flow alteration signatures of diversion hydropower an analysis of 32 rivers in southwestern china Dr Kelly M Kibler Assistant Professor University of Central Florida USA Department of Civil Environmental amp Construction Engineering ID: 659822
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "TAJ PALACE, NEW DELHI | 12 – 14 SEPT..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
TAJ PALACE, NEW DELHI | 12 – 14 SEPTEMBER 2016
flow alteration signatures of diversion hydropower:
an analysis of 32 rivers in southwestern china
Dr
. Kelly M. Kibler
Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, U.S.A.
Department of Civil, Environmental, & Construction EngineeringSlide2
Seminar outline
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Introduction to diversion hydropower
Context of universal energy SDG
Establishing a hydrologic alteration
“signature” of diversion hydropowerMethodsResultsConclusions and policy implicationsSlide3
Introduction: Catch-22 of water management
Vörösmarty
et al., 2010
Strong causation between human engineering and threat to freshwater biodiversity.
Challenges for contemporary engineers: How
can we simultaneously support engineered water services and ecosystem services?Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide4
Introduction: How is the universal energy access SDG related to rivers?
1.2 billion people have no access to electricity and nearly 3 billion people rely on traditional biomass (wood, animal wastes) for cooking and heating. (OECD/IEA, 2015)
Ensuring universal access to modern energy services by 2030 is a United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UNDP, 2015)
Renewable generation projected to become the world’s largest source for electricity by 2040, with hydropower expansion expected to comprise 33% of the projected growth in renewables (EIA, 2016)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide5
Introduction: How is the universal energy access SDG related to rivers?
Diversion hydropower is widely implemented in rural areas of the developing world (
Kibler
and Tullos, 2014).While the need for modern energy is pressing, socioeconomic dependence on water and ecosystem services is high.
Very poor understanding of diversion hydropower hydrologic effects and potential impact to ecosystem services; but cumulative effects found to equal or exceed those of large hydropower dams (
Kibler and Tullos, 2013).Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide6
Introduction: Diversion Hydropower
Known colloquially as “Run-of-River” or “
RoR
” hydropower
Poorly studied or understood, yet widely implemented with little environmental/social impact review
Hydrogeomorphic process effect differs significantly from integral dam-reservoir-generator facilitiesUnique impact mitigation strategies may be neededMechanisms of effect to rivers, freshwater biota, and production of ecosystem services are largely untested
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide7
Methods: Diversion hydropower
flow alteration study
Problem:
Flow alteration below diversion hydropower dams, and signal variability among multiple rivers/systems, have yet to be described.
Study Objectives:
1.) evaluate flow regime alteration to rivers below many diversion dams operated for hydropower production and 2.) identify convergent patterns of alteration as well as variability of alteration signals between dams.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide8
River Name
Installed
Capacity (MW)
Dam Height (m)
Basin Area at Dam (km2)Designed Diversion (m3
s
1
)
1
Pula River
24.8
19.3
70.1
3.21
2
Qiqiluo River
20.0
18.7
257.9
4.95
3
Dimaluo River
56.0
24.6
162.4
7.53
4
Galabo River
14.0
17.8
127.5
4.90
5
Mujiajia River
18.9
6.0
262.1
3.26
6
Mujiajia tributary 2
NA
5.0
13.9
1.24
7
Mujiajia tributary 3
NA
6.0
20.3
1.818Mujiajia River (US)10.010.032.35.389Mukeji River31.510.557.06.0410Lishiluo River6.414.541.82.3611Yamu River49.08.778.34.2812Yamu tributaryNA8.766.33.6313Alu River12.65.524.62.7314Zhali River2.64.040.92.5015Ganbu River3.84.032.11.8516Guquan River22.011.034.92.3417Wuke RiverNA10.028.71.9318Zema River15.04.056.63.6119Zema tributaryNA3.014.20.9420Pushi River10.05.043.03.7021Zilijia River6.47.031.51.7622Zileng River24.07.041.73.0723Zileng tributary 2NA8.010.91.4924Zileng tributary 3NA5.520.30.8025Labuluo River26.010.384.25.7926Toulu RiverNA10.029.42.0327Nalai River24.09.121.64.4128Duduluo River48.015.584.67.2629Jidu River16.04.671.92.4230Jidu tributaryNA4.669.72.3431Gutan River7.54.099.03.9232Laowo River25.017.0457.217.18refYong Chun RiverNANA197.0NASlide9
Methods:
Prediction in Ungauged Basins (PUB)
My lab’s strategy:
a multi-model approach, using models of variable structure
Seek confidence in places of model convergence
Our tools: regionalization, catchment similarity, inclusion of ‘soft’ data in deterministic modeling, multi-objective evaluation criteria to “get the right answer for the right reason”
IAHS PUB Decade 2003-2012; now IAHS Panta
Rhei
decade 2013-2022
Most ‘wicked’ problem in PUB is lack of validation data
How can we know if our PUB tools are effective?
