E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Okavango River Basin
Environmental Flow Assessment
Guidelines for Data Collection, Analysis
and Scenario Creation
Report No: 03/2009
J.M. King, et al.
September 2008
1
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
DOCUMENT DETAILS
PROJECT
Environment protection and sustainable management
of the Okavango River Basin: Preliminary
Environmental Flows Assessment
TITLE:
Guidelines for data collection, analysis and scenario
creation
DATE: September
2008
AUTHORS:
J.M. King, C. A. Brown.
REPORT NO.:
Process Management Report 1
PROJECT NO:
UNTS/RAF/010/GEF
FORMAT:
MSWord and PDF.
Citation
No part of this document may be reproduced in any manner
without full acknowledgement of its source
This document should be cited as:
King, J.M. and Brown, C.A. 2008. Guidelines for data collection, analysis and scenario
creation. Report 03-2009 EPSMO/BIOKAVANGO Okavango Basin Environmental
Flows Assessment Project, OKACOM, Maun, Botswana. 67 pp.
2
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
LIST OF REPORTS IN REPORT SERIES
Report 01/2009:
Project Initiation Report
Report 02/2009:
Process Report
Report 03/2009:
Guidelines for data collection, analysis and scenario creation
Report 04/2009:
Delineation Report
Report 05/2009:
Hydrology Report: Data and models
Report 06/2009:
Scenario Report: Hydrology
Report 07/2009:
Scenario Report: Ecological and social predictions
Report 08/2009:
Final Report
Other deliverables:
DSS Software
Process Management Team PowerPoint Presentations
3
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
DOCUMENT DETAILS........................................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF REPORTS IN REPORT SERIES............................................................................................. 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................. 6
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................... 7
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................. 8
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................. 8
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 9
2
GUIDELINES FOR BASIN DELINEATION ................................................................................. 10
2.1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 10
2.2
OUTLINE OF DELINEATION PROCEDURES ................................................................... 10
STEP 1:
Basin location and characteristics ............................................................................ 10
STEP 2:
River zonation ........................................................................................................... 11
STEP 3:
Socio-economic delineation ...................................................................................... 13
STEP 4:
Identification of Integrated Units of Analysis ............................................................. 14
STEP 5:
Selection of study IUAs, zones and sites ................................................................. 14
2.3
INFORMATION REQUIRED AT THE DELINEATION WORKSHOP ........................................ 15
Non-GIS information ..................................................................................................................... 15
GIS layers ..................................................................................................................................... 17
3
GUIDELINES FOR THE SELECTION OF INTEGRATED UNITS OF ANALYSIS, RIVER
ZONES AND STUDY SITES ................................................................................................................ 18
3.1
SELECTION OF INTEGRATED UNITS OF ANALYSIS AND RIVER ZONES ........................... 18
3.2
SITE SELECTION ....................................................................................................... 19
4
GUIDELINES FOR SCENARIO IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................... 21
4.1
THE CONCEPT OF SCENARIOS ................................................................................... 21
4.2
STAKEHOLDERS ....................................................................................................... 21
4.3
IDENTIFICATION OF SCENARIOS ................................................................................. 22
5
GUIDELINES FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF INDICATORS, LINKS BETWEEN INDICATORS
AND FLOW CATEGORIES ................................................................................................................. 25
5.1
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 25
5.2
THE IDENTIFICATION OF FLOW-RELATED BIOPHYSICAL INDICATORS ............................. 25
Selecting discipline indicators ....................................................................................................... 25
Selecting linked indicators - Biophysical ....................................................................................... 27
5.3
THE IDENTIFICATION OF FLOW-RELATED SOCIAL INDICATORS ..................................... 29
5.4
THE IDENTIFICATION OF FLOW CATEGORIES ............................................................... 29
6
GUIDELINES FOR DATA COLLECTION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW STUDIES .............. 32
6.1
POSSIBLE SOURCES OF DATA.................................................................................... 32
6.2
THE OCTOBER 2008 FIELD TRIP ................................................................................ 32
Purpose of the field trip ................................................................................................................. 32
6.3
FURTHER DATA COLLECTION ..................................................................................... 34
7
GUIDELINES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONSE CURVES ..................................... 35
7.1
THE CONCEPT OF BIOPHYSICAL RESPONSE CURVES ................................................. 35
Biophysical indicator abundance vs. change in flow category ..................................................... 35
4
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Ecosystem integrity vs. change in flow category .......................................................................... 37
7.2
OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESPONSE CURVES FOR
THE BIOPHYSICAL INDICATORS .................................................................................. 38
STEP 1:
Familiarise yourself with the data entry forms .......................................................... 38
STEP 2:
Populate the data entry worksheets with response curves ...................................... 40
STEP 3:
Check the response curves ...................................................................................... 42
STEP 3:
Repeat for all indicators and all flow categories ....................................................... 43
7.3
RESPONSE CURVES FOR SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS ............................................ 43
8
GUIDELINES FOR SPECIALIST REPORTS FOR THE TDA EF PROCESS ............................. 44
9
SUGGESTED PROCEDURE FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ECOLOGICAL CONDITION .. 45
9.1
HABITAT INTEGRITY METHOD .................................................................................... 45
9.2
GUIDE TO ASSIGNING SCORES WHEN THERE ARE FEW DATA AVAILABLE ...................... 47
Water abstraction .......................................................................................................................... 47
Inundation ..................................................................................................................................... 50
Flood manipulation ....................................................................................................................... 50
Lowflow manipulation ................................................................................................................... 51
Bed modification ........................................................................................................................... 52
Channel modification .................................................................................................................... 53
Water quality ................................................................................................................................. 54
Presence of exotic macrophytes .................................................................................................. 54
Presence of exotic fauna .............................................................................................................. 55
Presence of solid waste ................................................................................................................ 57
Removal of indigenous vegetation ............................................................................................... 57
Encroachment into the riparian zone by exotic vegetation ........................................................... 58
Evidence of bank erosion ............................................................................................................. 59
10 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 61
5
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 5.1 Schematic giving hypothetical example of information needs for a
fish specialist to provide a response curve of a change in dry-
season low-flows for fish species A.
28
Figure 5.2 The annual hydrograph for the Lower Mekong River at Luang
Prabang in 1988, showing the four ecologically relevant flow seasons
recognized for the Lower Mekong River. Data source: Mekong River
Commission; analysis Peter Adamson.
31
Figure 7.1 Start of an hypothetical response curve for the relationship between
an indicator abundance and median discharge in the wet season.
36
Figure 7.2 Examples of different shaped response curves change in
abundance 37
Figure 7.3 Examples of different shaped response curves change in integrity
38
Figure 7.4 The WSLF Data Entry Worksheet
40
Figure 7.5 The WSLF Worksheet close up of the data entry area
43
6
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 2.1
Geomorphological zonation of South African river channels
(Rowntree and Wadeson 1999).
13
Table 2.2
Suggested responsibilities for the collection of information for basin
delineation 16
Table 3.1
IUA Rating Table
19
Table 4.1
Hypothetical example of the matrix of information that could be
developed for each part of a river basin. The indicators would be
more numerous than shown and would differ from river to river. The
crosses represent the level of beneficial use under each scenario as
gleaned from directed supporting research and are used here merely
to illustrate possible trends in the status of each indicator. PD =
Present Day. HEP = Hydropower (King and Brown in press).
22
Table 4.2
Examples of scenarios used in EFAs elsewhere. BHN = Basic
Human Needs. D/I = Domestic and Industrial. Residual = any water
left after priority demands met.
24
Table 5.1
Important considerations in the selection of indicators
27
Table 5.2
Examples of flow categories used in past studies for different types
of rivers
30
Table 6.1
Physical characteristics for inclusion in site sketch maps
34
Table 7.1
Rules for data entry
42
Table 9.1
Criteria and weights used for the assessment (from Kleynhans,
1996). 46
Table 9.2
Habitat Integrity categories (from Kleynhans, 1996)
46
Table 9.3
Scoring system for water abstraction
49
Table 9.4
Scoring system for extent of inundation of the river channel
50
Table 9.5
Scoring system for flood manipulation
51
Table 9.6
Scoring system for lowflow manipulation
52
Table 9.7
Scoring system for bed modification
53
Table 9.8
Scoring system for channel modification
54
Table 9.9
Scoring system for exotic macrophytes
55
Table 9.10 Scoring system for exotic fish
56
Table 9.11 Scoring system for solid waste
57
Table 9.12 Scoring system for removal of indigenous vegetation
58
Table 9.13 Scoring system for encroachment into the riparian zone by exotic
vegetation 59
Table 9.14 Scoring system for evidence of bank erosion
60
7
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY
DSS
Decision Support System
DWAF
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (South Africa)
EF Environmental
Flows
EFA
Environmental Flow Assessment
GIS
Geographical Information Systems
HOORC
Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre
IUAs
Integrated Units of Analysis
MAR
Mean Annual Runoff
MRC
Mekong River Commission
TDA
Technical Diagnostic Analysis
UN-FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
8
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Introduction
The origin of the project is described in Report 01/2009: Project Initiation Report.
Essentially, the project was an initiative of OKACOM, the Okavango River Basin
Commission. Titled the Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of
the Okavango River Basin (EPSMO) project, it was approved by the United Nations
Development Program (UNDP), to be executed by the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO). The long-term objective of the EPSMO Project was
to achieve global environmental benefits through concerted management of the
naturally integrated land and water resources of the Okavango River Basin.
The project would follow a standard process used by all GEF funded International
Waters projects: an objective assessment - the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
(TDA) followed by the development of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) of joint
management to address threats to the basin's linked land and water systems. The
SAP would package initiatives that address issues raised by the TDA and would aim
to overcome barriers to regional co-operation and thus help ensure that development
of the basin would be sustainable and equitable. In the case of the Okavango Basin,
the traditional approach, designed for rehabilitating degraded rivers, would have to
be modified because of the near-pristine nature of the river ecosystem. It was
suggested that this be done by incorporating an Environmental Flows Assessment as
a major part of the TDA.
In 2008 EPSMO therefore collaborated with the BIOKAVANGO Project at the Harry
Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre (HOORC) of the University of Botswana, to jointly
conduct a preliminary basin-wide Environmental Flows Assessment (EFA) for the Okavango
River system.
National teams in Angola, Namibia and Botswana worked with a Process Management
Team to complete the Environmental Flow Assessment (EFA) component of the TDA by
July 2009.
At a Planning Meeting in July 2008, a workplan for the EFA was agreed on, which required
Guidelines to be drawn up for several of the activities. This document provides the
guidelines for:
· Basin
delineation
· Selection of study zones and sites
· Selection of development scenarios for analysis
· Selection of indicators and flow components
· Date
collection
· Construction of Response Curves for knowledge capture
· Writing of reports
· Determination of ecological condition.
9
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for basin delineation
Introduction
This Chapter provides guidelines for the designation of ecologically and socially-
relevant river zones and sites in the Okavango Basin. The guidelines are presented
with the assumption that each step will be recorded in a formal Delineation Report.
The primary objective of this task is to:
· divide the river into relatively homogeneous longitudinal zones in
terms of biophysical characteristics (reach analysis) and land-use;
· select homogeneous sampling areas for socio-economic surveys;
· harmonise the biophysical river zones and social areas so that the
social and ecological data focus on compatible zones;
· select representative sites for all the river and social work to follow;
and
· develop simple (GIS) base maps for use as required.
· provide the information required for completion of the Delineation
Report.
The delineation will be done in a workshop, which will be divided into a number of
plenary sessions for the purpose of sharing information, and a number of group work
sessions where sub-groups will work on river, delta and social analyses. In addition,
a GIS team will provide maps and related information as required.
For Steps 1-4 below, sub-groups will be defined on the basis of discipline rather than
country representation. For Step 5, sub-groups will be by country.
Outline of delineation procedures
STEP 1:
Basin location and characteristics
Step 1.1
Describe the basin location and characteristics, including:
· Location
· Size
· Political and administrative boundaries
· Climate
· Geology
· Topography.
Step 1.2
Describe the land use and vegetation, including:
· Natural vegetation types, distributions and total areas covered
· Cultivated areas types, distributions and total areas covered.
10
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 1.3
Describe the location of the main rivers, wetlands and
floodplains, including:
· Mainstem river, and significant tributaries
· Source and length of each
· Significant features, e.g., Popa Falls
· The extent and nature of the delta.
Wherever possible, use maps and tables and ensure that coordinates are provided.
