Post on 14-Jan-2016
description
transcript
Instream flow assessment in New Zealand
Flow assessment framework
Morphology
Evaluate for changes in flow
Water qualityMethods andparameters
DOTemperature
NH3
Biologicalevaluation
Water qualitysuitability
Flow regime requirementsMethods Flushing flow analysis (shear stress)
Fluctuating flow habitat analysis Sediment deposition
Habitatsuitability
Velocity/depthHydraulic geometry
2d modelsStage/Discharge
Water surface profile
Flow assessment based on flow responsecurves of biological indicators
Instream habitat
• Habitat suitability is a widely used concept e.g., angling and hunting
• No suitable habitat - no fishSuitable habitat - maybe..
Three basic life requirements for fish and benthic invertebrates that
live in flowing water
• Velocity
• Depth
• Cover
New Zealand adult brown trout (Hayes & Jowett 1994)
Su
itab
ility
Su
itab
ility
Depth (m) Velocity(m/s)
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
Adult brown trout (Raleigh et al. 1984)
Su
itab
ility
Su
itab
ility
Depth (m) Velocity(m/s)
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.0 0.0
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6
0.8 0.8
1.0 1.0
Vel
oci
ty (
m/s
)
Offset (m)
Dep
th (m
)
0 4 8 12 16 20 0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.0 -2.00
-1.25
-0.50
0.25
1.00
5.3 m3/s
11 m3/s
Prediction of depth and velocity
Predicted water level and depth
Predicted velocity
Level at 5.3 m3/s
Level at 11 m3/s
Habitat quality across river
1 m3/s
6 m3/s
11 m3/s
Wei
gh
ted
usa
ble
are
a (m
2/m
)
Discharge (m3/s)0 5 10 15 20 25
0
2
4
6
8
10
Maximum
Point where habitatbegins to reduce sharply
Usable habitat summed over reach for each flow
6
1
2
34
5
NZ case studies
• River flows are affected by :– Hydroelectric diversion,– Hydroelectric flow control, or– Irrigation diversion
• Studies between 1979 and 2001
• Trout, benthic invertebrate, and native fish goals
1. Description of river and flows
2. Habitat analysis and flow recommendation
3. Before and after photographs
4. Biological response
For each project:
• Lake fed river - natural mean flow 450 m3/s
• River diverted for hydropower generation in 1976
• Minimum flow of 0.3 m3/s since dam construction
Waiau RiverHydroelectric diversion
WU
A (
m2/m
)
Discharge (m3/s)0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Adult brown trout
Food production
Maximum habitat at >15 m3/s Sharp drop as flow goes below 10 m3/s
Goal: Trout and food production
Summer flowWinter flow
Before: flow about1 m3/s
After: flow about16 m3/s
Minimum flow of 12-16 m3/s since
August 1997
Flo
w (
m3/s
)
1
10
100
1000
Before After minimum flow
1 year
Waiau River
Numbers of trout (>20 cm)
0
50
100
150
200
250
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001Bro
wn
and
rain
bow
tro
ut p
er k
m
Before After minimum flow
Brown and rainbow trout densities ranked nationally
River (300+ reaches in descending order)
Tro
ut
(> 2
0 cm
) p
er k
m
Waiau River
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Before
After
Monowai RiverControlled flow to hydroelectric plant
• Lake fed river - mean flow 13.8 m3/s
• Dam at lake controls flow to downstream power station
• Minimum flow of near zero, usually each night
WU
A (
m2/m
)
Discharge (m3/s)0 2 4 6 8 10
0
5
10
15
Food production
Maximum habitat at 5-7 m3/s Sharp drop as flow go below 3 m3/s
MaximumSharp drop
Goal: Invertebrate abundance and diversity
1-JAN-95 1-JUL-950
5
10
15
20
Flo
w (
m3/s
)
1-JAN-92 1-JUL-92
Before After minimum flow
Minimum flow since July 1994
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
De
nsi
ty (
no
m-2)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Ta
xon
ric
hne
ss
(no
pe
r sa
mp
le)
After minimum flow increased to 6 m3 s-1
Invertebrate abundance doubled Number of species doubled
Density
Taxon richness
Invertebrate abundance and diversity
Before
Ohau RiverHydroelectric diversion
• Lake fed river - mean flow 80 m3/s
• Flow diverted for hydropower in 1979
• Minimum flow of near zero
WU
A (
m2/m
)
Discharge (m3/s)0 5 10 15
0
5
10
15
20
Adult brown trout
Food production
Maximum
Habitat analysis indicated excellent adult trout and food producing habitat at 10 m3/s
Goal: High quality brown trout fishery
Before:Flow < 1 m3/s
After:Flow 10 m3/s
Minimum flow of 10-14 m3/s since 1994
Failed to meet expectations
Trout present, but not many
Reasons unknown
Food ?
