Rio Patuca Environmental Flow Assessment - With Appendices

Environmental Flow Assessment for the Patuca River, Honduras:
Maintaining ecological health below the

proposed Patuca III Hydroelectric Project
December 15, 2007
Developed by The Nature Conservancy for the

Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica (ENEE) of Honduras
This report was the result of a collaborative effort between a number of staff from The Nature
Conservancy representing a variety of organizational perspectives (Jeff Opperman, Julio
Carcamo, Nicole Silk, and Brian Richter), staff from ENEE, as well as outside experts from
Honduras, Central America and the United States. Jorge Jiménez (Organization for Tropical
Studies) and Elizabeth Anderson (Global Water for Sustainability Program) helped facilitate
the first workshop and Eloise Kendy, Rebecca Tharme and Andy Warner of The Nature
Conservancy provided constructive reviews of this report. We are particularly grateful for the
significant contributions from Peter Esselman, contractor to The Nature Conservancy, and
engagement from the indigenous community along the Patuca River. This product and the
extensive exchanges and interactions it represents would not have been possible without the
significant financial and personnel contributions from both The Nature Conservancy and
ENEE.
Executive Summary
The Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica (ENEE) of Honduras requested that The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) conduct an environmental flow assessment for the Patuca River below a
proposed hydroelectric project, referred to as Patuca III. The Patuca River is the longest river in
Honduras, third longest in Central America, and is currently undammed. The river supports
globally important aquatic biodiversity and flows through a reserve for indigenous communities
and other protected areas. Communities within these reserves rely heavily on the river for water
and transport and as an important source of fish protein. Additionally, the river fertilizes
agricultural fields by depositing nutrient-rich sediments on the fields during floods. Due to the
Patuca River’s important biological and cultural values, ENEE sought information on how the
proposed dam may affect the river and its resources and asked TNC for guidance for a managed
flow regime that will minimize the impacts of Patuca III on the river’s ecological integrity and
resources.
An environmental flow assessment was conducted based on a variety of information sources,

including field trips along the river, scientific data and expertise derived from similar river
systems, analysis of hydrological data, and traditional ecological knowledge. These information
sources were synthesized and presented during two workshops. During the workshops,
participants from the communities, ENEE, government agencies, non-governmental
organizations and academia worked to define collaboratively ecologically and socially important
river processes and associated environmental flow recommendations.
This report describes the environmental flow assessment for the Patuca River. Following five
background sections, the details of the flow assessment are presented in Section 6, with three
sub-sections. Section 6.1 describes the recommended Environmental Flow Components
(EFCs)—which include low flows, high-flow pulses, and floods — for normal, wet, and dry
years. The EFCs are described in terms of magnitude, frequency, duration, and season (for more
detail on the EFCs see “Overview of Environmental Flow Assessment” within this Executive
Summary and the main report). The EFCs and hydrological year types (wet, dry, normal) reflect
the natural intra-and inter-annual hydrological variability of the Patuca River. In addition, this
section describes the linkages between EFCs and important physical and biological processes in
the river, such as sediment transport and fish migration. These linkages are framed as
hypotheses to be tested and refined through further monitoring and research on the Patuca
River. Future research and monitoring should target the research questions and uncertainties
identified through this process to optimize and refine the flow recommendations.
Sinotech, the engineering firm designing Patuca III, provided a data set of daily flow values that
simulate releases from the proposed dam based on a 29-year record of Patuca River hydrology.
Note that this modeled data set (hereafter referred to as ‘with-dam’ hydrology) was developed
prior to the environmental flow assessment and therefore represents simulated ‘status-quo’ dam
operations that do not incorporate the information from this assessment. Based on the simulated
‘with-dam’ hydrology several of the recommended EFCs can occur without any intentional
release from the dam (i.e., projected status quo operations will provide these EFCs). Patuca III
i
Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment
Executive Summary
December 15, 2007
can provide for several of the EFCs through status-quo operations because the dam is projected
to be operated as a ‘run-of-river’ facility for much of each wet season. Because floods and late
wet-season high-flow pulses tend to occur during this period of ‘run-of-river’ operations,
projected status-quo operation of Patuca III appears likely to not affect these EFCs and dam
operators will likely not need to intentionally release such flows.
In contrast, mid wet-season high-flow pulses are predicted to be somewhat affected by dam
operations and early wet-season high-flow pulses will be greatly reduced in frequency. Based on
a thirty-year record of natural (without dam) hydrology, at least two early wet-season pulses
occurred in 83% of the years, whereas the with-dam hydrology projects that in only 17% of years
will there be two or more early wet-season pulses. These early wet-season pulses provide
important cues that influence the migration and reproduction of multiple fish species that are
critical for river ecosystems and human communities.
Finally, the projected low-flow values with the dam in place are higher than the recommended
low flows for several months, particularly in dry-season months such as April and May. Dry-
season low flows exhibit substantial inter- and intra-annual variability under natural conditions
but ‘with-dam’ hydrology is projected to provide low flows that are fairly constant throughout
the dry season and between years.
Section 6.2 translates the EFC recommendations into basic operational guidance. Here we
provide an example of simple rules that reservoir operators can follow to achieve the EFC
recommendations. We then provide several scenarios that illustrate the expected flows
downstream of the dam that would result from implementing these rules, using actual
hydrological data. For example, we use hydrology from 1985, the second driest year in the 29-
year hydrological record, to compare simulated ‘status-quo’ dam operations, which would
release no high-flow pulses during the early and middle parts of the wet season, to a scenario in
which four high-flow pulses are released (2 early, 2 middle of wet season) with durations and
magnitudes as recommended by workshop participants. The scenario that released the
recommended EFCs would have delayed reservoir refilling by only 2 – 8 days. These scenarios
clearly demonstrate that the recommended number of high-flow pulses can be released by the
dam in nearly all years (28 out of the 29 years examined) with minimal impact to dam
operations.
These scenarios are based on simple rules that may not reflect the planning approach that the
dam operators will use or need for reliably predicting power and revenue generation. However,
because the scenarios demonstrate that flow recommendations can be released with minimal
impacts to reservoir levels and refilling rates, they suggest that more robust and appropriate
guidance and rules can be developed that will allow environmental flows to be released in a
manner consistent with likely reservoir management objectives. Developing these rules will
allow the environmental flow recommendations in this report to become actual flow releases
allocated to benefit downstream ecosystems and human communities, and released in a manner
that provides sufficient certainty for dam operators and water resource managers.
ii
Executive Summary
December 15, 2007
Section 6.3 describes the effects of hydropeaking, defined as significant daily fluctuations in
reservoir releases due to intervals of high releases for power generation followed by much lower
releases between intervals of power generation. It is understood that Patuca III will not (or only
rarely) be operated for hydropeaking. This is an important consideration, because of the
significant negative impacts such peaking can have on downstream river ecosystems and human
communities. Because hydropeaking is a very common feature of many hydropower projects,
some information on peaking is included in this report as general guidance, should peaking
operation occur.
Finally, the ability to release environmental flows is strongly influenced by dam design. This
report focuses on an environmental flow assessment; an analysis of the dam’s design is beyond
the scope of the assessment. However, it is important to note that various aspects of project
design can either hinder or facilitate implementation of environmental flows. When working
with a project that has already been constructed, design limitations are difficult to address.
However, because Patuca III is still in the design phase, there is opportunity to ensure that
aspects of dam design will not hinder implementation of important environmental flow releases.
iii
Executive Summary
December 15, 2007
Overview of Environmental Flow Assessment, Patuca River
This section provides a concise summary of the environmental flow assessment conducted by
The Nature Conservancy for the Rio Patuca downstream of the proposed Piedras Amarillas
Hydropower Project (Patuca III). The first section describes the Environmental Flow
Components (EFCs), which are the most important types of flows for maintaining riverine
processes. The final report includes detailed descriptions of the relationships between each of
the EFCs and important riverine processes. Below we provide the basic information for each
EFC, including magnitude, frequency, duration, and season. The characteristics of the EFCs
vary for dry, normal, and wet years. The second section provides initial guidance on how these
EFCs could be incorporated into operation of the project, although it is anticipated that further
analysis could improve the utility and accuracy of such guidance.
1. Environmental Flow Components

Low flows (or base flows)
Year type
Month Dry (cms) Normal (cms) Wet (cms)
January 40 – 50 50 – 65 65 – 80
February 30 – 35 35 – 50 55 – 65
March 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 45
April 20 – 30 20 – 30 25 – 30
May 20 – 30 20 – 30 30 – 35
June 30 - 35 35 – 60 70 – 90
July 45 – 55 60 – 90 125 – 135
August 45 – 70 80 – 115 120 – 150
September 60 – 80 80 – 120 130 – 145
October 90 – 100 100 – 130 130 – 145
November 60 – 75 80 – 115 120 – 140
December 45 – 60 65 – 85 85 – 120
Early wet-season high-flow pulses
Year Type
Dry Normal Wet
Time Period June 1 – July 15 June 1 – July 15 June 1 – July 15
Frequency (events per year) 1 ≥2 ≥2
Magnitude Range (cms) 125 - 170 125 – 300 125 - 500
Duration (days) 4 - 10 4 – 10 4 - 10
iv
Executive Summary
December 15, 2007
Mid wet-season high-flow pulses
Year Type
Dry Normal Wet
Time Period July 16 – July 16 – July 16 –
November 01 November 01 November 01
Frequency (events per year) ≥4 ≥4 ≥4
Magnitude Range (cms) 200 – 600 200 – 900 200 – 900
Duration (days) 4 - 10 4 - 10 4 - 10
Late wet-season high-flow pulses
Year Type
Dry Normal Wet
Time Period November 1 – November 1 – November 1 –
December 15 December 15 December 15
Frequency (events per year) 1 2 2
Magnitude Range (cms) 125 - 170 125 – 300 150 – 350
Duration (days) 4 - 10 4 - 10 4 - 10
Floods
Year Type
Dry Normal Wet
Time Period August 15 – August 15 –
October 30 October 30
Frequency (events per year) 0 ≥1 ≥1
Magnitude Range (cms) 1000 - 2000 2000 – 3500
Duration (days) 15 - 40 15 - 40
2. Operational Guidance
Low flows
Proposed dam-released daily average dry-season low flows are anticipated to be considerably
elevated above natural flow levels, particularly in April and May. Dam managers should
develop operating rules that allow the river to: (1) retain inter- and intra-annual variability; and
(2) approach natural low flow values, with consideration for transportation needs (e.g., ensuring
flows > 30 cms during important navigation times). Dam releases that are based on a percentage
of inflow would allow flows to retain more inter- and intra-annual variability.
v
Executive Summary
December 15, 2007
Early and mid wet-season high-flow pulses
A comparison of natural hydrology with proposed with-dam hydrology indicates that early and
mid wet-season high-flow pulses are the EFCs that will be most affected by the initially
proposed operations of Patuca III. However, a simple modeling exercise suggests that these
EFCs can be released from the dam in nearly every year without appreciably affecting reservoir
refilling and hydropower operations. Again, relatively simple operating rules based on a
percentage of inflow should allow these EFCs to be released and for the river to retain a natural
level of inter- and intra-annual variability. Operating rules could be further refined to include
consideration of reservoir levels. For example, when reservoir levels are low, a smaller
percentage of a high-flow pulse that enters the reservoir could be released; as reservoir levels rise
a higher percentage of inflow pulses could be released.
Late wet-season high-flow pulses and floods

