Sep 2, 2016 -
Creating a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework for Reserve Flows in Kenyan River Basins A case study in the Mara River Basin Lauren Zielinski MSc Thesis WSE-EH-16.02 September 2016
Creating a Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework for Reserve Flows in Kenyan River Basins A case study in the Mara River Basin
Master of Science Thesis by
Lauren Zielinski
Supervisor Prof. Michael McClain
Mentors Dr. John Conallin Dr. Jochen Wenninger Examination Committee Susan Graas, MSc
This research is done for the partial fulfilment of requirements for the Master of Science degree at the UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Netherlands
Delft September 2016
Although the author and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education have made every effort to ensure that the information in this thesis was correct at press time, the author and UNESCO-IHE do not assume and hereby disclaim any liability to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. © Lauren Zielinski 2016 This work is licensed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Abstract Kenya is facing a water scarce future, with increasing pressure from population growth and agriculture on finite freshwater resources. This holds true for the Mara River Basin in southwestern Kenya, which is already showing signs that the demand for freshwater resources is outpacing the supply during the dry season. In order to help prevent future shortages, a water allocation plan is being developed. One part of this plan is the determination of the Reserve, which is the amount of water needed to provide for basic human needs and protect aquatic ecosystems. In order to better manage Reserve flows, a monitoring plan should be designed which assesses short- and long-term impacts of flow augmentation and facilitates decisionmaking through a data-driven adaptive management cycle. The aim of this study was to combine these aspects to develop a Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan for the Kenyan portion of the Mara River Basin (“KMRB plan”). The KMRB plan would then be used as a case study to develop a general framework for creating similar plans in the future in other river basins in Kenya. The KMRB plan was created in three phases. During the first phase, a desktop version of the plan was developed using current literature, studying implemented examples of monitoring and adaptive management plans for environmental flows, and data from the environmental flow assessment conducted as part of the water allocation plan. In this phase, a unique objectives hierarchy was created and management objectives and indicators were identified. During the second phase, a pilot study was conducted to test potential monitoring techniques and long-term monitoring sites from the desktop version and make recommendations on the suitability for future use. During the third phase, the lessons learned from creating the desktop version and the recommendations from the pilot study were applied to create the revised version of the KMRB plan. This phase included revising monitoring techniques and locations and adding sub-objectives, trigger values, and adaptive management cycles. Taking a critical analysis of this process, a three-phase general framework was developed to guide the creation of plans in other river basins in Kenya. When compared to other templates or recommendations for creating monitoring plans for environmental flows, the general framework created in this study was found to have emphasis on structural transparency and implementability. This feature may prove to be helpful when it is applied to other river basins in Kenya in the future. This general framework and the KMRB plan are a first attempt at creating a structured approach to monitoring and adaptive management in Kenya and should be adjusted as greater insight is gained through implementation in the field. i
ii
Acknowledgements This thesis represents the culmination of two years of hard work and dedication towards my MSc in Ecohydrology, and I would like to acknowledge those who supported and inspired me along the way: -
My supervisor, Prof. Michael McClain, and my mentors, Dr. John Conallin and Dr. Jochen Wenninger, for their guidance throughout the course of my thesis and for helping me turn my passion for playing in rivers into an academic pursuit, as well as Susan Graas for her support and enthusiasm for my project.
-
Kelly Fouchy and Bianca Stoop, for always answering my endless questions and providing mental stability throughout the MSc thesis process.
-
Barnabas Kosgei and Patrick Meya of WRMA, for their never-ending personal and professional support and their willingness to answer all of my project and non-project related questions. (Asante sana, muchachos!)
-
The MaMaSe Sustainable Water Initiative staff, including Ingrid de Loof and Anne Siema, for taking care of me during my field excursions and allowing me to work on my MSc thesis as part of the MaMaSe project.
-
The specialists from the EFA, including Dr. Gordon O’Brien, Dr. Kate Rowntree, James MacKenzie, and Dr. Frank Masese, for sharing their time, knowledge, and interest in my project.
-
My parents, brothers, and extended family who supported my decision to leave home for a while to go on an adventure.
-
My friends, old and new, for their understanding, support, and proofreading skills, and to Niel de Jong for his willingness to spend countless days with me on this adventure.
-
The supervisors of the Erasmus Mundus Master of Science in Ecohydrology, Małgorzata Łapińska at the University of Łódź, Dr. Gilberto Barroso at the Federal University of Espírito Santo, and Prof. Michael McClain at UNESCO-IHE, for coordinating my academic journey.
-
And finally, the MaMaSe Sustainable Water Initiative for their financial support of my field excursions during the MSc thesis, and the European Union for granting me a scholarship, allowing me to live abroad for two amazing years. iii
iv
Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ iii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... ix List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... xi Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... xiii 1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Knowledge Gap....................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Significance of Research ......................................................................................... 4 1.4 Research Objectives ................................................................................................ 5 1.5 Research Questions ................................................................................................. 6 1.6 Ecohydrological Context......................................................................................... 7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Reserve Flows ......................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Environmental Flow Assessment Methodologies ................................................. 10 2.3 Overarching Management Framework ................................................................. 12 2.4 Monitoring as Part of a Strategic Adaptive Management Plan ............................. 14 2.5 The Use of Indicators ............................................................................................ 16 2.5.1 Ecological Indicators ............................................................................ 18 2.5.2 General Flow-Ecology Relationships ................................................... 19 2.5.3 Social Indicators ................................................................................... 21 2.6 Thresholds of Potential Concern ........................................................................... 22 2.7 Desired State of the Environment ......................................................................... 24 2.8 Scientific Uncertainties for Complex Systems ..................................................... 26 3. CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN ........................................................................ 29
3.1 Geography ............................................................................................................. 29 3.2 Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 30 3.3 Ecology ................................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Population ............................................................................................................. 33 3.5 Land Cover ............................................................................................................ 34 3.6 Special Management Areas ................................................................................... 35 3.7 Water Resources Management in Kenya .............................................................. 36 3.8 Environmental Flow Assessments in the Mara River Basin ................................. 41 v
4. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 43
4.1 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version ................................................................................................. 43 4.1.1 Existing Monitoring and Adaptive Management Examples ................ 43 4.1.2 Flow-Ecology Relationships in the KMRB .......................................... 44 4.1.3 Objectives Hierarchy ............................................................................ 44 4.1.4 Selecting Potential Monitoring Techniques ......................................... 44 4.1.5 Selecting Long-Term Monitoring Sites ................................................ 45 4.1.6 KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version ................................................................................................. 45 4.2 Pilot Study in the KMRB ...................................................................................... 45 4.2.1 Monitoring Technique Assessments..................................................... 46 4.2.2 Long-Term Monitoring Site Assessments ............................................ 46 4.2.3 Assessment of WRMA Capacity .......................................................... 46 4.2.4 Suitability Assessments and Recommendations .................................. 46 4.3 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Revised Version ................................................................................................. 47 4.3.1 Incorporating Recommendations from the Pilot Study ........................ 47 4.3.2 Connecting Monitoring Techniques to Management Objectives ......... 47 4.3.3 Reassessment of Monitoring Techniques ............................................. 48 4.3.4 Determining Trigger Values and Specific Management Actions......... 48 4.3.5 KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Revised Version ................................................................................................. 48 4.4 Development of General Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework for Reserve Flows in Kenyan River Basins ................................................................ 49 5. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 51
5.1 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version ................................................................................................. 51 5.1.1 Existing Monitoring and Adaptive Management Examples ................ 51 5.1.1.1
Australia ................................................................................. 51
5.1.1.2
United States of America ....................................................... 52
5.1.1.3
South Africa ........................................................................... 55
5.1.1.4
Tanzania ................................................................................. 57
5.1.1.5
Kenya ..................................................................................... 58
5.1.1.6
Mara River.............................................................................. 59
5.1.1.7
Applying Examples to the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan ................................................... 60
5.1.2 Flow-Ecology Relationships in the KMRB.......................................... 65 5.1.3 Objectives Hierarchy ............................................................................ 68 vi
5.1.4 Selecting Potential Monitoring Techniques ......................................... 73 5.1.4.1
Water Quantity ....................................................................... 75
5.1.4.2
Water Quality ......................................................................... 76
5.1.4.3
Geomorphology ...................................................................... 79
5.1.4.4
Fish ......................................................................................... 83
5.1.4.5
Invertebrates ........................................................................... 85
5.1.4.6
Riparian Vegetation................................................................ 86
5.1.5 Selecting Long-Term Monitoring Sites ................................................ 88 5.1.6 KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version ................................................................................................. 98 5.2 Pilot Study in the KMRB .................................................................................... 100 5.2.1 Monitoring Technique Assessments................................................... 100 5.2.2 Long-Term Monitoring Site Assessments .......................................... 100 5.2.3 Assessment of WRMA Capacity ........................................................ 100 5.2.4 Suitability Assessments and Recommendations ................................ 101 5.3 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Revised Version ............................................................................................... 102 5.3.1 Incorporating Recommendations from the Pilot Study ...................... 102 5.3.2 Connecting Monitoring Techniques to Management Objectives ....... 102 5.3.2.1
Setting Sub-objectives .......................................................... 107
5.3.2.2
Connecting EFA Management Recommendations to Management Objectives ....................................................... 111
5.3.3 Reassessment of Monitoring Techniques ........................................... 112 5.3.4 Determining Trigger Values and Specific Management Actions....... 114 5.3.5 KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Revised Version ............................................................................................... 115 5.3.5.1
Prioritization of Monitoring Activities ................................. 124
5.3.5.2
Schedule for Long-Term Monitoring and Periodic Evaluation .............................................................................................. 125
5.4 Development of General Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework for Reserve Flows in Kenyan River Basins .............................................................. 125 6. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................. 131 7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................... 139
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 143 APPENDICIES .................................................................................................................... 153
vii
viii
List of Figures Figure 1-1: Adaptive management cycle (Franklin et al. 2007) ................................................ 4 Figure 2-1: Objectives hierarchy, as proposed by Rogers and Biggs (1999). This is an ecological management methodology to turn broad qualitative vision statements into measurable goals. ........................................................................................... 14 Figure 2-2: An example of an overarching adaptive management framework (adapted from Roux and Foxcroft 2011) ...................................................................................... 16 Figure 2-3: Tables of generic indicators to ensure that the human right to water is adequately provided, as recommended in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (2002). Tables from (Jensen et al. 2014). ............................................................. 23 Figure 3-1: Map of the Mara River Basin in Kenya and Tanzania (GLOWS-FIU & WWFESARPO, 2007) .................................................................................................... 30 Figure 3-2: Subcatchments, WRMA river gauging stations (yellow), and 2016 EFA monitoring sites (orange) within the KMRB. MMBR is outlined in green. ......... 32 Figure 3-3: Map of the areas of the six CMS areas, including a detailed map of the LVSCA (WRMA, 2014) ..................................................................................................... 38 Figure 3-4: Water Resources Classification System used by WRMA (WRMA 2014) ........... 39 Figure 3-5: LVSCA water resources management classification (WRMA 2014) .................. 39 Figure 3-6: Flow chart for determining surface water status (WRMA 2014) ......................... 40 Figure 5-1: Iterative process of the adaptive management process (Williams et al. 2009) ..... 55 Figure 5-2: Foundation of the objectives hierarchy for implementing the Reserve, generated from legislative framework ................................................................................... 70 Figure 5-3: Objectives hierarchy for implementing the Reserve, including measurement indicators ............................................................................................................... 72 Figure 5-4: Three level monitoring system applied to each monitoring indicator .................. 73 Figure 5-6: Updated objectives hierarchy, including sub-objectives..................................... 113 Figure 5-7: Adaptive management cycle for compliance monitoring ................................... 122 Figure 5-8: Adaptive management cycle for effectiveness monitoring ................................. 123
ix
x
List of Tables Table 2-1: General flow-ecology relationships........................................................................ 20 Table 3-1: Population in the KMRB in 1999 and 2009 ........................................................... 33 Table 3-2: Number of households and approximate population that use streams as their primary source of water ........................................................................................ 34 Table 3-3: Land cover by subcatchment within the KMRB (km2 and percentage) ................. 35 Table 3-4: Examples of criteria and actions for different surface water statuses (WRMA 2014) ..................................................................................................................... 40 Table 5-1: Indicators and sub-indicators used for the Wadeable Streams Assessment in 20042005 and the National River and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 in the United States (US EPA 2006; US EPA 2016) .................................................................. 53 Table 5-2: Management objectives and actions within the MMNR related to monitoring flows and aquatic ecosystems (MMNR 2009) ................................................................ 61 Table 5-3: Examples of existing monitoring and adaptive management programs and plans that were studied and the aspects to be considered for the KMRB Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan .......................................................... 63 Table 5-4: Flow-ecology relationships in the KMRB.............................................................. 67 Table 5-5: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA hydrology and hydraulics specialist ................................................................................................................ 75 Table 5-6: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA water quality specialist ... 77 Table 5-7: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA geomorphology specialist ............................................................................................................................... 80 Table 5-8: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA fish biology specialist ..... 83 Table 5-9: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA invertebrate specialist ..... 85 Table 5-10: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA riparian vegetation specialist ................................................................................................................ 86 Table 5-11: Evaluation of current monitoring networks by subcatchment in the KMRB ....... 92 Table 5-12: Desktop version of KMRB Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan 98 Table 5-13: PES, trajectory, and EMC (from top to bottom) for sites evaluated during the 2016 EFA ............................................................................................................ 109 Table 5-14: Sub-objectives by indicator ................................................................................ 110 xi
Table 5-15: Revised version of KMRB Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan ............................................................................................................................. 116 Table 5-16: General monitoring and adaptive management framework for river basins in Kenya .................................................................................................................. 126
xii
Abbreviations CMS
Catchment Management Strategy
DO
dissolved oxygen
EC
electrical conductivity
EFA
Environmental Flows Assessment
EMC
Ecological Management Class
EMP
Ecological Monitoring Plan
KMRB LVSCA MaMaSe Initiative MMNR PES SASS SRO TP
Kenyan portion of the Mara River Basin Lake Victoria South Catchment Area Mau Mara Serengeti Sustainable Water Initiative Maasai Mara National Reserve Present Ecological Status South African Scoring System Sub-Regional Office total phosphorus
TPC
Threshold of Potential Concern
TSS
total suspended solids
WAP
water allocation plan
WRMA
Water Resources Management Authority of Kenya
Monitoring Site Abbreviations AK MEMB MKT
Amala River at Kapkimolwa Bridge Mara River at Emarti Bridge and Mara Beef Mara River at Kichwa Tembo
MP
Mara River at Purungat Bridge
NC
Nyangores River at Chemomul Bridge
SRB
Sand River at Sand River Bridge
TB
Talek River at Talek Bridge
TR
Talek River at Rekero Camp xiii
xiv
INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background Around the world, the human demand for freshwater resources is increasing (Vorosmarty et al. 2000). Such is the case for the Mara River, where population growth, expanding agriculture and irrigation, and unregulated abstractions are all increasing pressure on a limited source of freshwater in the region (GLOWS-FIU and WWF-ESARPO 2007). These demands are only expected to increase with time as human populations continue to grow. In addition, the Mara River is the only perennial river in the region, acting as a critical water source for wildlife during the dry season and drought conditions (Gereta et al. 2002). Kenya is listed by the United Nations Environment Programme as chronically water scarce (< 1,000 liters of water per person per year) (UNEP 2013). Already, there are signs that water demand is outpacing water availability in the dry season, when it is most critical for humans and wildlife (Hoffman 2007). With an expected increase in demand in an already stressed water environment, there is a strong need for effective water resources planning (Dessu et al. 2014). Currently, the Water Resources Management Authority of Kenya (WRMA) with assistance from the Mau Mara Serengeti Sustainable Water Initiative (MaMaSe Initiative) is undertaking the development and implementation of a water allocation plan (WAP) for the Kenyan portion of the Mara River Basin (KMRB). According to the Kenyan Water Act of 2002, a required component of a WAP is the Reserve (or Reserve flows), which is the amount of water that must be maintained in the river to meet basic human needs and protect aquatic ecosystems (WRMA 2014). The integration of a long-term, adaptive management strategy in conjunction with the implementation of the Reserve is critical for delivering suitable flow conditions to ensure important ecosystem conditions are maintained for the needs of both humans and wildlife (McClain et al. 2014). An important component of implementing such an adaptive management strategy is the inclusion of a monitoring plan, designed to collect data that can be used to help guide management decisions and assess short- and long-term impacts and trends. Such a
INTRODUCTION
1
monitoring plan becomes the “eyes on the ground” for water managers and can allow for data directly from the site to be included in high-level water management decisions.
In this paper, the terms “Reserve”, “Reserve flows”, and “environmental flows” will be used interchangeably, often depending on the context of the topic under discussion or the source of the information. The terms “Reserve” and “Reserve flows” are more commonly used in Africa, while the term “environmental flows” is more commonly used in other parts of the world.