STEP 2:
River zonation
For the main stem river and all significant tributaries:
Step 2.1
Delineate and describe homogenous surface water hydrological
zones along the rivers on the basis of:
· Main hydrological basins
· Significant hydrological sub-basins
· Location of gauging weirs/measuring stations
· Seasonality of sub-basin hydrological regimes
· Mean Annual Runoff per sub-basin and contribution to total MAR
· Existing
water-resource
infrastructure
· Planned
water-resource
infrastructure.
Wherever possible, use maps and tables and ensure that coordinates are provided.
Step 2.2
Delineate and describe homogenous groundwater hydrological
zones along the rivers on the basis of (if available):
· Aquifer flow systems (based on geology and climate) within a
basin
· Groundwater-fed base flow
· Groundwater
levels
· Springs
· Geological
faulting
· Aquifer dependent ecosystems
· Groundwater
use.
Wherever possible, use maps and tables and ensure that coordinates are provided.
Step 2.3
Delineate and describe homogenous geomorphological zones
along the rivers on the basis of:
· Geology and dominant substrata
· Channel planform, valley form and the presence of floodplains
11
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· Slope and sequence of hydraulic habitats.
Use the geomorphological zonation of South African river channels (Rowntree and
Wadeson 1999) as a guide (Table 0.1). Wherever possible, use maps and tables
and ensure that coordinates are provided. Depict longitudinal zonation for the river
and significant tributaries using a line graph of altitude v. distance from source.
Step 2.4
Delineate and describe homogenous chemical and thermal zones
along the rivers on the basis of (if available):
· Temperature
· Conductivity
· Dissolved
salts
· Nutrients
· Pollution
sources.
Wherever possible, use maps and tables and ensure that coordinates are provided.
Step 2.5
Delineate and describe homogenous biological zones along the
river on the basis of (if available):
· Distribution of aquatic fauna and flora
· Distribution of semi-aquatic fauna and flora
· Distribution of animals dependent on the river/delta for any part of
their life-cycle
· Overall ecological condition of the aquatic ecosystems (See
suggested procedure in Chapter 0 and also link to field trips in
Section 6.2). The procedure outlined in Chapter 9 will be
completed to the extent possible in the Delineation Workshop, and
then repeated with additional field data during the site visits.
Wherever possible, use maps and tables, and ensure that coordinates are provided.
12
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.1
Geomorphological zonation of South African river channels (Rowntree
and Wadeson 1999).
Characteristic Channel Features
Longitudinal Zone
Gradient
Description
not
Low gradient, upland plateau or upland basin able to store water. Spongy or peat
Source zone
specified
hydromorphic soils.
Mountain headwater
A very steep gradient stream dominated by vertical flows over bedrock with
stream
>0.1
waterfalls and plunge pools. Normally first or second order. Zone types
(Mountain torrent)
include bedrock fall and cascades.
Steep gradient stream dominated by bedrock and boulders, locally cobble or
0.04 -
Mountain stream
coarse gravels in pools. Zone types include cascades, bedrock fall, and step-pool.
0.09
Approximate equal distribution of 'vertical' and 'horizontal' flow components.
Moderately steep stream dominated by bedrock or boulder. Zone types include
Mountain stream
0.02 -
plane-bed, pool-rapid or pool-riffle. Confined or semi-confined valley floor with
(transitional)
0.039
limited floodplain development.
Moderately steep, cobble-bed or mixed bedrock-cobble bed channel, with plane-
0.005
Upper Foothills
bed, pool-riffle, or pool-rapid reach types. Length of pools and riffles/rapids
0.019
similar. Narrow floodplain of sand, gravel or cobble often present.
Lower gradient mixed bed alluvial channel with sand and gravel dominating the
0.001 -
bed, locally may be bedrock controlled. Reach types typically include pool-riffle
Lower Foothills
0.005
or pool-rapid, sand bars common in pools. Pools of significantly greater extent
than rapids or riffles. Floodplains often present.
Low gradient alluvial fine bed channel, typically regime reach type. May be
0.0001
confined, but fully developed meandering pattern within a distinct floodplain
Lowland river
0.001
develops in unconfined reaches where there is an increased silt content in bed or
banks.
Moderate to steep gradient, confined channel (gorge) resulting from uplift in the
Rejuvenated bedrock >0.02
middle to lower reaches of the long profile, limited lateral development of alluvial
fall / cascades
features, reach types include bedrock fall, cascades and pool-rapid.
Steepened section within middle reaches of the river caused by uplift, often within
or downstream of gorge; characteristics similar to foothills (gravel/cobble bed
Rejuvenated
0.001
rivers with pool-riffle/ pool-rapid morphology) but of a higher order. A compound
foothills
0.02
channel is often present with an active channel contained within a macro-channel
activated only during infrequent flood events. A limited flood- plain may be
present between the active and macro-channel.
An upland low gradient channel, often associated with uplifted plateau areas, as
Upland flood plain
<0.005
occur beneath the eastern escarpment.
Step 2.6
Combine the zonation resulting from Steps 2.1 to 2.5 into
harmonized river zones:
The zones delineated according to separate considerations of hydrology,
geohydrology, geomorphology, chemistry and biology should be compared and
adjusted to arrive at `harmonized' biophysical zones, which (to the extent possible)
take account of the combination of these factors.
STEP 3:
Socio-economic delineation
Step 3.1
Delineate and describe homogenous socio-economic areas
within the basin on the basis of:
· Political
boundaries
· Human population demographics
· Land use and commercial activities
· Livelihoods
· Use of water
· Household use of aquatic resources.
13
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 3.2
Adjust the socio-economic areas so that they correspond with
sub-basin hydrological boundaries:
In order to interpret hydrological changes in terms of socio-economic areas it is
essential that the two sets of information are harmonised. Thus:
· Compare socio-economic areas with the hydrological zonation
(Step 2.1).
· Adjust the socio-economic areas so that they correspond with sub-
basin boundaries where possible.
· Where this cannot be done because sub-basin boundaries cross
socio-economic areas or vice versa, divide or lump the socio-
economic areas accordingly so that each individual sub-
basin/social combination can be represented separately.
STEP 4:
Identification of Integrated Units of Analysis
Integrated Units of Analysis (IUAs) are a combination of the harmonised socio-
economic areas defined in Step 3.2 and the harmonized biological zones defined in
Step 2.6. In some cases more than one socio-economic area may link with one
biological zone (people living differently along one essentially similar stretch of river),
whilst in other instances more than one biological zone may be nested within one
socio-economic area (people living in much the same way along dissimilar stretches
of river). In each case, the IUA is defined primarily by the socio-economic area:
where two socio-economic areas share one biological zone, for instance, then the
biological zone is split into `a' and `b' sections. On the other hand, if more than one
biological zone occurs within a socio-economic area, then ultimately a choice will
have to be made as to which zone is represented in the EFA (see Chapter 0).
Step 4.1
Harmonise the socio-economic areas with the biophysical zones, to
identify and name the IUAs.
At completion, use maps and tables to indicate the IUAs for the basin. Present data
ordered by 1) socio-economic zone and 2) by biophysical zone.
Note: The information in the IUA table should be entered into an Excel spreadsheet,
as many of the procedures that follow require some form of re-ordering of the
information.
STEP 5:
Selection of study IUAs, zones and sites
Please refer to Chapter 0 for the guidelines on the selection of study IUAs,
zones and sites. These guidelines refer to the selection for the TDA analysis
only, but the process as a whole will identify all other IUAs and zones along
the river system and can form the basis for wider studies outside the TDA.
Step 5.1
Discuss and agree on representative IUAs and zones as
appropriate:
· Undertake the exercise in country groups
· Produce a final list of:
14
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Three IUAs/zones in Angola
Two IUAs/zones in Namibia
Three IUAs/zones in Botswana.
Step 5.2
Discuss and agree on a site to represent each chosen IUA/zone:
Use maps and tables to identify and describe one study site per IUA/zone.
Undertake the selection in country groups. The description of each site in the tables
should include:
· Site
name
· Site number and/or code
· Name of river
· X- and Y-co-ordinates of suggested sites
· Location
· Relevant Integrated Unit of Analysis
· Name of socio-economic area
· Biophysical
zone
· Geomorphological
zone
· Estimated ecological condition (Chapter 0).
Note: The information in the site table should be entered into an Excel spreadsheet,
as many of the procedures that follow require some form of re-ordering of the
information.
Information required at the delineation workshop
The following information will be required in order to complete the above procedure
at the Delineation Workshop:
Non-GIS information
Essentially, any and all information on the Okavango Basin is potentially useful for
the basin delineation exercise.
1.
1:250 000 topographical maps of the basin
2.
Any maps that delineate the basin using any of the above, or related,
characteristics
3.
Previous reports, particularly review articles, on aspects of the basin or
sections thereof, on any of the following:
a. Vegetation
b. Wildlife
c. Birds
d. Fish
e. Invertebrates
f. Water
quality
15
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
g. Social areas within the basin based on livelihoods, links to river,
and similar
h. Economic areas within the basin based on livelihoods and similar
4.
Field Guides for fauna or flora of the basin or sections thereof
5.
Information on the hydrology of the Okavango Basin and the hydrological sub
basins (from the National Team Specialist Hydrologists)
6.
Relevant GIS layers
7. Google
Images
8. Any data pertaining to the rivers.
Table 0.2
Suggested responsibilities for the collection of information for
basin delineation
Responsible team
Discipline
Information/data/equipment
member(s)
1:250 000 topographical maps of the
basin
National Team Specialist List and location of gauging weirs and
Hydrology
Hydrologists
measuring stations, with an indication of
data availability
Water Resource Planning Reports
Summary rainfall data for the basin
Any groundwater data for the basin, in
particular that which can be used to
determine depth of groundwater
National Team Specialist
Geohydrologist
Geohydrologists
Any GIS layers required but not listed
under GIS below please inform Dr
Jackie King so that she can organise
these from the GIS specialists
Geological maps of the basin
Historical Geological / Geomorphological
Reports
National Team Specialist Google images of the mainstem rivers
Geomorphologists
Any other satellite images of the basin
Any aerial photographs of the mainstem
river
Geomorphology
Map wheel
Geomorphological zonation of South
African river channels (Rowntree and
Wadeson 1999)
Process Team
Any GIS layers required but not listed
under GIS below please inform Dr
Jackie King so that she can organise
these from the GIS specialists
Water quality data for points along the
basin, summarised as appropriate (e.g.,
National Team Water
Water Quality
seasonally)
Quality Specialists
Any information of point source pollution
Any water quality reports on the basin
16
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Responsible team
Discipline
Information/data/equipment
member(s)
Field Guides for fauna or flora of the
basin or sections thereof
Any biological survey data pertaining to
the rivers
Previous reports on flora and/or fauna of
the basin or sections thereof, including
EIA specialist reports for any water
National Team
Biology
resource developments
Specialists - Biology
Any information of distribution of flora or
fauna that depend on the river systems in
anyway, including aquatic and terrestrial
Any GIS layers required but not listed
under GIS below please inform Dr
Jackie King so that she can organise
these from the GIS specialists
Any information on household use of
aquatic resources, i.e., what resources
are used, by whom and when
Previous reports on socio-economic
interactions with the river systems,
including EIA specialist reports for any
Process Team
Sociology
water resource developments
Resource economist
Any information on general livelihood
strategies in the basin
Any GIS layers required but not listed
under GIS below please inform Dr
Jackie King so that she can organise
these from the GIS specialists
Standard GIS layers for the basin, e.g.
· Digital Terrain Model
· Towns and roads
GIS HOORC
· Land
cover
· Rivers, wetlands and swamps
· Ambient
temperature
GIS layers
See Table 0.2 and inform Dr Jackie King of any additional requirements.
17
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for the selection of integrated units of
analysis, river zones and study sites
Selection of Integrated Units of Analysis and river zones
Several IUAs will be identified in Chapter 0 along the length of the river. Ideally, each would
contain a discrete biological river zone, and be represented by at least one site where data
are collected, understanding of biophysical and socio-economic relationships developed,
and predictions made on change resulting from water-resource developments. For the TDA,
a more limited exercise is planned.
Three sites have been allocated to Angola, two to Namibia and three to Botswana. If the
number of IUAs recognised per country does not exceed these allocations, then one or
possibly more sites can be allocated per IUA. If, however, there are more IUAs than the 3-
2-3 allocation then some will not be represented in the TDA Flows Assessment.
