texas bay and estuary study program cindy loeffler flows for the future october 31, 2005
TRANSCRIPT
Texas Bay and Estuary Texas Bay and Estuary Study ProgramStudy Program
Cindy LoefflerCindy LoefflerPECO S
WEB B
BREWSTER
HUDS PETH
PRESI DI O
REEVE S
CULBER SON
VAL V ERDE
DUVAL
TERRE LL
CROC KETT
FRIO
HARR IS
HILL
BELL
BEE
KENED Y
CLAY
POLK
EDWARDS
JE FF D AVIS
GAI NES
LE ON
KERR
UVALDE
HALE
DALLAM
KING
IRI ON
LA MB
DIM MI T
BEXAR
KINN EY
STARR
HALL
JA CK
CASS
WI SE
SUTTO N
OLDHA M
HID ALGO
ELLIS
UPTON
ZAVALA
MEDI NA
KIM BLE
RUSK
LE E
LY NN KENT
GRAY
LA SA LLE
COKE
MILA M
ERATH
HARTLEY
HUNT
SMI TH
KNOX
FLOYD
LLA NO
TYLER
BRAZO RIA
ANDR EWS
TRAVI S LI BER TY
REAG AN
JO NES
ZAPATA
LA MAR
BOWIE
NUEC ES
WAR D
REAL
NOLAN
TERRY GARZA
COLEM AN
MILLS
ECTOR
YOUN G
TOM GR EEN
MASO N
FALLS
MAVE RIC K
BURN ET
HAYS
DEAF SMI TH
JA SPER
LA VACA
HOUS TON
COO KE
FISH ER
BROWN
COLLI N
MOO RE
MOTLE Y
FANNI N
MART IN
EL PA SO
BAILE Y
DALLAS
LI VE OAK
BOSQ UE
HARD IN
JI M HO GG
TAYLOR
CAME RON
POTTER
GOLI AD
CRAN E
COTTLE
DONLE Y
ATASCO SA
SAN SABA
DENTO N
CORY ELL
BAYLOR
CONC HO
BROO KS
RUNN ELS
PARKE R
NAVAR RO
ARCH ER
DE WI TT
CARSO N
SCUR RY
MATAG ORD A
CROS BY
KLEBERG
FAYETTE
SHELBY
WO OD
CASTR O
BORD EN
MENA RD
WH ARTON
NEWTON
PARM ER
GILLE SPIE
MCM ULLEN
DIC KENS
SCHLEI CHE R
FOARD
HASKE LL
PANO LA
GRI MES
MID LAND
WI LSON
RAND ALL
BRIS COESWI SHE R
DAWSON
GRAY SON
GON ZALES
HOWARD
RED RI VER
ROBE RTS
HOCK LEY
TARRA NT
ANDER SON
MCLEN NAN
LU BBO CK
CALHO UN
CHER OKEE
VICT ORI A
BASTRO P
WALK ER
SHERM AN
YOAKU M
MIT CHELL
STERLI NG
HEMP HILL
WH EELER
KARNE S
TRIN ITY
WI NKLER
JA CKSO N
LI PSC OMB
LO VI NG
WI LLIAM SON
AUSTI N
EASTLAN D
REFUG IO
HOPK INS
HARR ISO N
BLANCO
CALLAHA N
COLO RADO
ANGE LINA
MCC ULLOCH
STEPHE NS
WI LLACY
JE FFERSO N
KAUFM AN
BANDE RA
HANSF ORD
COM ANCH E
MON TAGU E
PALO PIN TO
JI M WELLS
LI ME STON E
COM AL
HAMI LTON
OCHI LTREE
WI LBARG ER
SABI NE
COCH RAN
CHAM BERS
FORT BEND
VAN ZANDT
HEND ERSO N
STONE WA LL
JO HNS ON
FREESTO NE
MON TGOM ERY
GLASSC OCK
KENDA LL
TITUS
BRAZO S
HOO D
WI CHI TA
ARMS TRON G
UPSHU R
ROBE RTSON
HUTCH INS ON
LA MPAS AS
CHI LDRESS
WA LLE R
NACO GDO CHES
SHACK ELFOR D
BURLES ON
HARD EMAN
GUAD ALUPE
GALVES TON
MARI ON
THRO CKMO RTO N
COLLI NGSWO RTH
MADI SON
CALDWELL
SAN PATRI CI O
SAN JACI NTO
ARANS AS
WAS HIN GTO N ORAN GE
DELTA
RAIN S
GREG G
SAN AU
GUST INE
CAMP
MOR
RIS
FRANKLIN
SOM ER-
VELL
ROCK -
WALL
Flows for the FutureFlows for the FutureOctober 31, 2005October 31, 2005
TWC Section 11.147
Defines Beneficial Inflows As the “Salinity, Nutrient, and Sediment Loading Regime Adequate to Maintain an Ecologically Sound Environment in the Receiving Bay and Estuary System That Is Necessary for the Maintenance and Productivity of Economically Important and Ecologically Characteristic Sport or Commercial Fish and Shellfish Species and Estuarine Life Upon Which Such Fish and Shellfish Are Dependent.”