WRMA and the MaMaSe Initiative are collaborating to set the Reserve at various locations in the KMRB. However, this is a requirement for all river basins in Kenya as part of a larger national water management strategy. The lessons learned from implementing the Reserve in the KMRB may be able to be translated into these other river basins as well. The goal of this study is to create a Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan for the KMRB (“KMRB plan”), which will then be used as a guide for creating a framework for producing monitoring and adaptive management plans when implementing Reserve flows in other river basins in Kenya. The monitoring plan will assess the impacts of Reserve flows on the ecological and basic social conditions surrounding a river. The monitoring plan will produce data-driven outputs, which can then act as quantitative inputs for the adaptive management process. Having informative and understandable outputs is useful for water managers when making decisions regarding freshwater resources.
1.2 Knowledge Gap Adaptive management is often described as “learning by doing” (as opposed to “trial and error”). The goal of an adaptive management program is to implement a project with an integrated monitoring plan in order to measure and assess the outcome(s) of a management action. In this way, the knowledge gained can be applied to the next round of management actions. However, even with the intent of implementing adaptive management, there is often a weak connection between the monitoring data collected and subsequent management actions. It is not uncommon for projects to implement a monitoring program that collects project data which does not inform management decision. In this case, it becomes a missed opportunity to 2
INTRODUCTION
create a science experiment out of a management decision, which could be used to improve future decisions or enhance the knowledge in that field of study. In many river management projects, there is a need for incorporating a structured monitoring plan within an adaptive management cycle to allow future management actions to be based on real data from the site. In addition, the decisions to be made within the adaptive management cycle should also shape the type of data that is collected in the monitoring plan. One way of achieving this is to create a linked system consisting of project objectives, a monitoring plan to assess and evaluate changes in the system, and a data-driven adaptive management cycle to guide management decisions towards meeting the project objectives. Currently, such monitoring and adaptive management cycles are rarely implemented in river management projects or are implemented in ways that are not linked back to objectives. These situations provide little information about project effectiveness and are missed opportunities to study the social-ecological impacts of flow management actions at a catchment scale (Poff et al. 2003; King et al. 2015). Related to this, a lack of long-term datasets that link abiotic and biotic responses to flow (flow-ecology relationships) at a catchment scale are also a major obstacle to creating new tools and integrated models for water resources management (Petts et al. 2006). In the United States, approximately $1 billion have been spent every year since 1990 on river restoration or rehabilitation projects, but only a few included a monitoring program linked with a quantifiable measure of project success (Bernhardt et al. 2005; O’Donnell and Galat 2008). In environmental flow projects around the world, developing linked monitoring and adaptive management plans occurs even less (Tharme 2003; Davies et al. 2014; Olden et al. 2014). While there are examples of monitoring and adaptive management plans focused on environmental flows (Cottingham et al. 2005; Souchon et al. 2008; Gawne et al. 2013; O’Keeffe 2013), there are no examples of applying such a framework in Kenya. In addition, many of these documents provide high-level suggestions for what to include in such a plan, but rarely going into greater detail on the necessary steps required to actually create one. Often, suggestions are provided that may be too complicated, time consuming, or expensive for a water management authority to undertake. By studying what has been learned from implementing monitoring and adaptive management plans for environmental flow projects in other river basins and assessing how it can be applied to Kenya, the goal of this project is to create a monitoring and adaptive management program that is contains transparent decisionINTRODUCTION
3
making, consistently linked back to project objectives, provides data-driven guidance for management action, robust yet relatively simple to implement, and is feasible to be carried out by WRMA.
1.3 Significance of Research As part of the MaMaSe Initiative, there is a great opportunity to collaborate with WRMA to create and implement a comprehensive monitoring plan and adaptive management cycles to inform future decisions on how to manage the Reserve in the Mara River Basin. This could be accomplished by working with WRMA and environmental flow specialists to set objectives for the Reserve, develop a monitoring plan around those objectives, and to then use the monitoring data to inform management decisions on the Reserve through an adaptive management cycle (Figure 1-1). This cycle could not only inform management decisions for the Reserve but also the monitoring and adaptive management plans themselves, ensuring they are effective in informing management decision in the Mara River Basin.
Figure 1-1: Adaptive management cycle (Franklin et al. 2007)
There is an ongoing effort by scientists and WRMA officials to determine flow recommendations for the Reserve. However, due to the complex nature of river systems (e.g., their large spatial scale, seasonal changes, and varying equilibrium conditions), the values set for the Reserve are well-educated professional judgements and may need to be adjusted in the future. By implementing a monitoring and adaptive management program around Reserve flows in the KMRB, the ecological conditions can be measured and used to inform decisions 4
INTRODUCTION
on whether or not the levels of the Reserve should be adjusted. In addition, it becomes a chance to turn this management action into a basin-wide scientific experiment. There are few places in the world with a strategic plan to monitor and adaptively manage Reserve flows, and implementing such a strategy in the KMRB would be the first of its kind in Kenya. By using this opportunity to create a general monitoring framework, this work can become more accessible to other river basins who also are required to complete a WAP and implement Reserve flows. This could not only inform future management decisions in the KMRB, but also in other river basins in Kenya.
1.4 Research Objectives Overall Objectives A. Develop, test, and revise a monitoring plan that feeds into the adaptive management cycle to assess and respond to the impacts of implementing Reserve flows in the KMRB B. Use the plan from the KMRB to create a general framework for developing monitoring and adaptive management plans when implementing Reserve flows in other river basins in Kenya Specific Objectives A. Study how existing monitoring and adaptive management examples can be applied to the KMRB i. Study existing monitoring and adaptive management examples from the region and around the world, including: a. National and subnational monitoring and adaptive management frameworks b. Implemented monitoring and adaptive management plans for environmental flows and river management projects ii. Identify how these principles and examples could be applied and/or adapted to the KMRB B. Create a monitoring and adaptive management plan for the KMRB that is evidencebased and implementable i. Determine monitoring indicators and create objectives that are based on established flow-ecology relationships
INTRODUCTION
5
ii. Identify and incorporate monitoring techniques that are standardized and scientifically defendable, when possible iii. Conduct a pilot study to investigate potential sites and monitoring techniques to see how they could be incorporated into the monitoring and adaptive management plan iv. Work with WRMA to determine how the plan could be implemented in a way that is within their capacity, including staff time, scientific expertise, field resources, and budget v. Use the outcomes of the pilot study and discussions with WRMA to revise the monitoring and adaptive management plan for the KMRB C. Develop a general framework for creating monitoring and adaptive management plans when implementing Reserve flows, which could then be used in other river basins in Kenya i. Identify the “lessons learned” from creating the monitoring and adaptive management program in the KMRB and use them to guide the development of a general framework ii. Determine which monitoring data should become standardized across all basins to help form a national dataset on the ecological conditions of rivers
1.5 Research Questions
How have monitoring and adaptive management of environmental flows and river management projects been implemented around the world? How can they be applied in the KMRB?
Why are flow-ecology relationships important and what are the main flow-ecology relationships in the KMRB?
What are effective methods for linking management objectives, monitoring data, and adaptive management for environmental flows?
How can a monitoring and adaptive management plan be adjusted to account for staff capabilities, time limitations, and financial constraints to ensure implementation and sustainability?
6
INTRODUCTION
1.6 Ecohydrological Context The concept of ecohydrology consists of three main principles. The first principle states that ecohydrology is an overarching framework in which a) processes occur at the catchment scale, b) water and temperature are the driving forces for terrestrial and freshwater systems, and c) abiotic processes are dominant in a system until stability is reached, at which point biotic influences begin to manifest. The second principle states that the interactions between the hydrology and the ecology creates natural resilience and resistance to stress that can be used to enhance the absorption capacity of an aquatic ecosystem against human impacts. The third principle states that the application of these ecosystem properties can be applied to improve the quality and management of freshwater resources (Zalewski et al. 1997; Zalewski 2002). These principles have expanded to include the study of interactions between water and ecosystems (Hannah et al. 2007; Zalewski 2014; Acreman et al. 2014b) and can be readily applied to environmental flows, which uses the concept of adjusting the hydrology of a river to directly affect the aquatic and riparian ecology supported by that river. These flow-ecology relationships provide the scientific foundation for determining environmental flow recommendations, and subsequently should be integrated into any associated monitoring and adaptive management plans (Gillespie et al. 2015; King et al. 2015). By studying the flowecology relationships in the KMRB, a monitoring and adaptive management program can be developed that is grounded in ecohydrological principles, guides future water management actions, and enhances the ecohydrological knowledge in the KMRB.
INTRODUCTION
7
8
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Reserve Flows The effective management of riverine resources is a complex compromise between human and ecological needs. On the one hand, water is necessary for human survival and has the potential to be used for economic gain; on the other hand, it is the foundation for the riverine ecosystems and the ecosystem services such as water purification, nutrient cycling, flood storage, and food provision (Mathews and Richter 2007). In a basin where all these needs must coexist, extensive knowledge of the river basin is required to create a balance between using water for economic development and basic human and ecological needs. The amount and condition of water that is required to sustain these needs is referred to as environmental flows. Environmental flows are defined in the Brisbane Declaration as “…the quantity, timing and quality of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and wellbeing that depend upon these ecosystems’’ (Brisbane Declaration 2007). In many African countries, when this concept is applied inside of a larger management plan (such as a WAP), it is often referred to as the Reserve or Reserve flows. Setting Reserve flows is one tool to effectively manage river resources on a catchment scale. The goal is to be able to provide different Reserve flows during different seasons in order to maintain basic ecosystem functions and prevent irreversible environmental degradation, while simultaneously allowing for the maximum allocation of water resources for a growing human demand (Smakhtin 2001; Hillman et al. 2012). However, the linkages between flow, ecological conditions, and basic human use are complex, and assigning a Reserve flow regime can be difficult (Mathews and Richter 2007). If the flows are too low, there is the potential for the ecosystem to decline in function or even crash (Heicher 1993); if the flows are too high, there is a missed opportunity for further economic development of the basin. The different factors of a flow regime (magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change) can be combined in a variety of ways and act as the major driver of different ecosystem LITERATURE REVIEW
9
processes and changes (Poff et al. 1997; Hart and Finelli 1999; Bunn and Arthington 2002; Merritt et al. 2010; Poff and Zimmerman 2010). For example, floods can connect the main river channel with the floodplains for a brief period of time, allowing for exchange of nutrients, sediment movement, and life cycle requirements for certain riparian plants; low flow and high flow conditions play an important role triggering spawning behavior in fish and creating habitat for aquatic organisms. Different biotic components of an ecosystem have adapted over many generations to free-flowing or natural conditions. However, when the natural flow regime is altered, then these conditions change and can threaten biodiversity and ecosystem function (Postel and Richter 2003; Poff and Zimmerman 2010). With the implementation of a WAP and associated Reserve flows, it is usually the case that flow regimes have already been altered. However, there is often a desire to restore defining characteristics of the original flow regime of the river in an attempt to reproduce the conditions to which the ecosystem has adapted. While there is a knowledge base of the relationships between changes in flow and ecological responses, the big challenge is to know how much adjustment of flow is needed to achieve desired ecological conditions (or to prevent irreversible loss of ecosystem functions) (Poff et al. 2003; Arthington et al. 2010). Knowing current ecological conditions and being able to track how they change over time in response to a change in flow regime is essential for managing Reserve flows. In addition, it is critical for assessing whether the Reserve flows being implemented are acceptable in their impact. The creation of a monitoring framework, and its inclusion in an adaptive management cycle, is essential to measuring this impact and responding in a systematic and data driven way.
2.2 Environmental Flow Assessment Methodologies The main method of determining the amount of water for environmental flows or Reserve flows is through an environmental flow assessment (EFA). An EFA can be defined as “an assessment of how much of the original flow regime of a river should continue to flow down it and onto its floodplains in order to maintain specified, valued features of the ecosystem” (King et al. 1999; Tharme 2003; King et al. 2008). The valued features of an ecosystem can include general ecosystem function, socially and ecologically important habitats, or endangered species, each of which may have their own objectives and flow requirements (Tharme 2003). It can be applied across a range of physical scales, from entire catchments to a single section of a river, and at different levels of implementation, from annual, hydrological minimums to monthly, 10
LITERATURE REVIEW
event-based requirements (Tharme 2003; King et al. 2008). There are a variety of methods that can be employed, depending on the time available for assessment, historical data available, technical knowledge required, and available budget (Arthington and Zalucki 1998; Tharme 2003). Tharme (2003) conducted a global review of established EFA methodologies, dating from the late 1940s to present day. Four different classes of EFAs were identified: hydrological, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation, and holistic methodologies, each of which have their own advantages and constraints.
Hydrological methods primarily utilize historical hydrological data (monthly or daily flows) to make recommendations on how to meet objectives on a monthly, seasonal, or annual basis, and were arguably the first EFA methods in use. Since they were established in the late 1940s in the United States, they have become popular worldwide for their quick implementation and low resource use. Due to their low resolution, however, they are often limited to preliminary assessments or used in low-controversy river basins.
Hydraulic rating methodologies began being developed around the 1970s as a way to combine hydrologic data with the quality of instream resources, often motivated by the need to produce sensitive habitats or behavioural cues for fish species. Changes in hydraulic variables (e.g., wetted perimeter and maximum depth) are chosen as proxies for these habitats, and the change in these variables are linked to different water quantities to create flow recommendations.
Habitat simulation methods build upon hydrologic-hydraulic relationships by including a detailed habitat availability assessment at different discharges and known biological responses to flow conditions. It is fairly computation-intensive and can require hydrologic, hydraulic, and habitat simulation models as inputs.
Since the mid-1990s, holistic methods have become a popular choice for EFAs in Australia and Africa due to their comprehensive assessment of an ecosystem and module construction of recommendations. Holistic methods often include the integration of hydrologic, hydraulic, and ecological data into distinct elements. These elements represent some or all major flow components of an aquatic ecosystem and can be adjusted in order to achieve project objectives. This approach requires a large amount of resources due to its site-specific nature, including field studies and expert
LITERATURE REVIEW
11
opinions on different ecological aspects. Holistic methods are often recommended by freshwater scientists and are thought of as the way forward in improving the science in the field of EFAs. One holistic EFA method that was created in South Africa is called the Building Block Methodology (King et al. 2008), and has also been implemented in other countries in Africa. Using the Building Block Methodology, recommendations for different flow components are generated by applying relationships between hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, water quality, vegetation, aquatic invertebrates, fish and groundwater to determine the amount of water needed for Reserve flows at different times of the year and at different sites across a catchment. There are five main “building blocks” for which discharge and duration requirements must be specified: low flows, freshets (or high flow pulses), annual floods, small floods, and large floods. Each of these are determined for both an average year (“maintenance year”) and a drought year, and are linked to current ecological conditions and desired management objectives for each study site.
2.3 Overarching Management Framework There are many types of ecological and social information that can be collected in a river basin, and an overarching management plan should be in place to ensure that any data collected contributes to effective ecosystem management (Costanza et al. 1992). Such a management plan should include three main phases: planning, implementation, and evaluation (with steps within each phase). Monitoring data is the most useful when it can be applied to scientific research and used to test a hypothesis, usually in the form of a policy or management decision (Noss 1990; Rogers and Biggs 1999; Meffe et al. 2002; Folke et al. 2005). In this way, a monitoring program can be part of a proactive, or strategic, management program rather than a reactive one. This also prevents collecting data that may be difficult to incorporate into management decisions. It is not uncommon for monitoring to occur separately from an overarching management plan. This can lead to an inefficient monitoring plan that doesn’t measure progress toward an objective, becomes too complex or expensive (Karr and Chu 1997) or can even create or perpetuate “pseudo facts” (or misinformation) about the condition of the area (Gunderson et al. 1995; Rogers and Bestbier 1997; Rogers and Biggs 1999). The monitoring program should 12
LITERATURE REVIEW
always be captured within this overarching framework and related back to management objectives. Christensen (1997) lays out that ecosystem management should 1) develop detailed operational objectives which are relevant to ecological function; 2) create data-driven monitoring programs which tie back into these objectives; 3) have an efficient data analysis and management program; and 4) provide monitoring feedback to managers in a timely fashion. However, completing this list requires the integration of two types of operational systems: the scientific system, which has a small-scale focus on testing specific hypotheses working under the umbrella of established theory; and the management system, which has a large-scale focus and must turn broad policies into operational goals. The challenge is to be able to turn qualitative objectives for an area (which are useful for upper management and stakeholders) into quantitative goals that can be easily measured (which are useful for lower management and onthe-ground staff) without losing the intent of the overarching vision. Rogers and Biggs (1999) proposed a systematic method of turning a vision into objectives and then into management goals, which forms the foundation of a linked monitoring plan (Figure 2-1). This objectives hierarchy was applied as an adaptive management procedure for managing rivers in Kruger National Park in South Africa. The first step involves turning the vision (which is created by upper management and stakeholders) into a series of high-level objectives. These top two tiers are more focused on societal values and have high levels of stakeholder input. These objectives are then turned into sub-objectives and continually getting more detailed until quantitative goals can be created. The goals come in two forms: institutional goals and conservation goals. (In the case of monitoring the Reserve, the objective is ensuring ecosystem function and not ecosystem conservation.) Institutional goals are those desired by society and the stakeholders, while conservation goals are science-based endpoints linked to different ecosystem conditions. The conservation goals are not a single number, but rather a range of acceptable levels for different ecosystem conditions. These ranges are known as trigger values or Thresholds of Potential Concern (TPCs, see Section 0) and are based on the desired condition of the ecosystem established from the societal values laid out in the vision. The goal of the objectives hierarchy is to determine a future desired state or condition for a river which incorporates management and societal values, decided upon by stakeholders. The TPCs then provide measurable endpoints which describe the desired state in scientific detail LITERATURE REVIEW
13
and are created simultaneously with a monitoring program for a range of ecologic and social indicators (Pollard and Du Troit 2007).