Where IUAs need to be dropped, decisions will have to be made, per country, on which are
the priority ones to be retained. This exercise can be structured through rating a number of
characteristics for each IUA, providing a weighting for each characteristic in terms of its
importance, and then computing the final ranking of each IUA (Table 0.1). Useful
characteristics to consider per IUA you may wish to add more - are as follows:
· Number of people living in and dependent on the IUA
· Rare species, habitats or river features
· IUA that is targetted for possible water-resource development
· Area of great scenic beauty/tourist attraction
· IUA in need of rehabilitation through improvement of flow regime
· IUA that is particularly sensitive to manipulations of the flow regime
The final scores per IUA should indicate the priority ones for the TDA. An electronic version
of Table 0.1 will be provided at the Delineation Workshop. Once the priority IUAs have been
identified, a similar exercise should be repeated for those containing more than one
biological zones, in order to identify the priority zone to represent each IUA.
18
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.1
IUA Rating Table
Delineated
IUA
Number Rare
Rehab
Targetted for
Scenic,
Flow
IUAs from
name or of
species,
flow
Other
development
tourism
sensitive
Chapter 1
number
people
habitats
regime
Angola
1
2
3
4
Namibia
1
2
3
4
Botswana
1
2
3
4
Site selection
Sites for data collection and scenario analysis need to be representative of wider areas.
They should provide the greatest range possible of the environmental and social conditions
characteristic of the part of the river/basin that they are representing. In this project, sites
will be chosen within each of the prioritised IUAs/river zones.
Important considerations when choosing sites are as follows (only some will apply at each
site):
· Proximity to a hydrological station so that reasonably accurate
hydrological data can be simulated for the site under each scenario.
· Reasonably accessible: having to walk several kilometres carrying
equipment from vehicles to a site would be onerous and time-consuming.
Also, as the sites could double up as monitoring sites for compliance in
the future, they need to be quickly accessible to monitoring teams.
· Area where potential water conflicts are high.
· Area where there is good understanding of the sediment dynamics.
· Area where there is good understanding of the soil chemistry.
· Area of high conservation importance. In the case of the Delta, which has
this status overall, areas of particular concern for specific rare species
could be chosen.
· Area that is suspected to be particularly vulnerable to changes in flow or
sediment regimes, such as:
· shallow rocky rapids
· steep cobble beds
· channels with intermittently flooded floodplains
19
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· channels vulnerable to silting up or eroding deep into their bed
· Area with good data already available in any or, preferably, all relevant
ecological and social disciplines.
· Area in good ecological condition, so that the relationships between flow,
ecosystem components and social use are not masked by a degraded
environment.
· Area where there is a reasonable chance of doing hydraulic or
hydrodynamic modelling of water depths, velocities, widths and
inundations areas.
· Area of high social use or dependence on the goods and services
provided by the river system, such as:
· fish
· nutritional
herbs
· wild
vegetables
· firewood
· construction
materials
· livestock grazing and shade
· reeds for roofs and mats
· plants for crafts markets
· drinking
water
· navigation
· Area of high tourism value.
· Areas with a strong link between the river system and people and animal
health (e.g. any areas prone to malaria, bilharzias etc).
Discuss the list of criteria and amend as appropriate. Use it as the basis for discussions on
where the sites should be.
20
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for scenario identification
The concept of scenarios
Scenarios are a means of exploring possible pathways into the future. They do not
indicate that such a future will occur but, rather, aid discussion and negotiation
leading to agreement on what would constitute acceptable ways forward. In the
case of a river system, the scenarios can describe the ecological, social and
economic outcomes for a range of potential management options, such as further
development of the river's water resources, revision of operating rules for existing
water-resource infrastructure or rehabilitation of a degraded system.
Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is a relatively new concept that
promotes sustainable use of water, encouraging people to move away from
traditional project-driven ways of operating and toward a larger-scale basin or
regional approach that takes into account the overall distribution and scarcity of
water resources and the needs of other potential water users (King and Brown, in
press). The concept may be expressed through the desired output of equal
consideration in decision making of the three pillars of sustainability: social justice,
ecological integrity and economic wealth. Water-resource scenarios should be
designed so that these three streams of information are all represented with equal
detail and weighting, in a way that stakeholders can understand and use in
discussions and negotiation.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders of rivers may be defined as any group with an interest in the way the
river is developed and managed. In the past, governments, as the major
stakeholders of rivers, have often made decisions regarding the rivers with minimal
input from other stakeholders, deeming themselves able to act in the best interests
of society as a whole. Increasingly, following the IWRM concept, input from other
stakeholders is becoming a part of river management, widening the base of
consultation and considerations involved in decision-making.
In the context of EFAs, the purpose of scenarios is to describe the outcome of a
range of management options for stakeholder consideration. These scenarios
should cover the widest range possible of planned or possible options, whether they
be for development or rehabilitation (Table 0.1). The scenarios should reflect the
issues of concern to stakeholders, and so identification of the range of scenarios,
through consultation with stakeholders, is a crucial step in EFAs. Major
stakeholders could include:
· National and basin water-resource departments
· National and basin environment departments
· National and basin agricultural departments
· Planning
departments
· Catchment Management Agencies, Basin Water Offices and similar
· Public
and
Livestock Health departments
· Hydro-power
operators
21
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· Community
organisations
· National Parks and Conservation Agencies
· And
more.
Table 0.1
Hypothetical example of the matrix of information that could be
developed for each part of a river basin. The indicators would be more
numerous than shown and would differ from river to river. The crosses
represent the level of beneficial use under each scenario as gleaned from
directed supporting research and are used here merely to illustrate possible
trends in the status of each indicator. PD = Present Day. HEP = Hydropower
(King and Brown in press).
Scenarios of increasing levels of basin development
Indicators
PD
A B C D E
Development benefits
HEP generation
x
x
x
xx
xxx
xxx
Crop production
x
x
xx
xxx
xxxx
xxxx
Water security
x
xx
xxx
xxx
xxxx
xxxx
National economy
x
x
xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
Aquaculture
x xx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Development costs
Wild
fisheries
xxxx
xxx xxx
xx xx x
Water quality
xxx
xxx
xx
xx
x
x
Floodplain functions
xxxx
xxxx
xxx
xx
x
x
Cultural, religious values
xxxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xx
xx
Natural-resource buffer against
need for compensation for
xxxx xxx xx xx
x
x
subsistence users
Identification of scenarios
To the extent that it is possible, the major stakeholders should be consulted,
perhaps by means of a Stakeholder Workshop, on the major water-related issues
and trends within the basin. Water-related issues and concerns that might be
identified and described could include:
· Water
supply
· Water
shortages
· Water
quality
· Climate
change
· Catchment
degradation
· River
degradation
· Water-borne
pollutants
· Water over-allocation and conflicts between stakeholders
· Uncoordinated basin planning
· Rivers drying up
· Lack of conservation awareness
· Lack of enforcement of relevant legislation.
22
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Possible water-resource trends within the basin could then be identified with the
stakeholders. These possible trends could include:
· Further development of hydro-electric power facilities
· Further expansion of irrigated farming areas
· Further modification of river flow regimes
· Increases in population numbers, leading to pressure on urban supplies and
increasingly severe shortages
· Increasing reliance on groundwater and rainwater harvesting
· Further deterioration in the water quality of donating rivers
· Loss of biodiversity in the river ecosystems
· Buy-back of water for the environment
· Climate
change
· Afforestation or deforestation.
The identified issues and trends form the basis for selection of the scenarios. The
number of scenarios chosen will depend partly on time and cost limitations, but
another important factor is acknowledging any data limitations. Where data are few,
and understanding of the social and ecological structures linked to the river are poor,
then fewer rather than more scenarios should be chosen. These should be as
dissimilar as possible, so that broad basin-level trends can be described. In general,
four to six scenarios is a good starting point, with more added later as discussions
produce more aspects to be explored and as understanding grows.
Other considerations that should be taken into account include:
· the available hydrological modeling capacity, which will dictate the variables
that can be changed per scenario
· the possible spatial resolution (i.e. number of sites), which will be partially
driven by the hydrological delineation of the basin (see Step 2.1)
· the base year and time of interpretation for the scenarios often taken as 20-
30 years into the future from the base year.
A long list of possible scenarios could be tabulated, as per the examples in
Table 0.2, for discussion and final selection.
23
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.2
Examples of scenarios used in EFAs elsewhere. BHN = Basic Human
Needs. D/I = Domestic and Industrial. Residual = any water left after priority
demands met.
Priority
Name #
1 2
3 4 Residual
Maximise Agriculture
1 BHN D/I
Agric HEP
River
Maximise HEP
2 BHN D/I
HEP
Agric
River
Status Quo with Climate
3 BHN D/I
Agric HEP
River
Change
Maximise river condition
4 BHN
River 1
D/I
Agric
HEP
Moderate river condition plus
5 BHN River
2 D/I
Agric HEP
Agriculture
Moderate river condition plus
6 BHN River
2 D/I
HEP
Agric
HEP
The final decision on scenarios will likely be made by governments/basin
managers in consultation with the EFA team.
24
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for the identification of indicators, links
between indicators and flow categories
Introduction
This Section provides an overview of the procedures for the identification of:
· flow-related
indicators;
· links between indicators, and;
· flow
categories,
for use in the Okavango Basin TDA EF study.
The primary objectives of this task are to identify the aspects of the river ecosystem
for which flow-related change will be predicted, and the indicators that are required in
order to make those predictions.
The final list of indicators, linked indicators and flow categories will be agreed on at
the Delineation Workshop, which will allow the specialists a chance to debate and
discuss their ideas with other members of the teams.
The identification of flow-related biophysical indicators
Flow-related indicators are comprised of riverine items that respond to a change in
river flow by changing in their:
· abundance;
· concentration;
or
· extent
(area).
The lists should not include processes. While it is accepted that changes in flow
result in changes in processes, it is important that the implications of these process
changes are described rather than the processes themselves. For example, a
reduction in wet-season low-flows may result in a reduction in the process of
downstream movement of invertebrates (downstream drift), which in turn may lead to
a reduction in the process of recolonisation of downstream reaches. The implication
of this would be a reduction, in the downstream reaches, in the abundance of
macroinvertebrate species that rely on drift as a means of recolonisation. Thus, the
indicator of interest is not downstream drift per se but a species that is a
representative of all or many of the species that rely on drift as a means of
recolonisation, and predictions will reflect its expected changes in abundance under
various scenarios.
Selecting discipline indicators
Predictions of change are done in a standard discipline sequence, always as a
response to flow change:
· hydraulic
changes
· geomorphological
changes
· chemical and thermal changes
· vegetation
changes
25
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· invertebrate
changes
· fish
changes
· other wildlife changes.
Change at each step in the sequence will be expressed as change in a number of
indicators. The number of indicators per discipline will be limited to enable more
efficient database design and operation. Each discipline will be represented by a
maximum of ten (10) indicators.
NOTE: For each of the selected indicators, the likely consequences will be described
for changes in up to ten (10) flow categories for each site. Thus, if the maximum
number of indicators (10) is elected, 100 response curves (Chapter 0) will have to be
provided per site!
There are some important considerations when selecting indicators (Table 0.1).
26
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.1
Important considerations in the selection of indicators
No. Indicator
requirement
Comment
Indicators that are not linked to
The indicator should be linked to flow/water
flow/water level will not be able to
1
levels, albeit indirectly.
produce predictions of flow-related
change.
The indicator should be an item for which
2
change can be described in terms of a
See explanation in text.
change in abundance, area or concentration.
Curves of the expected response
to flow-related change (see
It should be possible to describe the links
3
Chapter 0) will need to be
between the indicator and flow.
constructed for each and every
indicator.
For instance, fish species with the
same or similar relationships to
If several items are expected to respond in
flow can be combined in Flow
the same way to flow (for all flow categories), Guilds. Similarly, some water
4
then they can be combined into a single
quality determinands, such as
indicator.
conductivity and Total Dissolved
Solids may respond in a similar
way to flow and can be grouped.
Indicators may vary from site to site.
However, if the outcome for any indicator is
This is likely to be especially
dependent on what happens to it at another
relevant for sediment, water
site, then that indicator should be included in
quality and fish.
the indicator lists for all relevant sites.
See Selecting linked indicators -
Biophysical. Disciplines may
require information from other
Linked indicators for other biophysical
5
disciplines earlier in the sequence.
disciplines should be included, as required
The donating discipline should
ensure it has provided an indicator
as required.
Linked indicators should include any
6
resources identified as important from a
See Section 0.
social perspective.