The Fundamental Scientific Basis of the Studies
The Fundamental Goal of the Recommendations
The Process of Developing FWI Recommendations
FWIRecommendations
Optimization Model
TxEMP
Hydrodynamic & ConservationTransport Model
TxBLEND
Hydrographic Survey
Nutrient Analysis
Sediment Analysis
Fisheries RegressionAnalysis
Objectives & Constraints
Fisheries Needs Analysis
Habitat Analysis
Hydrology
Verification
FWI Recommendations Are Based on the Biological Needs of aGroup of Target Species Expressed As A Statistical Relationship Between Harvest or Catch per Unit Effort And Inflow
H = 110.64 – 145.3*ln(QH = 110.64 – 145.3*ln(Qjfjf) + 332.5*ln(Q) + 332.5*ln(Qjaja) – 141.4*ln(Q) – 141.4*ln(Qsoso))
H = 3000.7 + 180.4*ln(QH = 3000.7 + 180.4*ln(Qmama) – 963.3*ln(Q) – 963.3*ln(Qmjmj) + 710*ln(Q) + 710*ln(Qjaja) )
- 231.5*ln(Q- 231.5*ln(Qsoso))
H = 32.786 + 0.0797*QH = 32.786 + 0.0797*Qmjmj + 0.2750*Q + 0.2750*Qjaja – 0.2010*Q – 0.2010*Qndnd
H = -18.087 + 0.2411*QH = -18.087 + 0.2411*Qjfjf – 0.1734*Q – 0.1734*Qmama + 0.0850*Q + 0.0850*Qndnd
ln(H) = 2.6915 – 0.7185*ln(Qln(H) = 2.6915 – 0.7185*ln(Qmama) + 1.86*ln(Q) + 1.86*ln(Qmjmj) – ) –
1.086*ln(Q1.086*ln(Qndnd))
ln(H) = 6.5679 + 0.6707*ln(Qln(H) = 6.5679 + 0.6707*ln(Qjaja) – 0.7486*ln(Q) – 0.7486*ln(Qsoso))
H = 545.59 + 160.9*ln(QH = 545.59 + 160.9*ln(Qjfjf) + 279.1*ln(Q) + 279.1*ln(Qmjmj) – 155.1*ln(Q) – 155.1*ln(Qjaja) )
- 277.9*ln(Q- 277.9*ln(Qndnd))
Blue Crab
Eastern Oyster
Red Drum
Black Drum
Spotted Sea-Trout
Brown ShrimpWhite Shrimp
Target Species:
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
1.0
3
1.1
1.1
5
1.1
7
1.2
1.2
5
1.3
INFLOW (MILLIONS ACRE-FEET)
FIS
HER
IES H
AR
VEST
(MIL
LIO
NS L
BS)
TxEMPMODELSOLUTIONS
TPWD and TWDB Have Jointly Developed FWI Recommendations To Maintain the Health and Productivity of Texas Estuaries
TxEMP Is The Optimization Model That Produces a Range Of Inflows Within Which Estuarine Health and Productivity Needs May be Met
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3
1.0
3
1.1
1.1
5
1.1
7
1.2
1.2
5
1.3
INFLOW (MILLIONS ACRE-FEET)
FIS
HER
IES H
AR
VEST
(MIL
LIO
NS L
BS)
TxEMPMODELSOLUTIONS
MinQ Is the MinimumInflow That Maintains80% Of Mean HistoricHarvest and All OtherPhysical Constraints:Salinity, Nutrient, andSediment Needs
MaxH is FWI NecessaryTo Sustain Historic FisheriesHarvest as Evaluated AgainstExisting Fisheries Data ToMeet The Legislative Definition Of Beneficial Inflows
A Range Of Possible SolutionsLies Between Two Points AlongAn Optimization Curve:MaxQ and MinQ
0
50
100
150
200
250Thousa
nds
of Acr
e-F
eet
JAN
MAR
MAY
JUL
SEP
NO
V
MonthlyInflow Needs
FWI SeasonalDistribution
San Antonio Bay
The RecommendedFWI Is OftenExpressed As a Single AnnualizedNumber, ButAlways InfersThe Sum of Bi-Monthly Inflows
Delivery of Freshwater Inflows MustIncorporate Seasonality to Have AnyEcological Significance
FWIRecommendations
Summary: Methodology to Determine the Freshwater Inflows Necessary toMeet the Legislative Directive of TWC Section 11.147
Create Models That IntegrateDatasets and Predict Response To Varying Freshwater Inflows
Identify and Assemble DatasetsRepresentative of EstuarineEcosystem
Identify and AssembleDatasets That ReflectChanges in Inflows
Input Real DataInto Models AndAssess Projected Estuarine Conditions
Sabine9.5*
Galveston5.2
Matagorda2.0
San Antonio1.15
Aransas0.82
Nueces0.14
Laguna Madre0.25 * Millions of Acre Feet Per Year
Legislatively MandatedStudies to Determine“Beneficial Inflows”Necessary to ConserveHealth and ProductivityOf Texas Major EstuariesHave Been Completed. Some are Being Updated.