Figure 2-1: Objectives hierarchy (Rogers and Biggs 1999)
2.4 Monitoring as Part of a Strategic Adaptive Management Plan It is important to remember that a monitoring plan is not an end unto itself, but a part of a larger cycle of management decisions and actions. The monitoring plan provides data that are relevant and systematically collected in order to develop, test, and modify future management (Biggs and Rogers 2003). In general, monitoring can be broken down into three different types: implementation and compliance monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and validation monitoring. Implementation and compliance monitoring is useful for determining if flow recommendations were achieved, effectiveness monitoring measures whether there was an outcome from implementing an action (which can be capable of encompassing complex issues like ecosystem response), and validation monitoring is useful for studying specific aspects about ecological relationships (which can be used to improved effectiveness monitoring) (MacDonald et al. 1991; Souchon et al. 2008). Effectiveness and validation monitoring can also be used to help evaluate adaptive management actions (Kershner 1997). Determining and implementing a socially and ecologically sensitive management action (like Reserve flows) is a complex endeavor. There are many inputs and drivers in a river system that interact with each other in complicated and non-linear ways, making accurately predicting outcomes very difficult. It is often the case that the outcome is only known after implementation has occurred. One method of handling such uncertainty is to use an adaptive management 14
LITERATURE REVIEW
approach of “learning-by-doing” and using the outcomes to inform future changes in management (Roux and Foxcroft 2011). In this way, an implemented management action becomes a scientific experiment to test the hypothesis of an implemented policy (Meffe et al. 2002; Folke et al. 2005). Adaptive management was first described in the 1970s and 1980s as adaptive environmental assessment and management (Holling 1978) and has since become an established field of research (Walters 1997; Meffe et al. 2002). In South Africa in the mid-1990s, the concept of strategic adaptive management was initially developed as a way to better manage rivers and river basins (Rogers and Bestbier 1997; Rogers and Biggs 1999; Biggs and Rogers 2003). Since then, strategic adaptive management has emerged in the South African national parks system as an integral part of the natural resources management planning and decision-making processes. It has also spread to other parts of the world and is now a widely recognized model for handling uncertainty in social-ecological systems (Rogers 2003; Venter et al. 2008). According to Roux and Foxcroft (2011), the adoption of strategic adaptive management has allowed for the integration of two pressing challenges in natural resources management: 1) the social and ecological complexities present in riverine systems and their associated uncertainties, and 2) the increasing impact, and involvement, of stakeholder groups with various expectations and values. The outcome of this integration was the realization that there was a need to actively learn and adapt from the information being gathered and to pursue such activities with a purpose and with relevant partners. Strategic adaptive management can be broken down into three subcomponents: adaptive planning, adaptive implementation, and adaptive evaluation (Figure 2-2). Adaptive planning involves creating a vision for the management area, setting objectives, and setting the scope or plan for achieving those objectives. Adaptive implementation is creating a flexible yet detailed plan for how to collect the data, deciding which resources should be used, and deciding what endpoints should be achieved (using TPCs or other soft triggers). Adaptive evaluation consists of a critical analysis of each step of the process, including if and how things could be changed in the future. These steps create a structured and transparent mechanism of setting goals, formulating boundaries, monitoring conditions, and evaluating the consequences of management actions. A structured and well-conceived monitoring plan acts as the knowledge base for a strategic adaptive management plan, upon which future management decisions are LITERATURE REVIEW
15
based. As such, it is important for a monitoring plan to be integrated within a strategic adaptive management plan to ensure effective management of an ecosystem.
Figure 2-2: An example of an overarching adaptive management framework (adapted from Roux and Foxcroft 2011)
In general, adaptive management is a key link between the data collected and the management actions that occur as part of a project. If properly implemented, it helps to improve the understanding of the system being studied while also supporting good public governance by facilitating accountability, transparency, and efficiency in decision making (King et al. 2015).
2.5 The Use of Indicators In order to measure ecological function of a river system, it would be ideal to have knowledge of many different biotic and abiotic characteristics, environmental stressors, and potential impacts from those stressors. However, the interactions between all of these aspects are incredibly complex. In addition, to gather and analyze all of the data would be time consuming, cost-prohibitive, and potentially unfeasible. Holling (2001) theorizes that a complex system can be better understood if there is a focus on a small number of controlling processes rather 16
LITERATURE REVIEW
than a large number of interacting processes. If a small number of controlling processes can be identified, then a complex system can be simplified in a way that can be better understood and communicated while still representing the original system. In other words, there is a requisite simplicity that is required to understand complex problems, and it’s better to have a simpler system that can be understood than a more complex system that cannot (Stirzaker et al. 2010). Using these ideas, a complex system of ecological interactions of a riverine system could be simplified into a series of controlling processes. From a controlling process, a representative feature (or indicator) can be chosen as a parameter to be measured and monitored over time. By monitoring a combination of these indicators (and their associated controlling processes), a snapshot of ecological conditions can be created (Biggs and Rogers 2003; Stoddard et al. 2006) as well as a connections to probable agents of change in the surrounding area (Rogers and Biggs 1999). Indicators also act as proxies for measurable endpoints that are decided as part of the desired future state (Noss 1990). Noss (1990) created a list of traits that each indicator should have, including being: 1) sensitive enough to provide an early warning of change; 2) widely applicable over geographic areas; 3) capable of being continuously assessed over a wide range of stressors; 4) independent of sample size; 5) easy and cost-effective to collect, assess, and/or calculate; 6) able to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic cycles or trends; and 7) ecologically significant. In addition, the selection of indicators should account for comparability between data sets, spatial and temporal representation, and social considerations in the region (Hawkins 2006a). Specific to environmental flows, Watts et al. (2001) recommended selecting monitoring indicators which: 1)
are responsive to changes in flow at spatial and temporal scales relevant to river management;
LITERATURE REVIEW
17
2)
are responsive within the timeframe of the project;
3)
have scientific justification;
4)
represent important structural and/or functional component of the riverine ecosystem;
5)
are easily measured and quantitative;
6)
have responses that are easy to interpret;
7)
can determine and measure directions of change;
8)
respond differently to background variability;
9)
are cost-effective;
10) are relevant to policy and management needs; and 11) cover a range of habitats and trophic levels, several measures of biodiversity, a range of organizational levels and a range of spatial and temporal scales. It would be incredibly difficult to find a single indicator that contains all of these traits, and a few complimentary indicators are usually selected to get an adequate assessment of the conditions and trends over time. In order to measure the impacts from implementing Reserve flows, two major components must be included: the environment and the people. As such, there should be indicators identified for both ecological and social purposes. 2.5.1 Ecological Indicators Ecological indicators are those traits which are representative of major processes occurring in an ecosystem and can be measured in a systematic way. The Convention on Biological Diversity defines an ecosystem as “a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit” (United Nations 1992), and there is a strong link between the abiotic (non-living) and biotic (living) parts of an ecosystem (Power et al. 1988; Ward and Tockner 2001; Bunn and Arthington 2002; Palmer et al. 2005). In particular, flow regimes have been shown as a driving factor of the ecology of rivers and their floodplains (Poff et al. 1997; Richter et al. 1997; Puckridge et al. 1998; Hart and Finelli 1999), and any change to the flow regime has the potential to strongly impact different ecological features. As such, ecological indicators are often linked back to changes in flow conditions.
18
LITERATURE REVIEW
Flow regimes have been called a “master variable”, and are highly correlated to a variety of riverine conditions, including water temperature, in-channel geomorphology, natural habitat diversity, and species distribution and abundance; all of these, in turn, regulate ecological integrity in a river (Resh et al. 1988; Power et al. 1995; Poff et al. 1997). River flow regimes can be defined by five major components which regulate ecological process in rivers: magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change. When all of these components are unaltered in a catchment, it is referred to as the “natural flow regime” (Poff et al. 1997). Changes to flow (an abiotic component of an ecosystem) can impact other abiotic components as well as biotic components. Often, the abiotic components that are useful as indicators of the functionality of a river ecosystem are flows (e.g., timing of flows according to season, quantity or water level height, or timing of pulses), water quality (e.g., geared towards the needs of aquatic and/or sensitive species), and geomorphology (e.g., stability of river bed and banks, substrate, presence or absence of necessary spawning habitat). Biotic components are usually a representative species or subset from different major groups, such as plants (e.g., algae, phytoplankton, aquatic plants, or riparian plants), fish (e.g., an apex predator, endangered species, or biodiversity across the river domain), and insects (e.g., macroinvertebrates, benthic macroinvertebrates, breeding insects) (see Bunn and Arthington (2002) for a review on the impacts of flow regime on biotic ecosystem components). The presence or proliferation of exotic or invasive species is also a concern and is often considered as another biotic indicator. 2.5.2 General Flow-Ecology Relationships Based on the work of holistic environmental flow assessment methodologies (Arthington et al. 1992; Brizga et al. 2002; King et al. 2008), five distinct components of flow have been identified as being ecologically important in a wide range of hydro-climatic regions: extreme low flows, low flows, high flow pulses, small floods, and large floods (Mathews and Richter 2007). These components have been linked to changes in conditions of water quality, river morphology, connectivity between river sections, and the movement of aquatic organisms (Mckay and King 2006; Mathews and Richter 2007; Nilsson and Renöfält 2008; Gillespie et al. 2015). General abiotic and biotic responses and changes in conditions have been found to be associated with these different aspects of flow regime, as described in Table 2-1.
LITERATURE REVIEW
19
Table 2-1: General flow-ecology relationships Flow Component
Abiotic Response and Conditions
Biotic Response and Conditions
Extreme low flows (drought conditions)
Altered water quality conditions, including higher water temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen
Low flows (baseflow)
Maintain suitable water temperatures, dissolved oxygen, and water chemistry Maintain water table levels in floodplain, soil moisture for plants
High flow pulses (freshets)
Shape physical character of river channel, including pools, riffles Increased bedload transport Determine size of streambed substrates (sand, gravel, cobble) Restore normal water quality conditions after prolonged low flows, flushing away waste products and pollutants Increase turbidity and total suspended solids, and decreased electric conductivity Maintain suitable salinity conditions in estuaries
Small and large floods
Recharge floodplain water table Deposit nutrients on floodplain Shape physical habitats of floodplain Deposit gravel and cobbles in spawning areas Flush organic materials (food) and woody debris (habitat structures) into channel Drive lateral movement of river channel, forming new habitats (secondary channels, oxbow lakes)
20
Enable recruitment of certain floodplain plant species Purge invasive, introduced species from aquatic and riparian communities Concentrate prey into limited areas to benefit predators Stressful, potentially lethal, conditions for certain aquatic organisms Reduced connectivity between sections of a river, restricting movement of aquatic organisms Provide adequate habitat for aquatic organisms Provide drinking water for terrestrial animals Keep fish and amphibian eggs suspended Enable fish to move to feeding and spawning areas Support hyporheic organisms (living in saturated sediments) Maintain macroinvertebrate diversity Prevent riparian vegetation from encroaching into channel Increased macroinvertebrate drift, reduced macroinvertebrate density Aerate eggs in spawning gravels, prevent siltation Provide short-term stress relief for aquatic organisms during low-flow situations Reconnect sections of a river for brief moments, allowing for movement of mobile organisms Allows access to additional habitats and food resources Provide migration and spawning cues for fish Trigger new phase in life cycle (i.e., insects) Refresh saturated sediments for hyporheic organisms Enable fish to spawn in floodplain, provide nursery area for juvenile fish Provide new feeding opportunities for fish, waterfowl Maintain diversity in floodplain forest types through prolonged inundation (i.e., different plant species have different tolerances) Control distribution and abundance of plants on floodplain Maintain balance of species in aquatic and riparian communities Create sites for recruitment of colonizing plants
LITERATURE REVIEW
Table 2-1: General flow-ecology relationships Flow Component
Abiotic Response and Conditions
Biotic Response and Conditions
Purge invasive, introduced species from aquatic and riparian communities Disburse seeds and fruits of riparian plants Provide plant seedlings with prolonged access to soil moisture (Mckay and King 2006; Mathews and Richter 2007; The Nature Conservancy 2009; Gillespie et al. 2015)
Environmental flow recommendations often presume that these general relationships are the same as those present at the local scale, and that the specific linkages between the local ecology and flow components are known (Arthington et al. 2006). However, in a global literature review of flow-ecology relationships, very few ecological responses to flow augmentation from reservoirs were found to be widely applicable (Davies et al. 2014; Gillespie et al. 2015) and most responses to a change in flow regime are variable and often restricted to a specific region or location (Poff and Zimmerman 2010). This may be due to the multitude of hydrologic, climatic, and ecological variables that can influence abiotic and biotic conditions in rivers and their non-linear responses when in combination. In addition, external influences on a river ecosystem (e.g., climate, land use change, and water management) can change these relationships over time in potentially substantial ways (Acreman et al. 2014a) This lack of definite trends stresses a need for studying and utilizing site-specific flow-ecology relationships to allow for customization and optimization of management actions within a river basin. 2.5.3 Social Indicators While there tends to be a focus on ecological conditions when implementing Reserve flows, there is a very important human component that must also be considered. Often times, especially in rural areas, people collect water from a river to provide themselves with everyday needs, such as drinking, cooking, bathing, and cleaning. These needs are usually referred to as basic human needs and are protected under various international human rights conventions (Gleick 1996; United Nations 2010; Jensen et al. 2014). However, it is often the case that there is a gap between what is required under these conventions and what is actually available. Being able to measure the extent of this gap through the use of indicators is important for turning policies into on-the-ground change (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2012).
LITERATURE REVIEW
21
Providing basic human needs for a population is closely linked to the human right to water. According to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (2002), the human right to water “entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses. An adequate amount of safe water is necessary to prevent death from dehydration, to reduce the risk of water-related disease and to provide for consumption, cooking, personal and domestic hygienic requirements.” While there are many different circumstances under which this right must be provided, there are three factors that should be considered in all situations: 1) the availability of water, which usually includes enough water for drinking, sanitation, washing, food preparation, and personal and household hygiene; 2) the quality of water, meaning that there should be no hazards to human health1 and it must have acceptable color, odor, and taste; and 3) the accessibility of water, which is further broken down into physical accessibility, economic accessibility, non-discrimination, and information accessibility. As part of this effort, the United Nations also recommends that indicators and national benchmarks be set to measure if these conditions are being met. Working under this context, the Danish Institute for Human Rights created generic indicators and benchmarks for these required factors (note: the Danish Institute for Human Rights has four indicators; they single out acceptability as a separate factor from quality, see Figure 2-3). These tables can be used as a starting point to create country and/or region specific indicators and benchmarks, taking into consideration unique conditions in the area. .
2.6 Thresholds of Potential Concern An important part of the adaptive planning phase is deconstructing the high-level objectives into measurable, scientifically-justified endpoints. This includes defining acceptable levels of each indicator in relation to the desired state defined in the vision (Rogers and Bestbier 1997; Roux and Foxcroft 2011). The upper and lower boundaries of such acceptable levels are known as TPCs or trigger values (more generally). TPCs are a hypothesis of what conditions could occur while still achieving the overall objective(s) of the river basin. TPCs do not set a hard boundary or trigger, but rather provide a mechanism to warn managers that there may be an
1
It should be noted that the water quality standards for human health have a different focus than water quality standards for environmental health, but there may be some overlap between the two sets of standards.
22
LITERATURE REVIEW
issue which should be investigated further that could cause unacceptable environmental change. TPCs are created in conjunction with a monitoring framework, with the TPCs creating context for the data collected as part of the monitoring program. This information is then fed
Figure 2-3: Tables of generic indicators to ensure that the human right to water is adequately provided, as recommended in the United Nations Economic and Social Council (2002). Tables from (Jensen et al. 2014).