Selecting linked indicators - Biophysical
It may not be possible to predict the consequences for some indicators without input
on how an indicator earlier in the sequence has performed. For instance, biological
specialists will require information on the expected changes of selected physical or
chemical indicators before they can predict biological change. As an example, the
consequences of a reduction in dry-season low-flows for a riffle-dwelling fish species
(Sp A), may be dependent on the EFFECT of the flow change on the following
(Figure 0.1):
· depth and wetted area (from the hydraulic specialist);
· water velocity (from the hydraulic specialist);
· temperature (from the WQ specialist);
27
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· salinity concentrations (from the WQ specialist);
· habitat quality (e.g., riffle embeddedness; from the
geomorphologist), and;
· inundation of marginal vegetation (from the botanist);
· extent of instream vegetation (from the botanist).
Change in Dry Season Lowflows
water chemist
geomorphologist
hydraulician
depth
wetted area
A
p
velocity
S
'
s head
r
o
riffle area
f
e
list
v
r
riffle quality embeddeness
a
u
c
e
temperature
s
n
o
salinity
p
s
Re
instream vegetation
Fish speci
marginal vegetation
Figure 0.1
Schematic giving hypothetical example of information needs for
a fish specialist to provide a response curve of a change in dry-
season low-flows for fish species A.
If the indicator lists compiled by the physical specialists do not include the necessary
linked indicators then the information required by the fish specialist will not be
available. It is therefore vitally important to identify the information required from
other specialists BEFORE they complete their indicator lists.
In order to do this, each discipline group completes its indicator list per site and then
uses these to determine the information required from other specialists so that the
linked indicators required can be included in their lists.
Note from Figure 0.1, that some specialists may also need information from other
specialists before they can provide an answer to someone further along the
sequence. Thus, they too must identify the information they will require from other
specialists BEFORE the other specialists complete their generic lists. It may be that
the example in Figure 0.1 is incomplete and the fish specialist may also need to
consider food availability and thus, perhaps, seek some input on invertebrates..
28
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Importantly, all specialists are limited to ten indicators, so only the most important
links can be chosen. Each discipline group will need to ensure the following:
1.
The information can be used. For instance, if there are no data or information linking
the distribution of fish species A to salinity, then asking for salinity information is not
useful.
2.
The input `wish list' represents only the critical links. Each additional required
indicator increases the work and complexity almost exponentially for all linked
disciplines.
3.
The route of data flow is established. This will be done by the whole team in
the Delineation Workshop.
The identification of flow-related social indicators
The socio-economics component of the EF study will be tasked with estimating the
changes in resource economics, livelihoods and societal well-being for each of the
chosen scenarios as a result of changes in ecosystem condition. External to the EF
study, the economics of the chosen scenarios will also be addressed.
With respect to the social impacts of flow changes, social indicators will need to be
chosen that reflect the links between people and the river, sych as:
· Household incomes, from good harvested from the river
· Food security, from goods harvested from the river
· Social wellbeing, with regard to religious and cultural links to the river,
including rare or iconic species, baptism sites, international or national
conservation areas and more
· Health, including both people and livestock health related to the river
· Safety and water supply, including groundwater and surface water, flood
attenuation and other services provided by the river.
The socio-economic study will not predict how flow will change any of these things,
but rather will take information from relevant biophysical indicators. It is thus
important to ensure that the required information can be provided by the selected
biophysical indicators.
The identification of flow categories
One of the main assumptions underlying the EF process to be used in the TDA is that it is
possible to identify ecologically relevant elements of the flow regime and isolate them from
the historical hydrological record. Thus, one of the first steps in the process, for any river, is
to consult with local river ecologists to identify these ecologically most important flow
categories. Up to ten relevant flow categories can be selected for each river zone/site.
These flow categories will differ depending on the type of river system under consideration.
Table 0.2 provides some examples of flow categories used in past studies for different types
of rivers. Thus, in the case of the Okavango River, the categories selected for the upper
parts of the basin are likely to differ from those selected for the delta. For instance, the
upper reaches of the rivers may have flow categories similar to those used in the past for
temperate perennial rivers, without a major floodplain, whereas those for the delta may be
similar to those used in the past for tropical rivers with a major floodplain (Table 0.2; Figure
0.2). The categories that can be selected are not limited to those listed in Table 0.2, but
they are limited to categories that can be defined and summarized from the available
hydrological data. To this end, the list of flow categories suggested by the ecologists will be
finalised in consultation with the specialist hydrologists.
29
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
In order to assist with the identification of flow categories, for each of the biophysical
indicators at each of the river sites:
· list the part(s) of the flow regime that the indicators are likely to be most
responsive to;
· describe how each indicator is likely to react to an increase or decrease in
that flow category.
Input from the social team should include which parts of the flow regime may have special
significance for people.
These lists will then be used in consultation with the hydrologists to derive the flow
categories that will eventually be used for each of the river sites.
Table 0.2
Examples of flow categories used in past studies for different types of
rivers
Type of river
Flow categories
Type of change
Reference
Wet season lowflows
ranges of low flows within
Dry season lowflows
each chosen season
average number per annum
four size classes of
Temperate perennial
of each class of flood (high-
intra-annual floods
e.g., Metsi (2000);
rivers, without a major
flow) event.
PBWO/IUCN (2008)
floodplain
1:2 year floods
1:5 year floods
Present or absent
1:10 year floods
1:20 year floods
Minimum dry season
Millions of cubic metres
discharge
Onset of dry season
Day of year
Average flood season Millions of cubic metres
discharge
Tropical rivers with a
e.g., MRC (2005);
Onset of flood season Day of year
major floodplain
Bielfuss and Brown
(Figure 0.2)
Average discharge in
Millions of cubic metres
(2006)
Transition 1
Onset of Transition 1
Day of year
Average discharge in
Millions of cubic metres
Transition 2
Onset of Transition 2
Day of year
30
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
14000
14
week =
w
1
eek =
9
1
9
27
27
43
46 1988
43 46
43
12000
12
)-1
s3 10000
n
1
n
2
10000
10
(
m
aso
Se
8000
Seaso
8000
80
scharge
t
i
on
ti
on
t
i
on
si
6000
i
l
y
di
60
i
l
y
di
r
ansi
r
an
r
ansi
T
T
T
da
4000
ean
40
ean
Dry Se
y
as
Se on
Fl
F ood Sea
oo
s
d Sea on
Dry
on
Dr
on
M
Season
Se
2000
20
0 Jan
Ja Fe
n
b
Fe
Mar Apr Ma
Mar
y
Apr Ma Jun
y
Jul
Jun
Au
Jul
g
Au Sep
g
Sep Oct
Oct N
ov
o Dec
Figure 0.2
The annual hydrograph for the Lower Mekong River at Luang Prabang
in 1988, showing the four ecologically relevant flow seasons recognized
for the Lower Mekong River. Data source: Mekong River Commission;
analysis Peter Adamson.
31
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for data collection for environmental flow
studies
Possible sources of data
The science of Environmental Flow Assessments is young and experience has shown that
most river specialists, whilst being highly experienced in their fields, may not be able to
immediately contribute appropriate data. This is because all data for EFAs need to be
linked, either directly or indirectly to flow or water levels; if they are not then the results of
flow changes cannot be predicted and so the scenarios cannot be constructed and
analysed. It may take years or even decades for these kind of data to accumulate for a river
basin, and meanwhile lower-confidence predictions of flow-related change can be based on
a mixture of relevant data, international understanding of river functioning and river use,
national understanding of the specific river and its users, and local wisdom.
Within the Okavango Basin TDA study, information will be captured through four main
activities: 1) a Delineation/Planning Workshop in September 2008, 2) a Field Trip in October
2008, 3) independent work, including international literature reviews, by each National Team
between September 2008 and January 2009, leading to the compilation of specialist reports,
and 4) the Knowledge Capture workshop in February 2009.
Activity 1 information is dealt with in Chapter 0 and activity 4 information in Chapter 0. This
chapter addresses data collection during the field visit (activity 2); at the time of that visit on-
site discussions will determine what can be accomplished by the National Teams in
subsequent field visits (activity 3 information). Each National Team will meet with the
Process Management Team at the selected sites in their country.
The October 2008 field trip
Purpose of the field trip
As explained above, the TDA EFA will rely heavily on expert opinion and general
understanding of the river and its users for predictions of change. An effective approach to
developing this understanding is to bring the various discipline specialists together at the
river, where each explains the river/users from his or her perspective. In this way, the team
as a whole sees and understands perspectives not realised before. A useful sequence of
speakers (if available) at any one site is:
1. a basin water manager, who provides background on the location of the site visited
and the main landscape and water-resource influences on it
2. an ecologist, who outlines the ecoregion, vegetation and faunal characteristics of the
site
3. an hydrologist, who explains the hydrological regime
4. an hydraulic modeler, who explains the behaviour of water as it flows through the
site, including, for instance, bank overtopping, flood levels, wetting of secondary
channels, inundations of floodplains and similar
5. a fluvial geomorphologist, who identifies the river zone and its main characteristics,
as well as the range of morphological units (physical habitat) present at the site
6. an aquatic chemist, who outlines the water chemistry of the river and any special
natural or anthropogenic features, including water quality linked to different kinds of
flow or different seasons.
7. a vegetation specialist, who outlines the main features of the aquatic, marginal and
riparian vegetation and the degree of naturalness in terms of alien invasive species
32
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
and condition of the vegetation communities; any obvious links between flow/water
levels and vegetation communities should also be pointed out.
8. a fish biologist, who outlines the nature, abundance and importance of the local fish
species, their conservation status and any known migratory species, or life-cycle
links to flow.
9. an aquatic invertebrate biologist, who outlines the invertebrate communities present,
potential or actual pest species (human or livestock health) and any known life-cycle
links to flow.
10. an ecologist to outline any other relevant aspects of the site/zone, including reptiles,
amphibians, mammals, water birds, conservation status or similar.
11. a sociologist, who outlines the human use of the river in that zone, its cultural and
religious importance in their lives, and any riverine plant or animal species of
economic or personal importance.
These kind of introductory talks may require some preparatory work by the
designated persons in order to provide useful and up-to-date information.
After the general introduction, the national team will split into smaller groups for some
preliminary familiarization activities as follows:
· Physical
habitat
i. Draw sketch maps of the channel layout, width, geomorphological
features, flow types, and any other distinguishing features (Table 0.1).
ii. Equipment needed: clipboards, graph paper, tracing paper, coloured
pens and pencils, erasers, 100 m or 50 m tapes.
· Chemical
habitat
i. Record any obvious manifestations of water quality (e.g. filamentous
algae, turbid water, green water, scums.
ii. Measure water quality with any available instruments: e.g.
conductivity, dissolved oxygen, turbidity, pH.
iii. Equipment needed: field water-quality meters.
· Biological
communities
i. Vegetation: take samples of all important riparian, marginal and
aquatic for later taxonomic identification; draw sketch maps of the
location of different vegetal communities, particularly with respect to
flow/flood levels, and bank/instream physical habitat
ii. Fish: assess the site in terms of available fish habitat and note
potential flow-sensitive areas that could be important for fish migration
or spawning; show coloured photos of likely fish species to locals for
identification of those likely to be present as well as those of social
importance; catch and identify fish if time and conditions allow.
iii. Invertebrates: sample all major aquatic habitat and attempt at least
family level identification; apply SASS scores and complete
preliminary assessment of river health
iv. Other: record any signs, or local knowledge, of any other animal
species with links to the river (water birds, reptiles, amphibians,
mammals).
v. Equipment needed: plant press, nets, sorting trays, identification
guides, preservatives, jars and labels for any collected animal
specimens, pens and data books, other discipline-specific equipment
as required.
· Ecological
condition
i. The exercise done in Step 5.2 in the Delineation Workshop will be
repeated on site with field data included.
ii. Equipment needed: Delineation Report, basin and local maps.
33
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· Social use of the river
i. Dr Barnes to provide guidelines.
Table 0.1
Physical characteristics for inclusion in site sketch maps
Substratum Flow
type Cover
Silt Still Marginal
vegetation
Sand
Barely perceptible flow
In-channel vegetation
Gravel
Slow smooth flow
Organic litter
Cobble
Rippled medium flow
Algae
Boulder
Fast, turbulent flow
Roots
Bedrock Cascade
Further data collection
A programme of further data collection will be agreed with the appropriate National Team on
site, taking into account time, funding and other limitations.
34
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for the construction of response curves
Response curves are a means of capturing information and understanding, from in-
depth scientific data through international and national knowledge and local wisdom.
They are created by EF specialists with a working knowledge of the river ecosystem
and its users; are graphic and explicit with supporting explanations; and are
amenable to adjustment as knowledge increases.
