a six-step framework for ecologically sustainable water management

Mathews60

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATIONUCOWR

A Six-Step Framework for EcologicallySustainable Water Management

Ruth Mathews

River Matters

UNIVERSITIES COUNCIL ON WATER RESOURCESJOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

ISSUE 131, PAGES 60-65, JUNE 2005

Concern about the availability of freshwaterfor use by human populations has beenincreasing (Gleick 1998; Postel 1999; IUCN

2000; Postel 2000). Over the last 50 years, waterdevelopment projects have proliferated in developedcountries and are now rapidly growing in developingcountries (WCD 2000). International debate hasproffered sustainable water development—managing human uses of water such that enoughwater of sufficient quality is available for use bypresent and future generations—as a goal for humancommunities around the world (IUCN 2000).Unfortunately, this neglects the impacts waterdevelopment projects have on other species. In theUnited States, freshwater species are the mostimperiled and at risk for extinction (IUCN 2000;Pringle et al. 2000; Stein et al. 2000; Baron et al.2002). To address the drastic consequences ofunfettered human water use on freshwaterecosystems, concern for the species that dependupon freshwater to survive must be added tosustainable water management. The resultingecologically sustainable water management retainsthe flows necessary to protect native species andsustain the full array of products and servicesprovided by natural freshwater ecosystems whilemeeting inter-generational human needs for water(Richter et al. 2003).

The following six-step framework (Figure 1) is aguide for achieving ecologically sustainable watermanagement (Richter et al. 2003). The fundamentalsincluded in these steps have been developed andused by scientists, water managers, conservationists,and other professionals around the world. Packagingthese together in a six-step framework creates abaseline of the critical elements required for meeting

the goal of ecologically sustainable watermanagement. The framework is a reference pointthat can be used to track progress toward ecologicallysustainable water management. While these sixsteps are listed in a linear fashion and are numberedsequentially, it is for the purpose of simplifying theirpresentation. In many situations, these steps mayoccur in a different order or may be circled back torepeatedly.

The six step framework for ecologicallysustainable water management is:

Step 1: Estimate ecosystem flow requirementsStep 2: Determine the influence of human

activities on the flow regimeStep 3: Identify incompatibilities between human

and ecosystem needsStep 4: Foster collaborative dialogue to search for

solutionsStep 5: Conduct water management experiments

to resolve uncertaintiesStep 6: Design and implement an adaptive

management plan

Each of these steps will be described briefly andillustrated by a project with which The NatureConservancy has been involved.

Step 1: Developing an EnvironmentalFlow Recommendation

A river’s flow regime varies in response to daily,seasonal, and annual climatic variability; species haveevolved specific life history traits that utilize differentaspects of the flow regime (Poff et al. 1997).Maintaining a river’s natural flow variability is

61

UCOWR

Ecologically Sustainable Water Management

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY WATER RESEARCH & EDUCATION

essential for sustaining species diversity and thenatural functions of ecosystems that provide goodsand services valued by humans (Sparks 1995;Walker et al. 1995; Poff et al. 1997; Postel andCarpenter 1997; IUCN 2000). These flows are bestdescribed by the magnitude, timing, frequency,duration, and rate of change of specific flowcomponents, including low flows, high flow pulses,and floods that will provide the conditions necessaryto protect the full array of native species (Stanfordet al. 1996; Poff et al. 1997; Richter et al. 1997).

In 2002-2003, The Nature Conservancy facilitatedthe development of environmental flowrecommendations for use in the Army Corps ofEngineers’ new Comprehensive Plan for theSavannah River in Georgia and South Carolina. Aninterdisciplinary team of scientists and technicalexperts was convened and values were establishedfor three components of the flow regime: low flows,

high flow pulses, and flood events for dry, average,and wet years (see Richter et al. 2003b). Theseflow recommendations are expected to sustain orrestore the ecosystems downstream of ThurmondDam, defining the boundary within which water useand management would be ecologically sustainable.The recommended flows are initial estimates thatwill be tested and refined over time.