LITERATURE REVIEW
23
into an adaptive management strategy to assess if additional changes in management are needed. This feedback loop provides an important link between the small-scale scientific approach and the large-scale environmental management approach (Rogers and Biggs 1999). Setting a TPC is similar to proposing a hypothesis, in which the upper and lower bounds of the acceptable state are set based on scientific knowledge, but are also driven by the overarching objectives and are ultimately decided by stakeholders and managers. Since they are a “best guess” based on the best information available and the societal values at the time, they should be periodically evaluated and updated as the social-ecological system is better understood and as societal concerns change (Biggs and Rogers 2003; Pollard and Du Troit 2007). TPCs are usually linked with representative indicators for ecological and social conditions, and should be scientifically rigorous, defined in time and space, and consistent with the overarching objective(s) (Rogers and Biggs 1999). As such, they should be developed in collaboration with scientists and field staff familiar with the area to ensure the TPCs are reasonable and feasible to measure (Roux and Foxcroft 2011). To put it in more simple terms: “Essentially once stakeholders work out what state you would like your rivers to be in (the desired future state); they would identify warning signs that things are moving dangerously in the wrong direction (Thresholds of Potential Concern); and when those signs appear, take corrective action to prevent the ecosystem going “over the cliff” into another state from which it may be difficult or impossible to recover.” ~ Tim Hirsch, environmental journalist (Pollard and Du Troit 2007)
2.7 Desired State of the Environment The phrase “desired state” (also “desired future state” or “desired future condition”) has many different origins and could mean different things to different people, depending on the context. In general, it is used “to indicate the need for some foresight and commitment from policy makers and managers as to the condition in which an ecological system should be maintained” (Rogers and Bestbier 1997). Often, the conditions decided upon are synonymous with operational goals (Christensen 1997). However, the wording “state” or “condition” gives a 24
LITERATURE REVIEW
feeling of a static condition, when in reality ecosystems are constantly changing; the phrases “desired future behavior”, “desired future trajectory” (Christensen 1997), or “desired future flux” (Rogers and Bestbier 1997) may be more appropriate. Allowing for a system to change with reasonable boundaries promotes natural processes and ecosystem pressures. This is a desirable condition in itself because it indicates a self-sustaining, dynamic, and resilient ecosystem (Pollard and Du Troit 2007). (To reflect this, TPCs are often given a range of acceptable values instead of a single, static value.) Often, desired conditions are geared toward conservation or restoration goals, basing decisions on trying to return to an idealized condition or some level of the original “reference condition”. The use of reference conditions is a common method of comparing current ecological conditions against what a site “should” look like. It is based on the concept that the conditions of a potentially impacted section of the ecosystem can be compared to a relatively unimpacted section of the ecosystem of the same type to gain information about how much the first section has changed (Hawkins 2006b). There are some major challenges in using this approach, including choosing what constitutes acceptable reference conditions. There are many different ways of defining this, and there continues to be a lack of consistency about the term “reference condition” (Stoddard et al. 2006). Often, specific terms are used in national legislation that may not align with current scientific theories and monitoring technique capabilities (Haskell et al. 1992). In addition, it may not be possible to restore a system back to the desired “idealized” condition due to a severe change in conditions from natural or anthropogenic causes. Ecosystems can move towards a “new normal” or “novel” ecosystem that may function in a different manner than the pristine ecosystem but still provides necessary social and ecological needs (Acreman et al. 2014a). In such situations, it may be more pragmatic to move towards a theoretical condition with the least amount of degradation and the most ecologically dynamic state possible, which must be decided a priori given the surrounding conditions (Palmer et al. 2005; Acreman et al. 2014a). However, this is not an easy task to accomplish and requires the input of scientists, stakeholders, and regulatory officials. Another way to assess the desired state is to use an assessment of “ecological integrity”. In North America, the desired state is often linked to “ecosystem health” in environmental policy (Costanza et al. 1992), although there is some debate as to the definition of these two concepts. Karr (1996) argues that there is a significant difference between ecological integrity. Ecological integrity implies a condition or state that is unimpaired from its original condition and is able LITERATURE REVIEW
25
to maintain the full range of functions over different temporal and spatial scales, while ecological health is usually an ecological condition in which the functions desired by humans are still intact and flourishing with less regard for functions that do not provide a direct benefit to people. In a world where humans have impacted almost all landscapes and waterways, maintaining ecological integrity can be an ideal yet impossible goal. Due to this, maintaining ecological health has been the status quo for many years, although often the “health” of an ecosystem is ultimately sacrificed for economic gain. There is a shift on how ecological health should be defined as the connections between human impact and ecological function are becoming more clear and the importance of sustaining ecosystems for future human needs has become more pronounced. It is becoming more common for ecosystem management to incorporate societal values into ecological health assessments, and subsequently, into the definitions of desired states (Haskell et al. 1992). While there is some debate as to whether the desired state should be defined by specific, ecological endpoints or broad, societal values, it is important to have a structure to create a widelyaccepted definition of the desired state. This can help to ensure community buy-in and promote effective ecological management (Costanza et al. 1992).
2.8 Scientific Uncertainties for Complex Systems Rivers and their associated ecosystems are diverse, constantly changing, and subject to a variety of influences across the area of the catchment. In isolated systems, it may be possible to understand and predict the impact of one component on another component (e.g., the impact of river flows on vegetation). However, this becomes an impossible task when all components are able to interact simultaneously at different scales of time and space and without boundaries. (In this context, “boundaries” refers to the framing of the system under consideration, where inputs and outputs of the system are able to be quantified.) In this way, a river system can be described as a complex system, and a different mindset for such systems should be considered. Cilliers (2005a) defines complex systems as those which are open systems, operate under nonequilibrium conditions, have input-output relationships, are comprised of many components that interact with each other in potentially non-linear ways, and are often better described by the interactions between components than the components themselves. Due to all of these features, a complex system is practically impossible to describe fully and must be simplified in 26
LITERATURE REVIEW
order to be understood. However, the way in which the system is simplified changes how the system is represented, since some components or relationships must be left out. This, in turn, shapes how we view the system and limits our ability to accurately predict outcomes based on known inputs. It follows, then, that choosing the framework in which we simplify a complex system will have an impact on our understanding of that system. While there is no “right” or “wrong” frameworks, there are frameworks which have the potential to provide greater insight than others. The challenge is then to decide how to construct a framework for the complex problem, taking into consideration the various components in that system. Often, the individual components of a system are generally understood, but how they interact with each other and with an entire group of components is non-linear and difficult to predict (Cilliers 2005a; Cilliers 2005b; Stirzaker et al. 2010). Cause and effect relationships may be able to be determined after-the-fact for certain systems, but this is not a requirement of complex systems. In river systems, trying to narrow down effects from a single cause may not be possible due to different mechanisms that play a role at different spatial and temporal scales (Bunn and Arthington 2002). As such, our understanding of the system must always be in flux and continually revised as more site-specific information becomes available (Cilliers 2005b; Stirzaker et al. 2010). River systems are a great example of a complex system due to the multitude of inputs and outputs from hydrological, ecological, and societal features in a catchment. They are often too complex to try to understand every interaction at once, and must be simplified in a manner useful to the investigator. Due to the requirements of simplifying such a complex problem, a monitoring framework for river systems should have a solid foundation in “known” relationships between different components, but retain flexibility to adapt to the system as its complexities are better understood. Incorporating a strategic adaptive management plan alongside a monitoring plan would put a system in place that could help with this adaptive learning process.
LITERATURE REVIEW
27
28
LITERATURE REVIEW
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN While the Mara River is a transboundary river that flows through both Kenya and Tanzania, the study area for this thesis will only be within the Kenyan portion of the river basin.
3.1 Geography The Mara River is a transboundary river that originates in southwestern Kenya, flows into northwestern Tanzania, and eventually drains into Lake Victoria (Figure 3-1). The length of the Mara River is about 395 km long and has a catchment size of about 13,750 km2, with about 65 percent located in Kenya and 35 percent in Tanzania. The Mara River originates in the Mau Escarpment in Kenya, where rainfall and natural springs feed the Nyangores and Amala Rivers. These two main tributaries travel about 100 kilometers through forested areas, small scale agriculture, and growing urban centers before joining together to form the upper Mara River. Once they are joined, the Mara River flows southward through areas of mostly wooded grasslands, dominated by cattle grazing and small- and large-scale agriculture (Hoffman 2007; LVBC and WWF-ESARPO 2010a). As the Mara River nears the Kenya-Tanzania border, it flows through the Maasai Mara National Reserve (MMNR), where it is joined by two other main tributaries: the Talek River and the Sand River. The Talek and Sand Rivers originate in the Loita Hills and drain the Sannia and Loita Plains, which are important dry-season feeding grounds for both livestock and wildlife (Krhoda 2006). The MMNR is a hotspot for tourism in the region, with visitors coming to see the wildlife and mass migrations of wildebeest, zebras, and antelope. This southern region is predominantly populated with Maasai people, who highly value the pastoral lifestyle but are increasingly becoming involved in the tourism sector (Krhoda 2006). After the border, the Mara River flows through Serengeti National Park in Tanzania, more small-scale agriculture, the Mara Swamp, and finally into Lake Victoria (LVBC and WWF-ESARPO 2010a). Throughout the whole journey, the river descends about 2,000 meters, beginning in the headwaters at around 3,000 meters above sea level and ending around 1,100 meters above sea level at Lake Victoria (Krhoda 2006).
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
29
Figure 3-1: Map of the Mara River Basin in Kenya and Tanzania (GLOWS-FIU & WWFESARPO, 2007)
3.2 Hydrology Rainfall is the main driver of water in the Mara River catchment. The rainfall pattern is driven by the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, causing two rainy seasons per year. The first and major rainy season occurs between mid-March and June, while the second, more intermittent rainy season is between September and December. In the upper portion of the catchment, the annual rainfall varies between 1,000 mm and 1,750 mm, while the middle portion receives between 900 mm and 1,000 mm annually (Dessu et al. 2014). However, rainfall can be sporadic, both from year to year and within years. Gereta et al. (2002) estimated that a drought occurs in the Mara River Basin every seven years, although drought years are often not evenly spaced and can occur in back to back years. During such drought conditions, the Mara River is often the only drinking water available for wildlife and can have large impact on wildlife populations. The Mara River flows year round, fed by rainfall and the perennial Nyangores and Amala Rivers (Gereta et al. 2002). The other two major tributaries that flow into the Mara River on 30
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
the Kenyan side, the Talek and Sand Rivers, are ephemeral and stop flowing for part of the year. There is significant demand from a variety of anthropogenic sectors, such as abstractions for industry, expansion of agriculture, and increased demand from tourism, which have altered the hydrologic regime (Dessu et al. 2014). There is also evidence that changes in land cover over the past 40 years have caused higher and faster flood peaks in the Mara River (Mati et al. 2008). Within the KMRB, there are seven major subcatchments: Nyangores River Subcatchment, Amala River Subcatchment, Mara River A Subcatchment (between the confluence of the Nyangores and Amala Rivers and where the Talek River meets the Mara River), Lemek River Subcatchment, Talek River Subcatchment, Sand River Subcatchment, and Mara River B Subcatchment (between the confluence of the Talek and the Mara Rivers and the confluence of the Sand and the Mara Rivers) (Figure 3-2). The water quality in the Mara River varies over its length, with mineral content increasing along the length of the river and with the highest nutrient concentrations near the agricultural areas, most likely due to runoff containing fertilizers. All major pollutants and heavy metals were below World Health Organization standards, although there should still be concern for substances that can bioaccumulate, such as mercury (GLOWS-FIU and WWF-ESARPO 2007). There have been fish kills reported in the KMRB, most notably in 2009 during the first heavy rains after a dry period. It is thought that this phenomenon could be attributed to nutrient flushing from the catchment, although more research needs to be done (GLOWS 2009). There was also an outbreak of cholera in the city of Bomet during a drought period in 2015, where residents and businesses often use water from the Nyangores River for their domestic needs (Kipkemoi 2015).
3.3 Ecology The Mara River is the only perennial river system in the region during the dry season and attracts almost 2 million ungulates every year, including wildebeest (Connochaetus taurinus) and plains zebra (Equus quagga) (Gereta et al. 2002). This migration is the longest and largest overland migration in the world. The Mara River is home to over 25 species of fish, including the Lake Victoria Squeaker (Synodontis victoriae) and the ningu (Labeo victorianus), which are both native to Lake Victoria and have a high conservation value. In addition, there is CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
31
Figure 3-2: Subcatchments, WRMA river gauging stations (yellow), and 2016 EFA monitoring sites (orange) within the KMRB. MMBR is outlined in green.
evidence that the Mara River and other Lake Victoria tributaries act as refuges for native fish suffering from population declines due to overfishing, eutrophication, and competition with non-native species in Lake Victoria (GLOWS-FIU 2012). During field campaigns in 20082009 and 2011-2012, 11 orders and 34 families of macroinvertebrates were found, mostly containing Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Trichoptera (caddisflies) and Diptera (midges and flies). In addition, there is a variety of riparian obligate and woody vegetation species that live on or near the river banks. Riparian vegetation species can provide areas of refuge for instream aquatic species, while larger trees and shrubs can provide shading over the river for temperature regulation, among other functions (GLOWS-FIU 2012).
32
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
3.4 Population The population in the KMRB is mostly rural, with subsistence farming more prominent in the upper regions of the catchment and traditional Maasai dispersed livestock in the lower regions of the catchment. The largest city of Bomet (urban population: 110,963 in 2009) is located in the upper portion of the KMRB near the Nyangores River, as well as small trading centers and rural settlements located throughout the catchment. In 2009, there were approximately 596,000 people living in the KMRB, a 49 percent increase (4.9 percent annual growth rate) from 1999 (see Table 3-1). This increase is slightly higher than the 43 percent increase (4.3 percent annual growth rate) in population since 1999 seen in the Rift Valley province of Kenya (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2010a).
Table 3-1: Population in the KMRB in 1999 and 2009 1999 District Bomet Nakuru
Narok
2009
Area by SL (km2)
Population in SL
1,301.7
238,830
204,729 Bomet
590.6
87,847
54,837 Molo
8,389.1
173,176
Trans Mara
1,147.8
37,166
Total
11,429.2
537,019
Population in KMRB
124,166
16,824
Area by SL (km2)
Population in SL
Population in KMRB
1,292.5
312,638
269,235
701.2
140,865
96,932
Narok North
563.0
26,340
14,791
Narok South
7,692.9
210,676
164,481
Trans Mara
1,399.7
87,087
50,347
11,649.3
777,606
595,786
District
400,556 Total
SL = sublocation (the smallest enumeration unit used in the Kenyan national census) Some names and boundaries of districts and sublocations changed between the 1999 and 2009 censuses. All efforts have been made to maintain consistency between the two sets of census data, but some discrepancies may exist. Population in the KMRB was calculated by assuming equal population density throughout the entire sublocation and multiplying by the percent surface area of that sublocation located within the boundaries of the KMRB. All sublocation results were then combined to calculate an approximate total population in the KMRB. (Central Bureau of Statistics 2001; Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2010a)
The number of households that rely on surface water as their primary water supply is quite high in the KMRB as compared to national averages. Approximately 42.5 percent of households in the region use streams as their main source of water (see Table 3-2), compared to 22 percent nationally. Of the households that rely on streams as their main source of water, 92 percent of those households are located in rural areas. While there is no further information on what the CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
33
water is used for, these numbers imply a heavy reliance on rivers and streams for basic domestic water needs (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2010b).
Table 3-2: Number of households and approximate population that use streams as their primary source of water Total District
Stream as Primary Source of Water
District Wide (Households)
KMRB (Population)
District Wide (Households)
Bomet
75,322
269,235
33,985
121,478
45.1
Molo
123,453
96,932
43,310
34,006
35.1
Narok North
55,885
14,791
24,806
6,565
44.4
Narok South
62,412
164,481
31,476
82,952
50.4
Trans Mara
50,923
50,347
22,657
22,401
44.5
367,995
595,786
156,234
252,944
42.5
Total
KMRB (Population)
Percentage
“Household” refers to a person or group of persons who reside in the same homestead/compound but not necessarily in the same dwelling unit, have same cooking arrangements, and are answerable to the same household head. The approximated population values for the KMRB were multiplied by the percent of households that use streams as a primary source of water to get the approximate population values (shaded in light gray). All other data is published census data. (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics 2010b)
3.5 Land Cover The KMRB is predominantly covered by natural land cover types (85 percent), with the largest categories being grass, shrub, and natural forest. The remaining 15 percent is mostly agricultural land, with some plantation forest (often eucalyptus) and tea plantations. There is a noticeable shift in land cover across the catchment, with the upstream subcatchments (Nyangores, Amala, and Mara A) containing mostly agriculture and natural forest, and the downstream subcatchments (Lemek, Talek, Sand, and Mara B) containing mostly grass, shrub, and savanna cover types (Table 3-3).
