Rivers and PeopleMaintaining nature’s benefits

Environmental Flow Science, Opportunities and Barriers

Jeanmarie Haney jhaney@tnc.org

SummarySituational analysisFreshwater ecosystem servicesHow human’s have changed Arizona’s riversHow The Nature Conservancy does its workThe natural flow paradigmThe science of environmental flowsDiscussion

Damsel fly

U.S Census

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050

Po

pu

lati

on

(M

illio

ns)

Year

U.S Census

Arizona’s Population in 2000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1900 1925 1950 1975 2000 2025 2050

Po

pu

lati

on

(M

illio

ns)

Year

U.S Census

AZDept.

Economic

Security

Arizona’s Future Population

Red Rock Crossing with Cathedral Rock

Kayaking the Verde River through Cottonwood

Golf course – Verde Santa Fe, Cottonwood

Orchards and pasture in Camp Verde

Flowing Rivers

Past

Choices for Our Changing Rivers

Flowing Rivers

Lost Rivers

Human Footprint

Present

Choices for Our Changing Rivers

Flowing Rivers

Lost Rivers

Threatened Rivers

Human Footprint

Future Choices

Choices for Our Changing Rivers

The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to conserve the lands and waters on which all

life depends.

TNC’s Role

Promote water management that

considers human and ecosystem water needs

San Pedro River basin, Cochise County

Science and Policy

ScienceWhere water comes fromWhere it is goingHow much water do the rivers needMeeting human and ecosystem needs

PolicyUnderstand community valuesDevelop collaborative partnershipsSupport integrated water

management

Cottonwood

Ecosystem Water Needs

What are the spatial and temporal patterns of surface and sub-surface water needed to maintain the integrity and long-term viability of riparian and aquatic ecosystems?

The provision of water in sufficient quality, quantity, timing and duration to maintain freshwater ecosystems and their benefits.

The allocation of water to achieve a desired environmental condition.

Environmental Flows

Definition from World Conservation Unit

Rivers and Groundwater

Environmental Flow Components

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

Day of Year

Riv

er F

low

(cf

s)

Low Flow High Flow Pulses Large Flood Extreme Low Flow Small Flood

ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW COMPONENTS

Day of Year

Str

ea

mflo

w (

cfs)

Low flow

High flow

pulse

Large flood

Extreme low flow

Small flood

Magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, rate of change

Streamflow Regime

For each:

Output from TNC’s IHA

software

Minimum Integrity Threshol

ds

Natural Ranges of Variation

Tying Biologic Needs to Hydrologic Conditions

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

Dis

ch

arg

e, c

fs

Paulden Clarkdale Camp Verde

The Verde River – three USGS gages

Verde River Measured and Adjusted Discharge

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

51 49 46 42 41 41 40 39 38 38 38 37 35 33 32 29 28 27 24 22 19 17 16 16 13 10 7 3

Miles Upstream from Camp Verde gage

Dis

char

ge,

cfs

Measured Streamflow Reconstructed Streamflow

Cot

tonw

ood

Ditc

h

Ver

de (

Woo

ds)

Ditc

h

OK

Ditc

h

Eur

eka

Ditc

h

Dia

mon

d S

Ditc

h

Tun

ne

l Div

ersi

on

Cla

rkd

ale

gag

e

Cottonwood Ditch return flows

Oak

Cre

ek

Bea

ver

Cre

ek

W. C

lear

Cre

ek

Cam

p V

erd

e g

age

Hickey Ditch

Bea

sley

Fla

ts

Data from Bills, D. 2008. Summer base flow evaluation of the Middle Verde River.

How do we DO it?2003: Global review found 207 methodologies

applied in 44 countries in six world regions.

Tharme, R.E. 2003. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441

Poff, et al 2009. The ecological limits of

hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework

for developing regional environmental flow

standards. Freshwater Biology: 1365-2427

2009

Water ChemistryAll Water Chemistry Regimes

Water Temperature Regime

Water-Borne Organic Matter Regime

Water Turbidity/Clarity Regime

key ecological factors ofBiological

Composition andStructure,& Biotic

Interactions

ClimatePrecipitation Temperature

Regime

Precipitation Chemistry Regime

Precipitation Event Regime

Freeze/Thaw RegimeEnergy InputsSolar Radiation Influx Regime

Geothermal Energy Regime

Sediment & GeomorphologyBed Sediment Porosity-Texture

Regime

Bed/Bank Sediment Chemistry Regime

Bed Sediment Erosion-Deposition Regime

Coarse Organic Matter Accumulation Regime

HydrologyWater Flow Regime

Water Elevation Regime

Water Circulation Regime

Surface/Groundwater Exchange Regime

Ice Transport Regime

ConnectivityDrainage Channel

Connectivity Regime

Flood Inundation-Recession Connectivity Regime

Generic Freshwater Integrity Diagram

Non-Native Species!

