed in South Africa and

Australia, followed by U.K. and U.S.A.Australia, followed by U.K. and U.S.A. Process for developing environmental flows forProcess for developing environmental flows fordiverse situationsdiverse situations limited resources/data tolimited resources/data to

extensive resources/dataextensive resources/data Four levels:Four levels:

I.I. Hydrologic Analysis (desktop, ecologically relevantHydrologic Analysis (desktop, ecologically relevant

suite of indicessuite of indices Ecological Flow Components)Ecological Flow Components)

II.II. Expert Panel ApproachExpert Panel Approach

III.III. Field Studies and ModelingField Studies and Modeling

IV.IV. Adaptive RefinementAdaptive Refinement


5/19

Holistic Methodologies: Options BasedHolistic Methodologies: Options Based

on Investment and Certaintyon Investment and Certainty

Time/Resource Investment and Level of Certainty

Level I Level IVLevel II Level III

Holistic hydrological analysis

Range of variability analysisEnvironmental flow components

Foundation for seeking funding and support to move toward

Holistic expert panelapproach

Initiate flows and monitoring tomove toward

Holistic field studiesand modeling

Adaptiverefinement


6/19


Comparison Based on Time AvailableComparison Based on Time Available

Level I:

Hydrologic Analysis

Level II:

Expert PanelApproach

Level III:

Field Studies andModeling

Months 1 - 5

Months 6 - 12

Years 2 5 +

Level IV: AdaptiveRefinement


7/19


Comparison Based on CostComparison Based on Cost

Level I:

Hydrologic Analysis

Level II:

Expert-Panel Driven

Level III:

Field Studies andModeling

~ $10,000

~ $100,000

~ $1,000,000 +

Level IV: Adaptive

Refinement

Requires sustainable budget -

long-term investment


8/19


Level I Hydrologic AnalysisLevel I Hydrologic Analysis

First stepFirst step -- prior to implementing otherprior to implementing otherlevelslevels

Precautionary stand alone approachPrecautionary stand alone approach --augment with more comprehensiveaugment with more comprehensiveapproaches over timeapproaches over time

Can use tools such as Indicators ofCan use tools such as Indicators ofHydrologic Alteration (IHA) e.g. Range ofHydrologic Alteration (IHA) e.g. Range ofVariability Analysis (RVA)Variability Analysis (RVA)

Potential forPotential for regionalisationregionalisation of approachof approach


9/19


Level II Expert Panel ApproachesLevel II Expert Panel Approaches

Orientation

meeting

Review &summary report

Flowrecommendation

workshop

Implementationof flow

prescription

Monitoring andresearchprogram

(Richter et al. 2006)


10/19

Specialist Expertise forSpecialist Expertise for

Interdisciplinary Expert PanelInterdisciplinary Expert Panel

River flowRiver flowsurface & groundwater hydrology, hydraulics,surface & groundwater hydrology, hydraulics,

water resources modelling, climate changewater resources modelling, climate change

geomorphology,geomorphology, sedimentologysedimentology, land use, land useRiver channel formRiver channel form

Subsistence usersSubsistence userssociology, anthropology, water supply, publicsociology, anthropology, water supply, public

health, animal health, fisherieshealth, animal health, fisheries

BiotaBiota

vegetation, fish, invertebrates, frogs, reptiles,vegetation, fish, invertebrates, frogs, reptiles,

waterwater--dependent mammals, birdsdependent mammals, birds

Water qualityWater quality chemistry, microbiologychemistry, microbiology

EconomicsEconomics ecological economics, resource economics,ecological economics, resource economics,

macroeconomicsmacroeconomics

ProcessProcess coco--ordinator, international mentorordinator, international mentor


11/19


Level III Field Studies and MonitoringLevel III Field Studies and MonitoringFor systems with extensive existing dataFor systems with extensive existing data

And/or cases where funding and time available toAnd/or cases where funding and time available tocollect new datacollect new dataSituations where greater certainty is requiredSituations where greater certainty is required


12/19

Field studies and modeling to reduce uncertaintiesand address knowledge gaps

J F M A M J J A S O N D

Q(cms)

Models for meander migrationand sediment transport;Key flow range = 15,000 20,000 cfs

Cottonwood recruitment box model (rate of recession)

Data on fish utilization of floodplains (duration for rearing)

H20 Temp Models Spawning surveys

Fish passagemodels

Required 1 in 10 years


13/19


Level IV Adaptive RefinementLevel IV Adaptive RefinementSimilar to Level III, but begins cycle ofSimilar to Level III, but begins cycle of

experimental releasesexperimental releases

Evaluation of ecological responsesEvaluation of ecological responses

Modification of eModification of e--flows and water managementflows and water managementbased on resultsbased on results


14/19

Environmental Flow Framework (e.g. DRIFT)Environmental Flow Framework (e.g. DRIFT)

(1) Biophysical(1) Biophysical

(3) Scenario development(3) Scenario development

Describe the natureand functioning of

the river

Develop predictivecapacity of flowrelated changes

(2) Sociological(2) Sociological

Identify PAR

Describe river useand health profiles

Develop predictivecapacity of socialimpacts of river

changes

Identify possible futurescenarios and describe

biophysical consequencesof each

Describe socialconsequences of each

scenario(4) Economic(4) Economic

Calculate compensationand mitigation costs for

PAR

Output to decision-maker (King et al. 2003)


15/19


16/19

Comparison of BBM and DRIFTComparison of BBM and DRIFT

DRIFT is a scenario-based interactive approach, in which adatabase is created that can be queried to describe the

biophysical consequences of any number of potential futureflow regimes (scenarios). It is designed for use in negotiationsover different allocations of water, and consequent levels andseverity of ecosystem modification.

The BBM builds up a recommended flow regime, in response toa predetermined environmental objective, or a series of flowregimes designed for different levels of ecosystem modification.

In the Flow/stressor response variation of the BBM, ecologicalresponse curves for different aspects of the ecosystem aredeveloped, leading to an overall risk curve of ecosystem stressat different flows, which can be queried for any potential future

scenario.


17/19


As part of the DRIFT database analysis, the links betweenchanging river condition and the socio-economic impacts forriparian communities (people who rely on the river forsubsistence) are automatically quantified

Both methods are well described in detailed user manuals, butDRIFT requires more technical knowledge, particularly of thedatabase analysis model, and requires more initial data input,

The BBM is more flexible and robust in data/knowledge poorconditions, but ultimately, both are simply different frameworksfor the analysis of whatever data/knowledge is available or canbe collected, and this governs the confidence in the final

recommendations.


18/19


DRIFT is a top-down method, so that each flow does not have

to be defined and motivated, reducing the risk of missingsignificant components of the flow regime, but resulting in a lackof motivation for each flow component

BBM is a bottom-up method, in which each flow component isspecifically identified and motivated. This risks the possibilitythat specialists will fail to identify some significant flowcomponent, but results in a more carefully motivated set of flow

recommendations

Ultimately, the choice of method will depend on resourcesavailable, and the expertise and experience of the

coordinator/facilitator


19/19

GraGracciasias

7. holistic methods for efa - bueno

Documents