34
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
Table 3-3: Land cover by subcatchment within the KMRB (km2 and percentage) Land Cover Type
Subcatchment Nyangores
Amala
Mara A
Lemek
Talek
Sand
Mara B
Total
Natural forest
292.9 31.5%
287.5 20.4%
98.0 9.3%
21.0 2.3%
43.4 2.5%
166.9 9.2%
5.7 1.3%
915.3 11.0%
Plantation forest
112.7 12.1%
102.0 7.2%
3.8 0.4%
0.4 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
218.9 2.6%
Grass
110.4 11.9%
155.7 11.0%
505.5 48.1%
619.2 69.0%
1,167.5 66.2%
929.8 51.1%
383.8 91.3%
3,871.8 46.7%
Savanna
27.0 2.9%
50.6 3.6%
143.6 13.7%
50.5 5.6%
58.6 3.3%
211.3 11.6%
13.0 3.1%
554.6 6.7%
Shrub
81.9 8.8%
196.9 14.0%
128.8 12.3%
144.7 16.1%
402.5 22.8%
508.4 27.9%
16.9 4.0%
1,480.0 17.8%
Wetland
1.0 0.1%
1.2 0.1%
2.7 0.3%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.5 0.1%
5.4 0.1%
Urban
0.7 0.1%
4.2 0.3%
0.3 0.0%
1.9 0.2%
0.2 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
7.2 0.1%
Bare
1.7 0.2%
14.2 1.0%
5.1 0.5%
20.5 2.3%
92.5 5.2%
3.7 0.2%
0.5 0.1%
138.0 1.7%
Mining
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
Pasture
16.9 1.8%
17.7 1.3%
1.8 0.2%
0.2 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
36.6 0.4%
251.2 27.1%
534.5 39.9%
147.8 14.1%
33.3 3.7%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
966.9 11.7%
Tea
24.1 2.6%
11.7 0.8%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
35.8 0.4%
Other crops
8.2 0.9%
34.5 2.4%
12.5 1.2%
6.1 0.7%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
0.0 0.0%
61.4 0.7%
Total
928.6
1,410.7
1,049.8
897.8
1,764.7
1,820.0
420.3
8,292.0
Agriculture
(2016 EFA, MaMaSe Initiative, unpublished data, 2016)
3.6 Special Management Areas In Kenya, the Mara River flows through parts of Nakuru, Bomet, and Narok Counties, which have control over the public lands within their boundaries (aside from those lands belonging to municipalities). However, there are a few areas that have a special status and are managed outside of county and municipal regulations. CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
35
Maasai Mara National Reserve The MMNR is located in the most downstream section of the Kenyan side of the Mara River. The MMNR is approximately 1,530 square kilometers and is bordered by the Siria escarpment to the west, the Tanzanian border to the south, and Maasai conservancies to the north, east, and west. The management of the national reserve is through an agreement between the County Councils of Narok and Trans Mara (Trans Mara County has since been merged with Narok County as part of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya), as well as the Mara Conservancy, which manages the Mara Triangle in the southwestern section of the park. The MMNR is known for its vast array of wildlife (including the largest overland migration on earth) and its role in preserving the culture and way of life of the Maasai people, who are known for their tradition of living peacefully with wildlife. Currently, the MMNR is being operated under a comprehensive management plan for 2009 – 2019, except for the Mara Triangle which is under separate management (MMNR 2009). Maasai Conservancies Surrounding the MMNR to the east, north, and west are Maasai conservancies, which is land that is owned and managed by local Maasai tribes. The traditional Maasai way of life is pastoral with a strong focus on raising cows, sheep, and/or goats, but in a way that is compatible with wildlife. For many years, the historically sparsely inhabited Maasai conservancies acted as a natural buffer to the MMNR, but with increasing population and livestock numbers, the impact on the landscape is increasing. Through non-profits in the region, many Maasai landowners are paid to keep their land in conservation status for wildlife (no development of agriculture and no commercial livestock operations) and there is an increase in the number of community livestock management programs being developed. Currently, there are approximately 1,150 square kilometers included in nine conservancies surrounding the MMNR, with three more conservancies in formation of about 406 square kilometers and another two conservancies proposed of about 57 square kilometers (Ayiemba et al. 2015).
3.7 Water Resources Management in Kenya Kenya is faced with the common challenge of supplying a growing population with limited water resources. The population of Kenya is expected to grow from 39 million in 2009 to 52 million by 2030 (WRMA 2014), increasing the demand from domestic, agricultural, and commercial uses (Dessu et al. 2014). To help alleviate this issue, two key pieces of legislation 36
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
were enacted: the National Water Policy on Management and Development of Water Resource in Kenya of 1999 and the Water Act of 2002. One of the key outcomes of the Water Act was the creation of WRMA, which was tasked with creating six catchment management strategies (CMSs) encompassing the whole country (Figure 3-3). The main objective of a CMS is to “facilitate the management of the water resources environment and human behavior in ways that achieve equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of water for the benefit of all users” (WRMA 2014). Each CMS is also designed to align with the National Water Master Plan, which is set to come out in 2030. The Mara River drainage area is located in the Lake Victoria South Catchment Area (LVSCA), along with the Sondu, Gucha-Migori, Nyando, Northern Shoreline Streams, and Southern Shoreline Streams drainage systems (Figure 3-3). The Mara River is the longest river in the LVSCA, has the largest drainage area, and is the third largest contributor of water to Lake Victoria. The LVSCA as a whole is managed out of the regional office in Kisumu, while the sub-region of the Mara River and the Sondu River are managed out of the Kericho SubRegional Office (SRO) (WRMA 2014). Each river catchment is further defined using a Water Resources Classification System, as mandated by Section 12 of the Water Act of 2002. This classification system helps guide management decisions by indicating the relative importance of three competing uses types: ecological (E), livelihood (L), and commercial (C). Each water resources management class has three subclasses to show the level of importance: high, medium, and low (Figure 3-4). There are two management classes located within the KMRB. The upper catchment has a management class of E1l1c3 and the lower catchment has a management class of E1l2c2 (the capital letter indicates the use type that should be prioritized, see Figure 3-5). For both the upper and lower catchments, ecological protection is prioritized for environmental and recreational purposes, as well as for the development of tourism with economic importance (WRMA 2014). For the general management of surface water resources, WRMA uses a set of management controls with three different levels: green (satisfactory), yellow (alert), and red (alarm) (Figure 3-6). Different aspects are used as inputs to decide the status of the river, including chemical, biological, physicochemical, and hydromorphological indicators. These indicators should contain biological, chemical, and physicochemical quality elements. Currently, these elements CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
37
Figure 3-3: Map of the areas of the six CMS areas, including a detailed map of the LVSCA (WRMA, 2014)
are not standardized in the CMS, but recommendations include benthic invertebrates, fish, phytoplankton, oxygenation conditions, acidification status, and nutrient conditions. The CMS also requires six indicators of general water quality to be monitored: temperature, total suspended solids (TSS), electrical conductivity (EC), dissolved oxygen (DO), turbidity and pH (WRMA 2014). In addition, the surface water status helps to determine what management actions could or should be taken (see Table 3-4 for an example of status criteria and actions). As part of every CMS, a WAP must be created. This consists of determining the natural yield of a river and determining how much water goes towards domestic uses, agriculture, and industry; international obligations and interbasin transfers; and how much water must be set aside for basic human needs and ecological requirements (also known as the Reserve). WRMA guidelines define the Reserve as “the quality and quantity of water required to: a) satisfy basic human needs for all people who are or may be supplied from the water resource, and b) protect the aquatic ecosystems in order to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of water resources” (WRMA 2009). The Reserve should be set on a river reach scale and take into consideration the unique features in the area, but at a minimum should be set to the flow value 38
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
Figure 3-4: Water Resources Classification System used by WRMA (WRMA 2014)
Figure 3-5: LVSCA water resources management classification (WRMA 2014)
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
39
Factor influencing status
Predictive Assessments
Status
Pressure indicators
Hydrology (abstraction, flow regulation)
Pathway indicators
Morphology (drainage, structures etc)
Receptor indicators
Point pollution (industrial discharges, WWTP, etc)
Alarm
Diffuse sources (agriculture, urbanization, etc) Alert Impact Assessments Chemical indicators Satisfactory
Biological indicators Physico-chemical indicators Hydromorphological indicators
Other Assessments Riparian areas compliance Emergence of alien species (e.g., water hyacinth) Status of fishing activities
Figure 3-6: Flow chart for determining surface water status (WRMA 2014)
Table 3-4: Examples of criteria and actions for different surface water statuses (WRMA 2014) Status
Confidence
SATISFACTORY
High
ALERT
Low
Net abstraction is 40% of 95th percentile Q River biological survey shows poor quality indicators (e.g., fish colonies do not thrive) At least one physicochemical parameter exceeds trigger values
High
40
th
ALARM
Example Action
Example Criteria
No restrictions: abstract to permit limits
Restriction Zone 1: abstraction for irrigation reduced or ceases
Restriction Zone 2: Abstraction for irrigation ceases; Abstraction for domestic supplies limited
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
that is exceeded 95 percent of the time using a naturalized daily flow duration curve (Q95). However, this Q95 threshold is equivalent to extreme drought conditions and is often not sufficient to meet the requirements to maintain ecosystem function (GLOWS-FIU 2011; McClain et al. 2014).
3.8 Environmental Flow Assessments in the Mara River Basin One method of considering the unique features of an area when determining the Reserve is to conduct an EFA. In the Mara River Basin, two EFAs have been conducted: one between 2006 and 2012 by the Global Water for Sustainability Program at Florida International University (“2012 EFA”, GLOWS-FIU 2012) and another one by WRMA and the MaMaSe Initiative, which is currently in progress (“2016 EFA”; 2016 EFA, MaMaSe Initiative, unpublished data, 2016). Both EFAs utilized a holistic EFA method called the Building Block Methodology (King et al. 2008), which builds up a profile of different components of a flow regime and focuses on the ecological structure and functioning of an ecosystem. For both EFAs, data was collected for hydrology, hydraulics, geomorphology, water quality, riparian vegetation, aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish (social indicators were investigated as part of the 2012 EFA, and are in progress for the 2016 EFA). The 2016 EFA used the structure of the 2012 EFA to try and build upon the knowledge gained during the 2012 EFA, and repeated some of the sampling sites. Overall, the sample sites are different between the two EFAs, as the 2016 EFA had eight sampling sites (seven in Kenya and one in Tanzania) while the 2012 EFA had six (four in Kenya and two in Tanzania). Another major difference between the two EFAs was the country of focus: in the 2012 EFA, there were multiple surveys conducted in both countries during both high and low flows; during the 2016 EFA, only high flow data was collected at the site in Tanzania with a greater focus on the Kenyan portion of the catchment. Another major difference between the two EFAs is that the 2012 EFA produced a final report with numerical recommendations, but did not address how to implement the recommendations, while the 2016 EFA has a greater focus on bridging the gap between the scientific recommendations and implementation within WRMA.
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
41
42
CASE STUDY: MARA RIVER BASIN
METHODOLOGY In order to develop a monitoring and adaptive management program for the KMRB and a general framework for Kenya, four distinct steps were completed: 1) a desktop version of the KMRB plan was created using literature research and existing examples, 2) a pilot study was conducted to test monitoring techniques and assess long-term monitoring sites that were proposed in the desktop version, 3) lessons learned from creating the desktop version and the recommendations from the pilot study were applied to the desktop used to create a revised version of the KMRB plan, and 4) lessons learned from creating the KMRB plan were applied to create a general framework for developing similar plans in other river basins in Kenya when implementing Reserve flows.
4.1 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version Using existing literature and studying implemented projects from around the world, a desktop version of the KMRB plan was created. One of the main purposes of this draft was to create a “theoretical” plan, or one that was created using the best available science and by using recommendations from experts in the field. This way, the plan would have a strong foundation in scientific principles and utilize the latest developments in the fields of monitoring and adaptive management for environmental flows. 4.1.1 Existing Monitoring and Adaptive Management Examples The first step in developing the desktop version of the KMRB plan was to study existing examples from around the region and the world. Examples from national and subnational programs as well as implemented programs for environmental flows and other river management projects were selected. These examples provided guidance in the form of formal procedures to follow and also rationale for the monitoring and adaptive management structure used. The examples were then analyzed to see how they could be incorporated or adapted to the KMRB. METHODOLOGY
43
4.1.2 Flow-Ecology Relationships in the KMRB The flow-ecology relationships specific to the KMRB were identified using scientific literature and data from the current and previous EFAs. These relationships were separated into the four flow component categories: extreme low flows (drought conditions), low flows (baseflow), high flow pulses (freshets), and small and large floods. The relationships found in the review included direct and indirect relationships to flow, as well as a general ecohydrological conditions in the basin. 4.1.3 Objectives Hierarchy Using the objectives hierarchy model from South Africa (Section 2.3), an objectives hierarchy was created for monitoring the Reserve in the KMRB. One of the goals of creating an objectives hierarchy for this project was to develop a framework that was specific to Kenya so that it could be applied to future Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plans undertaken in other river basins. The goal of defining an objectives hierarchy was to create a stepwise and transparent process that linked high-level objectives with on-the-ground actions. Since there were no stakeholder-approved vision statement or management objectives available, the legislative framework of the Reserve was used to create an objectives hierarch for the KMRB. Different layers of legislation were used to guide the process of creating a vision statement down to selecting indicators to measure if the vision was being met. The selection of indicators also incorporated knowledge of flow-ecology relationships and previous data collected by the 2012 and 2016 EFAs. 4.1.4 Selecting Potential Monitoring Techniques The indicators selected each represent a large scientific field of research and study, and there were many ways these indicators could be measured in the field. Potential monitoring techniques were chosen based on a three-level monitoring structure and working with monitoring recommendations from environmental flow specialists created during the 2016 EFA. A preliminary assessment was conducted for each monitoring technique based on project scope and potential feasibility, including potential cost, additional field time, and in-house expertise. Any Level 1 or Level 2 monitoring techniques which could potentially be conducted by WRMA during monthly monitoring trips were recommended to be included in the pilot study. Level 3 monitoring techniques or monitoring that WRMA is already conducting were added to the desktop version of the KMRB plan. 44
METHODOLOGY
4.1.5 Selecting Long-Term Monitoring Sites The ecological condition and social importance of a monitoring site can have a large impact on the types of monitoring performed and the quality of data collected. To inform the selection of long-term monitoring sites, data was collected on current and previous monitoring programs in the KMRB. This was done in order to see what data had already been collected and what was currently being collected at different locations around the basin. Three sources were used: WRMA hydrological monitoring sites, monitoring sites from the 2016 EFA, and an experimental monitoring network installed by a MaMaSe Initiative project partner. Monitoring sites were researched and results were organized by subcatchment. For each monitoring site, the type and dates of data available, notes about the site which could impact site selection, and an overview of current monitoring activities were compiled. For each subcatchment, potential sites were assessed based on these aspects and a discussion with the Surface Water Officer and the Flood Management Officer in the Kericho SRO. Sites that were considered good candidates for long-term monitoring activities were added to the desktop version of the KMRB plan and were recommended to be investigated further as part of the pilot study. 4.1.6 KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version Using the analyses and recommendations from the potential monitoring technique assessment and long-term monitoring site assessment, a desktop version of the KMRB plan was created. For each indicator, three levels of monitoring were recommended (if applicable) as well as the monitoring sites at which monitoring could be conducted. Additional details, such as timing and frequency of monitoring activities, trigger values, and specific adaptive management actions, were not specified at this point in the process as the monitoring techniques and monitoring sites had the potential to change.
4.2 Pilot Study in the KMRB Once a preliminary desktop version of the monitoring and adaptive management program was created, a pilot study was conducted to test monitoring techniques in the field and assess longterm monitoring sites for suitability that were identified in the desktop version. Between June 6 and June 10, 2016, a pilot study was conducted in the KMRB in collaboration with the Surface Water Officer and the Flood Management Officer in the Kericho SRO of WRMA.