In the Knowledge Capture Workshop, response curves will be constructed for two
aspects of the TDA:
1.
conceptual relationships between each biophysical indicator and each of the
flow categories (Sections 0and 0);
2.
conceptual relationships between each socio-economic indicator and their
linked biophysical indicator(s) (Section 0).
The concept of biophysical Response Curves
Two kinds of response curves are constructed to describe the relationship between each
biophysical indicator and each flow category (e.g., median of wet season discharge, see
Section 0). These are:
· biophysical indicator abundance vs. change in flow category;
· ecosystem integrity vs. change in flow category.
The axes of a response curve are (Figure 0.1):
x-axis = Range of possible change in flow category, e.g., median wet season discharge.
y-axis = Response of indicator in terms of abundance or integrity.
Biophysical indicator abundance vs. change in flow category
The starting point of a response curve is Present Day (PD) flow conditions, which equate to
zero value for the indicator. Thus, in Figure 0.1, the circle represents PD median wet
season discharge (e.g. 35 m3 s-1), and the change in the indicator under PD conditions (y-
axis), which would be zero (0). A response curve should ALWAYS be zero at Present Day
conditions.
The Natural (NAT) flow condition, e.g., NAT median wet season discharge (e.g., 60 m3 s-1),
is usually also provided (Figure 0.1) as this is a useful reference when assessing change.
35
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
PD
NAT
PD
+5
r
dicato
0
PD
0
ge in in
Chan
-5 0
35
60
Median
Media discharge (m3
discharge (m s-1
s )
Figure 0.1
Start of an hypothetical response curve for the relationship between an
indicator abundance and median discharge in the wet season.
Note: It is absolutely essential that change in any one flow category be considered in
ISOLATION, i.e., only that category will change and the rest of the flow regime will
stay at Present Day levels. This is important because sometimes two or more
categories of flow can fulfill a similar function. For instance, both small and big
floods may move sediment, but big floods may move more. Thus a loss of big floods
will not mean that no sediment is moved, only that much less is moved. Similarly, a
loss of small floods may not greatly affect sediment movement.
Completed response curves will have many shapes, depending on the indicators and the
sensitivity of their response to the flow category. Several examples are provided in Figure
0.2 to illustrate this.
A:
Response for an indicator that has a direct and negative response to a decline in
mean wet season discharge (e.g., total suspended solid concentrations).
B:
Response of an indicator that is not particularly sensitive to reduction in mean wet
season discharge relative to PD, but would benefit from an increase, i.e., restoration,
of mean wet season discharge back towards NAT (e.g., rare sensitive riffle-dwelling
invertebrate species).
C:
Response of an indicator that is not necessarily highly dependent on wet season
discharges but requires some flow in the wet season (e.g., pool dwelling fish
species).
D:
Response of an indicator that would benefit from a decrease in wet season
discharge (e.g., pest species, such as mosquito).
36
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
A
NAT
B
+5
PD
NAT
+5
PD
NAT
NA
or
or
c
at
c
at
i
ndi 0
PD
i
ndi 0
PD
in
in
nge
nge
ha
ha
C
C
-5
-5
0
35
3
60
0
35
3
60
Median
Medi
dis
di cha
c rge (m3
m s-1
s )
Median
Medi
dis
di ch
c arge (m3
(m s-1
s )
C
PD
NAT
D
+5
PD
NAT
+5
PD
NAT
NA
o
r
o
r
c
at
c
at
i
ndi 0
PD
i
ndi 0
PD
in
in
nge
nge
Cha
Cha
-5
-5
0
35
3
60
0
35
3
60
Median
Medi
dis
di cha
c rge (m3
m s-1
s )
Median
Medi
dis
di ch
c arge (m3
(m s-1
s )
Figure 0.2
Examples of different shaped response curves change in abundance
Ecosystem integrity vs. change in flow category
The ecosystem integrity versus change in flow category response curves are an indication
of whether or not the changes in abundance described above represent a move towards or
away from natural. For instance, an increase in a threatened fish species may represent a
move towards natural but an increase in sediment on the river channel may be a move away
from natural. Thus, the ecosystem integrity response curves for each flow category use the
same data as generated but with the sign representing a move towards or away from
natural. Using the examples for Figure 0.2, and adjusting them for integrity Figure 0.3 would
yield the following:
A:
A reduction in total suspended solid concentrations may be a move towards natural,
i.e., the integrity curve is the same shape as the abundance curve.
B:
An increase in a rare sensitive riffle-dwelling invertebrate species may be a move
towards natural, i.e., the integrity curve is the same shape as the abundance curve.
C:
A decrease in an indigenous pool dwelling fish species may be a move towards
natural, i.e., the integrity curve is the same shape as the abundance curve.
D:
An increase is a pest species, such as mosquito, may be a move away from natural,
i.e., the integrity curve is a mirror image of the abundance curve.
37
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
A
NAT
B
+5
PD
NAT
+5
PD
NAT
0
PD
0
PD
Change in indicator
Change in indicator
-5
-5
0
35
3
60
0
35
3
60
Median discharge (m3
(m s-1
s )
Median
Medi
dischar
d
ge (m3
(m s-1
s )
C
PD
NAT
D
+5
PD
NAT
+5
PD
NAT
0
PD
0
PD
Change in indicator
Change in indicator
-5
-5
0
35
3
60
0
35
3
60
Median discharge (m3
(m
( s-1
s )
Median
Medi
dischar
d
ge (m3
(m s-1
s )
Figure 0.3
Examples of different shaped response curves change in integrity
Outline of the procedures for the construction of response curves
for the biophysical indicators
Response curves for the biophysical indicators can only be prepared once the flow
categories have been chosen (see Section 0), and the range of possible change in
each of the flow categories has been provided by the hydrologists. This range will be
identified from the selected list of scenarios. Once the flow categories and range of
possible hydrological change are known, each specialist group will use its own data,
and its own methods to derive the response curves for the indicators on their list.
At the Knowledge Capture Workshop, the data defining the response curves will be
entered directly into the TDA Flow Decision Support System (DSS). The workshop
will be divided into a number of plenary sessions for the purpose of sharing
information, and a number of group work sessions where discipline groups will work
on their indicator response curves for each site. The steps outlined below are site-
specific, i.e., the full sequence of steps needs to be done for every river site.
STEP 1:
Familiarise yourself with the data entry forms
The Data Entry file for each discipline will be presented to the relevant groups at the
Knowledge Capture Workshop.
38
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 1.1
Open the Data Entry file relevant to your discipline
When opening a Data Entry file at the workshop, macros should be disabled and
links should not be updated1.
Each Data Entry file contains a number of worksheets. The worksheets are arranged
into two groups on the basis of their functions. These are:
Indicator list (and hydrology): The list of chosen indicators per discipline, for which
response curves will be created
This worksheet also includes hydrological data that
automatically comes from the TDA Flow DSS. This
flow change information is linked to each of the other
worksheets in the data entry file, providing the
information needed for the specialist to develop flow-
response curves. Hydrological data should never be
adjusted on Indicator List.
Data Entry and Review:
Data entry worksheets for each flow category, i.e., 10
worksheets, which contain the data describing the
conceptual relationships between each indicator and
flow. These are the sheets that will be populated at the
Knowledge Capture Workshop.
Step 1.2
Update the Indicator lists on the Indicator (and hydrology)
worksheet
· Access the Indicator worksheet by clicking on the Tab: Indicator
Lists.
· Enter the names of the selected indicators into the cells with light
blue background (Cells C5 to C14). Once entered, the indicator
names should not be changed unless the whole database is
undergoing a revision, as they link to the Data Storage
worksheets.
NOTE: All indicators used in the TDA Flow DSS should be listed in the same order
and numbering as on the Indicator List. If a particular indicator is not relevant at one
site, its place should be left blank in order to retain the same numbering.
Step 1.3
View and cross-check the data entry worksheets
· Access the data entry worksheet for each flow category by clicking
on the Tab for the category.
There is a great deal of information contained in the data entry worksheets for each
flow category as illustrated for Wet-Season Low-flows (WSLF) in Figure 0.4. The
information is arranged as follows (Figure 0.4).
· Site and discipline names (automatic link)
· Indicator names from Indicator List
· Summary hydrology for WSLF from Indicator List
· Data entry area
1 This is because you will not be provided with the full TDA Flow DSS, and so the linked files are not available.
39
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· Graphic displays of the resultant relationship between indicator
abundance and change in WSLF
· Graphic displays of the resultant relationship between indicator
integrity (health) and change in WSLF
· Space for explanations, if required/relevant
· Space for references, if relevant
· A data analysis section where the information provided is
extrapolated to additional flow change levels (not shown on Figure
0.4, but can be accessed by scrolling down).
Site and com
o ponent
Indicator nam
na es
Sum
u mary hy
y
d
hy ro
r logy Change
C
le
vels
v
Da
D ta
a e
ta n
e t
n ry
Abundance vs
e v flow
Inte
In g
te r
g ity v
y s
v f
low
Space for explanations if required
Space for r
ef
e erences if applicable
Scrol
o l here
Figure 0.4
The WSLF Data Entry Worksheet
· Check that the indicators are correctly displayed and thus that the
links to the indicators are working correctly.
· Check that the hydrological data are correctly displayed and thus
that the links are working correctly.
· Check that the site name and the discipline (e.g. Geomorphology)
appear correctly as a heading on each worksheet in the database.
· Check that the graphic displays update automatically when you
enter data into the data-entry area.
STEP 2:
Populate the data entry worksheets with response curves
Step 2.1
Obtain the response curves for linked indicators
To construct a response curve for an indicator it is necessary first to obtain the
response curves for its linked indicators, if any. Any linked indicators will have been
identified in the data-flow mapping exercise in the Delineation Workshop. These
40
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
responses from all linked indicators will need to be integrated to arrive at the
indicator-specific response curve.
For this reason, it makes sense to start with indicators that have no or few linked
indicators, as this will give the other specialists a chance to populate the linked
indicator response curves. The workshop agenda will be arranged to facilitate this, to
the extent possible.
Step 2.2
Determine whether the indicator is expected to increase or
decrease
Remember: Change in any one flow category must be considered in ISOLATION,
i.e., only that category will change and the rest of the flow regime will
stay at Present Day levels.
· Consider whether the indicator will increase or decrease in
abundance for the highest flow change in isolation, i.e., with the
rest of the flow regime staying at Present Day. Enter either "Inc"
or "Dec" in the "Increase/Decrease" column in order to indicate
either an increase or decrease in abundance of the particular
indicator (see Table 0.1).
· The row for Present Day does not require an "Inc" or "Dec"
statement.
· Fill in the rows between the highest change and Present Day with
the relevant "Inc" or "Dec" statement.
· Fill in the rows between the lowest change and Present Day with
the relevant "Inc" or "Dec" statement.
Step 2.3
Determine whether the increase or decrease is a move towards or
away from natural
· Enter either a + sign or a sign in the "Towards/Away" column in
order to indicate a move towards natural (+) or away from natural
(-) (see Table 0.1). The row for Present Day does not require a +
or sign.
Step 2.3
Determine the likely severity of the predicted increase or
decrease
The severity of the response to the flow change level of the indicator being dealt with
is entered into the Min and Max columns. Severity is rated on a scale of 0-5 (see the
severity ratings in Table 0.1).
It is not necessary to fill in every flow change. Predictions must be made for at least
five flow changes, however, unless there are fewer than five changes for the flow
category, in which case every flow change must be filled with a response. These
points provide definition of the shape of the response curve. The predictions must
include the highest and lowest flow change, and Present Day. The Severity Rating
for the Present Day must equal 0.
A standard format is used for describing the consequences of flow change (after King
et al. 2003), as described in Table 0.1.
41
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Uncertainty is expressed through the range of Severity Ratings given for an item. As
shown in Table 0.1, each rating already encompasses a range of change. For
example, a rating of 1 implies a 0-20% loss or a 1-25% gain in the indicator.
If uncertainty is greater than that already contained in the Severity-Rating range, this
may be expressed as a range of Severity Ratings in the "Min" and "Max" columns,
e.g., 2-4 (2 is typed in "Min" and "4 in "Max". This increases the spread of predicted
percentage change, e.g., if rating 2 = 5-24%, and rating 4 = 51-75%, then ratings 2-4
would translate to an expected change of anywhere between 5 and 75%.
Table 0.1
Rules for data entry
Severity Ratings
For each prediction, there should be a description of the severity of the predicted change (if any) using a
Severity Rating between 1 and 5 for every Indicator.