Galveston Bay
CaseStudy
Frame 001 22 Jul 2002 Finite Element GridFrame 001 22 Jul 2002 Finite Element Grid
Trinity River, Delta & BaySan Jacinto River & Buffalo Bayou
West Bay
East Bay
Gulf of Mexico
TxBLEND Hydrodynamic Model Grid for Galveston Bay and the Trinity-San Jacinto Estuary.
TXBLENDTXBLEND Output Output
Monthly Salinity Monthly Salinity Maps Under Each Maps Under Each TxEMP SolutionTxEMP Solution
Salinity Difference Salinity Difference MapsMaps
Spatial Relationships Spatial Relationships of Modeled Salinity of Modeled Salinity Zones to Critical Zones to Critical Habitat AreasHabitat Areas
White Shrimp Abundance in White Shrimp Abundance in Galveston BayGalveston Bay
Higher Higher abundance abundance correlates with correlates with lower salinity lower salinity levelslevels
Galveston Bay Galveston Bay TXBLEND Time TXBLEND Time
SeriesSeries•Daily salinity at Daily salinity at a point in Upper a point in Upper Galveston BayGalveston Bay
•Predicted Predicted salinity within salinity within upper and lower upper and lower limits for MaxH limits for MaxH and MinQand MinQ
IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW NEEDS IN REGIONAL WATER PLANNING AND
FUTURE STATE WATER PERMITTING
Target Amount Historical Frequency Target Frequency** (Exceedence) (Exceedence) Above Normal Conditions [MaxH = 5.2 M Ac-Ft/Yr]* ~66% >50% Below Normal Conditions [MinQ = 4.2 M Ac-Ft/Yr]* ~70% >60% Dry Conditions [MinQ-Sal = 2.5 M Ac-Ft/Yr]* ~82% >75% Drought-of-Record [Min Historic = 1.8 M Ac-Ft/Yr]* ~98% >90% *Flows from Texas Water Development Board and Texas Parks & Wildlife; **Target Frequencies from Galveston Bay Freshwater Inflow Group (Region H)
Comparison of Model Solutions to Comparison of Model Solutions to Historical InflowsHistorical Inflows
“Nowhere in the World Has the Issue of Freshwater Inflow Been Studied So Systematically, or The Results Used to Guide Water Management Policies and Practices So Effectively, Than in the State of Texas.” – A Review and Application of Literature Concerning Freshwater Flow Management in Riverine Estuaries (2000), by Dr. E. Estevez, Director, Center for Coastal and Tropical Ecology, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida.
Methods for Determining MinimumFreshwater Inflow Needs of TexasBays and Estuaries - Powell, Matsmuto, Brock. In Estuaries December 2002.
ReviewsReviews
“While the State of Texas has pioneered tools to address freshwater inflow needs for bays and estuaries, there are limitations to these tools in light of both scientific and public policy evolution.” – Science Advisory Committee to the Study Commission on Water for Environmental Flows, Interim Report to the 79th Legislature, December 2004
ReviewsReviews
Summary of Summary of SAC B&E SAC B&E comments comments
• Incorporate stakeholder input/peer review
• Commercial vs. independent fisheries data
• Improve statistical methods
• TPWD “Verification” analysis
• Optimum inflow vs. drought conditions
• Adaptive management and precautionary principle methods