Step 2: Modeling Impacts of HumanUses on the Flow Regime

Humans use and manage water for a variety ofpurposes, including water supply, power generation,flood control, navigation, recreation, water quality,and irrigation. Each of these uses alters the flowregime in different, but characteristic, ways. A varietyof tools, including hydrologic simulation models andthe Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) can

Estimate Ecosystem Flow

Requirements

Determine Human

Influences on Flow Regime

Identify Areas of Potential

Incompatibility

Foster Collaborative Dialogue to Search for Solutions

Conduct Water Experiments to

Reduce Uncertainty

Adaptive Management

• Expected outcomes • Range of actions • Monitor effectiveness

PROBLEM DEFINITION SEARCH FOR SOLUTIONS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Figure 1. Six-step framework for ecologically sustainable water management.

Mathews62


be used to understand how a river’s flow regime isbeing altered by existing or proposed future wateruse or management (Richter et al. 1996; Richter etal. 1997).

In 1997, the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgiaentered into an interstate compact to determine awater allocation formula for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (U.S. Congress1997). The Apalachicola River and Bay at the mouthof this 20,000 square mile watershed is home to adiverse assemblage of fish and mussel species andsustains a nationally important commercial fishery(ANERR 1993; Hoehn 1998). The thriving metropolisof Atlanta and a large agricultural industry rely on thewaters that would historically have flowed into theApalachicola River and Bay. To demonstrate thecompatibility of providing water for current and futurehuman water uses and maintaining a natural flowregime in the Apalachicola River, The NatureConservancy used a hydrologic simulation modeldeveloped by the three states to explore differentlevels of human demands and various reservoiroperation scenarios. Impacts on the flow regime inthe Apalachicola River were determined by evaluatingoutput from this model using the IHA. An iterativeprocess of modeling reservoir operations and humandemands and subsequent IHA evaluation of resultingflows showed that a significant increase in humandemands could be accommodated while maintainingthe natural flow regime in the Apalachicola River(Richter et al. 2003).

Step 3: Changing ReservoirOperations for Ecosystem Benefit

Once the ecosystem flow requirements and humanuses that influence the flow regime have beenquantified, it is possible to identify where there arepotential incompatibilities or conflicts between humanuses of water and ecosystem flow needs. It isimportant to characterize these conflicts with asmuch specificity as possible to limit the extent of theconflict and bring focus to its possible resolution. Inmany cases, it is possible to adjust water use ormanagement such that ecosystem flows are metwhile still providing water for humans.

The Green River Dam in Kentucky is operatedby the Army Corps of Engineers to provide floodcontrol in the winter and reservoir recreation inthe summer. Downstream of the dam is one of the

most diverse assemblages of fish and freshwatermussels in the United States, and the MammothCave, home to a host of species that have adaptedto the unique conditions in the cave. The transitionfrom recreation lake levels to flood control storagelevels has historically been accomplished byreleasing a large volume of water during October.This resulted in dramatically elevated river flowsduring a time when flows naturally would have beenvery low. Scientists posited that these elevated flowscould be harmful to fish spawning and musselreproduction. Working with the district engineer,The Nature Conservancy and the Corps were ableto design a new release pattern that would still meetthe intended purposes of the Green River Dam butis expected to improve conditions for river speciesbelow the dam. To ensure these changes inreservoir operations do provide benefits todownriver species, a monitoring program was putin place (Postel and Richter 2003).