METHODOLOGY
45
4.2.1 Monitoring Technique Assessments Several monitoring techniques were chosen to be tested at each site to assess how well they could be implemented. Formal feasibility assessments were also conducted, which reviewed approximate time spent at each site, specialized knowledge that was required, the need for specialized equipment, and any associated costs. Aside from the feasibility assessment, the procedure followed, the sites tested, and the results of the monitoring technique were also described. Some techniques required testing at the long-term monitoring sites, while other were computer-based methods and were tested in an office setting. The full assessment of monitoring techniques can be found in Appendix A. 4.2.2 Long-Term Monitoring Site Assessments For each site selected for potential long-term monitoring, the following conditions were assessed: site description, site accessibility and available habitats, human use at the site, current and historic data available, subcatchment description, and the site representivity of the subcatchment. Some of these aspects were able to be evaluated on-site, while others involved gathering data from WRMA or MaMaSe Initiative staff, viewing aerial images via Google Earth, or conducting an assessment using GIS. The full assessment of long-term monitoring sites can be found in Appendix A. 4.2.3 Assessment of WRMA Capacity An informal assessment was conducted of the ability of the Kericho SRO to carry out additional monitoring duties. This was based largely on conversations with the Surface Water Officer and the Flood Management Officer in the Kericho SRO during the planning and execution of the pilot study. Topics covered budget constraints, time limitations, staff expertise within the Kericho SRO, and ways to ensure that the KMRB plan will be used in the future. 4.2.4 Suitability Assessments and Recommendations Suitability assessments were conducted for both the potential monitoring techniques and the long-term monitoring sites to see if they should be included in the revised version of the KMRB plan. The goal for the monitoring technique assessment was to find techniques that could be applied rapidly at each site, would fit within the implementation capacity of WRMA, and could easily be added to the monthly hydrological monitoring already being conducted by the Kericho SRO of WRMA. The goal for the long-term monitoring site assessment was to identify 46
METHODOLOGY
sites that were easily accessible both in physical location and to monitoring points within the site, had a variety of habitats available for ecological monitoring, the conditions at the site (including human impacts) were representative of the larger catchment, and had baseline data available for monitoring different ecological indicators. From these assessments, recommendations were created for monitoring techniques and long-term monitoring sites for the revised KMRB plan.
4.3 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Revised Version 4.3.1 Incorporating Recommendations from the Pilot Study The recommendations from the pilot study were used to update the desktop KMRB plan and begin the creation of the revised KMRB plan. The recommendations only applied to some Level 1 and Level 2 monitoring techniques, while Level 3 monitoring techniques were carried over from the desktop version. An assessment was also conducted of how these monitoring techniques linked back to the original management objectives and what could be done to improve the connection between the two components. 4.3.2 Connecting Monitoring Techniques to Management Objectives In order to strengthen the connections between the monitoring techniques and the high-level objectives, it was decided to create sub-objectives. Sub-objectives were desired for each indicator to help refocus the selection of monitoring techniques towards specific management goals. These were created using four steps: 1) flow-ecology relationships for the KMRB and starter documents from the 2016 EFA were used to identify the key relationships used for determining the Present Ecological State (PES); 2) recommended monitoring frameworks from the 2016 EFA were reviewed for important processes to monitor, as identified by the specialist; 3) indicators were classified according to their monitoring type (compliance or effectiveness); and 4) an assessment was conducted of the PES, the trajectory of change, and the Ecological Management Class (EMC), as identified by specialists in the 2016 EFA to determine if management priorities should be focused on conservation or rehabilitation in the KMRB. All four of these considerations were combined to create one or more sub-objectives for each indicator.
METHODOLOGY
47
It was also decided to link the management recommendations from the 2016 EFA to the management objectives for the monitoring and adaptive management plan. The PES and EMC values recommended in the 2016 EFA were assessed for their applicability as management objectives and incorporated into the revised version of the plan. 4.3.3 Reassessment of Monitoring Techniques Based on the new objectives hierarchy containing sub-objectives for each indicator, the selected monitoring techniques from the pilot study were reassessed for how they fit within this structure. Each monitoring technique was matched with the sub-objective it aligned with most closely. Additional actions were taken for sub-indicators missing monitoring techniques and for other concerns that arose during the reassessment. 4.3.4 Determining Trigger Values and Specific Management Actions Using recommendations from the EFA specialists, trigger values were assigned to each monitoring technique. For those techniques with no recommendations or vague language, a trigger value was assigned that could be adjusted at a later stage through the adaptive management process. In addition, specific management actions were created for what to do when a trigger value is surpassed based on the three-level monitoring system and adaptive management principles. 4.3.5 KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Revised Version Combining the recommendations from the pilot study with the changes needed from the addition of sub-objectives, a new management objective, and formalized trigger values with associated management actions, the revised version of the KMRB plan was created. This included a detailed monitoring plan containing linked sub-objectives; monitoring locations, timing, frequency, and responsible parties; trigger values; and specific management actions. It also included the creation of adaptive management cycles for compliance and effectiveness monitoring, which directly included the trigger values and management actions for each monitoring technique. The prioritization of monitoring activities and a potential long-term schedule for evaluation and adjustment were also discussed.
48
METHODOLOGY
4.4 Development of General Monitoring and Adaptive Management Framework for Reserve Flows in Kenyan River Basins Using the structure of the KMRB plan and the “lessons learned” during its creation, a general monitoring and adaptive management framework (“general framework”) was created. The general framework started with the steps used to create the KMRB plan, along with notes containing details on how to carry out each step and notes about specific aspects that should be considered at that step. These notes were based on the lessons learned and desired improvements from creating the KMRB plan. These steps were then analyzed and rearranged based on when it would be more beneficial to conduct them (e.g., moving the assessment of WRMA capacity to the beginning of the process instead of during the pilot study, as was conducted for the KMRB plan). The steps were then organized into different phases to help separate the distinct components of creating a monitoring and adaptive management plan.
METHODOLOGY
49
50
METHODOLOGY
RESULTS This section provides the results from implementing the methodology. In addition, focused discussions on each subtopic are also included. A general discussion of the study can be found in Chapter 6.
5.1 Development of the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan – Desktop Version 5.1.1 Existing Monitoring and Adaptive Management Examples 5.1.1.1 Australia In 2005, the Cooperative Research Center for Freshwater Ecology, in collaboration with different state governmental agencies and universities, created an Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Framework (Cottingham et al. 2005) as a guidance document for water and catchment management agencies. This framework grew out of a need to show stakeholders evidence of environmental or ecological responses from environmental flow projects that are being implemented around the country. It also acts as a structure to study predicted outcomes of environmental flows in hopes of applying “lessons learned” from past projects to future management actions. The framework can be applied to regulated or unregulated rivers, and works under the assumption that environmental flows are being implemented not to restore a river to its original condition, but rather to another stable state with a different level of ecosystem function and community structure. This framework stresses the importance of creating a monitoring framework from the beginning of an environmental flows project to be sure that the monitoring program is aligned with ecological objectives and can be integrated into future management planning. The main steps in Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Framework are: 1) Define the scope of the program and its objectives
RESULTS
51
2) Define the conceptual understanding of flow–ecology relationships and the questions (hypotheses) to be tested 3) Select variables to be monitored 4) Determine the study design, accounting for the specific activities and location 5) Optimize the study design and identify how data are to be analyzed 6) Implement the study design 7) Assess whether the environmental flows have met the specific objectives and review the conceptual understanding and hypotheses For this framework, there are individual and detailed objectives listed for each component of the environmental flow recommendations (e.g. base flows, minimum flows, floods). This is notably different then how objectives are created using the objectives hierarchy, which is a method of turning broad vision statements into measurable goals (see Section 2.3). In addition, this framework views monitoring in terms of measuring a question or series of questions, and using those and current available data to create a specific type of study design (e.g. Before– After Control–Intervention) which can then be implemented as a form of action-oriented research. 5.1.1.2 United States of America In the United States, many different organizations undertake collaborative environmental flow projects, such as national and state governmental agencies, non-profits, and local water management authorities. Projects tend to be undertaken at the catchment level and are usually customized for their unique issues, such as restoring previous flow regimes, improving ecological condition, rehabilitating keystone species, or mitigating the impacts of changes in land use. In addition, projects often create their own models and rely heavily on detailed data collection. As such, there is no over-arching monitoring framework or recommendations for environmental flows at the national or even state level (Dickens 2009b; USGS 2013). However, there are many similarities in the types of data collected and there is a focus on being able to connect changes in flow, water quality, geomorphology, and biological components (USGS 2013). While there is no national monitoring framework specific to measuring the impacts from environmental flows, there have been national assessments of the biological condition in streams and rivers. In 2004 and 2005, the Wadeable Streams Assessment was completed, which 52
RESULTS
was the first statistically-valid national assessment of biological condition of small water ways in the United States. The survey focused on three major indicator groups: biological, chemical, and physical. Each one of these major indicators had sub-indicators (see Table 5-1) which were intended to provide information on short- and long-term research questions proposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 2006). In 2008 and 2009, a follow up study to the Wadeable Streams Assessment was completed, called the National Rivers and Streams Assessment. This time, large rivers as well as small, perennial streams were assessed for their ecological status. The survey included another major indicator group of human health and added more sub-indicators for biological condition (US EPA 2016). Since some of the same indicators were used for both assessments, changes could be tracked over time. A subsequent study was conducted in 2013-2014 (results not available) and a future assessment is being planned for 2018-2019. These efforts are primarily for evaluating the present biological condition and following trends over time, and are not directly linked to any management actions or objectives.
Table 5-1: Indicators and sub-indicators used for the Wadeable Streams Assessment in 2004-2005 and the National River and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 in the United States (US EPA 2006; US EPA 2016) Wadeable Streams Assessment 2004-2005
Biological Benthic macroinvertebrates
Chemical Phosphorus Nitrogen Salinity Acidity
Physical Streambed sediments In-stream fish habitat Riparian vegetation cover Riparian disturbance
Human Health
(not included)
National River and Stream Assessment 2008-2009
Biological Benthic macroinvertebrates Periphyton (algae) Fish communities
Chemical Phosphorus Nitrogen Salinity Acidity
Physical Streambed sediments In-stream fish habitat Riparian vegetation cover Riparian disturbance
Human Health Enterococci (fecal indicator) Mercury in fish tissue
Similar to monitoring programs, there is no nationwide adaptive management guidance specific to environmental flows. However, there was a guidance document developed for adaptive management for natural resources management agencies. In 2009, the United States Department of the Interior published a technical guide for helping federal agencies understand and implement adaptive management into their natural resources management programs RESULTS
53
(Williams et al. 2009). The document focused on answering four key questions: 1) what is adaptive management, 2) when should it be used, 3) how should it be implemented, and 4) how can its success be recognized and measured. This guide provides a starting point for resource management agencies by defining the concept of adaptive management and provides a method for determining if and how adaptive management should be applied to their projects. The technical guide uses the following definition for adaptive management, which was adopted from the National Research Council: “Adaptive management [is a decision process that] promotes flexible decision making that can be adjusted in the face of uncertainties as outcomes from management actions and other events become better understood. Careful monitoring of these outcomes both advances scientific understanding and helps adjust policies or operations as part of an iterative learning process. Adaptive management also recognizes the importance of natural variability in contributing to ecological resilience and productivity. It is not a ‘trial and error’ process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing. Adaptive management does not represent an end in itself, but rather a means to more effective decisions and enhanced benefits. Its true measure is in how well it helps meet environmental, social, and economic goals, increases scientific knowledge, and reduces tensions among stakeholders.” The guide then provides a problem-scoping key to determine whether or not the project under consideration is a good candidate for adaptive management. This is to prevent resources being spent on projects where adaptive management would not be a good fit, including situations where there is no uncertainty about the project, there is no capacity for to undertake and sustain the program, adaptive learning or management is not possible, or the risks for learning-based decision making are too high. It could also be used to identify which areas could be improved in a project to make adaptive management effective. The problem-scoping key involves answering nine questions. If all of the answers to these following questions are “yes”, then adaptive management would be appropriate for a project: 1) Is some kind of management decision to be made? 2) Can stakeholders be engaged? 3) Can management objective(s) be stated explicitly? 54
RESULTS
4) Is decision making confounded by uncertainty about potential management impacts? 5) Can resource relationships and management impacts be represented in models? 6) Can monitoring be designed to inform decision making? 7) Can progress be measured in achieving management objectives? 8) Can management actions be adjusted in response to what has been learned? 9) Does the whole process fit within the appropriate legal framework? For implementing adaptive management, the guide suggests nine steps: 1) involve stakeholders, 2) identify management objectives, 3) identify potential management alternatives, 4) create predictive models, 5) design and implement monitoring plans, 6) decide on management actions, 7) conduct follow up monitoring, 8) assess predicted and actual outcomes, and 9) adjust management actions. Steps one through five are create the foundation for the adaptive management plan and are intended to be conducted once (although they could be adjusted as more information becomes available), while steps five through nine should be iterative and repeated over time (Figure 5-1).
Figure 5-1: Iterative process of the adaptive management process (Williams et al. 2009)
To measure the success of an adaptive management plan, the guide used the definition of “if progress is made toward achieving management goals through a learning-based (adaptive) decision process.” Working from this definition, the following four criteria were suggested for recognizing success: 1) stakeholders are actively involved and committed to the process, 2) progress is made towards achieving management objectives, 3) results from monitoring and assessment are used to adjust and improve management decision, and 4) implementation is consistent with applicable laws. 5.1.1.3 South Africa South Africa is known as a leader in water resources planning and management, in particular when it comes to transboundary river basins. One example of this is in the Orange-Senqu River RESULTS
55
Basin, which includes parts of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and South Africa. Through the Orange-Senqu River Commission, an international water resources and management agreement, there is a mandate to develop an aquatic ecosystem health monitoring program to advise all parties on the status of the aquatic ecosystem throughout the basin. The program is set up to measure response indicators and stressor indicators in a cost-effective way that can be implemented in all countries involved. The plan recommends conducting biannual monitoring of benthic macroinvertebrates using the South African Scoring System (SASS) index, with more detailed monitoring being conducted every five years for other ecological aspects. These other aspects include stressor indicators (water quantity, water quality, sediment and geomorphological
changes),
response
indicators
(fish,
riparian
vegetation,
and
diatoms/periphyton), and habitat integrity, all of which would support the more frequent SASS findings. In order to decrease costs, national water quality monitoring programs that are currently in place would be used to collect frequent water quality data and sites with already established monitoring equipment and data would be used when available. In addition, the river basin was classified by ecoregion, and monitoring sites were selected such that there were monitoring locations on the main stem and tributaries as well as reference sites included in each ecoregion. This program is specifically set up to monitoring ecosystem health of an entire region and is not linked to any environmental flows objectives nor does it have any explicit adaptive management protocols to reassess how well the system is working (Dickens 2009a). An environmental flows project that is being implemented within the Orange-Senqu River Basin is the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, a large-scale water transfer and hydropower project being undertaken by Lesotho and South Africa. As part of this project, Instream Flow Requirements were created for releases downstream of a large dam. A dedicated long-term monitoring plan has been created to assess compliance with the Instream Flow Requirements as well as measure if the expected ecological responses are being achieved. The monitoring plan has three parts: 1) assessing river flow, water quality, geomorphology, and sedimentology; 2) assessing overall river condition using biological indicators, such as fish, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, and riparian vegetation; and 3) socio-economic monitoring to see if any changes are occurring to the ecosystem services provided to humans by the river. There is a complex set of ecological indicators and sub-indicators which should be measured continuously, monthly, biannually, every year, every three years, and every five years. The information collected will be used to guide future management actions as part of the project,
56
RESULTS
although there are only a few brief mentions of such an adaptive management cycle in the monitoring plan itself (Institute of Natural Resources 2016). 5.1.1.4 Tanzania Several environmental flow projects have been undertaken in Tanzania, including on the Pangani, Wami, Great Ruaha, Mara, and Rufiji Rivers. Each project was completed by a different set of agencies and organizations, and used different methods to assess environmental flow requirements. In 2011, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Resources and the Institute of Natural Resources published a critical analysis of EFAs in Tanzania, including the transboundary Mara River (Dickens 2011). One thing that was common to almost all of these projects was a clearly defined need for a monitoring program by the project implementers, yet a noticeable lack of any formalized, long-term monitoring plans. As part of an environmental flows project in the Rufiji River Basin (CDM Smith 2016), guidelines were proposed for how to implement and assess environmental flows projects in other river basins, including how to implement a monitoring program with high-level concepts and implementation-level details (O’Keeffe 2013). In order to make sure a monitoring program is sustainable, the following points were recommended: 1) Trigger values: a monitoring program is designed to raise “red flags” in order to identify when something might be going wrong, not to identify the causes of the failure. 2) Adaptive management: If a “red flag” is raised, there must be a management response. This can be a recognition that trigger values were inaccurately set and may need adjusting, the environmental flow values were inaccurately set and many need adjusting, or it may require a more detailed investigation to identify the causes of the failure. 3) Feasibility: The fieldwork should be easily implemented, e.g., it can be accomplished by two technicians in one vehicle. 4) Simplicity: Keep things as simple as possible – use only the minimum number of indicators that will provide an overall reflection of the achievement of objectives. Monitoring sites can be set up using three different components: 1) initial site rating, where specialists and technical personnel set up and calibrate the site so that future monitoring can be done quickly and easily; 2) baseline monitoring, which is conducted two to three years before a project is implemented to obtain knowledge on natural variability and can also be used to RESULTS
57
train agency staff; and 3) long-term monitoring, which should be a sustainable program of actions that can be completed by agency staff with minimal resources. There were also recommendations on the required monitoring components for an environmental flow monitoring program, including: 1) River monitoring basics a) A hydrological time series and a hydraulic rating curve for each site b) A gauging station and/or current meter at each site that is annually maintained c) Site plan and habitat maps to scale d) Fixed point photography, including overall views of the monitoring site and of habitats located within the monitoring site 2) Geomorphology 3) Riparian vegetation 4) Macroinvertebrates 5) Fish Other recommendations included setting up a data management and naming convention at the outset of a project and concentrating the monitoring plan at only two levels of detail: 1) the minimum effort required to facilitate management decisions, and 2) incremental actions to add value to the information collected. 5.1.1.5 Kenya To date, there have been no other detailed EFAs conducted in Kenya. However, the concept of environmental flows is beginning to be incorporated into major water projects. One example of this is the High Grand Falls dam on the Tana River in eastern Kenya. In March 2016, the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed High Grand Falls MultiPurpose Dam Project was published (TARDA 2016), which includes the requirement that “base environmental flow must always be allowed downstream the dam.” No further reference or quantification of this flow is mentioned in the remainder of the document. From a feasibility study in 2011, the 95% exceedance flow (Q95) was used to estimate an environmental flow of 10-30 m3/s, although this figure was calculated having no data of downstream abstraction levels and was shown to be much lower than ecological requirement for the Tana River Delta alone (Odhengo et al. 2014).