Recruitment?
Flow too high?
Tekapo RiverHydroelectric diversion
• Lake fed river - mean flow 90 m3/s
• Lake flow diverted in 1978 leaving 10 m3/s from tributaries
• Excellent adult trout spawning and food producing habitat at >10 m3/s
0
10
20
30
0 5 10 15 20
Discharge (m3/s)
WU
A (
m2/m
)
Trout spawning
Food production
Habitat begins to drop sharply
Goal: High quality trout fishery
Just below damZero flow
45 km downstreamFlow 10 m3/s
Tekapo River
• Before diversion (flow 90 m3/s)– Not mentioned in angling surveys – Some trout spawning
• After diversion (flow c. 10 m3/s)– Up to 240 brown and rainbow trout (> 20 cm) per
km– More than 200 juvenile brown and rainbow trout
per km
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
River (300+ reaches)
Bro
wn
an
d r
ain
bo
w t
rou
t (
> 2
0 c
m)
per
km
Brown and rainbow trout densities ranked nationally
Before?
After
Moawhango RiverHydroelectric diversion
• Natural mean flow 9.3 m3/s
• In 1991, all water was diverted to another river system
WU
A (
m2/m
)
Discharge (m3/s)
Goal: benthic invertebrate communitycomposition
0 1 2 3 4 50
3
6
9
12
15DeleatidiumZelandoperla decorataAoteapsycheHydrobiosis parumbripennisMaoridiamesaOrthocladinaeTanytarsus vespertinus
MaximumSharp drop
• Sharp reduction at flows < 0.8 m3/s
After 0.52 m3/s
Before 0.06 m3/s
Minimum flow of 0.6 m3/s since
June 2000
0
10
20
30
40D
ele
atid
ium
Ort
ho
clad
iina
e
Ao
tea
psyc
he
Ta
nyta
rsu
s
Pyc
no
cen
tro
des
Ma
ori
dia
me
sa
Ze
lan
dop
erla
Ost
raco
ds
Lym
nae
a
Elm
ida
e
Olig
och
ae
ta
Po
tam
op
yrgu
s
Per
cent
age
of t
otal
Before (1997)
After (2002)
Desirable species Undesirable species
Waipara RiverDiversion for irrigation
• Small gravel-bed river
• Mean flow 2.5 m3/s
WU
A (
m2/m
)
Discharge (m3/s)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.60
2
4
6
8
Common river galaxiasLongfin eel (<300 mm)Upland bullyTorrentfishBluegill bullyCommon bully
Sharp drop
Goal: maintain native fish population
Habitat for a species with “intermediate” velocity preference begins to decline sharply at 0.12 m3/s
Dec 1998-May 1998
Dry summer• Less than recommended
minimum (0.12 m3/s) for 36% of time
Dec 1999-May 2000
Wet summer• Less than recommended
minimum ( 0.12 m3/s) for 11% of time
Effect on Fish Population
Beginning of summer
1
10
100
1000
Upland
bull
ies
Cante
rbur
y gala
xias
Torre
ntfis
h
Bluegil
l bull
ies
Fis
h p
er 1
00
m
End of summer
Dry 1998/99 summer
1
10
100
1000
Upland
bull
ies
Cante
rbur
y gala
xias
Torre
ntfis
h
Bluegil
l bull
iesF
ish
per
10
0 m
Wet 1999/00 summer
Conclusion
• This is all the NZ data on biological response to flow changes
• Flow assessments were based on habitat requirements
• 5 out of 6 were successful• The outcomes don’t support commonly held
views that more flow is better and that all aspects of a natural flow regime are important
Thank you