Step 4: Collaborative Process toMeet Diverse Interests

There are many processes in which theframework for ecologically sustainable watermanagement can be applied, including: watershedplanning, FERC relicensing, instream flow setting,interstate or transboundary water compacts, riverbasin commissions, species recovery planning, multi-party partnerships and dam re-operations. Whateverthe setting, it is important for the parties to cometogether in an open collaborative process that enablesstakeholders to articulate interests and clarify goals(Bingham 1986; Howitt 1992; Axelrod 1994). It willbe necessary to examine where along the spectrumfrom a natural river to one that is highly managedfor human uses a river, portion of a watershed, orwatershed should be. Working together, the partiesdevelop a shared vision for the river’s futureconditions that can be used in water managementdecisions, permitting, conservation, or restorationactions (Rogers and Bestier 1997). With theinformation gained through Steps 1, 2, and 3, thegroup can look for innovative solutions that will meetthe intended goal. Having a common vision providesclear direction for managers interested in adaptivelymanaging water resources.

The existing license for the Baker River Projectin the Skagit River Basin in Washington expires in

63

UCOWR



2006. Relicensing proceedings have been in processfor several years and include participation of PugetSound Energy, federal and state agencies, tribes, localgovernment, and non-governmental organizations.1

The hoped for outcome of these negotiations is alicense issued by FERC that will mitigate the impactsof the hydropower project on aquatic, terrestrial,recreation, and cultural resources within the BakerBasin and downstream of the project in the SkagitRiver. The project also provides flood control underthe direction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Findinga solution that satisfies these diverse interests and iseconomically viable for the utility has requiredcompromise and innovative solutions, includingadaptive management.

Step 5: Building a Knowledge Basethrough Research and Monitoring

There is often insufficient information fordetermining ecosystem flows or the influences ofwater management and use on the natural flowregime with absolute certainty. This can create inertiain a collaborative process as uncertainty, inability toassign responsibility, and indecision reign. It isimportant to address areas of uncertainty and moveforward out of this inertia. This can be done in away that builds the information base for decision-making and frees energy to move forward wherecertainty does exist.

The San Pedro River is one of the last remainingfree-flowing rivers in the American Southwest, andit is fed by the waters of an underground aquifer. Itscottonwood gallery forests, which provide criticalhabitat for migrating songbirds, depend upon aquiferlevels shallow enough to be reached by their roots.Human population growth, irrigated agriculture, anda military base also rely on the groundwater. For anumber of years, a single trend analysis of reducedbaseflow in the river stymied possible solutions aseach party placed responsibility for this decliningtrend on others. The Upper San Pedro Partnershipcomposed of 20 agencies and organizations has beenformed to break this deadlock (Upper San PedroPartnership 1998). Investments in research andmonitoring are being made to increase theunderstanding of the complex interrelationshipsbetween water use, the aquifer, and the ecosystem.While this work is in progress, the Partnership ismoving forward with water conservation projects

that will begin reversing the trend in groundwaterdepletion. As new information becomes available,the water resource conservation plan will be alteredto better reflect current knowledge (Richter et al.2003; Postel and Richter 2003).

Step 6: Stepwise Progressiontowards Ecological Sustainability

There will never be enough resources to resolveall of the uncertainties associated with settingecosystem flows and managing water resources forhuman uses. To meet the goal of ecologicallysustainable water management over the long-term,it is essential to have an institutional framework thatincorporates new information as it becomesavailable. The goals articulated in Step 4 becomethe compass-point directing water resourcemanagers (Rogers and Bestier 1997). A range ofactions, or incremental actions, with expectedoutcomes from each action should be documented.As these actions are implemented, monitoring andevaluation will reflect whether the expected responsehas occurred (Walters and Holling 1990; Lee 1993).This allows for course corrections to meet theintended goals and provides new information thatfeeds back into Step 1 and Step 2.