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide10
Methods: Flow modeling
Eq. 1
Catchment similarity model:
Where:
=
mean daily flows on day
i
simulated at the dam/diversion (
cms
)
=
mean daily flows on day
i
observed at the reference gauge (
cms
)
=
orographic constant
=
mean daily precipitation contributing to dam (mm)
= mean daily precipitation contributing to
reference gauge
(mm)
A
dam
=
catchment area contributing to the dam (km
2
)
A
ref
= catchment area contributing to the reference gauge (km
2
)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide11
Eq. 2
Where:
= orographic constant
= multi-year mean cumulative annual precipitation contributing to dam (mm)
= multi-year mean cumulative annual precipitation contributing to gauge
(mm)
Methods: Flow modeling
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Catchment similarity model:Slide12
Eq. 3
Where:
= mean elevation of contributing catchment above dam (m)
= mean elevation of contributing catchment above precipitation gauge (m)
𝛼
𝑜𝑟
= empirical parameter of local variation in precipitation with elevation *
* Parameter value of 𝛼
𝑜𝑟
in the Nu River valley at
Nujiang
Prefecture is 70.7 mm (YBHWR, 2005).
Methods: Flow modeling
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Catchment similarity model:Slide13
Laowo
River, catchment area 457 km
2
Model performance:
Adequate at low flow season (NSE = 0.91)
Poor with negative bias in monsoon seasonExaggerated flashiness perhaps reflects catchment size limitation to similarity method
Methods: Flow modelingDr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Catchment similarity
model validation:Slide14
Calibration and validation ofHyMOD
model in reference catchment
New PUB modeling framework: Framework methodology may be applied to generate flow predictions in data-poor catchments
Here we use 5-parameter HyMOD model, but the methodology is not specific to any one model.
Inclusion of high-uncertainty ‘soft’ data through trapezoidal fuzzy numbers Multi-criteria objective function:
Maximize NSEMinimize difference in optimized (calibrated) and quantified parameter values
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Methods: Flow modelingSlide15
Getting the
better
answer for the right reason!
Validation of
HyMOD model in target catchment. Inclusion of soft data (a.) produces better result than without (b.)
a. b.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central FloridaSlide16
Eq. 4
Adding the hydropower diversion:
Where:
mean daily discharge below the dam on day
i
, in river
j
(
cms
)
= unregulated mean daily discharge below the dam on day
i
, in river
j
(
cms
)
= hydropower diversion for river
j
.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Methods: Flow modelingSlide17
IF
, THEN
IF
, THEN
Eqs. 5-7
IF
, THEN
Adding the hydropower diversion: decision rules to accommodate a regulatory minimum flow standard
Where:
= regulated flow on day
i
, in river
j
(
cms
)
= minimum ecological flow standard in river
j
(
cms
) *
* Minimum ecological flow standard assumed to be 5% of the median annual flow (Q
50
X 0.05)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Methods: Flow modelingSlide18
Outcome of flow modeling:
28-year dataset of regulated (orange) and unregulated (gray) mean daily flows in 32 rivers
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Methods: Flow modelingSlide19
Methods: Detecting Hydrologic Alteration
1) Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)
Methodology developed by The Nature
Conservaancy
(TNC)
Standard statistical methodology for detecting (potentially) ecologically-relevant changes to flow regime33 metrics detecting change to flow magnitude, timing/predictability, frequency, duration, and rate of change2) Other metrics: constancy, contingency, Exceedance Probability of minimum flow
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide20
Normalized regulated and unregulated discharge across rivers with a range of diversion indices.
Results: Variation with diversion index
Eq. 8
Where:
DI
j
= diversion index in river
j
= design diversion in river
j
(
cms
)
= unregulated median flow in river
j
(
cms
)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide21
Results: Variation with diversion index
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Hydrologic alteration across DI:
flow duration curves comparing unregulated (black solid lines) and regulated (dotted lines) flows with corresponding representative
timeseries
of regulated flow.
As DI increases, severity of hydrologic alteration increases.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide22
Results: Hydrologic alteration
Histograms of percent change to flow metrics across 32 rivers
Relationship of effect size with diversion index.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide23
7-day min lower by a mean of 41±23% (p < 0.001 for 12 rivers; p < 0.05 for 7 rivers)
Mean annual flow decreased after diversion by a mean of 76±12% across the 32 rivers
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Results: Hydrologic alterationSlide24
Frequency of Q
25
decreased (p < 0.001 for 2 rivers, p < 0.05 for 18 rivers), from a mean of 19 occurrences to 7 times per year.