58
RESULTS
In 2010, the Naivasha River Basin (northeast of the KMRB) completed a WAP (WRMA 2010) which contains key elements of a coordinated water resources management plan. This WAP applied the WRMA recommendation of using Q95 when no other data is available (instead of conducting a comprehensive EFA), which was expanded to Q80, Q95, and Q96 for a structure resembling the three level management protocol of WRMA. While there is no documented plan to adjust the Reserve using an EFA nor any mention of monitoring the aquatic ecosystem for impacts, there is a linked system of objectives, indicators, verification of results for the WAP as a whole. The plan lays out very specific objectives and outputs, ranging from reducing abstractions to permit application goals. Each objective and output is linked with an indicator of measurement and how the progress of these indicators will be reported. In addition, there is a compliance plan for each objective, outlining a target value, deadline, and any comments associated with completing these activities. Other important considerations were addressed, including a time frame for reviewing and reporting the data collected and when to review, evaluate, and adjust the WAP based on this new data. Specific to the Reserve, there is a provision to update the Q values for each subcatchment. While all of these factors were considered in the WAP, the statements guiding each factor was brief and concise, although may require further guidance when actually implementing them. Finally, the plan directly identified stakeholders in the process and their roles in the planning and implementation of the WAP. 5.1.1.6 Mara River Due to its importance as a transboundary river, the Mara River has received much attention on the importance of establishing a monitoring protocol for ecological health and implementation of environmental flows. There have been many vague recommendations for creating monitoring plans, but very few monitoring plan have actually been written. In 2013, the Lake Victoria Basic Commission published the Mara River Basin-Wide Water Allocation Plan (LVBC 2013) with recommendations on categories of monitoring to undertake. These recommendations included the functioning of natural sediment generation processes, occurrence of a variety of instream and riparian habitats, the presence of sensitive species that reflect suitable water quality levels, and the adequate provision of human needs for water resources. In the Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Management of the Mara River Basin (LVBC and WWF-ESARPO 2010b), it noted the need for detailed work plans to be created by project leads and list measurable performance indicators for conducting RESULTS
59
on-the-ground monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. In the report Assessing Reserve Flows for the Mara River (LVBC and WWF-ESARPO 2010a), there was an expressed need for measuring water quality at low flows and continued monitoring to assess if the recommendations for flow were appropriate. A follow up study (GLOWS-FIU 2011) completed some of the more detailed water quality work, but again only made a broad recommendation to continue monitoring river flow levels and ecological health. The Lake Victoria Basic Commission has also noted that most institutions in Kenya are poorly equipped to carry out water allocation and monitoring efforts effectively due to a lack of financial and infrastructural capacity (LVBC 2013). One example of a formal management plan for monitoring is within the MMNR. Located entirely within the KMRB, the MMNR is currently operating under a management plan intended for 2009 – 2019 (MMNR 2009). This management plan includes redefining areas that are designated for wildlife and for visitors and include four management programmes: the Ecological Management Programme, the Tourism Management Programme, the Community Outreach and Partnership Programme, and the Protected Area Operations Programme. Within the Ecological Management Programme, Objectives 4 and 5 are the most relevant to monitoring flows and aquatic habitats associated with the Mara River (Table 5-2). Action 4.1 requires monitoring of water level and water quality at sights within the Mara, Talek, and Sand Rivers, which could then be used in the Ecological Monitoring Plan (Action 5.2) and as data inputs for the low water early warning system (Action 4.2). Action 5.2 and its sub-actions list out the steps to create an Ecological Monitoring Plan, including the identification of conservation targets and known threats, the incorporation of current monitoring procedures, the implementation of data collection standards and trainings, the execution of a pilot study to test feasibility and implementability, and the placement of adaptive management procedures to adjust management actions within the MMNR as well as the adjustment of the Ecological Monitoring Plan. The progress of implementing this plan, however, is unknown. 5.1.1.7 Applying Examples to the KMRB Reserve Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan The goal of reviewing a variety of programs and projects in different areas was to see what was currently being done around the world for monitoring and adaptively managing environmental flows and to assess which aspects would be appropriate for inclusion in the KMRB plan (Table 5-3). While each program or plan had its own unique structure, there were four common 60
RESULTS
Table 5-2: Management objectives and actions within the MMNR related to monitoring flows and aquatic ecosystems (MMNR 2009) Objective 4: Collaboration with relevant institutions in maintaining MMNR water catchments strengthened Action 4.1: Carry out water level and quality monitoring in Mara, Talek and Sand Rivers 4.1.1: Identify the number and location of monitoring points needed on key rivers within the MMNR 4.1.2: Liaise with World Wildlife Fund Mara River Basin project regarding support for establishment of monitoring points, and data collection protocols 4.1.3: Establish monitoring stations at agreed points in line with World Wildlife Fund project specifications 4.1.4: Collect data in line with project protocols, and provide to World Wildlife Fund and incorporate into MMNR Ecological Monitoring Plan (EMP) 4.1.5: Review project reports and/or EMP reports, and raise awareness at appropriate forums of trends in river levels if required (see Actions 4.3 and 4.4) Action 4.2: Support the development of a low water early warning system for key rivers in the MMNR Action 4.3: Participate in Mara River Basin Water Resource User Association(s) Action 4.4: Participate in transboundary water users forum when established Objective 5: Targeted ecological monitoring and management-orientated ecological research carried out Action 5.1: Formalize practical working relationship between KWS and MMNR management regarding ecological research and monitoring Action 5.2: Design and implement MMNR Ecological Monitoring Plan 5.2.1: Convene a MMNR researchers and ecologists workshop in collaboration with Kenyan Wildlife Service to develop a simple monitoring plan, based on the conservation targets, key ecological attributes and threats identified in the Ecological Management Programme 5.2.2: Review existing ecological monitoring procedures, and consolidate with above into the new EMP (including monitoring methods and collection responsibilities) 5.2.3: Design standardized data collection and storage procedures in accordance with EMP requirements 5.2.4: Identify and raise awareness of any training or equipment needs inhibiting EMP implementation 5.2.5: Pilot Ecological Monitoring Plan data collection and storage procedures as specified 5.2.6: Prepare and disseminate EMP summary reports, including a summary of implications for MMNR management 5.2.7: Review success of EMP implementation, and adapt data collection and monitoring procedures as appropriate Action 5.3: Develop and publicize external research protocol and application guidelines Action 5.4: Identify and publicize priority research needed to support MMNR ecological management and monitoring
RESULTS
61
components that seemed essential to creating a successful monitoring and adaptive management plan: 1) create project or management objectives and link these objectives to indicators, monitoring techniques, trigger values, and adaptive management procedures; 2) begin developing the monitoring and adaptive management plan at the beginning of a project to ensure continuity between the objectives, monitoring data, and management actions; 3) keep the monitoring plan as simple as possible, including utilizing existing monitoring programs and monitoring sites; and 4) ensure the monitoring plan is feasible and implementable. These four general components should form the basis of the KMRB plan. However, due to the when in the EFA process this plan is being created, some of these are not feasible or may have to be adjusted. Project or management objectives should have been created in collaboration with stakeholders as part of the EFA or WAP process; however, none have been created to date. Using the objectives hierarchy from South Africa and the legislative framework of Kenya, management objectives for implementing the Reserve could be created, although using this process would not include stakeholders input. Even without stakeholder input, objectives can be created that help to identify and link indicators, trigger values, and adaptive management cycles, which is an essential component of KMRB plan. Ideally, the creation of this monitoring plan would have started during the planning of the EFA to directly link the monitoring that occurred during the EFA to the monitoring that will occur after implementation of the KMRB plan. Again, this was not possible since the EFA began previous to this project. However, an informal review of the rationale for the EFA monitoring sites was conducted by interviewing MaMaSe Initiative staff and was incorporated when possible. Concepts three and four are important when selecting monitoring techniques and long-term monitoring sites. As witnessed in some of the reviewed projects, monitoring plans can easily become overly complicated, confusing to implement, and difficult incorporate into management decisions. The goal of this plan is to keep things as simple as possible while still achieving the management objectives. In addition, the implementation capacity of WRMA is a critical aspect of creating and plan that is feasible and implementable, and should be considered throughout the process.
62
RESULTS
Table 5-3: Examples of existing monitoring and adaptive management programs and plans that were studied and the aspects to be considered for the KMRB Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan Existing Examples
Aspects Considered for KMRB
Topics Covered Australia
Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Framework, Cooperative Research Center for Freshwater Ecology (Cottingham et al. 2005)
Creating monitoring frameworks for projects Linking vision statement to monitoring actions Setting objectives Linking data and objectives Study design
Set up monitoring plan structure at the beginning of a project Link pre- and post-project monitoring programs
United States of America Wadeable Streams Assessment/National Rivers and Streams Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA 2006; US EPA 2016) Adaptive Management, United States Department of the Interior Technical Guide (Williams et al. 2009)
National biological health program Widely applicable indicators Monitoring present condition and trends over time Guide steps for determining if adaptive management is appropriate Steps for implementing adaptive management for natural resources management
Collect biological, chemical, physical, and human health data nationwide Assess if adaptive management is appropriate for the project
South Africa Aquatic ecosystem health monitoring program, Orange-Senqu River Commission (Dickens 2009a) Monitoring Protocols and Programme, Lesotho Highlands Water Project, Lesotho Highland Development Authority (Institute of Natural Resources 2016)
Simple, multi-national monitoring plan Complex, project-level monitoring plan Common indicators for ecosystem health and project effectiveness
Simplicity of multi-national monitoring program: keep current water quality program, use invertebrates as main indicator, utilize other indicators on a more infrequent basis, use already established monitoring sites Ecoclassification of a river basin to ensure all ecosystem types are being monitored and to improve the comparability of data
Tanzania Critical analysis of environmental flow assessments of selected rivers in Tanzania and Kenya, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and Institute of Natural Resources (Dickens 2011) Annex E: Framework and guidelines for the assessment and monitoring of environmental flows in Tanzania, Environmental flows in
RESULTS
Lack of project-based monitoring or adaptive management plans Guidelines on setting up and implementing monitoring plans for EFAs Suggestions for how to incorporate adaptive management into EFA monitoring plans
Linked system of trigger values and adaptive management Monitoring plans should be as simple as possible and feasible Five monitoring components: hydrology, geomorphology, riparian
63
Table 5-3: Examples of existing monitoring and adaptive management programs and plans that were studied and the aspects to be considered for the KMRB Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plan Existing Examples
Aspects Considered for KMRB vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fish
Topics Covered
Rufiji River Basin assessed from the perspective of planned development in Kilombero and Lower Rufiji Sub-basins (CDM Smith 2016) Kenya Water Allocation Plan – Naivasha Basin, 2010-2012, WRMA (WRMA 2010) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for the Proposed High Grand Falls Multi-Purpose Dam Project, 2016 (TARDA 2016) Tana River Delta Strategic Environmental Assessment, 2014 (Odhengo et al. 2014)
Linkages between objectives/outputs, indictors, and progress verification Timing of reviewing and reporting data Timing of reviewing, evaluating, and adjusting WAP Identification of stakeholders and their roles
Linked system of project objectives, indicators, how progress will be measured, and target values Schedule for reviewing monitoring data, evaluating progress, and adjusting overarching program Identify roles of stakeholders for planning and implementation
Mara River Basin Various reports from water and river management projects in the Mara River Basin Maasai Mara National Reserve management plan 2009-2019, Country Councils of Narok and Trans Mara (MMNR 2009)
Strong need for monitoring and adaptive management process to be put in place Linking objectives, actions, data sharing, and adaptive management of monitoring protocols Steps for creating an ecological monitoring plan
Incorporation of current monitoring techniques Using standardized data collection techniques and providing training Conduct a pilot study to test feasibility and implementability Use adaptive management procedures to adjust management actions
In addition to these general concepts, more specific concepts were found that were thought to be useful to creating the plan at later stages in the process. These include types of data that could be included in a nationwide data set for ecological monitoring, a critical assessment of if this project is a good candidate for adaptive management, conducting an ecoclassification assessment to be able to compare data from different ecosystem types, a schedule for reviewing the monitoring data and the effectiveness of the monitoring and adaptive management plan, explicitly defining the roles of stakeholders, creating data collection standards and providing training to carry out these techniques, and conducting a pilot study in the river basin to test out if different monitoring techniques or monitoring sites should be included in the long-term monitoring plan. 64
RESULTS
Some of these concepts are readily applicable, such as standardizing data collected nationwide, the schedule for review, using standardized data collection techniques (when possible) and providing training, and conducting a pilot study to test for feasibility and implementability. Many of these were already included in the research objectives or could easily be added to make the monitoring and adaptive management plan more comprehensive. Other concepts would be more difficult to include in the plan due to the current progress of the project. It was already decided by project managers that adaptive management would be used for this project based on previous experience working on environmental flow projects, but a critical analysis of if this project was a good candidate for adaptive management was not conducted. Ecoclassifications are used throughout South Africa to ensure important ecosystems are being monitored and that national and international monitoring data can compared by ecoclassification to make a direct comparison of results. This was not conducted for this project, but should be something to consider doing retroactively or during future Reserve monitoring and adaptive management plans in Kenya. Lastly, explicitly defining the roles of stakeholders is important to keep project partners involved and lines of communication open about responsibilities and expectations. This should have been done very early on in the process and is out of scope of this study, but should be considered for future plans. 5.1.2 Flow-Ecology Relationships in the KMRB Flow-ecology relationships provide the scientific foundation for linking the amount of flow required by the Reserve and the response of the aquatic and riparian ecosystems. While general flow-ecology relationships are useful to create a broad understanding of potential impacts or as a substitute when no other information in available, it is ideal to have information on these relationships on the river being studied. Much research has been conducted on the Mara River, but little attention has been given to quantifying the relationships between flow and the abiotic and biotic components of an ecosystem. However, this is not uncommon in rivers around the world since quantifying these relationships can be complex, resource intensive, and applicable only to a small area. One common way to study flow-ecology relationships in a river is to complete a holistic EFA. For many holistic EFAs, site-specific relationships are quantified through field assessments to create the foundation for environmental flow recommendations. These projects provide an opportunity to turn an applied project into scientific research. Two EFAs using the Building Block Methodology have been completed in the Mara River Basin, providing a solid starting RESULTS
65
point for researching flow-ecology relationships in the KMRB. The flow-ecology relationships from the 2012 EFA have been analysed and published (McClain et al. 2014), while the results from the 2016 EFA are currently unpublished but provide an opportunity to build upon the findings from the 2012 EFA. The results from the 2012 and 2016 EFAs were reviewed for flow-ecology relationships that were identified during site visits (Table 5-4). While reviewing the data used to study the flow-ecology relationships in the EFAs, the one feature that stood out the most was the fact that the Mara River and its tributaries are highly variable. As such, the aquatic and riparian species within the basin have most likely adapted to living in such dynamic conditions (McClain et al. 2014) and direct relationships between flow and ecological or biological conditions may difficult to ascertain. For example, in the 2016 EFA, the diversity of invertebrates was found to be indirectly linked to flow through changes in water quality and availability of habitat (2016 EFA, MaMaSe Initiative, unpublished data, 2016). The 2016 EFA also noted that while different flow components were required for certain life events (e.g., migration and spawning behavior), a variety of depths, substrates, habitats, and flows were required for fish throughout their lives (2016 EFA, MaMaSe Initiative, unpublished data, 2016). This indicates that the variety of aquatic conditions and habitats provided by different flow components may be just as important as the amount of water flowing in the river at each flow components. As such, there might not be one or two key flow-ecology relationships that are more important than others, but the main flow-ecology relationship is the variety of ecological conditions that arise from different flows. For water quality, different flows can flush out low flow conditions providing stress relief to aquatic organisms or a severe drop in DO causing mortality, an increase or decrease in suspended sediments, and transportation of different quantities of nutrients, all of which are preferred or not preferred by different aquatic species. For geomorphology, a variety of flow provides conditions where fine sediments are removed, banks are eroded, and point bars are created, all of which provide habitat for other ecological indicators. Fish require many different habitats and river conditions during different life stages and changes in flow provide important behavioral cues for migration and spawning. Invertebrate diversity is very closely linked with available habitats and water quality, both of which change depending on the flow. Different riparian vegetation types require different substrates and inundation periods to carry out life cycle events. This variability in flow ensures a variability in ecological response, which is also an indicator of good ecological function. 66