A comparison of natural hydrology with proposed with-dam hydrology indicates that late wet-
season high-flow pulses and floods will not be affected by the initially proposed operations of
Patuca III. These events either occur when the reservoir is already full and the dam is being
operated as a run-of-river project (inflow = outflow) or, in the case of floods, the event will
quickly fill the reservoir and subsequent releases equal inflow. Therefore, under the initially
proposed operations of Patuca III, dam operators will not need to specifically manage for these
EFCs.
vi
Executive Summary
December 15, 2007
Environmental Flow Assessment for the Patuca River
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................i
1.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..1
2.0 Background…………………………………………………………………………………..2
3.0 Hydrological Analysis…………………………………………………………………….….5
4.0 Field Trips……………………………………………………………………………………9
5.0 Environmental Flow Workshops……………………………………………………….….12
6.0 Environmental Flow Assessment……………………………………………………….….15
6.1 Environmental Flow Components…………………………………………………16
6.2 Operational Guidance……………………………………………………………...23
6.3 The effects of hydropower peaking on downstream rivers………………………37
7.0 Research and Monitoring Questions………………………………………………………41
8.0 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………….43
References……………………………………………………………………………………….44
List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………………46
Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment i

December 15, 2007
1. Introduction
The Empresa Nacional de Energía Eléctrica (ENEE) of Honduras requested that The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) conduct an environmental flow assessment for the Patuca River below a
proposed hydroelectric dam, referred to as Patuca III. The Patuca River is the longest river in
Honduras, third longest in Central America, and is currently undammed. The river supports
globally important aquatic biodiversity and flows through two reserves for indigenous
communities and a national park. Communities within these reserves rely heavily on the river for
water and transport and as an important source of fish protein. Additionally, the river fertilizes
agricultural fields by depositing nutrient-rich sediments on the fields during floods. Due to the
Patuca’s important biological and cultural values, ENEE seeks information on how the proposed
dam may affect the river and its resources and asked TNC for guidance on a flow regime that
will minimize the impacts to these resources.
1.1 Constraints and sources of information

Very little information was available for the Patuca River from sources such as scientific journal
articles, agency reports, or other sources of data. Further, there was relatively little time to
collect new information to inform the environmental review process. Due to this lack of
information and short timeframe, ENEE conducted two field trips down the river and held two
workshops, the first in December 2006, attended by agency staff, NGOs including TNC, and
local university scientists, and the second in August 2007, attended by representatives of
communities of the lower Patuca River, along with TNC and ENEE staff. Because very little
scientific information was available, and due to the high sociocultural importance of the river
ecosystem to local communities, this process relied heavily on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK)—that is, information generated by those who live and work on the Patuca.
The second workshop and both the field trips were expressly designed to collect TEK.
This report presents an environmental flow assessment for the Patuca River, synthesized from a
variety of sources, including:
1. Traditional Ecological Knowledge
2. Data collected during two field trips
3. Hydrological analysis of flow data, including a comparison of historic unregulated flows
(natural hydrology) and modeled flows with the hydroelectric dam operating (with-dam
hydrology; note that this modeled data set was developed prior to the environmental flow
assessment and therefore represents simulated ‘status-quo’ dam operations that do not
incorporate the information from this assessment)
4. Relevant research from other river systems of same ecotype
5. Outcomes of the two flow assessment workshops
1.2 Report Layout

This report contains five background sections that describe the Patuca watershed, the proposed
dam, the field trips, methods for collecting TEK, hydrological analysis, and the workshops.
Following these, Section 6 of the report contains the primary environmental flow assessment,
organized into three sub-sections. Section 6.1 describes in detail the recommended
Environmental Flow Components (EFCs), composed of low flows, high-flow pulses, and floods.
Each EFC is defined in terms of magnitude, duration, season and frequency and is accompanied
Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 1

December 15, 2007
by descriptions of the linkage between the EFC and specific river processes. For example,
floods are associated with sediment transport and early wet-season high-flow pulses are
associated with fish migration patterns.
Section 6.2 provides practical guidance on how dam operators can implement the recommended
EFCs. This guidance consists of relatively simple rules for dam management and uses scenarios
based on actual hydrological data to illustrate the implications of the proposed environmental
flow releases on reservoir management.
Section 6.3 emphasizes the effects of hydropeaking on river ecosystems. Although it is

understood that Patuca III will not be, or only rarely will be, operated for peaking, this section is
provided as general guidance on reservoir operation because peaking is a common feature of
many hydropower projects.
In addition to this report describing the environmental flow recommendations, The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) has conducted analyses of the hydrologic implications of Patuca III,
participated in the first field trip, contributed to the design of the two environmental flow
workshops, and provided initial assessments of ecological and social concerns due to the
proposed changes. These earlier efforts are captured partially by the following documents:
(1) Preliminary Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Analysis for the Patuca River by Jeff
Opperman (an analysis of the hydrological alterations likely under a predicted dam-influenced
flow regime, using the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration software); and (2) Ecological and
Social Impressions of the Middle Patuca River and Potential Consequences of the Patuca 3
Hydropower Project by Peter Esselman (a description of the September 2006 field trip on the
Patuca River including information on the life histories of various fish species and conceptual
models of Patuca River ecosystems); and (3) Summary report of the first workshop (November,
2006). These documents are also included as appendices to this report.
2. Background
The relationship between TNC and ENEE pertaining to the Patuca River and the Patuca III
project is described by the Memorandum of Understanding executed by TNC and ENEE in
September, 2006 (Appendix 1). As stated by that document, whatever recommendations that
emerge as a result of this process and collaboration will be ENEE’s product exclusively. TNC is
not a sponsor, convener, facilitator or other term indicating full or partial proprietary control over
this process or associated products. The Nature Conservancy’s contributions to this project are
part of its agreement to provide ENEE with exposure to practices and approaches relevant to
ecologically sustainable water management so that ENEE can develop appropriate environmental
flow recommendations to influence the design and be incorporated into the operation of the
Patuca III project.
2.1 The River and Watershed

The Patuca River is currently undammed and is the longest river in Honduras and the third
longest river in Central America (Figures 1 and 2). The name “Patuca” is given to the river
formed by the confluence of the Guayape and Guayambre Rivers and, from that junction, the
Patuca flows 465 km to the Caribbean Sea. The total drainage area of the Patuca River is

December 15, 2007
approximately 2.4 million ha. The mean annual flow (MAF) of the Patuca River at Cayetano,
just downstream of the proposed site for Patuca III, is 135 cubic meters per second (cms); the
MAF at Kurpha, after nearly all the major tributaries have entered, is 429 cms.
Figure 1. The Patuca River watershed within Honduras.
Land use in the upper watershed consists largely of cattle ranching and extensive areas of forest
have been cleared for pasture. The lower watershed is more heavily forested with extremely low
road density. The lower river flows through three large reserves: Patuca National Park, The
Tawahka Biosphere Reserve and the Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve (Figure 2).
The aquatic biodiversity of the Patuca River has only been documented in the estuarine portion
of the river near where it meets the sea. Large-scale surveys of freshwater riverine habitats in
Honduras indicate high levels of endemism in the larger river basins (i.e. species found nowhere
else; Wilfredo Matamoros, University of Southern Mississippi, personal communication). This
trend suggests that intensive sampling of the Patuca River will also probably reveal multiple
species endemic to the river system.

December 15, 2007
Figure 2. The Patuca River watershed with protected areas and communities along the river.
The proposed reservoir is indicated in red at the confluence of the Guayape and Guayambre
rivers.
2.2 Communities of the Patuca River

Numerous communities are located along the banks of the Patuca River (Figure 2). The lower
reaches are populated by three primary ethnic groups: Tawahkan, Miskito, and Pech. Other
communities consisting of more recent ladino settlers also occur along the river. The indigenous
communities traditionally depend on the river for numerous benefits. The river is a source of
drinking water and provides the primary mode of transport between communities and for trade.
The river supports several sources of food, including fish and reptiles (meat and eggs). Finally,
the river provides a source of nutrient-rich sediment that fertilizes and replenishes low-lying
agricultural fields during floods.

December 15, 2007
2.3 The proposed dam
The currently proposed dam site (Piedras Amarillas) was first identified and investigated in 1975
by Harza Engineering and identified as feasible in 1998 by Geracon/RSW International, Inc. In
October 2006 ENEE signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Taipower for designing and
constructing the proposed dam. Taipower hired the engineering firm Sinotech to complete
feasibility studies and design the project.
The proposed dam will be located on the Patuca River 5 km below the confluence of the
Guayambre and Guayape rivers (Figure 2). The drainage area above this site is 1.2 million ha, or
approximately half of the overall Patuca watershed. The proposed reservoir will occupy an area
of 72 km2 (7200 ha) with a volume of 1,200 million cubic meters (Mcm). The dam will have a
height of 60 m with a crest length of 208 m.
The proposed design for the power plant includes two turbines and a total generator capacity of
104 MW. The turbines are sized for maximum discharge of 135 cms each and a single turbine
cannot operate below 40 cms.
3. Hydrological Analysis
Discharge in the Patuca River exhibits considerable intra-annual variability with a strong
seasonal pattern (Figure 3). The dry season occurs between January and May with low and
relatively constant flows. May and June are transitional months between the dry season and the
wet season, with storms leading to high-flow pulses. The wet season lasts from July to
December and can include very large storms and floods. Patuca River hydrology also displays
considerable inter-annual variability with individual years that range from very dry to very wet
(Figure 4).
Promedio (1989)
1000
900
800
700
600
Q (cms)
500
400
300
200
100
0
1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/1 5/31 6/30 7/30 8/29 9/28 10/28 11/27 12/27
Figure 3. Hydrology of the Patuca River at the Cayetano gauge for 1989.

December 15, 2007
4000
Humedo
Normal
3500 Seco
3000
2500
Q (cms)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/1 5/31 6/30 7/30 8/29 9/28 10/28 11/27 12/27
Figure 4. Hydrology for the Patuca River showing years which are wet (humedo), dry (seco),
and normal.
The Nature Conservancy used the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) software to
investigate potential changes to the hydrological regime from dam operations. Sinotech and
ENEE provided TNC with hydrological data for Cayetano, a short distance downstream of the
proposed dam site, including 29 years of gauged daily flow data and simulated with-dam flows
for the same time period (1973-2001). Corresponding data were also provided for a gauge near
Kurpha. The results of these analyses are found in the report “Preliminary Indicators of
Hydrologic Alteration Analysis for the Patuca River” (see Appendix 2); the most important
concepts are briefly summarized below.
3.1 Cayetano gauging station

The IHA analysis for Cayetano indicated that the greatest hydrological alterations with dam
operations will be: (1) elevated low flows during the dry season (February – May; Figures 5 and
6) and (2) a decline of high-flow pulses during the wet season from an average of 10 per year to
5 per year (Figure 7). Review of natural and with-dam hydrographs indicates that much of the
loss of high-flow pulses will occur in the transition between the dry and wet seasons (e.g., June
through September). The analysis indicated that floods will be essentially unchanged with dam
operations.

December 15, 2007
(1973-2001)
(modeled)
Figure 5. Median monthly flows for the Patuca River comparing natural (black line and squares)
and modeled with-dam (dashed line with triangles) hydrology.
Patuca at Cayetano Gauge

Monthly Flows for April
Figure 6. Monthly median discharges for April for the Patuca River at the Cayetano gauging
station, comparing natural (black line and squares) and modeled with-dam (dashed line with
triangles) hydrology (1973 – 2001).

December 15, 2007
Patuca at Cayetano Gauge
High-flow pulse (frequency)
Figure 7. Frequency of high flow pulses (# of pulses per year) for the Patuca River at the
Cayateno gauging station, comparing natural (black line and squares) and simulated with-dam
(dashed line with triangles) hydrology
3.2 Kurpha gauging station

Over a 29-year hydrological record, approximately one-third of the annual discharge at Kurpha
was derived from the portion of the watershed above Cayetano (i.e., the portion of the drainage
area above the proposed dam; Table 1). In only the months of June and July did more than half
of the flow at Kurpha derive from above the dam site; for most months the proportion was
approximately 20%. The IHA analysis indicated that the primary hydrological alteration likely
at Kurpha is an increase in low flows during the dry season.

December 15, 2007
Table 1. Monthly flows and mean annual flow (MAF; in cms) for the Cayetano and Kurpha
gauges. “Proportion’ indicates the proportion of the flow at Kurpha represented by the flow at
Cayetano over a 29 year hydrological record (1973-2001).
Cayateno Kurpha Proportion

January 60 285 0.21
February 47 232.5 0.20
March 34 168 0.20
April 23 124.5 0.18
May 23 95 0.24
June 70 104 0.67
July 145 203 0.71
August 180 465 0.39
September 207 603 0.34
October 232 683 0.34
November 120 545 0.22
December 82 421 0.19
MAF 135 429 0.31
4. Field trips
To provide new information on the Patuca River, two field trips were conducted down the river.
The first field trip occurred in August and September, 2006 (a period of relatively high base
flows) and the second occurred during May, 2007 (a period of low base flows).
During the first field trip, a group of 12 researchers visited 11 communities (Mestizo, Tawahka,
and Miskito) while traveling 250 km along the river in a dugout canoe (Figure 8). Kurpha was
the most downstream community visited on the field trip and Nueva Palestina was the most
upstream community visited (Figure 2). The 12 people were divided into 4 teams: a survey team
that took cross section information at 12 points along our route; a water chemistry team that
collected data at 18 points along our route; a social/geomorphology interview team; and a
fishes/ecosystems interview team.
The survey team used rod and transit to survey the morphology of channel cross sections up to
the levels of reasonable flood magnitude. Along with the cross sectional information, a forester
characterized vegetative communities in the floodplain area of these transects, and a soils expert
characterized soils and land use. The water chemistry team recorded dissolved oxygen, secchi
depth, electrical conductivity, pH, and temperature at both banks of 18 points on the river,
including all of those where transects were surveyed.
Two teams conducted interviews with community members: one focused on fish and
ecosystems, the other on sociology and geomorphology. Sociology and geomorphology were
grouped together because the social team was interviewing village elders with a long-term
perspective on patterns of river geomorphology. The sociology and geomorphology team used
two questionnaires, one devised by ENEE, and one devised by TNC for questions about river
geomorphology. The fishes/ecosystems team sought out the individuals with the most

December 15, 2007
experience capturing fishes and aquatic animals (Figure 9) and conducted 16 interviews with a
total of 29 community members. This team used a questionnaire developed by TNC along with
laminated pictures of fishes thought to occur in the Patuca watershed. The fishes/ecosystems
interview questions focused on detailing the composition and biology of aquatic assemblages
with special focus on fishes.
More information on the methods and results of this field trip can be found in ENEE reports and
in a report written by Peter Esselman (see Appendix 3).
Figure 8. Field trip down the Patuca River.
Figure 9. Interviewing community members about important fish species.

December 15, 2007
The second field trip occurred in mid-May, 2007. Details of this field trip can be found in ENEE
reports. Community members were given paper and crayons or color markers and were asked to
pictorially illustrate their communities, their crops, and the river during different times of the
year (Figures 10 and 11).
Figure 10. Community members drew maps of the river, agricultural fields, and their towns.
Figure 11. An example of a map of the river and fields drawn by community members.

December 15, 2007
5. Environmental Flow Workshops
5.1 First workshop - Tegucigalpa, November 29-30, 2006

The purpose of the first workshop was to bring scientists, engineers, and water managers
together to consider how the Patuca ecosystem functions ecologically and hydrologically and to
develop a unified recommendation of the flows necessary to sustain the ecological health of this
system so that it can support both biodiversity and humans.
The workshop began with presentations providing context to participants regarding the resources
of the Patuca River: ENEE staff and others gave presentations on the Patuca River and its
resources, and the proposed dam; TNC staff and others described the importance of a river’s
flow regime to riverine processes and ecosystems and presented a process for developing
environmental flow recommendations. Following the presentations, workshop participants
divided into three working groups focused on: (1) fish and other aquatic organisms (referred to
as the ‘peces’ group); (2) terrestrial resources, including human communities (the ‘terrestres’
group); and (3) channel morphology (‘forma’). Each working group developed its own set of
hydrological recommendations for the components of concern. The three groups’
recommendations were synthesized into a draft set of proposed environmental flow
recommendations and this was given to ENEE for comment. (The working groups’ notes,
hydrological recommendations and other information about the workshop are summarized in the
report “Patuca River Environmental Flows Workshop Summary Report,” and are included here
as Appendix 4).
5.2 Second workshop – Tegucigalpa, August 8 and 9, 2007

The second environmental flow assessment workshop was focused on incorporating indigenous
community members’ knowledge about the river. Twelve individuals, representing Tawahka
and Miskito communities, attended the workshop. The workshop was also attended by several
employees of TNC and ENEE and Wang Chung-Fu, an engineer from Sinotech. The morning of
the first day of the workshop included several presentations about the river, the proposed
hydroelectric project, and information collected during the field trips.
During the afternoon, workshop participants divided into three groups focused on agriculture,
fisheries, and transportation. During these breakout groups, community members identified river
processes and conditions that were associated with either desired benefits or difficulties. Several
methods were used to identify flow levels that they considered beneficial or desirable for their
livelihoods, riverine biota, and transportation at different times of year, and those that were
detrimental. For example, both the fisheries and agriculture groups annotated photos to show the
river stages associated with important river conditions (Figures 12 and 13). The agriculture
group also drew a map of one of the communities and its agricultural fields and drew lines
corresponding to common flow levels during different seasons (Figure 14). The transportation
group drew a map of the river and identified the most challenging areas for boat traffic (Figure
15). Community members also identified recent months where flow conditions were appropriate
for a desired use of the river so that the flow levels associated with those dates could be
identified. For example, through this process the transportation group identified that 30 cms was
a low flow level that was still compatible with transportation.

December 15, 2007
More information on the discussion from the second workshop can found in the ENEE report,
“Resumen Mesas de Trabajo Taller Agosto de 2007.”
Figure 12. In the background of this photo, a fisherman describes flow levels and identifies the
stage associated with that flow level on a photo of the Patuca River. In the foreground,
workshop facilitators draw a line corresponding to that river stage on the photo on the computer.

December 15, 2007
Krausirpi Septiembre
Oct. 03-06
Oct sin daño

Jul. 07 Jul. Sept 2006 y
Dic
Figure 13. A photo of the Patuca River at Krausirpi annotated by community members to
indicate river stages at various months. The point bar in the upper left is a mix of forest and
agriculture.
Figure 14. A community map drawn during the second workshop.

December 15, 2007
Figure 15. A map of the Patuca River below the proposed dam sites indicating areas that pose
challenges to navigation.
6. Environmental Flow Assessment
Guidance on environmental flows is contained within the following three sub-sections. Section
6.1 describes the recommended Environmental Flow Components (EFCs) which include low
flows, high-flow pulses, and floods. The recommended EFCs are described in terms of
magnitude, frequency, duration, and season and are organized by normal, wet, and dry year
types. The EFCs provide guidance on the important types of flows and flow variability within a
year, while the year types account for variability between years (Figures 3 and 4). Section 6.2,
‘Operational Guidance,’ describes a simple approach for implementing the recommended EFCs
in most years. Although Section 6.2 may prove most useful for guiding actual operations, it
should be considered in conjunction with Section 6.1, which contains important background
information on the importance of specific EFCs and describes the linkages between EFCs and
river structure and processes.

December 15, 2007
6.1 Environmental Flow Components
The historical record of daily flow magnitudes available for Cayetano exhibits a range of
variability within which several “year types” can be defined. We defined ‘dry’, ‘normal’, and
‘wet’ year types—a central theme around which the final flow recommendations are organized.
Year type was defined by finding the average and standard deviation of all annual flows for the
available 29 years of data. Dry years were defined as those lower than one standard deviation
below, and wet years were defined as those greater than one standard deviation above, the
average annual flow. Using this approach, we identified four ‘dry’ years (1973, 1985, 2000, and
2001) and six wet years (1979, 1982, 1993, 1995, 1998, and 1999). The remaining 19 years were
classified as ‘normal.’
Environmental Flow Components (EFCs) are types of flow with biological or human importance
and include low flows, high-flow pulses, and floods. EFCs can be defined in terms of season,
frequency, magnitude and duration and, in this flow assessment, the recommended values for
those characteristics vary by hydrological year type (dry, normal, wet). In general, the rates of
change of flows should be within the natural range of variation. More specific guidance on rates
of change is provided in the section on hydropeaking (6.3).
Intra- and inter-annual environmental variability are essential parts of a river ecosystem that
facilitate the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem services important to human
communities. Different species and even individuals within a species thrive under different
optimal conditions. Species that exist currently within the Patuca River ecosystem are adapted
to—and may even benefit from—the intra- and inter-annual range of flow conditions
experienced in their environment. At least 14 migratory fish and shrimp species in the Patuca
River rely on wet-season high-flow pulses and floods to trigger and facilitate migration (both up
and downstream; see Appendix 2 for listing of migratory species). These species are likely to
have multiple spawning events annually, with early maturing fish spawning with the early high
flows, and, late maturing fish spawning on later floods. A number of non-migratory fishes may
experience high-flow conditions as stressful, and would benefit from lower wet-season flows or
no floods at all. However, even non-migratory species may benefit from the exchange of
nutrients and material between the river and the riparian corridor that occurs during floods.
Migratory and non-migratory species can co-exist in part because (1) some years are wet and
some years are dry, so over time the optimal requirements of all species are served, (2) in sub-
optimal years, these species are adapted to survive well enough until conditions improve for their
growth and or survival.
The final recommended flows for Patuca III embrace the concept of a flexible management
regime that responds to inter-annual variation in flow availability. By making recommendations
for dry, normal, and wet years we attempt to maintain variability in the long-term flow of the
river on the assumption that natural variation in flow conditions will help maintain a diverse and
healthy ecosystem downstream of the dam. Each EFC is accompanied by a description of its
linkage with important riverine physical and ecological processes. It is important to note that the
analyses and workshop discussions did not cover all components of the ecosystem, and so the
linkages described for each EFC do not represent an exhaustive list. The various EFCs are
represented in Figure 16.

December 15, 2007
1000 Floods
900
800
700
Late wet-season
600 high-flow pulses
Q (cms)
Mid wet-season
500 high-flow pulses
400 Early wet-season

high-flow pulses
300
Dry-season
200
low flows
100
0
1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/1 5/31 6/30 7/30 8/29 9/28 10/28 11/27 12/27
Figure 16. Hydrograph from the Patuca River at the Cayetano Gauge, 1989 with the
Environmental Flow Components identified. This is the same hydrograph as found in Figure 3.
6.1.1 Low flows

Like other rivers in the seasonal neotropics, the Patuca River has a predictable and more-or-less
consistent period of very low flows from January through May, after which river flows become
more variable as high-flow pulses begin to interrupt the steady base flows. This low-flow period
should be considered a crucial aspect of the natural flow regime of the Patuca River to which
many ecosystem components and human communities are adapted.
Dry-season low flows within their natural range of variation are important for many reasons
identified during the workshops and other analyses.
• At least nine resident, non-migratory fishes in the cichlid family—including the ‘tuba’
(Vieja maculicauda), one of the main species eaten by people along the river—nest and
reproduce during dry-season low flows. These species depend upon stable flow
conditions, clear water (for mate location and competition), and possibly other
environmental cues (higher temperatures, higher electrical conductivities) that signal
reproduction.
• Several important reptiles require sandy beaches exposed during low water conditions
for their reproduction. These include green iguanas, at least five species of freshwater
turtles, and crocodiles. These reptiles represent important top predators in the riverine
food web and also provide food to the communities (meat and eggs).
• The clear waters and low water levels lead to conditions where nutrients are concentrated
in the river and sunlight penetrates to the bottom, fueling photosynthesis and increased

December 15, 2007
food availability for herbivorous fishes (e.g., cuyamel, Joturus pichardi) and
invertebrates (insects, molluscs, and shrimps).
• Low waters also concentrate fishes leading to increased feeding efficiency and growth of
important predatory fish such as snook (blanco, Centropomus undecimalis) and wolf
cichlid (guapote, Parachromis dovii), two species that are important food items for
humans. The low clear water also improves the capture efficiency of fishermen.
• Navigation for human populations from the downstream villages to Nueva Palestina and
other upstream areas depends upon sufficient water in the river during this period of the
year. Water levels that drop too low inflict economic cost in the form of increased travel
time and greater risk for engine damage on exposed rocks and snags.
The final recommended dry-season discharges for the Patuca III project were determined by
considering the points mentioned above in conjunction with statistics from 29 years of historic
flow data. The final recommendation comes in the form of a range of values within which flow
releases from Patuca III should fall. Ranges of values were defined by looking at the distribution
of monthly low-flow values based on the 29-year period of record. The recommended dry-year
values are drawn from a range between the 10th and 25th percentiles of low-flow values; the
recommended normal-year values are drawn from a range centered on the 50th percentile of low-
flow values; recommended wet-year values are drawn from a range between the 75th and 90th
percentile of monthly low flow values. The recommended ranges were adjusted somewhat to
account for factors such as navigation. These ranges are shown in the Table 2.
Table 2. Dry-season low flows.
Year type
Month Dry (cms) Normal (cms) Wet (cms) Example flow-ecology linkages
January 40 – 50 50 – 65 65 – 80 • Jan. wet year range considered
“optimal” for transportation
• Beaches used by reptiles for

nesting
February 30 – 35 35 – 50 55 – 65 • Beaches used by reptiles for
nesting
March 20 – 30 30 – 40 40 – 45 • Flows below 30 cms make
transportation very difficult
• Cichlid fish spawning

April 20 – 30 20 – 30 25 – 30 • Cichlid fish spawning
May 20 – 30 20 – 30 30 – 35 • Cichlid fish spawning
Wet-season low flows (or base flows). Wet season (June to December) flows in the Patuca River
are characterized by high variability in magnitudes in most years, and the magnitude of low
flows is generally more variable. However, low flows in the wet season still have biological and
human importance for the following reasons:

December 15, 2007
• Elevated low flows in the early part of the wet season are likely to serve as a cue for wet-
season spawners to prepare for their downstream migrations. Elevated low flows in the
late part of the wet season create a freshwater signal in the estuary, providing cues for up-
migrating juvenile fishes to begin their movements upstream.
• Wet season navigation is facilitated by higher water levels that allow boats to ascend and
descend rapids more easily.
Ranges of wet-season low-flow discharge values were defined in a similar manner as described
above for dry season values. These ranges are shown in the Table 3.
Table 3. Wet-season baseflows.
Year type
Month Dry (cms) Normal (cms) Wet (cms) Example flow-ecology linkages
June 30 – 35 35 – 60 70 – 90 • Cues for spawning migratory
species
July 45 – 55 60 – 90 125 – 135 • Cues for spawning migratory
species
August 45 – 70 80 – 115 120 – 150
September 60 – 80 80 – 120 130 – 145
October 90 – 100 100 – 130 130 – 145
November 60 – 75 80 – 115 120 – 140
December 45 – 60 65 – 85 85 – 120 • Upstream migrations of
juvenile migratory species may
begin
6.1.2 Early wet-season high-flow pulses

The transition between the dry and wet seasons is a time of much activity within the river
ecosystem. Rainfall increase river flow which flushes the channel of stagnant, poor-quality
water that accumulates during the low-flow period and triggers many biological events, such as
spawning for several species (e.g., ‘Pupu’, Poecilia sp.). Typically in the historic record, the
river experiences 1-4 small pulses of high water during the end of the dry season and early part
of the wet season (average of 2.5 pulses from 01 June to 15 July). These sporadic but common
fluctuations are important for several reasons:
• Predation pressure on young fishes spawned during the dry season is reduced because of
increased water volumes, decreased underwater visibility due to higher turbidity, and
increased access to the more complex habitats (e.g., banks, bars, side channels, and
riparian corridor) made available by rising waters.
• Pulses may provide important cues to migratory fishes to prepare for and/or initiate
downstream migrations.
• Many fishes spawn during this time of year so their young can mature during the period
of low predator efficiency (because of high water volume and low visibility).
• Tree germination is encouraged by higher water tables, and soil wetness in/near the river
banks

December 15, 2007
• Substrates are cleaned of accumulated sediments and detritus, which may become
entrained in the water column and serve as food for downstream drift feeders (e.g.,
invertebrates like caddis flies, black flies, chironomids, and Atyid shrimps; some fishes).
Table 4. Recommended characteristics of early wet-season high-flow pulses:
Time period: June 1 – July 15

Frequency:
Dry year: 1 event
Normal year: at least 2 events
Wet year: at least 2 events
Magnitude range:
Dry year: 125 – 170 cms
Normal year: 125 – 300 cms
Wet year: 125 - 500 cms
Duration: 4 -10 days
6.1.3 Mid wet-season high-flow pulses

In most years, the wet season is well established by mid July, and after the passage of smaller
flow pulses early in the season, larger pulses begin. These pulses can have sufficient power to
move and reorganize channel features and material (e.g., sediments, organic matter, sand and
gravel bars, and trees) and potentially deposit sediments into the lower areas of the floodplain.
Important ecosystem components and services that are affected by mid wet-season high-flow
pulses include:
• Pulses of sufficient magnitude likely trigger spawning activity by migratory species. In

dry years when no floods typically occur, mid wet-season high-flow pulses take on extra
importance because these are the highest flows of the year, and thus are the only flows
that may assist down migration of this important species group.
• Young of the year and small-bodied fishes benefit from increased water volumes,
lowered visibility, and access to complex bank habitats because they are able to avoid
predation.
• Fishes access terrestrial habitats where they may benefit from access to new food
resources such as terrestrial invertebrates.
• High water levels deposit nutrient-rich sediments that can benefit crops and riparian
ecosystems.

December 15, 2007
Table 5. Recommended characteristics of mid wet-season high-flow pulses:
Time period: July 16 – November 01

Frequency: At least 4 pulses, regardless of dry, normal, or wet year
Peak magnitude range:
Dry year: 200 – 600 cms
Wet year: 200 – 900 cms
Duration: 4 - 10 days
6.1.4 Floods
Floods are high-magnitude flow events that are recommended for normal and wet years only (the
years classified as ‘dry’ in the 29-year data set did not have floods). Historically, large flood
events occurred in the time period between August and October, although events occasionally
occurred earlier (June or July) or later (November). As with the other EFCs, the historical
hydrological data were consulted to define flood magnitude, frequency, and duration. Floods
have the potential to benefit river and human systems, but can also be detrimental to humans at
especially high magnitudes. The magnitude of events that cause such damage, particularly to
crops and communities, should be investigated. The flood EFCs currently include an arbitrary
upper limit that is thought to be below the threshold of damaging floods. However, as currently
envisioned, Patuca III will have limited ability to attenuate flood flows and therefore dam
managers will not be able to influence whether or not natural floods exceed the EFC threshold.
Floods are crucial components of the natural flow regime to which riverine organisms are
adapted. The ecosystem processes supported by a flood include:
• Sediment transport and delivery to flood plains. For farmers downstream, these
sediments represent a source of natural fertilizer that enriches their crops with nutrients.
• Sediment and wood movement and re-sorting to create and maintain a diversity of
habitats used by river organisms, and to maintain a deep main channel that facilitates
navigation.
• Creation of floodplain topography and maintenance of ecosystem heterogeneity.
• Fish are able to access the floodplain and off-channel habitats where productive feeding
on terrestrial food sources, and some reproduction, can occur.
• Fish migration to the estuary occurs with the largest floods.
• Tree seed dispersal.

December 15, 2007
Table 6. Recommended characteristics of floods:
Time period: August 15 – October 30

Number of events:
Normal year: at least 1 event
Wet year: at least 1 event
Peak magnitude range:
Normal year: 1000 - 2000 cms
Duration: 15 - 40 days
6.1.5 Late wet-season high-flow pulses
As the wet season begins its transition back to the dry season (Nov. to Dec.), occasional small
high-flow pulses occurred fairly regularly in the historical record. These pulses, though not as
crucial as some of the larger flows recommended above, still may have importance for habitat
creation and migratory species.
• Late wet-season pulses may facilitate the migration and dispersal of young of any late-
spawning fishes that do not migrate in the big flood events earlier in the year.
• Migratory fishes spawned in the early part of the wet season begin to seek the river
mouth around December, perhaps in relation to a cue caused by freshwater entering the
coastal zone. Late wet-season pulses may thus be important for maintaining a freshwater
signal in the estuary late into the wet season.
• Small pulses have sufficient strength to move fine sediments like sand, and thus may
facilitate the building of beaches that are important for reptiles.
Table 7. Recommended characteristics of late wet-season high-flow pulses:
Time period: November 1 – December 15

Number of events:
Dry year: 1 event
Normal year: 2 events
Wet: 2 events
Magnitude range:
Dry year: 125 - 170 cms
Duration: 4 – 10 days

December 15, 2007
6.2 Operational Guidance for implementing EFCs
A review of the hydrological record and simulated “with-dam” flow releases suggests two
primary challenges for implementing the Environmental Flow Components described above:
1. Although there is a statistically significant correlation between dry-season discharge and

annual discharge (F = 5.6; p = 0.02), there is relatively low predictive power (r2 = 0.17;
i.e., dry-season discharge can explain only 17% of the variability of annual discharge and
83% of the variability is due to other factors). Thus it is difficult to predict whether a
year is of a ‘dry,’ ‘normal,’ or ‘wet’ type based on the dry-season discharge. Two of the
four wettest years had below-average dry-season flows (1995 and 1998). 1998 was the
second wettest year overall but had the second driest dry season overall. Conversely, the
10 wettest dry seasons included four years that were ultimately classified as being
average or below-average for annual discharge. It will be difficult for dam managers to
know whether they are in a ‘wet,’ ‘dry,’ or ‘normal’ year until September, October or
November. By this point, however, managers will have needed to have made several
decisions about flow levels and pulse releases. Therefore, managers will need an
additional framework to guide actual operational decisions.
2. Because the dam will have relatively small storage capacity, in nearly all years the
reservoir will fill and begin to operate as ‘run of the river’ (i.e., outflow = inflow) during
the wet season. As a result, many of the recommended EFCs occur at a time of year
when it appears that dam managers will not be actively controlling flows. While the dam
is operating in a run-of-river mode, the river’s natural flow regime will be maintained and
many of the recommended EFCs will occur naturally, without any management
intervention. It will therefore be helpful to clarify which EFCs tend to occur without
management intervention and which will require explicit management attention.
To address these two challenges, this section provides an analysis of which EFCs will likely be
met without explicit management of dam releases (i.e., they will occur “naturally”). This section
also includes relatively simple rules that will provide guidance on when to intentionally release
flows to meet the EFC recommendations, based on current and seasonal hydrology. We then use
scenarios based on real hydrological data to show the implications, in terms of reservoir refilling
and hydropower operations, of implementing these rules and releasing certain EFCs.
Note that these simple rules should be considered as preliminary examples of operational
guidance. First, actual dam operations may differ from the simulated with-dam hydrology
that underlies this analysis. Second, these rules are simple and may not reflect the
planning approach that the dam operators will use or their need for projecting hydropower
generation. TNC expresses its strong interest in remaining engaged in the planning process
for Patuca III and to work collaboratively with ENEE and TaiPower to develop more
robust and practical rules for implementing the EFCs with minimal effect on dam
operation objectives.

December 15, 2007
6.2.1 Dry-season low flows (January-June)
With-dam daily average flows during the dry season are projected to be much higher than natural
dry-season flows (e.g., median natural discharge for April is approximately 25 cms compared to
projected with-dam April median discharge of approximately 65 cms; Figure 2). Operators will
not know whether it is a dry, normal, or wet year, so they will not be able to adjust low-flow
releases for year type. Instead, primary considerations for dry-season low-flow releases include:
1. Discharges < 30 cms pose challenges for transportation; 65 – 80 cms is considered

optimal for transportation, but during portions of the dry season such a flow rate
significantly exceeds the range of natural flows and will likely have negative impacts on
ecological processes.
2. Natural flows rarely exceed 35 cms in April and May, and this period of low flows may
be important for species’ life histories. Management should strive to provide average
daily flows during April and May that approach typical low-flow values, while
maintaining adequate navigability (e.g., flows in excess of 30 cms should adequately
support navigation).
3. The best way to preserve the natural intra- and inter-annual variability in dry season
flows would be to adjust dam releases as some percentage of the inflows to the reservoir,
e.g., to set dam releases at 100-125% of natural inflows.
Table 8. Dry season low-flow operational guidance:

1. Release flows of 30 cms or greater at all times.
2. Approach typical natural low-flow rates in April and May, adjusted to
not hinder navigation (e.g., daily flows average approximately 30
cms in April and May).
1. Incorporate some degree of intra- and inter-annual variability by
basing dam releases on inflow levels. For example, during the dry
season, dam releases could be maintained within 100-125% of
inflows.
Further research should investigate the ecological importance of low flows and whether the
anticipated elevated low flows with hydropower operations will negatively affect ecosystem
health. As discussed below, allowing dam releases to drop to natural dry-season flow levels will
allow the reservoir to refill quicker and provide greater flexibility for releasing early wet-season
high-flow pulses.
6.2.2. Early wet-season high-flow pulses

These pulses occur as short-duration peaks during the months of June, July and August. These
pulses likely provide very important functions for various aquatic species and are the flow
component that is most likely to be altered with dam operations, based on the simulated with-
dam hydrology. At least one early wet-season pulse occurred in 25 out of 29 years of the

December 15, 2007
hydrological record; 24 of these years had two or more pulses and in the years with a pulse the
average number was 3. The simulated with-dam hydrology indicates that proposed dam
operations will reduce or eliminate these pulses: in only 9 years out of 29 will there be any pulse
and only five of these would have more than one pulse (Table 9).
Table 9. Early wet-season high flow pulses. ‘Natural’ refers to the number of events that
actually occurred in the hydrological data; ‘with-dam’ refers to the number of events predicted to
occur with status-quo dam operations; ‘missing’ is the difference between the previous two
columns; ‘recommended’ refers to the # of events recommended (as per Table 4); ‘deficit’ is the
difference between ‘recommended’ and ‘with-dam’ and represents the number of events that
should be added through explicitly managed releases. Note that in this analysis, if an event did
not occur in the natural hydrology then it is not counted toward the deficit. Thus, if the entry in
“missing” is equal to zero, then “deficit” is also equal to zero (e.g, 1973). MAF = mean annual
flow.
Early wet season pulses (number of events)
MAF Year Recom-

Year (cms) type Natural With-dam “Missing” mended “Deficit”
1973 83 dry 0 0 0 1 0
1974 110 normal 3 0 3 2 2
1975 161 normal 0 0 0 2 0
1976 99 normal 4 1 3 2 1
1977 117 normal 5 4 1 2 0
1978 130 normal 6 0 6 2 2
1979 223 wet 2 1 1 2 1
1980 175 normal 3 2 1 2 0
1981 138 normal 4 3 1 2 0
1982 179 wet 3 2 1 2 0
1983 126 normal 3 0 3 2 2
1984 130 normal 1 0 1 2 1
1985 79 dry 2 0 2 1 1
1986 170 normal 4 1 3 2 1
1987 124 normal 0 0 0 2 0
1988 156 normal 2 0 2 2 2
1989 121 normal 3 0 3 2 2
1990 160 normal 4 3 1 2 0
1991 121 normal 3 0 3 2 2
1992 101 normal 2 0 2 2 2
1993 190 wet 2 1 1 2 1
1994 111 normal 4 0 4 2 2
1995 191 wet 2 0 2 2 2
1996 138 normal 2 0 2 2 2
1997 129 normal 2 0 2 2 2
1998 194 wet 2 0 2 2 2
1999 180 wet 0 0 0 2 0
2000 79 dry 2 0 2 1 1
2001 56 dry 2 0 2 1 1

December 15, 2007
Reviewing the proposed with-dam hydrology, it appears that the reservoir refills with the first
major high-flow event (a large high-flow pulse or a small flood) during the wet season. Based
on the available record, the reservoir was etimated to refill in 28 out of 29 years. Once the
reservoir has refilled, managed releases are predicted to be run-of-river during the rest of the wet
season. The dam is projected to then release essentially constant flows during the dry season,
until the reservoir again refills during the next wet season. In most years, 2-4 high-flow pulses
are recommended to occur during this ‘flat-line’ period, including early and mid wet-season
pulses. To examine the implications of managed high-flow pulse releases on reservoir refilling
and operations, we simulated the effects of such releases using actual hydrology.
We developed a simple spreadsheet model that accounted for projected inflows to, and outflows
from, the reservoir and kept track of the cumulative ‘reservoir storage deficit’ (based on inflow
and projected outflow daily discharge data provided by Sinotech). The storage deficit increases
(becomes more negative) during the dry season as projected outflows, holding steady near 65
cms, exceed inflow. At the end of the dry season, high-flow pulses generally begin to enter and
refill the reservoir. When the reservoir storage deficit crosses “0” the reservoir has refilled and
reservoir operations are projected to become run of the river (Figure 17).
1000
Inflow to reservoir
800
Status-quo reservoir release
Reservoir storage deficit (Mcm)
(modeled)
600 Reservoir storage deficit
Flow (cms)
400
200
-200
-400
Dec-88 Feb-89 Apr-89 May-89 Jul-89 Aug-89 Oct-89 Dec-89 Jan-90
Figure 17. Projected reservoir inflows, outflows, and ‘storage deficit’ for 1989 hydrology and
simulated dam operations; 1989 was a ‘normal’ year type in terms of annual discharge. This
figure shows reservoir outflows based on status-quo with-dam hydrology (i.e., the outflow does
not include any explicit managed releases for environmental flows).

December 15, 2007
Next, we examined the effect on reservoir refilling caused by releasing recommended early wet-
season high-flow pulses, within the range of magnitude and duration described in Section 6.1.
As an example, we simulated the release of two early wet-season high-flow pulses using 1978
hydrology, a ‘normal’ year type. As a simple rule, high-flow pulses were released only after a
high-flow pulse entered the reservoir, and only the recommended two pulses were released, so
that not all inflow pulses caused the release of a regulated high-flow pulse below the dam. With
1978 hydrology the reservoir is estimated to refill with status-quo reservoir operations by July
17; if the two recommended early-wet-season pulses had been released, the reservoir would have
been filled on July 19 (Figure 18).

December 15, 2007
1000 Inflow to reservoir
Reservoir storage deficit (Mcm) 800 Status-quo reservoir release

(modeled)
600
Reservoir storage deficit
400
Flow (cms)
200
-200
-400
-600
Oct-77 Nov-77 Jan-78 Mar-78 Apr-78 Jun-78 Jul-78 Sep-78 Nov-78 Dec-78 Feb-79
Figure 18a. Hydrology for 1978 (normal year) showing actual flows (inflow; light gray) and
modeled with-dam operations (outflow; thick blue). The reservoir storage deficit begins at 0
with a full reservoir and declines during the dry season (thin black line). Run of river operations
begin when the reservoir storage deficit returns to zero (full reservoir, indicated by red arrow).
1000
Inflow to reservoir
800
Reservoir storage deficit (Mcm)
Reservoir release with EFCs

600 (modeled)
400
Flow (cms)
200
-200
-400
-600
Oct-77 Nov-77 Jan-78 Mar-78 Apr-78 Jun-78 Jul-78 Sep-78 Nov-78 Dec-78 Feb-79
Figure 18b. Hydrology for 1978 with the addition of two early-wet-season high-flow (circled).
Note that adding these pulses delays reservoir filling and the onset of ‘run of river’ operations by
only 2 days (indicated by red arrow).

December 15, 2007
6.2.3 Mid-wet-season high-flow pulses
High-flow pulses naturally occurred during the middle of the wet season of every year, with an
average of 4.5 events per year. Because in many years the reservoir is projected to fill early in
the wet season, these EFCs are estimated to be less impacted by status-quo with-dam operations
than the early-wet-season pulses (Table 10). With-dam operations are modeled to provide mid
wet-season pulses in 27 out of 29 years, with an average of 3.2 events.
Table 10. Mid-wet-season high-flow pulses. ‘Natural’ refers to the number of events that
actually occurred in the hydrological data; ‘with-dam’ refers to the number of events predicted to
occur with proposed dam operations; ‘missing’ is the difference between the previous two
columns; ‘recommended’ refers to the # of events recommended (e.g., at least 4 pulses regardless
of year type as per Table 5); ‘deficit’ is the difference between ‘recommended’ and ‘with-dam’
and represents the number of events that should be added through managed releases. Note that
in this analysis, if an event did not occur in the natural hydrology then it is not counted toward
the deficit. In other words, if fewer events occurred naturally than were recommended, the
‘deficit’ is adjusted to reflect that (e.g., 1976, 1990, and 2001)
Mid-wet-season flow pulses (number of events)
MAF Year Recom-

Year (cms) type Natural With-dam “Missing” mended “Deficit”
1973 83 Dry 6 2 4 4 2
1974 110 normal 7 5 2 4 0
1975 161 normal 4 3 1 4 1
1976 99 normal 3 3 0 4 0
1977 117 normal 6 6 0 4 0
1978 130 normal 7 7 0 4 0
1979 223 Wet 5 5 0 4 0
1980 175 normal 7 7 0 4 0
1981 138 normal 4 4 0 4 0
1982 179 Wet 5 5 0 4 0
1983 126 normal 6 6 0 4 0
1984 130 normal 5 3 2 4 1
1985 79 Dry 5 1 4 4 3
1986 170 normal 4 4 0 4 0
1987 124 normal 4 3 1 4 1
1988 156 normal 4 2 2 4 2
1989 121 normal 4 2 2 4 2
1990 160 normal 3 3 0 4 0
1991 121 normal 3 0 3 4 3
1992 101 normal 3 2 1 4 1
1993 190 wet 5 5 0 4 0
1994 111 normal 4 3 1 4 1
1995 191 wet 3 2 1 4 1
1996 138 normal 3 2 1 4 1
1997 129 normal 3 2 1 4 1
1998 194 wet 4 1 3 4 3
1999 180 wet 5 3 2 4 1
2000 79 dry 8 3 5 4 1
2001 56 dry 2 0 2 4 2

December 15, 2007
We used the same simulation approach described above to test the implications on reservoir
management of releasing mid-wet-season high-flow pulses. We simulated adding both early-
wet-season and mid-wet-season pulses to two of the three driest years on record, to examine the
implications for reservoir management in some of the most extreme years. With 1985
hydrology, reservoir filling is delayed by 8 days (from 10/27 with status-quo reservoir operations
to 11/4 with the release of the pulses; Figure 19) and with 2000 hydrology, filling is delayed by
14 days (from 9/17 to 10/1; Figure 20).

December 15, 2007
Status-quo reservoir release

400 (modeled)
Reservoir storage deficit (MCM)
200
Flow (cms)
-200
-400
-600
Nov-84 Jan-85 Feb-85 Apr-85 Jun-85 Jul-85 Sep-85 Oct-85 Dec-85 Feb-86
Figure 19a. Hydrology for 1985 (dry year) showing actual flows (or inflow to reservoir; light
gray), modeled flow with dam operation (outflow; thick blue), and reservoir storage deficit (thin
black line).

400 (modeled)
200
Flow (cms)
-200
-400
-600
Figure 19b. Hydrology for 1985, but adding two early-wet-season high-flow pulses (within
solid circle) and three mid-wet-season high flow pulses (within dashed circles). Note that adding
these pulses delays reservoir filling and the onset of ‘run of river’ operations by only 8 days.

December 15, 2007
600
500 Status-quo reservoir release

(modeled)
Flow (cms)
300
200
100
0
Mar-00 May-00 Jun-00 Aug-00 Oct-00 Nov-00
Figure 20a Hydrology for 2000 (dry year) showing actual flows (inflow; light gray) and
modeled with-dam operations (outflow; thick blue).
600
500 Reservoir release with EFCs

(modeled)

Flow (cms)
300
200
100
0
Mar-00 May-00 Jun-00 Aug-00 Oct-00 Nov-00
Figure 20b. Hydrology for 2000 with the addition of two early-wet-season high-flow pulses and
two mid-wet-season high flow pulses. Note that adding these pulses delays reservoir filling and
the onset of ‘run of river’ operations by 2 weeks (indicated by red arrows) and ‘trades’ a
naturally occurring pulse that occurs in September for a managed release high-flow pulse in

December 15, 2007
(Figure 20b caption continued): August; in the status-quo scenario this naturally occurring
September pulse is released because the reservoir is full, in the scenario that adds managed
pulses, this natural pulse is captured by the reservoir and fills it, compensating for earlier
managed releases. The black arrow originates with the September pulse that would have been
released under status-quo reservoir operations and points to the managed August release.
If dry-season low-flow releases were decreased from projected status-quo operations such that
they approached typical (historical) low-flow values, then the reservoir would tend to refill
faster. For example Figure 21 shows 1985 hydrology with decreased dry-season flow releases.
With this scenario, the release of four high-flow pulses reduces the time to filling by only two
days rather than the eight days indicated in Figure 6.
600
Inflow to reservoir
500
(modeled)
400
Flow (cms)
300
200
100
0
Figure 21. Hydrology for 1985 (a dry year) adding early and mid wet-season high-flow pulses
and decreasing dry-season reservoir releases (relative to projected status quo operations) toward
typical (historic) values.
In 2001—by far the driest year in the record and the only year in which the reservoir would not
have refilled—the release of recommended pulses during the early and mid wet-season pulses
(releasing flows only after a natural pulse event had occurred) would have affected reservoir
operations for approximately one month. With projected status quo operations and 2001
hydrology the reservoir releases would have passed below the threshold for generation, and
essentially became run of the river with low flows, on February 4, 2002. If managed pulses had
been released in 2001, this condition would have been reached on January 5, 2002. With

December 15, 2007
projected status-quo operations the reservoir would have refilled again and become run of river
in August 29, 2002 in both scenarios (Figure 22). In any given year, managers will not know the
river is experiencing an extreme drought until the high flows of October fail to arrive. By that
date, the managers may have released some high-flow pulses based on the EFC
recommendations and this operation guidance. In the extreme drought modeled here, following
this operational guidance would affect hydropower operations by one month.

December 15, 2007
800 Status-quo reservoir release

(modeled)
400
Flow (cms)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
Jun-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Nov-01 Feb-02 May-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03
Figure 22a. Hydrology for the driest year on record, 2001, the only year with hydrology such
that the reservoir would not have filled. The reservoir would have filled in August of the
following year.
800 Reservoir release with EFCs

(modeled)
400
Flow (cms)
200
-200
-400
-600
-800
Jun-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Nov-01 Feb-02 May-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03
Figure 22b. Same hydrology as above but with the addition of four high-flow pulses during
2001. Because of these pulses the reservoir would have dropped below the threshold for
generation approximately one month earlier than in the figure above (noted by long red arrows).
In this scenario the reservoir would have filled again on the same day (short red arrows).

December 15, 2007
Table 11. Early- and mid-wet-season high-flow pulse guidance:
1. In nearly all years, early and mid wet-season high-flow pulses can
be released without appreciably affecting reservoir refilling or
operations
2. Reservoir managers can release the recommended number of
high-flow pulses in response to inflow events. The magnitude of
the pulse can be scaled to the inflow and the reservoir level. This
will lead to the release of fewer and smaller pulses in very dry
years, larger and more frequent pulses in wet years. If no high-
flow pulses enter the reservoir during the early wet season, then
managers will not need to release downstream pulses for that time
period.
6.2.4 Floods and late wet-season high-flow pulses

The reservoir has relatively little storage capacity and is not designed to provide flood control.
Therefore, floods are expected to pass through the reservoir unaffected (inflow = outflow) and,
with anticipated dam management, operators will not need to managed or “provide” flood flows.
Because the reservoir is estimated to fill nearly every year, the simulated with-dam operations
indicate that late wet-season pulses will not be affected by the dam, as they pass through a full
reservoir. With anticipated dam management, operators will not need to “provide” late-wet-
season pulses.
Table 12. Flood and late-wet-season high-flow pulse guidance:

2. Floods and late-wet-season high-flow pulses are not predicted to be
affected by dam operations.
3. Therefore, reservoir operators will not need to ‘manage’ for these
flow events.
6.2.5 Summary of Operational Guidance

1. Dry season low flows. Proposed, status-quo dam-released daily average low flows are
anticipated to be considerably elevated above natural low flows, particularly in April and May
(Figure 2). Dry-season dam operations should be modified to allow dam-released low flows to
approach natural low values, with consideration given to transportation needs (> 30 cms). Low
flow operations should also strive to incorporate some intra- and inter-annual variability by
setting dam releases at a percentage of natural inflows. Further research should elucidate the
ecological importance of low flows and whether the anticipated elevated low flows with
hydropower operations will negatively affect ecosystem health and local people.

December 15, 2007
2. Early-wet-season and mid-wet-season high-flow pulses. Simple modeling indicates that the
recommended number of pulses can be released in nearly every year without appreciably
affecting dam operations. Therefore, managers can release high-flow pulses as the reservoir is
refilling as a function of inflows. Early in the season, and based on reservoir level, managers
could release smaller pulses (i.e., smaller than the inflow pulse); with greater confidence in
refilling managers can release larger pulses. There appears to be very low risk in releasing early
and mid wet-season pulses (in terms of reservoir refilling) and the hydrographs with managed
releases look fundamentally improved compared to status-quo hydrographs from the standpoint
of mimicking the natural historical variability (e.g., compare ‘a’ and ‘b’ scenarios in Figures 19
and 20). Therefore, releasing such pulses as a function of inflow is a relatively low-risk
method for maintaining a more natural hydrograph. More sophisticated and appropriate rules
and guidance can be developed to inform these management decisions and TNC welcomes the
opportunity to contribute to the development of such guidance.
3. Floods and late-wet-season high-flow pulses. These flows are not anticipated to be affected by
dam operations so managers will not have to provide for them.
6.3 The effects of hydropower peaking on downstream rivers
Peaking operations represent one of the most serious environmental impacts of many
hydropower projects. Peaking flows occur when a reservoir is operated to provide power only
during portions of a day or week (typically with rapid rates of change in flow). During the
periods between power generation, flows are typically curtailed or very low, and may result in
impacts such as drying of the river bed and stranding of aquatic biota. During generation, flows
are greatly increased. This results in a rapid rise and fall of river flow and stage between the
periods of generation and non-generation. Viewing river flows on a daily average basis can be
quite misleading; dramatic changes in discharge within a day can be masked when calculating
flows as daily averages, as illustrated in Figure 23, which shows rapid fluctuations each day
between the non-generation period (25 cms) and the generation period (135 cms), producing a
steady daily average of 62 cms.

December 15, 2007
160
140
Cada hora
Diario
120
100
Caudal (cms)
80
60
40
20
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Horas
Figure 23. Daily peaking operations (blue line) that fluctuate between 25 and 135 cms and
produce a steady daily average of 62 cms.
Peaking flow operations have no natural analog in a free-flowing river, and thus represent a
novel condition to which aquatic species are not adapted. For this reason, peaking operations
stress aquatic ecosystems highly and can have marked effects on river structure and on the biotic
communities in the downstream reaches affected by the strong daily changes in discharge and
river stage.
Below we provide general information about the effects of peaking operations on river
ecosystems, organized by the specific characteristics of the peaking flow hydrograph known to
influence biotic communities and navigation (Figure 24). The particular components of the
peaking hydrograph that are associated with ecological impact are as follows:
• Up-ramping rate – the rate at which discharge or water levels increase as a function of time as
flow levels are increased for generation (measured as the change in discharge/hour or change
in stage/hour).
• Peak discharge magnitude – The maximum discharge or water level reached in a given
peaking event (measured in terms of discharge (cms) or stage).

December 15, 2007
• Down-ramping rate – the rate at which discharge or water levels return to minimum flow after
the peaking event (measured as the change in discharge/hour or change in stage/hour).
• Minimum flow – The flow released between periods of generation (in terms of discharge or
stage).
Below, the ecological consequences for each of the four peaking flow components are discussed.
Peak discharge magnitude

200
Discharge (cms)
150
Up-ramping Down-ramping rate
rate
100
50
Minimum flow
0
00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 00:00

Time of day
Figure 24. A hypothetical hydrograph for the river just below a dam being managed with daily
peaking operation. In the night and early morning, discharge from the dam is at its minimum (25
cms) until peak electricity demand begins (06:00), when discharge rises sharply to about 200
cms for 8 hours and then returns to minimum flow. The different parts of the hydrograph that
can be managed to reduce ecological disruption include the up-ramping rate, the peak discharge,
the down-ramping rate, and minimum flow.
Up-ramping rate
Up-ramping refers to the change of river discharge or river stage per unit time as river flow is
increased from its daily minimum to its peak discharge magnitude. As a river is up-ramped, the
organisms living in the river experience a rapid change in flow conditions. This rapid increase in
flow can have the following consequences for downstream ecosystems:
• “Catastrophic drift” and biotic impoverishment. Intense daily flow peaks can physically flush
aquatic invertebrates and fishes from reaches affected by peaking because of the increased
shear stress caused by rising water velocities. This causes invertebrates to enter the water
column and float downstream to more suitable habitats in a process called “catastrophic drift”.
The end results of this are an impoverished biotic community (lower overall diversity,
abundances and biomass of invertebrates and fishes) (Cushman 1985, Moog 1993, Lagarrigue

December 15, 2007
et al. 2002). This biotic impoverishment can be exacerbated by the presence of an upstream
reservoir through which many invertebrates cannot pass, thereby eliminating the possibility of
upstream replenishment (Moog, 1993; Lauters et al., 1996). The removal of shrimps and
insects—important links in riverine food webs—through catastrophic drift can reduce the
availability of food items for fishes (Moog 1993). Fishes can also be flushed downstream
with larval and juvenile stages being particularly vulnerable. This flushing can result in less
diverse fish assemblages that have lower recruitment of young fishes to adult life stages, and
lower overall abundances compared to natural conditions (Troelstrup and Hergenrader 1990).
Peak discharge magnitude
The physical power of water flow in a river channel is responsible for the shape, size, and
sediment composition of a river channel, its banks and floodplain, and the distribution of habitats
within the channel where organisms can live and reproduce (Leopold et al. 1992).
• Reduced river and floodplain habitat diversity. Water released from a dam is relatively free
of sediments and consequently has a high erosive capacity. Frequent high flows due to
peaking can scour the river channel and carry away small sediments leading to an “armored”
channel that is lined with larger cobbles, boulders, and bedrock (Kondolf 1997). The removal
of smaller diameter sediments leads to a reduction in the diversity of habitat types available to
aquatic life (Kondolf and Wolman 1993), which can lead to a less diverse biotic community
(Gumiero and Salmoiraghi 1994). The erosive capacity of peaking flows can also cause
“downcutting” of the channel base, leading to an unnaturally deep channel with high banks.
A channel affected by downcutting will interact with its floodplain less frequently, which can
adversely affect the diversity of floodplain features and floodplain life (Graf 2005).
• Reduced biotic diversity. As mentioned above, high peak discharges affect the diversity of
physical habitats available in the river, banks, and floodplain. Reduced habitat diversity has
been clearly correlated with reduced species diversity within biotic communities (Moog
1993), and potentially also with altered ecosystem function (e.g., the cycling of nutrients).
This reduction of species diversity affects not only river ecosystems, but can also impact
wildlife that utilize floodplain and riparian habitats (Graf 2005).
• Direct effects on biota. Much as the up-ramping rate can flush and physically remove
organisms from an affected river reach, the strength of this change depends in part on the peak
discharge magnitude, and also on the duration of peak discharge. See “Catastrophic drift”
and biotic impoverishment in the previous section for details.
Down-ramping rate
The flow change associated with the transition from peak generating flow to minimum flow
levels is called down-ramping. Many scientific studies on down-ramping have documented the
impacts of this river management activity on organisms in rivers, and fairly specific numeric
guidelines exist for minimizing impacts on aquatic life. Impacts associated with down-ramping
include:

December 15, 2007
• Fish and aquatic invertebrate mortality associated with drying – Fishes experience increased
mortality when rapid lowering of water occurs, because animals become stranded in side
channels, back pools, and in substrates subject to drying. Stranded fishes are prone to
asphyxiation, unsuitable water quality, or predation from birds. Young-of-the-year, juvenile
fishes, and other fishes associated with back pools prone to isolation are most affected
(Hvidsten 1985, Bradford et al. 1995, Scruton et al. 2003, Berland et al. 2004). Flow
fluctuations and dewatering can result in the washout, stranding and/or concentration of
macroinvertebrates in shallow areas, particularly along river margins (Petts 1984; Cushman
1985).
• Navigational disruption. Boat navigation would clearly be affected if flow fluctuated on a
daily basis from the level of a wet season flood pulse to normal dry season base flow levels to
in the course of an hour. Pipanteros will have to adapt to the changing navigational
conditions, but they may benefit from a regular schedule for up and down ramping to occur.
Minimum flows
Hydroelectric dams engaged in peaking often release a minimum flow between periods of power
generation. If this flow is too low, river channels can become dewatered and longitudinally discontinuous
(i.e., pools separated by dry riffles). Extreme low flows can impact aquatic species through poor water
quality (e.g., water temperature, dissolved oxygen) and vulnerability to predation, due to shallow and/or
disconnected habitat units.
7.0 Research and monitoring questions

The linkages between the EFCs and river processes contained in this report largely represent
hypotheses that should be tested and refined through targeted monitoring and research. Very few
scientific studies or data sets exist from the Patuca River and so there remains a great need to
better understand the river’s basic physical and ecological processes and how these processes
provide the desired benefits for the communities. Below is a set of issues that were identified as
uncertainties or research priorities during the workshops and which should be addressed through
future targeted monitoring and research studies. Not all of these issues are directly related to the
environmental flow assessment, but were identified by workshop participants as key issues.
Fish and other aquatic organisms

• The extent to which migratory fish and shrimp species utilize habitats above the dam site,
and the effect that a barrier to migration would have on migratory populations, including
fisheries used by human communities, both above and below the proposed dam site. In
addition to research on the direct effects of a migration barrier on migratory populations,
research should also examine the effects on ecosystem processes from changes to these
populations (e.g., changes to food webs, trophic cascades, etc.).
• Basic life history information on many of the fish species, including fidelity to natal
rivers and relationships between flow events and life history events and behavior.
• Potential refugia for migratory species should the habitats above the dam site (1/3 of the
watershed area) get cut off to up-migrating fishes and shrimps.
Geology and sediment

• Rates of sedimentation in the reservoir.

December 15, 2007
• Basic sediment budget for the basin; how much sediment will be supplied by tributaries
downstream of the dam site? How will the dam, and the trapping of sediment, affect
sediment dynamics downstream of the dam, including channel morphology and
floodplain development?
• Assess the seismic risk of the proposed dam site.
Discharge, stage, and cross sections

• River stage and discharge measurements at various locations, to better understand which
channel and floodplain surfaces would be inundated at various flows.
• Cross-sectional surveys of the channel to better understand relationships between flow,
wetted channel, and channel hydraulics.
Hydropower peaking
• It is anticipated that Patuca III will only rarely be operated for hydropower peaking.
However, even relatively short periods of peaking may impact river geomorphology,
aquatic biota, and transport. Therefore, analyses should be conducted to estimate the
fluctuations in discharge, stage, and velocity that would accompany hydropower peaking
operations. Further, research studies should investigate the implications for such
fluctuations on channel morphology, aquatic biota, and transport and should also
determine the distance downstream within which these fluctuations and associated
impacts will be significant.
Dam operations and Environmental Flow Components (EFCs)

• This report provides a basic analysis of dam operations and how releases from the dam
could provide for most or all of the recommended EFCs. However, this analysis could be
made more rigorous to confirm these results and to produce operating guidance that is as
relevant and useful as possible to future dam operators.
Human communities
• What discharge corresponds to a flood that is considered destructive by human
communities?
Monitoring and adaptive management

• An effective plan should be developed for monitoring of resources and adaptive
management of the river. This monitoring plan should:
o test and refine the hypotheses about the relationships between EFCs and
important river processes and conditions
o investigate the questions and uncertainties described above
o focus on the most important human and natural resources to monitor their
status prior to, during, and after dam construction and operation. These
include populations of species that are particularly important for river food
webs and human communities, including invertebrates, fish, and reptiles.
Both migratory and resident species should be monitored. Monitoring
should also focus on channel morphology at various distances below the dam.

December 15, 2007
o include a feedback system for receiving information from affected
communities, should managed discharges prove detrimental to critical
aspects of livelihood
• Improved climatological monitoring.
8.0 Conclusions
The environmental flow assessment described in this report drew on a variety of sources,
including local community knowledge, scientific studies from similar tropical rivers,
hydrological analyses, and the perspectives of a wide range of interdisciplinary scientists and
stakeholders who participated in the workshop. The Environmental Flow Components (EFCs)
described in this report are a preliminary assessment of the flow conditions that will minimize
the negative consequences of the proposed hydroelectric project with regard to altered flow
regime. In part because of the lack of scientific studies or data for the Patuca, these EFCs, and
their linkages with riverine conditions and processes, should be viewed as hypotheses that should
be tested and refined through targeted monitoring and research. Further, there are a number of
unknowns and uncertainties that should also be investigated (described in Section 7.0).
Therefore, a rigorous and science-based plan for monitoring and adaptive management should be
developed and implemented prior to dam construction.
Because it is anticipated that Patuca III will only rarely be operated for hydropower peaking (i.e.,
large daily fluctuations in flow release levels), this report provides only general guidance and
information about hydropower peaking. Because even relatively infrequent peaking operations
may have significant effects on channel morphology, aquatic biota and transport, the details of
possible peaking operations should be carefully examined along with the potential associated
impacts.
The field trips, workshop, and other investigations revealed that the Patuca River is an extremely
important ecosystem for both human communities and for fish, wildlife and biodiversity. This
report describes the flow conditions, in terms of EFCs, that are hypothesized to be capable of
maintaining these values. Initial analyses described in this report suggest that the proposed
operations of Patuca III will provide a number of these recommended EFCs because they tend to
occur when the dam is projected to be operating as ‘run-of-river.’ Conversely, early and mid
wet-season high-flow pulses may not occur with projected dam operations because these EFCs
tend to occur while the reservoir is still refilling. These EFCs may be extremely important for
fish migrations and reproduction. A simple analysis suggests that by minimally modifying the
dam operation plan, the dam could provide these EFCs in nearly every year with relatively small
effects on hydropower operations and reservoir refilling. This analysis provides reason for
optimism that operations of Patuca III can be adjusted to provide downstream flows that
approximate historical conditions to which ecosystems and human communities are adapted.
Future research—on both dam operations and on river processes—can provide further insights
on how to improve the compatibility between dam operations, the river ecosystem, and human
communities affected by the Patuca 3 project.

December 15, 2007
References
Berland, G., T. Nickelsen, J. Heggenes, F. Økland, E.B. Thorstad, and J. Halleraker. 2004.
Movements of wild Atlantic salmon parr in relation to peaking flows below a hydropower
station. River Research and Applications 20: 957–966.
Bradford, M.J., G.C. Taylor, and J.A. Allan. 1995. An experimental study of the stranding of
juvenile coho salmon and rainbow trout during rapid flow decreases under winter conditions.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 473–479.
Brittain, J.E. and Eikeland, T.J. 1988. Invertebrate drift - a review. Hydrobiologia 166: 77-93.
Cushman, R.M. 1985. Review of Ecological Effects of Rapidly Varying Flows Downstream of
Hydroelectric Facilities. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 5: 330-339.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) evaluates four hydroelectric projects on Lewis River in Washington State (P-2071-000 et
al.). Accessed 2 October 2007. http://ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/eis/2006/03-24-
06.asp
Graf, W.L. 2005. Downstream hydrologic and geomorphic effects of large dams on American
rivers. Geomorphology 79: 336–360.
Gumiero, B., and G. Salmoiraghi. 1994. Response of stream macroinvertebrate drift to up-down
impoundment. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung f¨ur Theoretische und Angewandte
Limnologie 25: 1773–1778.
Hvidsten, N.A. 1985. Mortality of pre-smolt Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., and brown trout,
Salmo trutta L., caused by fluctuating water levels in the regulated River Nidelva, central
Norway. Journal of Fish Biology 27: 711–718.
Kondolf G.M. 1997. Hungry water: Effects of dams and gravel mining on river channels.
Environmental Management 21: 533-551.
Kondolf, G.M., and M.G. Wolman. 1993. The sizes of salmonid spawning gravels. Water
Resources Research 29: 2275–2285.
Lagarrigue, T., R. Céréghino, P. Lim, P. Reyes-Marchant, R. Chappaz, P. Lavandier, and A.

Belaud. 2002. Diel and seasonal variations in brown trout (Salmo trutta) feeding patterns and
relationship with invertebrate drift under natural and hydropeaking conditions in a mountain
stream. Aquatic Living Resources 15: 129–137.
Lauters, F., P. Lavandier, P. Lim, C. Sabaton, and A. Belaud. 1996. Influence of hydropeaking
on invertebrates and their relationship with fish feeding habits in a Pyrenean River. Regulated
Rivers: Research & Management 12: 563–573.

December 15, 2007
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1992. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology.
Dover Publications Inc., New York.
Moog, O. 1993. Quantification of daily peak hydropower effects on aquatic fauna and
management to minimize environmental impacts. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 8:
5–14.
Petts, G. E. 1989. Perspectives for ecological management of regulated rivers. Pages 4-24 in J.
A. Gore and G. E. Petts, eds. Alternatives in regulated river management. CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL.
Scruton, D.A., L.M.N. Ollerhead, K.D. Clarke, C. Pennell, K. Alfredsen, A. Harby and D.
Kelley. 2003. The behavioural response of juvenile Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brook
trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) to experimental hydropeaking on a Newfoundland (Canada) river.
River Research and Applications 19: 577–587.
State of Oregon. 2003. Provisional State Position Position for Pacificorp’s Prospect
Hydroeclectric Project. Oregon State Water Right Nos. PC 720, PC 721, AND PC 739 Federal
License No. 2630 Accessed 2 October 2007.
http://www1.wrd.state.or.us/files/Publications/HART_PROSPECT_PSP_3-27-03.PDF.
Troelstrup, N.H. Jr., & G.L. Hergenrader. 1990. Effect of hydropower peaking flow
fluctuations on community structure and feeding guilds of invertebrates colonizing artificial
substrates in a large impounded river. Hydrobiologia 199: 217-228.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Preliminary 10 (a) Recommendations Hells Canyon Complex
Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1971-079. Accessed 2 October 2007
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/w-w/projects/relicensing.

December 15, 2007
Appendices
Appendix 1: Memorandum of Understanding between the Empresa Nacional de Energía

Eléctrica (ENEE) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
Appendix 2: Preliminary Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Analysis for the Patuca River (by
Jeff Opperman)
Appendix 3: Ecological and Social Impressions of the Middle Patuca River and Potential
Consequences of the Patuca 3 Hydropower Project (by Peter Esselman)
Appendix 4: Summary report of the Patuca River Environmental Flows Workshop (November,
2006).

December 15, 2007

Rio Patuca Environmental Flow Assessment - With Appendices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rio Patuca Environmental Flow Assessment - With Appendices

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rio Patuca Environmental Flow Assessment - With Appendices

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Flow Assessment for the Patuca River, Honduras:

Maintaining ecological health below the

December 15, 2007

Developed by The Nature Conservancy for the

An environmental flow assessment was conducted based on a variety of information sources,

1. Environmental Flow Components

Early wet-season high-flow pulses

Late wet-season high-flow pulses

Late wet-season high-flow pulses and floods

3.0 Hydrological Analysis…………………………………………………………………….….5

4.0 Field Trips……………………………………………………………………………………9

5.0 Environmental Flow Workshops……………………………………………………….….12

6.0 Environmental Flow Assessment……………………………………………………….….15

6.1 Environmental Flow Components…………………………………………………16

6.2 Operational Guidance……………………………………………………………...23

6.3 The effects of hydropower peaking on downstream rivers………………………37

7.0 Research and Monitoring Questions………………………………………………………41

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment i

1.1 Constraints and sources of information

1.2 Report Layout

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 1

Section 6.3 emphasizes the effects of hydropeaking on river ecosystems. Although it is

2.1 The River and Watershed

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 2

Figure 1. The Patuca River watershed within Honduras.

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 3

2.2 Communities of the Patuca River

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 4

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 5

3.1 Cayetano gauging station

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 6

Patuca at Cayetano Gauge

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 7

3.2 Kurpha gauging station

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 8

Cayateno Kurpha Proportion

MAF 135 429 0.31

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 9

Figure 8. Field trip down the Patuca River.

Figure 9. Interviewing community members about important fish species.

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 10

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 11

5.1 First workshop - Tegucigalpa, November 29-30, 2006

5.2 Second workshop – Tegucigalpa, August 8 and 9, 2007

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 12

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 13

Oct sin daño

Figure 14. A community map drawn during the second workshop.

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 14

6. Environmental Flow Assessment

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 15

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 16

400 Early wet-season

6.1.1 Low flows

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 17

Table 2. Dry-season low flows.

• Beaches used by reptiles for

• Cichlid fish spawning

Patuca River Environmental Flow Assessment 18

Table 3. Wet-season baseflows.