H umans have long been fascinated by the dynamism of free-flowing waters. Yet we have expended great effort to tame rivers for transportation, water supply, flood control, agriculture, and power generation. It is now recognized that harnessing of streams and rivers comes at great cost: Many rivers no longer support socially valued native species or sustain healthy ecosystems that provide important goods and services (Naiman et al. 1995, NRC 1992).

/pdf/the-natural-flow-regime-3j2upj9j41.pdf

The Natural Flow Regime

Summary
1. In an effort to develop quantitative relationships between various kinds of flow alteration and ecological responses, we reviewed 165 papers published over the last four decades, with a focus on more recent papers. Our aim was to determine if general relationships could be drawn from disparate case studies in the literature that might inform environmental flows science and management.

2. For all 165 papers we characterised flow alteration in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, timing and rate of change as reported by the individual studies. Ecological responses were characterised according to taxonomic identity (macroinvertebrates, fish, riparian vegetation) and type of response (abundance, diversity, demographic parameters). A ‘qualitative’ or narrative summary of the reported results strongly corroborated previous, less comprehensive, reviews by documenting strong and variable ecological responses to all types of flow alteration. Of the 165 papers, 152 (92%) reported decreased values for recorded ecological metrics in response to a variety of types of flow alteration, whereas 21 papers (13%) reported increased values.

3. Fifty-five papers had information suitable for quantitative analysis of ecological response to flow alteration. Seventy per cent of these papers reported on alteration in flow magnitude, yielding a total of 65 data points suitable for analysis. The quantitative analysis provided some insight into the relative sensitivities of different ecological groups to alteration in flow magnitudes, but robust statistical relationships were not supported. Macroinvertebrates showed mixed responses to changes in flow magnitude, with abundance and diversity both increasing and decreasing in response to elevated flows and to reduced flows. Fish abundance, diversity and demographic rates consistently declined in response to both elevated and reduced flow magnitude. Riparian vegetation metrics both increased and decreased in response to reduced peak flows, with increases reflecting mostly enhanced non-woody vegetative cover or encroachment into the stream channel.

4. Our analyses do not support the use of the existing global literature to develop general, transferable quantitative relationships between flow alteration and ecological response; however, they do support the inference that flow alteration is associated with ecological change and that the risk of ecological change increases with increasing magnitude of flow alteration.

5. New sampling programs and analyses that target sites across well-defined gradients of flow alteration are needed to quantify ecological response and develop robust and general flow alteration–ecological response relationships. Similarly, the collection of pre- and post-alteration data for new water development programs would significantly add to our basic understanding of ecological responses to flow alteration.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/swrcb/swrcb_poff2010_2.pdf

Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows

Floods and droughts are important features of most running water ecosystems, but the alteration of natural flow regimes by recent human activities, such as dam building, raises questions related to both evolution and conservation Among organisms inhabiting running waters, what adaptations exist for surviving floods and droughts? How will the alteration of the frequency, timing and duration of flow extremes affect flood- and drought-adapted organisms? How rapidly can populations evolve in response to altered flow regimes? Here, we identify three modes of adaptation (life history, behavioral and morphological) that plants and animals use to survive floods and/or droughts The mode of adaptation that an organism has determines its vulnerability to different kinds of flow regime alteration The rate of evolution in response to flow regime alteration remains an open question Because humans have now altered the flow regimes of most rivers and many streams, understanding the link between fitness and flow regime is crucial for the effective management and restoration of running water ecosystems

/pdf/adaptation-to-natural-flow-regimes-1z55ndwrg2.pdf

Adaptation to natural flow regimes

> * SUMMARY 1. This paper introduces a new approach for setting streamflow-based river ecosystem management targets and this method is called the 'Range of Variability Approach' (RVA). The proposed approach derives from aquatic ecology theory concerning the critical role of hydrological variability, and associated characteristics of timing, frequency, duration, and rates of change, in sustaining aquatic ecosystems. The method is intended for application on rivers wherein the conservation of native aquatic biodiversity and protection of natural ecosystem functions are primary river management objectives. 2. The RVA uses as its starting point either measured or synthesized daily streamflow values from a period during which human perturbations to the hydrological regime were negligible. This streamflow record is then characterized using thirty-two different hydrological parameters, using methods defined in Richter et al. (1996). Using the RVA, a range of variation in each of the thirty-two parameters, e.g. the values at t 1 standard deviation from the mean or the twenty-fifth to seventy-fifth percentile range, are selected as initial flow management targets. 3. The RVA targets are intended to guide the design of river management strategies (e.g. reservoir operations rules, catchment restoration) that will lead to attainment of these targets on an annual basis. The RVA will enable river managers to define and adopt readily interim management targets before conclusive, long-term ecosystem research results are available. The RVA targets and management strategies should be adaptively refined as suggested by research results and as needed to sustain native aquatic ecosystem biodiversity and integrity.