Severity
Severity of
Equivalent loss
o
Equivalent gain
Rating
change
(abun
u dan
d ce/concentration)
(abu
(a nda
bu
n
nda c
n e
c /
e conc
c
e
onc ntr
e atio
a n)
tio
0
None
no c
no hange
No change
1
Ne
N g
e l
g igib
ig l
ib e
80
8 -1
0 0
-1 0
0 %
0
% ret
re ain
a e
in d
e
1-25% gai
25% n
2
Low
60-
60 79%
79 retained
26-67% gai
67% n
3
Moderate
40-
40 59%
59 retained
68-250% gai
250% n
4
Seve
Se re
ve
20-
20 39%
39 retained
251-500% gai
500% n
5
Very se
Ve
ve
ry se re
ve
0-19% retained; includes local
501% gain to
o :
up to pest
extinction
proportions
Integrity Ratings
For each prediction, there should be an indication of whether the change represents a move towards or
away from the natural condition of the river. A move towards natural is illustrated by a positive (+) sign and
a move away from natural by a negative (-) sign.
The addition of the sign changes the Severity Rating to an Integrity Rating.
Increase or decrease
For each prediction, there should be a description of the direction of predicted change (if any). The direction
of change represents an increase or decrease in the abundance, concentration or extent of an Indicator.
NOTE: The formulae contained in the columns headed "Ave", "Ave with towards/
away" and "Ave with Inc/Dec" help to create the graphs presented below this section.
These columns should not be overwritten or deleted.
STEP 3:
Check the response curves
Once data are entered, the relationships resulting from these predictions can be
reviewed in graphical format. Two types of graphs are provided (Figure 0.5):
· One shows the relationship between changes in Wet-Season Low-
flows and percentage changes in abundance (presented in rows
30-42).
42
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
· The second shows the relationship between changes in Wet-
Season Low-flows and indicator integrity (health) (presented in
rows 44-56)
· If the relationships require adjustment, this is done in the data
entry section (see Step 2, above).
Enter data here
Review relat
w
ionships here
Figure 0.5
The WSLF Worksheet close up of the data entry area
Below the Data Reviewing section is a section for entering explanations for the
relationship provided, and a section for providing references where possible.
Rows 80 to 123 contain the equations necessary to extrapolate the given information
to more flow change levels.
Columns BZ to EG contain the equations necessary to determine the minimum and
maximum responses (rather than the averages). Do not overwrite or delete any of
these cells, rows or columns.
STEP 3:
Repeat for all indicators and all flow categories
Once the response curve has been created for one indicator and one flow category,
the above steps should be repeated for all indicators and all categories.
Response curves for socio-economic indicators
Social response curves are constructed in much the same way as biophysical ones.
Further details will be provided at the Knowledge Capture Workshop.
43
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guidelines for specialist reports for the TDA EF
process
To ensure conformity and that all required aspects are covered, templates will be provided
for all reports. The layout and headings will be developed by the Process Management
Team and the National Team Leaders.
Once finalized, an electronic version laid out with a style sheet will be supplied to each
specialist or team writing a report.
44
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Suggested procedure for the determination of
ecological condition
The method used here is taken from the Habitat Integrity Assessment as described in
DWAF (1999) with one major difference. Ideally, the habitat integrity assessment is
based on a recent low-altitude videograph of the river taken from a helicopter from
the source to the most downstream section being investigated (DWAF 1999).
Helicopter surveys are expensive and often inappropriate for the level of study being
undertaken, and so in this study, aerial photographs and Google images will be used
instead of a videograph.
Habitat Integrity method2
The ecological integrity of a river is defined as its ability to support and maintain a balanced,
integrated composition of physico-chemical and habitat characteristics, as well as biotic
components on a temporal and spatial scale that are comparable to the natural
characteristics of ecosystems of the region. Habitat integrity in this sense then refers to the
maintenance of a balanced, integrated composition of physico-chemical and habitat
characteristics on a temporal and spatial scale that are comparable to the characteristics of
natural habitats of the region.
The method is based on the qualitative assessment of a number of pre-weighted criteria that
indicate the integrity of the instream and riparian habitats available for use by riverine biota.
The assessment is based on the professional judgement and experience of the study team.
The criteria considered indicative of the habitat integrity of the river were selected on the
basis that anthropogenic modification of their characteristics could generally be regarded as
the primary causes of degradation of the integrity of the river. Certain modifications will
have a detrimental impact on the habitat integrity of a river, the extent of that impact being
dependent on their severity.
The assessment of the severity of impact of modifications is based on six descriptive
categories with ratings ranging from 0 (no impact), 1 to 5 (small impact), 6 to 10 (moderate
impact), 11 to 15 (large impact), 16 to 20 (serious impact) and 21 to 25 (critical impact).
The Habitat Integrity Assessment is based on assessment of the impacts on
two components of the river, the riparian zone and the instream habitat.
Assessments are made separately for both components, but data for the
riparian zone are interpreted primarily in terms of the potential impact on the
instream component. The relative weightings of criteria are detailed in Table
0.1.
2 Taken from Harding et al. (2001), originally summarised from DWAF (1999)
45
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.1
Criteria and weights used for the assessment (from Kleynhans,
1996).
INSTREAM CRITERIA
WEIGHT RIPARIAN ZONE CRITERIA
WEIGHT
Water abstraction
14
Indigenous vegetation removal
13
Flow modification
13
Exotic vegetation encroachment 12
Bed modification
13
Bank erosion
14
Channel modification
13
Channel modification
12
Water quality
14
Water abstraction
13
Inundation
10
Inundation
11
Exotic macrophytes
9
Flow modification
12
Exotic fauna
8
Water quality
13
Solid waste disposal
6
TOTAL 100
TOTAL
100
The estimated impact of each criterion is calculated as:
Rating for the criterion /maximum value (25) x weight (percent).
The estimated impacts of all criteria calculated in this way are summed, expressed as a
percentage and subtracted from 100 to arrive at a provisional assessment of Intermediate
Habitat Integrity for the instream and riparian components, respectively.
The total scores for the instream and riparian zone components are then used to place the
habitat integrity of both in a specific intermediate habitat integrity category. These
categories are indicated in Table 0.2.
Table 0.2
Habitat Integrity categories (from Kleynhans, 1996)
SCORE
CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
(% OF TOTAL)
A Unmodified,
natural.
90-100
Largely natural with few modifications. A small change
B
in natural habitats and biota may have taken place but
80-90
the ecosystem functions are essentially unchanged.
Moderately modified. A loss and change of natural
C
habitat and biota have occurred but the basic ecosystem
60-79
functions are still predominantly unchanged.
Largely modified. A large loss of natural habitat, biota
D
40-59
and basic ecosystem functions has occurred.
The loss of natural habitat, biota and basic ecosystem
E
20-39
functions is extensive.
Modifications have reached a critical level and the lotic
system has been modified completely with an almost
F
complete loss of natural habitat and biota. In the worst
0
instances the basic ecosystem functions have been
destroyed and the changes are irreversible.
46
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Guide to assigning scores when there are few data available3
One of the major drawbacks of the Habitat Integrity assessments is that the scores
assigned to the criteria are somewhat subjective. This means that an assessment
done by one person may produce different results from one done by someone else.
In an effort to overcome this problem, we have developed a guide that breaks each
of the criteria down into more quantifiable sub-criteria. The guide is essentially a
scoring system within a scoring system. Nonetheless, we have found that the scores
assigned by different people using the guide are a lot closer to one another than
without it. Furthermore, we found that inexperienced river scientists obtained scores
that were close or identical to those obtained by scientists with a great deal of
experience in the study rivers. The guide is divided according to the criteria
presented in Table 0.1, viz.
· Water
abstraction
· Inundation
· Flow modification, divided into:
Flood
manipulation
Lowflow
manipulations
· Bed
modification
· Channel
modification
· Water
quality
· Exotic macrophytes
· Exotic
fauna
· Solid
waste
disposal
Please note: These are only guidelines. Should the specialists wish to use a different
method to arrive at the scores, they should do so.
Water abstraction
Brief explanation of the impacts of water abstraction:
The three driving variables determining the character of a river are climate, geology
and topography. These factors dictate the flow regime, the general
geomorphological character of the river, the shape and size of the river channel, the
size of the bed particles, and the basic water chemistry and temperature. These in
turn determine the fauna and flora that inhabit the river. Abstraction of water alters
the flow regime, thereby potentially affecting all aspects of a river.
Without detailed hydrological records it is extremely difficult to deduce a score for
water abstraction, thus the scoring system presented here attempts to use various
clues from the activities in the catchment or on the river to arrive at a likely
abstraction pressure.
The scoring system for water abstraction work as follows:
3 Taken from Harding et al. (2001)
47
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 1.
If hydrological records are available, and thus the % MAR abstracted from
the system is known, then use only % MAR abstracted to determine the
water abstraction score (see column 1 in Table 0.3).
Step 2.
If hydrological records are not available, use columns 2-6 to estimate
abstraction pressure.
Step 3.
If nothing is know about one of the variables listed in columns 2-6 in Table
0.3, then leave that column out and move to the next one.
Step 4.
The abstraction score will equal the HIGHEST score obtained using the
criteria in columns 2-6 in Table 0.3. For example, in a catchment with
approximately 50% of the catchment area given over to vineyards,
approximately 3 pumps in the river per kilometre, and a major dam
upstream of the study reach, the abstraction score would be 21.
48
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.3
Scoring system for water abstraction
SCALE: Reach level (i.e. between major tributaries).
%
Upstream
No. per
No. per
U/stream
Upstream
Score
Yes/No Score
Score
Score
Score
Score
Score
abstracted
system
sq km
km
system
system
0 0
NO 0
NO 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
n/a 1
n/a
1
n/a 1
n/a
1 n/a
1
n/a
1 n/a
1
n/a 2
n/a
2
n/a 2
n/a
2 n/a
2
n/a
2 n/a
2
10 3
n/a
3
n/a
3
n/a
3 n/a
3
n/a
3 n/a
3
20 4
n/a
4
n/a
4
n/a
4 n/a
4
n/a
4 n/a
4
30 5
n/a
5
n/a
5
</=0.25 5
</=1 5
n/a
5
10
5
35 6
n/a
6
n/a
6
n/a
6 n/a
6
n/a
6 n/a
6
40 7
n/a
7
n/a
7
n/a
7 n/a
7
n/a
7 n/a
7
45 8
n/a
8
n/a
8
</=1
8 </=1.5
8
1
8 n/a
8
Stream
(both
50 9
n/a
9
n/a
9
n/a
9 n/a
9
n/a
9 n/a
9
perennial
55 10
n/a
10
n/a
10
n/a
10 n/a
10
n/a
% o
f
10 25
10
and
catchment
sea
60 11 sonal) n/a
11
n/a
11
n/a
11 n/a
11
n/a
under
11 n/a
11
only flows
Abstraction
forestry,
Percentage MAR
65 12
n/a
Major Dams
12
YES
No. of
12 farm n/a
No. of
12
n/a
12
2
12
n/a
12
after
weirs
alien veg,
abstracted:
(unmitigated)
dams
pumps
unusually
70 13
n/a
13
n/a
13
</=1.5 13
</=2 13 (unmitigated) n/a 13 vineyards, 40
13
high
cashcrops
75 14
n/a
14
n/a
14
>1.5
14
>2
14
n/a
14
45 14
rainfall,
and/or
n/a
i.e., no
15
n/a
15
n/a 15
n/a 15
n/a
15
n/a
orchard
15
s 50 15
lowflows
80 16
n/a
16
n/a
16
n/a
16 n/a
16
n/a
16 n/a
16
only floods
n/a 17
n/a
17
n/a 17
n/a
17 n/a
17
n/a
17 n/a
17
85 18
n/a
18
n/a
18
</=2
18 </=3
18
n/a
18 60
18
n/a 19
n/a
19
n/a 19
>2
19 >3
19
n/a
19 n/a
19
90-94 20
n/a 20
n/a 20
n/a 20
n/a
20
n/a 20
75 20
n/a 21
n/a
21
n/a 21
</=3
21 </=4
21
n/a
21 n/a
21
n/a 22
n/a
22
n/a 22
n/a
22 >4
22
n/a
22 n/a
22
n/a 23
n/a
23
n/a 23
n/a 23
n/a
23
n/a 23
80 23
n/a 24
n/a
24
n/a 24
n/a
24 n/a
24
n/a
24 n/a
24
>/=95 25
YES
25
n/a 25
>3 25
n/a
25
n/a
25
n/a 25
MITIGATION:
>/= 10%
multiply score by 0.75
% contribution to flow by undisturbed >/= 20%
multiply score by 0.5
tributaries
>/=50%
multiply score by 0.25
49
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 5.