Verde River Ecological Flows WorkshopExperts created conceptual models of hydrology-biology relationships

Authors

• Jeanmarie Haney– The Nature

Conservancy • Dale Turner

– The Nature Conservancy

• Abe Springer– NAU, PI

• Julie Stromberg– ASU

• Larry Stevens– Museum of N. Arizona

• Phil Pearthree– Arizona Geological

Survey• Vashti Supplee

– Audubon Arizona

www.azconservation.org

speckled dace

Sonora sucker

Bald Eagle

Skipper butterfly

Ruby spot damsel fly

Wood duck

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

©Jack Mills

Critical Thresholds Ecological processes and states have “natural

ranges of variation”

Critical thresholds can be defined from an understanding of the natural ranges of variation

If a key ecological factor exceeds these limits, target will lose its integrity

You can not restore target integrity so long as an altered factor remains outside a critical threshold

Flow-ecology response curves for native fish and garter snake

Flow-ecology response curves for cottonwood (seedlings and mature trees), tamarisk, and mesquite

Well Point Installation

Campbell Ranch

Middle Verde

Three Study Sites

- riparian vegetation

- fish

- aquatic insects

West Clear Creek

Phase II

0

2

4

6

0 50 100 150 200 250

Distance (m)

Ele

vati

on

(m

)

Cross section Vegetation plots Piezometers Interpolated MaxGW InterpolatedAvgGW

Phase II

• Vegetation measured in plots (stream edge to terrace)

• For each plot:- depth to water table

interpolated- flood frequency estimated

Depth-to-water for riparian trees and shrubsvaries among species and functional types

Goodding’s willow Fremont cottonwood Desert willow Netleaf hackberry

Salix gooddingii Populus fremontii Chilopsis linearis Celtis laevigata var. reticulata

Verde River

Ma

xim

um

se

aso

na

l de

pth

to

wa

ter

tab

le (

m)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

Hydric pioneersXericpioneer

Mesicpioneer

e.g. cottonwood, willow

e.g. tamarisk, boxelder, ash, ailanthuse.g. mesquite, walnut, hackberry

Phase II

Low-flow channel zone, pre-monsoon season

Stream flow permanence (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

He

rb

ace

ou

s w

etla

nd

pe

re

nn

ial co

ve

r (

%)

0

20

40

60

80

100San Pedro R.Hassayampa R.Verde R.Cienega Ck.Santa Cruz R.Regression line

Stream flow permanence (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

He

rb

ace

ou

s s

pe

cie

s r

ich

ne

ss (

no

. p

er m

2)

0

2

4

6

8

Low-flow channel zone, pre-monsoon season

Stream flow permanence (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

He

rb

ace

ou

s w

etla

nd

p

ere

nn

ia

l co

ve

r (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100San Pedro R.Hassayampa R.Verde R.Cienega Ck.Santa Cruz R.Regression line

Stream flow permanence (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

He

rb

ace

ou

s sp

ecie

s rich

ne

ss (n

o. p

er m

2)

0

2

4

6

8

Low-flow channel zone, pre-monsoon season

Stream flow permanence (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

He

rb

ace

ou

s w

etla

nd

p

ere

nn

ial co

ve

r (%

)

0

20

40

60

80

100San Pedro R.Hassayampa R.Verde R.Cienega Ck.Santa Cruz R.Regression line

Stream flow permanence (%)

0 20 40 60 80 100

He

rb

ace

ou

s sp

ecie

s ric

hn

ess (n

o. p

er m

2)

0

2

4

6

8

Streamside herbaceous species

Linear responseThreshold response

Phase II

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.60

5

10

15

20

25

f(x) = 3.4919911574491 x + 4.76335305110757R² = 0.135439750844352

f(x) = 0.691156221821468 x + 2.21117126793202R² = 0.119744677750793

Log10 DenLinear (Log10 Den)Total No. Spp

Velocity (m/s)

Velocity (m/s)

Den

sity

/m2 o

rS

pecie

s R

ich

ness

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Velocity consistently positively related to macroinvertebrate variables

Phase II

©Jeanmarie Haney/TNC

Hydrology- fish relationships

Fish Sampling Site Distribution

050

100150200250300350400450

Year

Nu

mb

er o

f S

amp

lin

g S

ites

13 native + 30 nonnative fish species in watershed

Conclusions: Verde River flows and biodiversityVegetation Water table decline- thresholds of mortality of

cottonwood, willow, shifts to shrubbier species

Base flow decline – thresholds of mortality of bulrush, other streamside wetland plants

Increased stream intermittency- species richness and total cover show linear response

Birds Decline of obligate riparian birds as forests decrease in structural complexity

Aquatic invertebrates

Velocity positively correlated to density, species richness and diversity.

Fish Habitat-flow associations, native/non-native competition

Determining flow-ecology associations

Habitat models

Multivariate analyses

Hydrological and biologic metrics

Hydraulic models

Phase III - USGS

How does stream flow affect habitat availability?

U.S. ExamplesTexas “Environmental flow standards”

Connecticut “Flow regulation for all rivers and stream systems”

Florida “Minimum flows and levels”

Michigan “Withdrawals from new large capacity wells cannot decrease flows such that stream functionally would be impaired.”

The best way to predict the future is to invent it.

Alan Kay

Verde River – Dead Horse Point State Park

Verde River – Beasley Flat

Jeanmarie Haney

jhaney@tnc.org

nature.org

azconservation.org

Example Freshwater Conservation Targets

Gila River riverine habitat Gila Basin fish community: Gila chub, spikedace,

loach minnow, desert pupfish, Gila topminnow, longfin dace, desert sucker, Sonoran sucker

Fremont cottonwood / Goodding willow forestMesquite bosqueGiant sacaton grassland Riverine marshRiparian scrubGroundwater fed cienegas

A Framework for Assessing Target Integrity

Identify the “Key Ecological Factors” for each conservation target

Identify one or more “Indicators” for each factor

Identify critical conservation “Thresholds” and “Management Goals” for these indicators

“Rate” target integrity using the indicators to assess target status

Key Ecological Factors

Those critical features of the target and its environment that we must maintain, in order to ensure its long-term integrity

• SizeAbundance or area

• ConditionBiological compositionSpatial structure Biotic interactions

• Landscape contextEnvironmental regimes and

constraints Environmental connectivity

Key Ecological Factors