7-day max flow decreased by a mean of 52±18% (p < 0.001 for 2 rivers, p < 0.05 for 24 rivers)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Results: Hydrologic alterationSlide25
Duration of flows sustained below the Q
75
increased from a mean of 3 days to a mean of 27 days (p < 0.001 for 25 rivers, p < 0.05 for 6 rivers)
Duration of flows exceeding the Q25 decreased by a mean of 1.27 days (40±19% decrease)(p < 0.001 for 4 rivers, p < 0.05 for 19 rivers)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Results: Hydrologic alterationSlide26
recession slopes increased by a mean factor of 3 (p < 0.001 for 26 rivers, p < 0.05 for 2 rivers)
hydrograph rise rates more than doubled (p < 0.001 for 25 rivers, p < 0.05 for 3 rivers)
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Results: Hydrologic alterationSlide27
Before diversion, minimum ecological flows exceeded 89 to 99% of the time at all dams. After diversion, exceeded only 0.67 to 49 percent of days
mean 184±49% increase in flow constancy
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
Results: Hydrologic alterationSlide28
Results: Minimum flows
The minimum ecological flow and
baseflows in
Gutan River (DI = 3.66). From upstream to downstream: baseflows
, 1 km upstream of diversion, baseflows at dam, upstream of diversion minimum ecological flow at dam, downstream of diversion,
minimum ecological flow, 3 km downstream of diversion. Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower
a.
b
.
c
.
d
.
Slide29
Conclusions
Diversion severely altered flow regime in 32 rivers, with statistically significant difference in:
Mean annual flows, 7-day min and 7-day max flows decreased
Frequency and duration of high flow pulses (>Q
25) decreased Duration of low flow pulses (<Q75
) increased by a mean 8-foldHydrograph rise and fall rates doubled and tripled, respectivelyFlow variability decreased due to increased flow constancyMost effects due to dramatic decrease in EP of minimum ecological flowSignature of hydrologic alteration highly consistent among the 32 rivers investigated. Proposed Diversion Index explains the effect size of many metrics.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide30
Policy implications
What we say matters
Diversion hydropower is not always
RoR. This study conclusively indicates that
diversion hydropower can produce severe hydrologic alteration. The scientific and management community should call diversion hydropower what it is, and carefully manage for impact of even small facilities.
Peoples’ needs matterPeople need electricity, but people also need water and aquatic ecosystem services.How we provide for these needs matters
Such severe hydrologic alteration is likely to diminish many aquatic ecosystem services and benefits provided by rivers. Thus, need for better science, better engineering designs that “engineer” ecosystem services, better decision-making processes and regulations to manage impact.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide31
Thank you
Please contact me with your questions and comments:
kelly.kibler@ucf.edu
www.ecohydraulics.weebly.com
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my students who have contributed to this work: Mohammadhossein Alipour, David Zheng, Ejaz Barsati, Lailee Bottom, Anthony Lowe, Dennis Hackett, and Fernanda Paulo de Campo
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide32
References and further reading:
Bunn, S. E., &
Arthington
, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental management
, 30(4), 492-507.EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), (2016). International Energy Outlook 2016. U.S. Department of Energy report DOE/EIA-0484(2016), Washington, D.C. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/pdf/0484(2016).pdf
Kibler, K.M. and M.H. Alipour, (in revision). Flow alteration signatures of small, diversion hydropower: an analysis of 32 rivers in southwestern China. Ecohydrology, in review.Kibler
, K.M., and D.D. Tullos, (2013). Cumulative biophysical impact of small and large hydropower development in Nu River, China. Water Resources Research 49(6): 3104-3118.Kibler, K.M. and D.D. Tullos, (2014). Reply to comment on “Cumulative biophysical impact of small and large hydropower development in Nu River, China". Water Resources Research 50(1): 760-761.
Poff
, N. L., Allan, J. D., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R.,
Prestegaard
, K. L., Richter, B. D., Sparks, R.E., and Stromberg, J. C. (1997). The natural flow regime.
BioScience
, 47(11), 769-784.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropowerSlide33
References and further reading (cont.):
Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Powell, J., & Braun, D. P. (1996). A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems.
Conservation biology
, 10(4), 1163-1174.UNDP (United Nations Development
Programme) (2015). Sustainable Development Goals: Introducing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UNDP, New York, New York. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sdgoverview/post-2015-development-agenda/
Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S.E., Sullivan, C.A., Reidy Liermann, C., and Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467(7315), 555-561.
Dr. Kelly Kibler, University of Central Florida
Hydrologic alteration signatures of diversion hydropower