Un-disturbed tributaries can considerably mitigate the impacts of water
abstraction (Table 0.3). Thus, if the study reach is situated downstream of an
undisturbed tributary, then the abstraction score should be mitigated as indicated
in the table overleaf. For example, if the study reach in 2b was situated
downstream of an undisturbed tributary that supplied 10% of its MAR, the
abstraction score would be adjusted by multiplying by 0.75. Thus, the final
abstraction score would be 16.
Inundation
The scoring system for inundation works as follows:
Step 1.
Estimate the percentage of the upstream channel that is inundated by
dams, weirs, road crossings, etc., use corresponding score in Table 0.4.
Step 2.
This can be estimated most effectively using 1:250 000 topographical
maps, aerial photographs and/or Google images.
Table 0.4
Scoring system for extent of inundation of the river channel
Percentage inundation
Score
0 0
4 1
8 2
12 3
16 4
20 5
24 6
28 7
32 8
36 9
40 10
44 11
48 12
Extent of inundation of the river channel.
50% 13
56 14
60 15
64 16
68 17
72 18
76 19
80 20
84 21
88 22
92 23
96 24
100% 25
Flood manipulation
The scoring system for flood manipulation works as follows:
50
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 3.
The timing, magnitude and frequency of flood are most affected by in-
channel large dams in the upstream catchment. Thus, these are the two
factors used to estimate a score for manipulation of flood flows.
Step 4.
The flood manipulation score will equal the HIGHEST score obtained
using the criteria in columns 1-2 in Table 0.5. For example, a study reach
with approximately 1 farm dam per km2 in the upstream catchment and a
single large dam less than 15 km upstream of the reach, the flood
manipulation score would be 18.
Step 5.
Un-disturbed tributaries can considerably mitigate the impacts of
upstream dams. Thus, if the study reach is situated downstream of an
undisturbed tributary, then the abstraction score should be mitigated as
indicated in Table 0.5. For example, if the study reach in 2 was situated
downstream of an undisturbed tributary that supplied 20% of its MAR, the
abstraction score would be adjusted by multiplying by 0. 5. Thus, the final
abstraction score would be 9.
Table 0.5
Scoring system for flood manipulation
Whole upstream system Score
No. per sq km
Score
0 0
0 0
n/a 1-11
n/a
1-11
YES > than 5 km
12
n/a
12
n/a 13
n/a
13
n/a 14
n/a
14
n/a 15
n/a
15
n/a 16
n/a
16
n/a 17
n/a
17
Major Dams (unmitigated)
No. of farm dams
YES within 5 km of reach 18
n/a
18
n/a 19
n/a
19
n/a 20
n/a
20
n/a 21
n/a
21
n/a 22
n/a
22
n/a 23
n/a
23
n/a 24
n/a
24
n/a 25
n/a
25
MITIGATION:
% contribution by
>/= 10%
x score by 0.75
undisturbed
>/= 20%
x score by 0.5
tributaries
>/=50%
x score by 0.25
Lowflow manipulation
Impacts on lowflows are extremely difficult to judge without detailed hydrological
information. Thus, the scoring system presented here concentrates on changing
perennial rivers into seasonal rivers. It is, however, acknowledged that there may be
other, more-subtle, impacts on lowflows that will not be assessed using this scoring
system.
The scoring system for flood manipulation works as follows:
Step 6.
Determine, through consultation with people familiar with the area (e.g.,
country specialists), whether on not the river was once perennial and
whether or not it now dries up during the summer months.
51
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 7.
If so, determine the frequency and duration of no-flow periods.
Step 8.
Obtain a score for lowflow manipulation by dividing the water abstraction
score by the appropriate compounding factor given in Table 0.6.
Table 0.6
Scoring system for lowflow manipulation
Propensity to dryout in months where flow would have naturally occurred
If flow occurs in all months where it naturally = abstraction score
occurred.
Flow stops every year in months where it
Divide abstraction by 0.5 to a maximum of 25
naturally occurred:
Flow stops occasionally (less frequently than
3 years) in
Divide abstraction by 0.75 to a maximum of 25
months where it naturally occurred:
In perennial systems if flow stops for > 1
Subtract 0.2 from above (before dividing)
month:
Bed modification
The scoring system for bed modification (with reference to Rowntree and Wadeson, 1999)
considers a combination of three factors most commonly responsible for bed modification in
rivers, viz. sedimentation as a result of a loss of flushing flows, concrete canalisation and/or
bull dozing of the river channel (usually resulting in a uniform trapezoidal channel shape).
Once again, there may be other factors that can result in bed modification, and incorporation
and assessment of these is at the discretion of the assessor.
The scoring system for bed modification works as follows:
Step 9.
The bed modification score will equal the HIGHEST score obtained using the
criteria in columns 1-3 in Table 0.7. For example, a river channel that has been
canalised with concrete will ALWAYS score 25, regardless of whether or not
there are silt depositions in the channel.
Embeddedness refers to the condition where spaces between coarser
material (cobbles and boulders) are infilled with fine particles (normally sand
or silt).
52
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Step 10.
Table 0.7
Scoring system for bed modification
% river bed
Score
Score
affected in Score
the reach
0 0
NO 0
0 0
n/a 1
1
4
1
n/a 2
2
8
2
n/a 3
3
12
3
n/a 4
4
16
4
Silt/gravel in interstitial spaces but spaces
5
5
20
5
between particles are largely open.
n/a 6
6
24
6
n/a 7
7
28
7
n/a 8
8
32
8
Silt/gravel in interstitial spaces, and space
between the cobble and boulders are in-filled 9
9
36
9
with fine material fine material sand and silt).
Habitat
degradation, as n/a 10
10
40
10
a result of
n/a 11
11
44
11
sedimentation as
a result of bank n/a 12
12
48
12
or catchment
Silt drapes at channel margins, evidence of
erosion and or
Dredging/bulldozing/
deposition in runs and pools. Space between
Canalisation
reduction in
road cro
13
ssings
13
52
13
the cobble and boulders are in-filled with fine
transporting
material fine material
power - not
applicable to
n/a 14
14
56
14
lower river
n/a 15
15
60
15
and/or foothill
gravel bed
n/a 16
16
64
16
n/a 17
17
68
17
Large drapes at channel margins, evidence of
deposition in runs and pools. Cobble and
18
18
72
18
boulders more than 1/2 covered by fine
material sand and silt.
n/a 19
19
76
19
n/a 20
20
80
20
n/a 21
21
84
21
n/a 22
22
88
22
n/a 23
23
92
23
n/a 24
24
96
24
Cobbles and or boulders completely covered. 25
YES
25
100%
25
Channel modification
The scoring system for channel modification considers the impacts resulting from infilling or
channelisation (digging down) on channel shape and structure. It also takes account of the
potential impact of bridges or other features that constrict river flow, thereby affecting
channel shape and direction. Once again, there may be other factors that can result in
channel modification, but these are less frequent than the ones listed above and
incorporation and assessment of any additional factors is at the discretion of the assessor.
The scoring system for channel modification works as follows:
Step 11. The channel modification score will equal the HIGHEST score obtained using the
criteria in columns 1-2 in Table 0.8.
53
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.8
Scoring system for channel modification
% in reach
Score
% in reach
Score
None 0
None 0
n/a 1
n/a 1
n/a 2
n/a 2
n/a 3
n/a 3
n/a 4
n/a 4
No lowflow/or arches bridges.
Infilling evident in less that 10% 5
< 1 single span bridge per 1
5
of the reach
km.
n/a 6
n/a 6
n/a 7
n/a 7
n/a 8
n/a 8
n/a 9
n/a 9
n/a 10
n/a 10
n/a 11
n/a 11
n/a 12
n/a 12
Infilling evident in less than
Infilling and
< 0.5 lowflow/or arches bridge
50% of the reach (e.g. one
Bridges
channelisation
13
and/or < 1 single span bridge 13
bank only or both banks for
per 1 km.
25% of reach length)
n/a 14
n/a 14
n/a 15
n/a 15
Channelisation > 60% of reach, 16 n/a
16
infilling evidence elsewhere
n/a 17
n/a 17
< 1 lowflow/or arches bridge
n/a 18
and/or < 2 single span bridge 18
per 1 km.
n/a 19
n/a 19
n/a 20
n/a 20
Channelisation > 75% of reach, 21 n/a
21
infilling evidence elsewhere
n/a 22
n/a 22
n/a 23
n/a 23
n/a 24
n/a 24
Canalisation 25
25
Water quality
No guide available.
Presence of exotic macrophytes
Estimate the percentage of the reach that is covered by exotic aquatic
macrophytes regardless of species.
54
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.9
Scoring system for exotic macrophytes
% cover
Score
0 0
4 1
8 2
12 3
16 4
20 5
24 6
28 7
32 8
36 9
40 10
44 11
Percentage cover in reach - regardless of
48 12
species
52 13
56 14
60 15
64 16
68 17
72 18
76 19
80 20
84 21
88 22
92 23
96 24
100 25
Presence of exotic fauna
The scoring system presented here relates specifically to fish, however, if information is
available on other harmful alien species then it should be incorporated at the discretion of
the assessor.
The scoring system for exotic fish is based on the relative impact of different fish species
(Table 0.10). It is necessary to have some idea of the composition of fish assemblages in a
study reach.
55
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.10
Scoring system for exotic fish
Percentage
Score
None 0
n/a 1
n/a 2
n/a 3
n/a 4
Exotics present but indigenous fish
5
dominate.
n/a 6
n/a 7
Exotic and indigenous species present 8
in roughly the same proportions.
n/a 9
n/a 10
n/a 11
Composition of fish community
n/a 12
n/a 13
n/a 14
n/a 15
n/a 16
n/a 17
n/a 18
Fish fauna dominated by exotic fish
19
species
n/a 20
n/a 21
n/a 22
n/a 23
n/a 24
Only exotics - regardless of species
25
56
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Presence of solid waste
The scoring system presented here relates specifically to litter and building rubble. Table
0.11 is self-explanatory.
Table 0.11
Scoring system for solid waste
No. in 100m stretch
Score
None 0
n/a 1
n/a 2
n/a 3
n/a 4
10 pieces of litter and or building rubble (e.g. bricks, gutter)
5
within a c. 100m stretch of river.
n/a 6
n/a 7
n/a 8
10-50 pieces but no evidence of dumping
9
n/a 10
n/a 11
n/a 12
Litter and rubble in the
macro-channel
n/a 13
Evidence of once off dumping in >/= 1 place in the reach. >50 14
pieces but no evidence of dumping
n/a 15
n/a 16
Evidence of once off dumping in >/= 2 places in the reach.
17
n/a 18
n/a 19
n/a 20
Evidence of ongoing dumping into the river channel in >/= 1
21
place in the reach.
n/a 22
n/a 23
n/a 24
Evidence of ongoing dumping into the river channel in >/= 2
25
places in the reach.
Removal of indigenous vegetation
The scoring system for removal of indigenous vegetation works as follows:
Step 12. Estimate the percentage of the reach that is devoid of natural riparian vegetation
regardless of species (Table 0.12).
Step 13. This includes riparian vegetation that has been out competed by alien trees.
Step 14. As a standard rule use 30 m from the top of bank to define the riparian zone.
57
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.12
Scoring system for removal of indigenous vegetation
% cover
Score
0 0
4 1
8 2
12 3
16 4
20 5
24 6
28 7
32 8
36 9
40 10
44 11
48 12
Percentage cover in reach
52 13
56 14
60 15
64 16
68 17
72 18
76 19
80 20
84 21
88 22
92 23
96 24
100 25
Encroachment into the riparian zone by exotic vegetation
The scoring system for encroachment by exotic vegetation works as follows (Table 0.13):
Step 15. Estimate the percentage of the riparian zone of the reach that is invaded by
exotic species. As a standard rule, use 30 m from the top of bank to define the
riparian zone.
Step 16. Estimate the density of the cover in the invaded areas, viz. light or dense. As a
general rule, invasion should be considered light/medium if there are indigenous
plants clearly visible among the alien plants, and heavy if there are few if any
indigenous plants growing between the alien plants.
58
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.13
Scoring system for encroachment into the riparian zone by exotic
vegetation
% cover
Score
0 0
n/a 1
n/a 2
10- light
3
n/a 4
n/a 5
10 - dense
6
n/a 7
n/a 8
30 - light
9
n/a 10
n/a 11
30 - dense
12
Percentage cover in reach
n/a 13
n/a 14
50 - light
15
n/a 16
50 - dense
17
n/a 18
60-70 19
n/a 20
100 - light
21
n/a 22
n/a 23
n/a 24
100 - dense
25
Evidence of bank erosion
Erosion is assessed according to two sets of criteria:
· Evidence of erosion caused by river flow;
· Evidence of erosion caused by other means such as cattle or stormwater
runoff.
