No abstract

Environmental flow management in watersheds with multi-objective reservoirs is often presented as an additional constraint to an already strained and over-allocated stream system. Nevertheless, environmental flow legislation and regulatory policies are increasingly being developed and implemented globally. In California, USA, recent legislative and regulatory policies place environmental flows at the forefront of the state’s water management objectives; however, the increased reliance on hydropower to support climate change mitigation goals may complicate efforts on both issues. This study modelled alternative environmental flow strategies in the major tributaries to the San Joaquin River in California. Strategies included detailed water management rules for hydropower production, flood control, and water deliveries, and three methodological approaches to environmental flow releases: minimum instream flows (“baseline”) year-round, 40% of full natural flow (FNF) during the spring runoff season and minimum releases the remainder of the year, and functional flows year-round. Results show that environmental flow strategies affect downstream flow releases in each of the San Joaquin’s four sub-basins differently depending on infrastructure capacity, water management objectives, and hydrologic year types. While hydropower production was comparable or declined in the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced basins, functional flow and 40% FNF strategies increased hydropower production in the Upper San Joaquin basin by 11%. Uncontrolled spill of high flow events decreased when high flow releases were based on hydrologic cues rather than exclusively on flood storage capacity. Water deliveries were reduced in all years regardless of environmental flow strategy. The 40% FNF and functional flow strategies both increased water released to the river relative to baseline, but in different ways. The functional flow strategy allocated water in a holistic approach that enhanced ecological functions in all years, but particularly in moderate and wet years. In contrast, the 40% FNF strategy provided increased flows relative to baseline and some ecological benefit in dry years, but less ecological benefit in other years. This study shows that alternative environmental flow strategies will have different and important trade-offs for integrated water management, and may mutually benefit seemingly conflicting objectives.

Background
The implementation of environmental flows (e-flows) aims to reduce the negative impacts of hydrological alteration on freshwater ecosystems. Despite the growing attention to the importance of e-flows since the 1970s, actual implementation has lagged. Therefore, we explore the limitations in e-flows implementation, their systemic reasons, and solutions.
Methods
We conducted a systematic review and a bibliometric analysis to identify peer-reviewed articles published on the topic of e-flows implementation research in the last two decades, resulting in 68 research and review papers. Co-occurrence of terms, and geographic and temporal trends were analyzed to identify the gaps in environmental water management and propose recommendations to address limitations on e-flows implementation. We identify the underlying causes and potential solutions to such challenges in environmental water management.

Review Results
The limitations to e-flow implementation identified were categorized into 21 classes. The most recognized limitation was the competing priorities of human uses of water (n=29). Many secondary limitations, generally co-occurring in co-causation, were identified as limiting factors, especially for implementing more nuanced and sophisticated e-flows. The lack of adequate hydrological data (n=24) and ecological data (n=28) were among the most mentioned, and ultimately lead to difficulties in starting or continuing monitoring/adaptive management (n=28) efforts. The lack of resource/capacity (n=21), experimentation (n=19), regulatory enforcement (n=17), and differing authorities involved (n=18) were also recurrent problems, driven by the deficiencies in the relative importance given to e-flows when facing other human priorities.

Discussion
In order to provide a clearer path for successful e-flow implementation, system mapping can be used as a starting point and general-purpose resource for understanding the sociohydrological problems, interactions, and inherited complexity of river systems. Secondly, we recommend a system analysis approach to address competing demands, especially with the use of coupled water-energy modeling tools to support decision-making when hydropower generation is involved. Such approaches can better assess the complex interactions among the hydrologic, ecological, socioeconomic, and engineering dimensions of water resource systems and their effective management. Lastly, given the complexities in environmental water allocation, implementation requires both scientific rigor and proven utility. Consequently, and where possible, we recommend a move from simplistic flow allocations to a more holistic approach informed by hydroecological principles. To ease conflicts between competing water demands, water managers can realize more “pop per drop” by supporting key components of a flow regime that include functional attributes and processes that enhance biogeochemical cycling, structural habitat formation, and ecosystem maintenance.

Freshwater aquatic ecosystems are highly sensitive to flow regime alteration caused by anthropogenic activities, including river regulation and atmospheric warming-induced climate change. Either climate change or reservoir operations are among the main drivers of changes in the flow regime of rivers globally. Using modeled unregulated and simulated regulated streamflow under historical and future climate scenarios, this study evaluated potential changes to the flow regime due to climate change and reservoir operations for the major tributaries of the San Joaquin River Basin, California United States. We selected a set of Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) to evaluate historical and projected future trends of streamflow dynamics: rise and fall rates, durations and counts of low and high pulses, and the magnitude of extremes. Results show that most indicators have pronounced departures from baseline conditions under anticipated future climate conditions given existing reservoir operations. For example, the high pulse count decreases during regulated flow conditions compared to increased frequency under unregulated flow conditions. Finally, we observed a higher degree of flow regime alteration due to reservoir operations than climate change. The degree of alteration ranges from 1.0 to 9.0% across the basin among all future climate scenarios, while reservoir operations alter the flow regime with a degree of alteration from 8.0 to 25%. This study extends multi-dimensional hydrologic alteration analysis to inform climate adaptation strategies in managed river systems.

No abstract