How much water does a river need

Recognition of the escalating hydrological alteration of rivers on a global scale and resultant environmental degradation, has led to the establishment of the science of environmental flow assessment whereby the quantity and quality of water required for ecosystem conservation and resource protection are determined.

A global review of the present status of environmental flow methodologies revealed the existence of some 207 individual methodologies, recorded for 44 countries within six world regions. These could be differentiated into hydrological, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation and holistic methodologies, with a further two categories representing combination-type and other approaches.

Although historically, the United States has been at the forefront of the development and application of methodologies for prescribing environmental flows, using 37% of the global pool of techniques, parallel initiatives in other parts of the world have increasingly provided the impetus for significant advances in the field.

Application of methodologies is typically at two or more levels. (1) Reconnaissance-level initiatives relying on hydrological methodologies are the largest group (30% of the global total), applied in all world regions. Commonly, a modified Tennant method or arbitrary low flow indices is adopted, but efforts to enhance the ecological relevance and transferability of techniques across different regions and river types are underway. (2) At more comprehensive scales of assessment, two avenues of application of methodologies exist. In developed countries of the northern hemisphere, particularly, the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM) or other similarly structured approaches are used. As a group, these methodologies are the second most widely applied worldwide, with emphasis on complex, hydrodynamic habitat modelling. The establishment of holistic methodologies as 8% of the global total within a decade, marks an alternative route by which environmental flow assessment has advanced. Such methodologies, several of which are scenario-based, address the flow requirements of the entire riverine ecosystem, based on explicit links between changes in flow regime and the consequences for the biophysical environment. Recent advancements include the consideration of ecosystem-dependent livelihoods and a benchmarking process suitable for evaluating alternative water resource developments at basin scale, in relatively poorly known systems. Although centred in Australia and South Africa, holistic methodologies have stimulated considerable interest elsewhere. They may be especially appropriate in developing world regions, where environmental flow research is in its infancy and water allocations for ecosystems must, for the time being at least, be based on scant data, best professional judgement and risk assessment. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/deltaflow/docs/exhibits/swrcb/swrcb_tharme2003.pdf

A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers

Hydrologic regimes play a major role in determining the biotic composition, structure, and function of aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. But human land and water uses are substantially altering hydrologic regimes around the world. Improved quantitative evaluations of human-induced hydrologic changes are needed to advance research on the biotic implications of hydrologic alteration and to support ecosystem management and restoration plans. We propose a method for assessing the degree of hydrologic alteration attributable to human influence within an ecosystem. This method, referred to as the “Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration,” is based upon an analysis of hydrologic data available either from existing measurement points within an ecosystem (such as at stream gauges or wells) or model-generated data. We use 32 parameters, organized into five groups, to statistically characterize hydrologic variation within each year. These 32 parameters provide information on ecologically significant features of surface and ground water regimes influencing aquatic, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. We then assess the hydrologic perturbations associated with activities such as dam operations, flow diversion, groundwater pumping, or intensive land-use conversion by comparing measures of central tendency and dispersion for each parameter between user-defined “pre-impact” and “post-impact” time frames, generating 64 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration. This method is intended for use with other ecosystem metrics in inventories of ecosystem integrity, in planning ecosystem management activities, and in setting and measuring progress toward conservation or restoration goals.

A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems

Maintaining natural hydrologic variability is essential in conserving native riverine biota and river ecosystem integrity. Hydrologic variation plays a major role in structuring the biotic diversity within river ecosystems as it controls key habitat conditions within the river channel, the floodplain, and hyporheic (stream-influenced ground water) zones. Alterations in streamflow regimes may modify many of these habitat attributes and impair ecosystem connectivity. We demonstrate use of the ‘Range of Variability Approach’ for assessing hydrologic alteration at available streamgauge sites throughout a river basin. We then illustrate a technique for spatially mapping the degree of hydrologic alteration for river reaches at and between streamgauge sites. Such maps can be used to assess the loss of natural hydrologic variation at a river basin scale, thereby facilitating river restoration planning. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jennifer Powell

Papers

A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems

A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration within a river network