In preparing the settlement agreement to beconsidered by the FERC in licensing the RoanokeRapids Dam in North Carolina, The NatureConservancy worked with the utility and other partiesto incorporate the principles of adaptivemanagement. Bottomland forests downstream of thedam were suffering from reduced recruitment rates,and it was hypothesized that increased floodfrequency and duration during the growing seasonwas the culprit. While not knowing exactly howmuch the utility needed to alter its operations toimprove conditions for bottomland forest and otherfloral and faunal populations downstream of the dam,the Conservancy and others wanted to ensure thatthe new license protected or restored these species.To accomplish this, a goal for improving thesepopulations was set, and a stepwise progression ofoperational changes was developed. To make thispalatable to the utility and protect their interest inhydropower generation, a maximum amount of lostgeneration was agreed upon. Within that constraint,the utility would alter operations moderately, followedby a period of monitoring to establish whether the

Mathews64


goals for species health were met. If they were,then the utility would not have to proceed withadditional modifications. If they were not, the nextincrement of change in operations would beimplemented and monitored. In this way, the utilitywould find the most efficient level of modificationof operations that would meet the river restorationgoals (Postel and Richter 2003).

Conclusion

These are just a few examples of an increasingnumber of efforts worldwide that bring thefundamentals of ecosystem science and adaptivemanagement to water management and policydecisions. Society faces a growing body of evidenceof the true costs of degraded freshwaterecosystems. Human social values are shifting inresponse. These changing values are reflected inlegal and regulatory agreements requiring a moreeven balance between allocating water for economicand environmental uses. Scientists are makingprogress in understanding the dynamic environmentalprocesses (e.g., flow regimes, sediment inputs, etc.)that are fundamental to a river’s health and howthese affect species survival and diversity. New toolsare being developed to assist in this more holisticapproach to water allocation. Adaptive managementis being tested in both small and large river systemsand is beginning to be accepted by both watermanagers and regulatory agencies as a way toprovide certainty in an uncertain setting.

Non-governmental organizations (NGO), like TheNature Conservancy, have a valuable role to play inresolving water resource conflict and moving watermanagement and use toward ecological sustainability.The parties involved in water resource decisionmaking can often be split into two camps–those whoregulate and those who litigate. The NatureConservancy’s commitment not to litigate, its lackof regulatory authority, and its willingness to workwith all parties places it in a unique position. Whilecarrying no stick at all, The Nature Conservancyand similar NGOs can promote innovative solutionsthat meet and mediate between diverse interests,thus providing options that agencies, tribes, utilitiesand others may not be able to advance but to whichthey can agree.

Ultimately, ecological sustainability is a choicethat recognizes there is a limited supply of natural

resources and that the health of human populationsis inextricably linked to the health of naturalecosystems. Society has begun to move in thisdirection, and this framework is offered in supportof this movement toward sustainability for all species.

AckowledgementsI’d like to acknowledge Brian Richter and the Sustainable WatersProgram of The Nature Conservancy for their work in thedevelopment and application of this framework for ecologicallysustainable water management.

Author Bio and Contact InformationRUTH MATHEWS founded River Matters in 2004 to provideservices that support ecologically sustainable water management(ESWM). Prior to that she worked for The Nature Conservancywhere she led the application of ESWM in the Pacific Northwestby working collaboratively with water managers, scientists,water users, and other conservationists to protect and restoreriver flows in a variety of settings. Prior to living in theNorthwest she represented The Nature Conservancy in waterallocation formula negotiations for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin. Ms. Mathews has a Masterof Science in Water Resource Management and Planning fromColorado State University. She can be contacted at RuthMathews, 716 14th Street, Bellingham, WA 98225;[email protected].

References

Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve and FloridaDepartment of Environmental Protection (ANERR). 1993.Apalachicola National Estuarine Research ReserveManagement Plan. Eastpoint, FL: Flordia DEPA.

Axelrod, L.J., 1994. Balancing personal needs with environmentalpreservation: Identifying the values that guide decisions inecological dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues 5: 85-104.

Baron, J. S., N. L. Poff, P. L. Angermeier, C. N. Dahm, P. H.Gleick, N. G. Hairston, R. B. Jackson, C. A. Johnston, B. D.Richter, and A. D. Steinman. Meeting ecological and societalneeds for freshwater. Ecological Applications 12: 1247-1260.