The scoring system for erosion uses bank slumping, undercutting or scouring as an
indication of the seriousness of erosion caused by river flows (Table 0.14). Erosion by other
means is evident from rilling (small gulleys formed as a result of erosion) or livestock
trampling. The degree of erosion is assessed according to the percentage of the bank
length affected in a representative 100 m reach of river.
If banks are stablised by vegetation, and no bank erosion is evident then erosion score = 0
even if there is some bed erosion.
59
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Table 0.14
Scoring system for evidence of bank erosion
No. in 100m stretch
Score
None 0
n/a 1
n/a 2
n/a 3
n/a 4
Evidence of >/= 10%
5
n/a 6
n/a 7
n/a 8
Evidence of >/= 20%
9
n/a 10
n/a 11
n/a 12
n/a 13
Presence of erosion.
Evidence of >/= 40%
14
n/a 15
n/a 16
n/a 17
Evidence of >/= 50%
18
n/a 19
n/a 20
n/a 21
n/a 22
n/a 23
n/a 24
Evidence of >/= 75%
25
60
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
REFERENCES
Bielfuss, R. and Brown, C. 2006. Assessing Environmental Flow Requirements for
the Marromeu Complex of the Zambezi Delta: Application of the DRIFT
Model (Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformations). Museum
of Natural History- University of Eduardo Mondlane. Maputo, Mozambique.
159 pp. Translated into Portuguese.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 1999. Resource Directed Measures for the
Protection of Water Resources. Version 1.0.
Harding, W.R., Brown, C.A., Ewart-Smith, J. and February, R. 2002. River and vlei
assessment and monitoring in the Cape Metropolitan Area. Revisiting and
refining the river importance and sensitivity maps. Southern Waters Report to
Catchment Management, Cape Metropolitan Council. 102 pp.
KING, J.M., BROWN, C.A. and SABET, H. 2003. A scenario-based holistic
approach to environmental flow assessments for regulated rivers. Rivers
Research and Applications 19 (5-6). Pg 619-640.
Kleynhans, C..J. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat
integrity status of the Luvuvhu River (Limpopo System, South Africa). Journal of
Aquatic Ecosystem Health 5:41-54.
Mekong River Commission. 2005. Overview of the Hydrology of the Mekong Basin.
Mekong River Commission, Vientiane, November 2005. 73pp.
Metsi. 2000. Final Report: Summary of Main Findings. Lesotho Highlands Water
Project. Contract LHDA 648: Consulting services for the establishment and
monitoring of instream flow requirements for river courses downstream of
LHWP dams. Report No. LHDA 648-F-02. 75 pp.
PBWO/IUCN. 2008. Pangani Flows DSS: User Manual: Pangani River Basin Flow
Assessment, Moshi.
Rowntree, K.M. and Wadeson, R.A. 1998. A hierarchical Geomorphological Model
for the Classification of Selected South African Rivers. Final Report to the
Water Research Commission, October 1998. pp 334.
61
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
The Okavango River Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis Technical
Reports
In 1994, the three riparian countries of the
a base of available scientific evidence to guide
Okavango River Basin Angola, Botswana
future decision making. The study, created
and Namibia agreed to plan for collaborative
from inputs from multi-disciplinary teams in
management of the natural resources of the
each country, with specialists in hydrology,
Okavango, forming the Permanent Okavango
hydraulics, channel form, water quality,
River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). In
vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, fish, birds,
2003, with funding from the Global
river-dependent terrestrial wildlife, resource
Environment Facility, OKACOM launched the
economics and socio-cultural issues, was
Environmental Protection and Sustainable
coordinated and managed by a group of
Management of the Okavango River Basin
specialists from the southern African region in
(EPSMO) Project to coordinate development
2008 and 2009.
and to anticipate and address threats to the
river and the associated communities and
The following specialist technical reports were
environment. Implemented by the United
produced as part of this process and form
Nations Development Program and executed
substantive background content for the
by the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Okavango River Basin Transboundary
Organization, the project produced the
Diagnostic Analysis.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis to establish
Final Study
Reports integrating findings from all country and background reports, and covering the entire
Reports
basin.
Aylward, B.
Economic Valuation of Basin Resources: Final Report to
EPSMO Project of the UN Food & Agriculture Organization as
an Input to the Okavango River Basin Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis
Barnes, J. et al.
Okavango River Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis:
Socio-Economic Assessment Final Report
King, J.M. and Brown,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment Project
C.A.
Initiation Report (Report No: 01/2009)
King, J.M. and Brown,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment EFA
C.A.
Process Report (Report No: 02/2009)
King, J.M. and Brown,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
C.A.
Guidelines for Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
(Report No: 03/2009)
Bethune,
S.
Mazvimavi,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
D. and Quintino, M.
Delineation Report (Report No: 04/2009)
Beuster, H.
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
Hydrology Report: Data And Models(Report No: 05/2009)
Beuster,
H. Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
Scenario Report : Hydrology (Report No: 06/2009)
Jones, M.J.
The Groundwater Hydrology of The Okavango Basin (FAO
Internal Report, April 2010)
King, J.M. and Brown,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
C.A.
Scenario Report: Ecological and Social Predictions (Volume 1
of 4)(Report No. 07/2009)
King, J.M. and Brown,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
C.A.
Scenario Report: Ecological and Social Predictions (Volume 2
of 4: Indicator results) (Report No. 07/2009)
King, J.M. and Brown,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
C.A.
Scenario Report: Ecological and Social Predictions: Climate
Change Scenarios (Volume 3 of 4) (Report No. 07/2009)
King, J., Brown, C.A.,
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment
Joubert, A.R. and
Scenario Report: Biophysical Predictions (Volume 4 of 4:
Barnes, J.
Climate Change Indicator Results) (Report No: 07/2009)
King, J., Brown, C.A.
Okavango River Basin Environmental Flow Assessment Project
and Barnes, J.
Final Report (Report No: 08/2009)
Malzbender, D.
Environmental Protection And Sustainable Management Of The
Okavango River Basin (EPSMO): Governance Review
Vanderpost, C. and
Database and GIS design for an expanded Okavango Basin
Dhliwayo, M.
Information System (OBIS)
62
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Veríssimo, Luis
GIS Database for the Environment Protection and Sustainable
Management of the Okavango River Basin Project
Wolski,
P.
Assessment of hydrological effects of climate change in the
Okavango Basin
Country Reports
Angola
Andrade e Sousa,
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Rio
Biophysical Series
Helder André de
Okavango: Módulo do Caudal Ambiental: Relatório do
Especialista: País: Angola: Disciplina: Sedimentologia &
Geomorfologia
Gomes, Amândio
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Rio
Okavango: Módulo do Caudal Ambiental: Relatório do
Especialista: País: Angola: Disciplina: Vegetação
Gomes,
Amândio
Análise Técnica, Biofísica e Socio-Económica do Lado
Angolano da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Cubango: Relatório
Final:Vegetação da Parte Angolana da Bacia Hidrográfica Do
Rio Cubango
Livramento, Filomena
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Rio
Okavango: Módulo do Caudal Ambiental: Relatório do
Especialista: País: Angola: Disciplina:Macroinvertebrados
Miguel, Gabriel Luís
Análise Técnica, Biofísica E Sócio-Económica do Lado
Angolano da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Cubango:
Subsídio Para o Conhecimento Hidrogeológico
Relatório de Hidrogeologia
Morais, Miguel
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Análise Rio
Cubango (Okavango): Módulo da Avaliação do Caudal
Ambiental: Relatório do Especialista País: Angola Disciplina:
Ictiofauna
Morais,
Miguel
Análise Técnica, Biófisica e Sócio-Económica do Lado
Angolano da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Cubango: Relatório
Final: Peixes e Pesca Fluvial da Bacia do Okavango em Angola
Pereira, Maria João
Qualidade da Água, no Lado Angolano da Bacia Hidrográfica
do Rio Cubango
Santos,
Carmen
Ivelize
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Rio
Van-Dúnem S. N.
Okavango: Módulo do Caudal Ambiental: Relatório de
Especialidade: Angola: Vida Selvagem
Santos, Carmen Ivelize
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Rio
Van-Dúnem S.N.
Okavango:Módulo Avaliação do Caudal Ambiental: Relatório de
Especialidade: Angola: Aves
Botswana Bonyongo, M.C.
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report: Country:
Botswana: Discipline: Wildlife
Hancock, P.
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module : Specialist Report: Country:
Botswana: Discipline: Birds
Mosepele,
K. Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report: Country:
Botswana: Discipline: Fish
Mosepele, B. and
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Dallas, Helen
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report: Country:
Botswana: Discipline: Aquatic Macro Invertebrates
Namibia
Collin Christian &
Okavango River Basin: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
Associates CC
Project: Environmental Flow Assessment Module:
Geomorphology
Curtis, B.A.
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report Country:
Namibia Discipline: Vegetation
Bethune, S.
Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the
Okavango River Basin (EPSMO): Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis: Basin Ecosystems Report
Nakanwe, S.N.
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report: Country:
Namibia: Discipline: Aquatic Macro Invertebrates
Paxton,
M. Okavango River Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist
Report:Country:Namibia: Discipline: Birds (Avifauna)
Roberts, K.
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report: Country:
Namibia: Discipline: Wildlife
Waal,
B.V. Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report: Country:
Namibia:Discipline: Fish Life
Country Reports
Angola
Gomes, Joaquim
Análise Técnica dos Aspectos Relacionados com o Potencial
Socioeconomic
Duarte
de Irrigação no Lado Angolano da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio
63
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
Series
Cubango: Relatório Final
Mendelsohn,
.J.
Land use in Kavango: Past, Present and Future
Pereira, Maria João
Análise Diagnóstica Transfronteiriça da Bacia do Rio
Okavango: Módulo do Caudal Ambiental: Relatório do
Especialista: País: Angola: Disciplina: Qualidade da Água
Saraiva, Rute et al.
Diagnóstico Transfronteiriço Bacia do Okavango: Análise
Socioeconómica Angola
Botswana Chimbari, M. and
Okavango River Basin Trans-Boundary Diagnostic Assessment
Magole, Lapologang
(TDA): Botswana Component: Partial Report: Key Public Health
Issues in the Okavango Basin, Botswana
Magole,
Lapologang
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Botswana Portion of
the Okavango River Basin: Land Use Planning
Magole, Lapologang
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) of the Botswana p
Portion of the Okavango River Basin: Stakeholder Involvement
in the ODMP and its Relevance to the TDA Process
Masamba,
W.R.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Botswana Portion of
the Okavango River Basin: Output 4: Water Supply and
Sanitation
Masamba,W.R.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Botswana Portion of
the Okavango River Basin: Irrigation Development
Mbaiwa.J.E. Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the Okavango River
Basin: the Status of Tourism Development in the Okavango
Delta: Botswana
Mbaiwa.J.E. &
Assessing the Impact of Climate Change on Tourism Activities
Mmopelwa, G.
and their Economic Benefits in the Okavango Delta
Mmopelwa,
G.
Okavango River Basin Trans-boundary Diagnostic Assessment:
Botswana Component: Output 5: Socio-Economic Profile
Ngwenya, B.N.
Final Report: A Socio-Economic Profile of River Resources and
HIV and AIDS in the Okavango Basin: Botswana
Vanderpost,
C.
Assessment of Existing Social Services and Projected Growth
in the Context of the Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis of the
Botswana Portion of the Okavango River Basin
Namibia
Barnes, J and
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Wamunyima, D
Environmental Flow Module: Specialist Report:
Country: Namibia: Discipline: Socio-economics
Collin Christian &
Technical Report on Hydro-electric Power Development in the
Associates CC
Namibian Section of the Okavango River Basin
Liebenberg, J.P.
Technical Report on Irrigation Development in the Namibia
Section of the Okavango River Basin
Ortmann, Cynthia L.
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis:
Environmental Flow Module : Specialist Report Country:
Namibia: discipline: Water Quality
Nashipili,
Okavango River Basin Technical Diagnostic Analysis: Specialist
Ndinomwaameni
Report: Country: Namibia: Discipline: Water Supply and
Sanitation
Paxton,
C.
Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis: Specialist Report:
Discipline: Water Quality Requirements For Human Health in
the Okavango River Basin: Country: Namibia
64
E-Flows Guidelines For Data Collection, Analysis and Scenario Creation
1