RESULTS
Table 5-4: Flow-ecology relationships in the KMRB Flow Component
Abiotic Response
Biotic Response
Extreme low flows (drought conditions)
High flow pulses (freshets)
Low flows (baseflow)
Creates water quality conditions that may be stressful to aquatic organisms
Stabilizing effects on geomorphology due to sustained populations of inchannel and riparian vegetation Maintenance of good water quality due to reduced runoff, including reduced turbidity Regular flushing of the river to maintain water quality requirements for aquatic species, but can also lead to low DO events from flushing organic matter after long periods of very low flow Improves connectivity between the main stem of the Mara River and its tributaries Clears fine material from coarse bed material for benthic habitat
Small and large floods
Flushing of the river to maintain water quality requirements for aquatic species Increased turbidity at high flows Moves medium to large material in the channel Deposits fine to small sediments, creating habitat for riparian vegetation
Colonization by riparian vegetation of habitats exposed at very low flows Easier predation due to fish being concentrated into pools Decrease in flow sensitive invertebrate species Survival of marginal and lower zone vegetation, inundation of roots for inchannel grasses and sedges Decrease in flow sensitive invertebrate species Access to water for trees and shrubs on higher terraces Maintenance of water quality conditions for high diversity of sensitive invertebrate taxa Access between the main river and tributaries for different fish species at different development stages Stress relief for fish by refreshing water at low flow conditions Seed germination for vegetation on terraces Maintenance of water quality conditions for high diversity of sensitive invertebrate taxa Behavioral cue for migration and spawning for lotic guild fish species Provides conditions for growth, reproduction, and recruitment of riparian vegetation
(McClain et al. 2014; 2016 EFA, MaMaSe Initiative, unpublished data, 2016)
A common theme throughout the specialist reports from the 2016 EFA was the need for a better understanding of specific aspects about the flow-ecology relationships, indicating that more studies should be conducted on the Mara River to improve the knowledge base and help guide future management actions. There were even some instances where general flow-ecology relationships were used for the 2016 EFA due to a lack of site-specific information. However, many of the flow-ecology relationships for the KMRB are similar to the general flow-ecology relationships outlined in Section 2.5.2, and these general relationships may be a good substitute when site-specific information is not available. RESULTS
67
5.1.3 Objectives Hierarchy There is no explicit vision statement or management objective for the KMRB as a separate catchment, either described in the CMS or decided as part of a stakeholder group. However, it does fall under the management of the LVSCA and higher WRMA laws and regulations, and it was decided to use these laws to begin the creation of an objectives hierarchy. The highestlevel legal document that WRMA must adhere to is the Water Act of 2002. Subsequent legislation has been used to further define the requirements of the Water Act and to also ensure that this process is in line with the legal requirements of water management in Kenya. Due to this, the beginning of the objectives hierarchy is very similar to a legislative framework of implementing the Reserve. Once the legal definitions no longer provided direction, then an objectives hierarchy more true to the South African model was used to select indicators for measuring the highest-level objective. Section 13(1) of the Water Act states that “[t]he Minister shall, by notice in the Gazette, determine the reserve for the whole or part of each water resource …”, with the Reserve being defined in Section 2 as the “quantity and quality of water required — (a) to satisfy basic human needs for all people who are or may be supplied from the water resource; and (b) to protect aquatic ecosystems in order to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of the water resource.” For the KMRB, this requirement and definition of the Reserve acted as the top level of objectives hierarchy. Working through the legislative framework, the next step was to investigate the Water Resources Management Rules, 2007 (Republic of Kenya 2007), which further defined how to carry out the Water Act. The second schedule in the Water Resources Management Rules requires that a CMS is generated for each major catchment in Kenya, as outlined in the National Water Resources Management Strategy (2006–2008) (Ministry of Water and Irrigation 2006), and includes “[a] water allocation plan detailing…[a]llocation of the resource to the Reserve and to different types of uses…” among other requirements. Section 127 says that the Reserve is comprised on two elements: “one element related to the quantity of the resource and the respective probability associated with that quantity and a second element related to the quality of the resource”, noting the importance of the quantity and quality of the Reserve. Section 128(1)(a) also states that “[f]or streams and rivers, the Reserve Quantity shall not be less than the flow value that is exceeded 95% of the time as measured by a naturalised flow duration 68
RESULTS
curve at any point along the water course”, giving a definitive minimum value for quantifying the Reserve. The National Water Resources Management Strategy acts as the guidance document for creating a CMS, such as defining the major catchments within Kenya and providing procedures for improving water resources assessments and water allocation planning and management. It also further defines the importance of the Reserve by stating that “[the Reserve] has priority over all water uses and the requirements of the Reserve must be met before water can be allocated for other uses,” and highlights the need to create a WAP which considers basic human needs and the environment during the planning phase. Each CMS is unique to the conditions present in the catchment and may have their own vision statement and management objectives. However, all CMSs are required to create a WAP, which include three main components: permitted use; international obligations and interbasin transfers; and the Reserve, which includes basic human needs and ecological needs. The foundation for creating a WAP is the Water Allocation Guidelines, 2009, which provides a detailed overview on the different aspects of such a plan. This document further clarifies that 95th percentile of the naturalized flow duration curve should be used to quantify the Reserve “unless more accurate methods are utilised to quantify downstream demands.” In the case of the KMRB, WRMA and the MaMaSe Initiative are using the Building Block Methodology as a more accurate method to quantify the basic human needs and ecological needs at different points along the river. Specific to the KMRB, the vision statement for the LVSCA is “[t]o equitably allocate available water resources for sustainable development of the region.” This also leads to the creation of a WAP and fits in with the structure of the objectives hierarchy (see Figure 5-2). It should be noted that other branches should exist from these pieces of legislation; however, only the parts that pertained to the Reserve were used during the creation of the objective hierarchy. Using the standard objectives hierarchy structure in Figure 2-1 as a guide, a vision and management objectives for the KMRB plan were defined. The vision was created by using a combination of the phrasing used in the legislative framework, which resulted in a vision statement of: “To implement Reserve flows in the Mara River Basin as part of a comprehensive water allocation plan, such that basic human needs are met for all people who may be supplied from the water resource and to protect the aquatic ecosystems in order to secure ecologically RESULTS
69
sustainable development and use of the water resource.” The management objectives were then determined from this vision statement.
Figure 5-2: Foundation of the objectives hierarchy for implementing the Reserve, generated from legislative framework
70
RESULTS
The vision consists of two parts: basic human needs and protection of aquatic ecosystems. In the Water Resources Management Rules, 2007, basic human needs is defined as “the quantity of water required for drinking, food preparation, washing of clothes, bathing, basic sanitation and is assumed to be equal to twenty five (25) liters per person per day.” This was considered the bare minimum requirement and thus required meeting basic human needs as a management objective and obtaining the water quantity for basic human needs as an indicator. In addition, the Water Act specifically states that the Reserve consider the “quantity and quality of water required…to satisfy basic human needs…” which would imply that ensuring human health from the use of the water would also be a management objective, and that water quality for human health could be an indicator of this management objective. As such, providing for basic human needs and human health is one management objective for the KMRB, with water quantity for human use and water quality for human health as indicators for measuring if these management objectives are being met. There is no direct guidance on what the phrase “protect[ion] of aquatic ecosystems in order to secure ecologically sustainable development and use of the water resource” means or how one would go about assessing if this requirement is being met or not. Based on the general concept of sustainability and ecology, it was decided that if ecological relationships were maintained and the ecosystem continued to function as a whole, then it could be concluded that there was sustainable use of the water resource while still protecting the aquatic ecosystem. Incorporating general flow-ecology relationships into this concept, two distinct subsections of the ecosystem need to function: the abiotic components and the biotic components. As such, another management objective for the KMRB would be maintaining aquatic ecological function of abiotic and biotic components. Using the indicators in the 2012 and 2016 EFAs as guides (which are also supported by multiple other examples), the following indicators were chosen: water quantity for ecological needs, water quality for ecological needs, and geomorphology for the abiotic components; and fish, invertebrates, and riparian vegetation for the biotic components (see Figure 5-3). Monitoring these indicators is the foundation for measuring if the management objective of maintaining ecosystem function is being met and ultimately, if the aquatic ecosystem is being protected.
RESULTS
71
Figure 5-3: Objectives hierarchy for implementing the Reserve, including measurement indicators
72
RESULTS
5.1.4 Selecting Potential Monitoring Techniques The indicators selected were based on general flow-ecology relationships, although each indicator is a scientific field unto itself. There are a multitude of ways these indicators could be measured in the field, with each monitoring technique having its own strengths and limitations. Potential monitoring techniques were chosen based on a multi-level monitoring structure and working with monitoring recommendations from environmental flow specialists. Working with the MaMaSe Initiative’s monitoring and evaluation specialist, it was decided that a three level system of monitoring should be used (Figure 5-4). In this way, monitoring techniques of varying complexity and cost could be performed depending on the capabilities and resources of WRMA. Level 1 techniques are non-technical, broad-scale, and data can easily be collected by the layperson. Level 2 techniques are easily reported, based on simple instruments, and data can be collected by a management authority or non-governmental association with basic knowledge of hydrological or ecological processes. Level 3 techniques are scientifically defendable, collect high quality data, and are intended be completed by experts in the field. Each level should collect data that provides information about the ecological or social indicator and contributes to the knowledge gathered at the next level up.
Figure 5-4: Three level monitoring system applied to each monitoring indicator
RESULTS
73
As part of the three level system, regular monitoring occurs at all three levels at set intervals. These regular monitoring activities allow for a database of ecological information to be generated. However, if the monitoring values from one level surpass its assigned trigger value, then an adaptive management cycle is initiated. During this cycle, it may be decided to conduct the monitoring actions of the next higher level at an earlier time frame than would normally occur to gain a greater understanding of the potential issue. For example, if the trigger value for Level 1 monitoring is surpassed, management may decide to conduct Level 2 monitoring early to further investigate a potential issue. In this way, the monitoring levels are also linked and the data collected at a lower level should also help with the assessment at a higher level. As part of the final 2016 EFA workshop, recommended monitoring frameworks were generated by each specialist for their topic, working within the three-level structure. The specializations used for the 2016 EFA aligned with the indicators selected for KMRB plan, and the monitoring frameworks could be directly applied to the desktop analysis. These frameworks, listed below in Table 5-5 to Table 5-10, acted as the starting point for selecting potential monitoring techniques for each indicator. A preliminary assessment was conducted for each monitoring technique based on project scope and potential feasibility, including potential cost, additional field time, and in-house expertise. Some other monitoring techniques outside of these recommendations (e.g., a standardized rapid habitat assessment method) could also be included in this type of assessment, although none were selected for the KMRB plan. Monitoring techniques which were thought to be implementable or potentially implementable by WRMA during monthly monitoring trips were recommended to be included in the pilot study. As such, only Levels 1 and 2 techniques were recommended for testing since Level 3 techniques are intended to be completed by an expert. The considerations for how to proceed with each potential monitoring technique is described in the Selection Rationale column. Out of 28 recommended monitoring techniques, seven were selected to be directly added to the desktop version of the KMRB plan, two were added as a maintenance action, and 9 were chosen to be tested in the pilot study. The rest of the techniques did not pass the preliminary assessment or were already included in the plan as part of another indicator.
74
RESULTS
5.1.4.1 Water Quantity Table 5-5: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA hydrology and hydraulics specialist Indicator
Monitoring Level and Sampling Method
Water level
Read stage plate on a daily basis. Report floods, no flows and changes to channel shape to management. Possible gaps in data likely. Daily resolution might miss some of the extreme levels, especially for flashy systems.
Water level, velocity distribution, discharge
Water level, velocity distribution, discharge, channel survey, hydraulic model-rating curve
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Read stage plate and measure discharge and velocity depth variability. Use float method if levels are very high and if dangerous to enter the water. Download/capture level data. Take photos of transect and various hydraulic habitat types to serve as data base for the site.
Survey the channel and compare to previous geometry. Measure discharge and level. Adjust hydraulic model based on observed data if necessary.
Analysis Method
None – record level only. Report any TPCs
Add data to database Plot observed stage and discharge on plot showing rating curve Use rating curve to convert stage data to discharge
Analysis of recorded data, verification of hydraulic data to model, adjust hydraulic model if needed. After channel changing event – remodel flow depth relationship.
Trigger Value
Frequency
No flow, very high flow
Loss of stage plates/level logger
Visible change in channel shape
Change in channel shape
Monthly and during floods
Loss of stage plates/level loggers
Not necessary during extended low flows
Poor correlation between modelled and observed data
Changes in channel shape
Daily
Number of Sites
All sites
Selection Rationale
Already part of WRMA hydrological monitoring program. Include in monitoring plan.
Every 3-5 years or after large channel changing floods
All sites
Already being conducted as part of monthly monitoring using HydroSurveyor. Rating curves are in progress for all WRMA river gauging stations. Include photos of transect in fixed photo point monitoring plan, include as a maintenance action.
All sites or affected sites
Expert-level assessment, important to keep rating curve accurate and periodically updated. Maintenance action rather than monitoring ecological condition. Include as a maintenance action in monitoring plan.
(2016 EFA, MaMaSe Initiative, unpublished data, 2016)
RESULTS
75
5.1.4.2 Water Quality For water quality monitoring, it is important to integrate the KMRB plan with the existing water quality monitoring program in the Kericho SRO. In this program, there are two main types of monitoring: pollution monitoring and water quality monitoring. The pollution monitoring program focuses around a few industrial sites in the Nyangores River as well as a few other sites near tourist camps and small settlements that have had water quality issues in the past. The water quality program is a basin-wide program that is intended to measure basic river conditions in different parts of the catchment. Currently, monthly monitoring occurs at 10 locations on the Nyangores, Amala, Mara, Talek, and Sand Rivers, including all six of the functioning WRMA river gauging stations. At all sites, pH, EC, temperature, turbidity, DO, and salinity are measured. Additional measurements of other water quality parameters, including TSS, NH4+, NO3-, total phosphorus (TP), E. coli, and heavy metals, are also conducted at irregular intervals. In June 2016, two automatic loggers were installed in the Nyangores and Amala River Subcatchments. The automatic logger in the Nyangores River Subcatchment is located at Bomet Bridge at the same location as the WRMA river gauging station. The automatic logger in the Amala River Subcatchment was installed at the Longisa Water Supply, about three kilometers downstream from the WRMA river gauging station at Kapkimolwa Bridge. There is a third automatic logger intended to be installed near the border with Tanzania at Purungat Bridge at some point in the future. Each logger takes hourly measurements of turbidity, TSS, temperature, EC, total dissolved solids, salinity, DO, and pressure. The intent is to integrate the existing WRMA water quality monitoring plan into the KMRB plan. There are plans for future collaboration between WRMA and UNESCO-IHE to create an updated and formalized water quality monitoring plan, at which time the recommendations from the 2016 EFA specialist should be considered for inclusion. When this plan is finalized, it should also be evaluated for compatibility with recommendations made as part of this project and incorporated into the KMRB plan, including alignment with objectives, establishing monitoring techniques and trigger points, and incorporating results into the adaptive management cycle. As such, no monitoring techniques for water quality were carried forward into the desktop version or the pilot study.
76
Table 5-6: Recommended monitoring techniques from 2016 EFA water quality specialist Monitoring Level and Sampling Method
Analysis Method
Trigger Value
Frequency
Number of Sites
Anthropogenic activities
Level 1
Collect information on spatial and temporal extent of anthropogenic activities affecting water quality at the site, e.g. direct defecation in the water (animals or people), effluent discharge pipe, etc.by visual assessment and/or social survey
Color, odor, and foam
Level 1
Visual assessment and rating exercise
Simple recording on paper
“Poor” water quality rating
Daily
Purungat, Emarti, Nyangores, Amala
Level 1
Thermometer* and pH strips*
Simple recording on paper
Temperature: >30°C pH: 8.5
Monthly
Purungat, Emarti, Nyangores, Amala
Level 2
Multi-meter with temperature, pH and DO probes
Excel-based worksheet, comparison at spatial and temporal scales
Temperature: >30°C pH: 8.5 DO: 30°C pH: 8.5 DO:
