Case Studies of Instream Flow Modelling for Fish Habitat in Canadian Prairie Rivers

Fish habitats represent some of the most difficult ecological, biological, topographic and hydrodynamic phenomena to evaluate and simulate in detail. This reality has led to the development of diverse approaches and a variety of methodologies in an attempt to provide a scientific basis for river management decisions both for ice-free and ice-covered seasons. Hydrodynamic and computational advances, and particularly the introduction of 2-dimensional numerical models, have provided better tools and renewed impetus for tackling some of the complexities of habitat simulation and habitat changes with river discharge. The 2-dimensional, depth-averaged, finite element hydrodynamic model RIVER2D has been utilized for several study sites in Canada and the USA. The latest version of this model, with improved interface and documentation, as well as an ice-cover module is available at www.river2d.ca. The model was used for instream flow analyses at several sites on Canadian prairie rivers, including sections of the Kananaskis, the North and South Saskatchewan and the Assiniboine. The hydrodynamic results, coupled with biologically-significant suitability metrics, were used to develop relationships between weighted useable fish habitat areas and river discharge. As in most instream flow case studies, such analyses are supplemented by site-specific investigations and professional judgement, which can be guided by mimicking natural systems (physiomimesis). Preserving key components of natural hydrographs may have a higher chance of maintaining ecological function and is amenable to adaptive management frameworks.

[1]  Thomas B. Hardy,et al.  The future of habitat modeling and instream flow assessment techniques , 1998 .

[2]  R. Cunjak,et al.  Winter habitat of selected stream fishes and potential impacts from land-use activity , 1996 .

[3]  Peter M. Steffler,et al.  Comparison of one and two-dimensional open channel flow models for a small habitat stream , 2000 .

[4]  Peter M. Steffler,et al.  Two-dimensional simulation of physical habitat conditions in flowing streams , 1996 .

[5]  Peter M. Steffler,et al.  Defining channel characteristics as feature lines for 2D hydrodynamic and habitat studies , 1999 .

[6]  Nassir El-Jabi,et al.  Comparison and regionalization of hydrologically based instream flow techniques in Atlantic Canada , 1995 .

[7]  Peter M. Steffler,et al.  TWO‐DIMENSIONAL HYDRAULIC SIMULATION OF PHYSICAL HABITAT CONDITIONS IN FLOWING STREAMS , 1996 .

[8]  Roger L. Hughes,et al.  Hydraulics of simple habitat structures , 2003 .

[9]  R. Sparks,et al.  THE NATURAL FLOW REGIME. A PARADIGM FOR RIVER CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION , 1997 .

[10]  Ward,et al.  Biodiversity: towards a unifying theme for river ecology , 2001 .

[11]  Donald J. Orth,et al.  Use of Habitat Guilds of Fishes to Determine Instream Flow Requirements , 1988 .

[12]  C Katopodis.  Ecohydraulics: challenges and opportunities with fish and fish habitat , 1996 .

[13]  Jan Heggenes,et al.  Contrasting temperatures, waterflows, and light: seasonal habitat selection by young Atlantic salmon and brown trout in a boreonemoral river , 2001 .

[14]  Donald L. Tennant.  Instream Flow Regimens for Fish, Wildlife, Recreation and Related Environmental Resources , 1976 .

[15]  M. Leclerc,et al.  Two‐Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling: A Neglected Tool in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology , 1995 .

[16]  Faye E. Hicks.  River ice jams , 1998 .

[17]  David P. Braun,et al.  How much water does a river need , 1997 .

[18]  Terry D. Prowse,et al.  RIVER-ICE ECOLOGY. II: BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS , 2001 .

[19]  J. A. Kells,et al.  Nature-Like and Conventional Fishways: Alternative Concepts? , 2001 .

[20]  B. L. Lamb,et al.  Stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology , 1998 .