Bingham, G.. 1986. Resolving environmental dsputes: A decadeof experience. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Gleick, P. H. 1998. The world’s water 1998-1999: The biennialreport on freshwater resources. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Hoehn, T. 1998. Rare and imperiled fish species of Florida: Awatershed perspective. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Game andFish Commission.

Howitt, R. 1992. Industrialisation, impact assessment andempowerment. Auckland, New Zealand: Indigenous Peoplesand Development Issues.

65

UCOWR



International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).2000. Vision for water and nature: A world strategy forconservation and sustainable management of waterresources in the 21st Century. Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK: IUCN.

Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: Integrating scienceand politics for the environment. Washington, D.C.: IslandPress.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allen, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard,B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg. 1997. Thenatural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation andrestoration. BioScience 47: 769-784.

Postel, S. 1999. Pillar of dand: Can the irrigation miracle last?New York: W.W. Norton.

Postel, S. and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services.In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on NaturalEcosystems, ed. G. C. Daily, 195–214. Washington, D.C.:Island Press.

Postel, S. 2000. Entering an era of water scarcity: The challengesahead. Ecological Applications 10: 941-948.

Postel, S. and B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for Life: ManagingWater for People and Nature. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Pringle, C. M., M. C. Freeman, and B. J. Freeman. 2000. Regionaleffects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota inthe new world: tropical-temperate comparisons. BioScience50: 807-823.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D. P. Braun.1996. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration withinecosystems. Conservation Biology 10: 1163-1174.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D. P. Braun.1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology37: 231-249.

Richter, B. D., R. Mathews, D. L. Harrison, and R. Wigington.2003. Ecologically sustainable water management: Managingriver flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications13: 206-224.

Richter, B. D., J. L. Meyer, K. Lutz, and A. Warner. 2003b.Proceedings of the 2003 Georgia Water ResourcesConference, held April 23-24, 2003, at the University ofGeorgia. Kathryn J. Hatcher, editor, Institute of Ecology,The University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Available athttp://www.rivercenter.uga.edu/research/instream.htm.

Rogers, K. and R. Bestbier. 1997. Development of a Protocolfor the Definition of the Desired State of Riverine Systemsin South Africa. South African Wetlands ConservationProgramme, Pretoria, South Africa: Dept. of EnvironmentalAffairs and Tourism.

Sparks, R. E. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of largerivers and their floodplains. BioScience 45: 169-182.

Stanford, J. A., J. V. Ward, W. J. Liss, C. A. Frissell, R. N. Williams,J. A. Lichatowich, and C. C. Coutant. 1996. A general protocolfor restoration of regulated rivers. Regulated Rivers 12: 391-414.

Stein, B. A., L. S. Kutner, and J. S. Adams. 2000. Preciousheritage: The status of biodiversity in the United States.New York: Oxford University Press.

Upper San Pedro River Partnership. 1998. Memorandum ofUnderstanding Between the US Bureau of LandManagement, US Department of Defense, US Forest Service,US Geological Survey, US National Park Service, ArizonaDepartment of Water Resources, Arizona Department ofWater Quality, Arizona State Land Department, CochiseCounty, City of Sierra Vista, City of Bisbee, Town ofHuachuca City, City of Tombstone, Hereford NaturalResource Conservation District, and The NatureConservancy. Western Resource Office of The NatureConservancy: Boulder, CO.

U. S. Congress. 1997. Granting the consent of the Congress tothe Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact.Public Law 105-104. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

Walker, K. F., F. Sheldon, and J. T. Puckridge. 1995. Aperspective on dryland river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers11: 85-104.

Walters, C. J. and C. S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale managementexperiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71: 53-74.

World Commission on Dams. 2000. Dams and development: Anew framework for decision-making. Earthscan: London, UK.

Notes1. Documents concerning the Banker River Project are online at

http://www.pse.com/hydro/baker/index.html.