INSTREAM FLOW METHODS: A COMPARISON OF APPROACHES

Minimum flows in rivers and streams aim to provide a certain level of protection for the aquatic environment. The level of protection is described by a measure such as a prescribed proportion of historic flows, wetted perimeter or suitable habitat. Conflicting minimum flow assessments from different instream flow methods are arguably the result of different environmental goals and levels of protection. The goals, the way in which levels of protection are specified, and the relationship between levels of protection and the aquatic environment are examined for three major categories of flow assessment methods: historic flow, hydraulic geometry and habitat. Basic conceptual differences are identified. Flow assessments by historic flow and hydraulic methods are related to river size and tend to retain the ‘character’ of a river. Habitat-based methods make no a priori assumptions about the natural state of the river and flow assessments are based primarily on water depth and velocity requirements. Flow and hydraulic methods assume that lower than natural flows will degrade the stream ecosystem, whereas habitat methods accept the possibility that aspects of the natural ecosystem can be enhanced by other than naturally occurring flows. Application of hydraulic and habitat methods suggests that the environmental response to flow is not linear; the relative change in width and habitat with flow is greater for small rivers than for large. Small rivers are more ‘at risk’ than large rivers and require a higher proportion of the average flow to maintain similar levels of environmental protection. Habitat methods are focused on target species or specific instream uses, and are useful where there are clear management objectives and an understanding of ecosystem requirements. Flow and hydraulic methods are useful in cases where there is a poor understanding of the ecosystem or where a high level of protection for an existing ecosystem is required. 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

[2]  Keith Richards,et al.  Rivers: Form and Process in Alluvial Channels , 1982 .

[3]  I. Jowett,et al.  Models of the Abundance of Large Brown Trout in New Zealand Rivers , 1992 .

[4]  C. Stalnaker,et al.  Methodologies for the determination of stream resource flow requirements: an assessment , 1976 .

[5]  Chris C. Park.  World-wide variations in hydraulic geometry exponents of stream channels: An analysis and some observations , 1977 .

[6]  Donald J. Orth,et al.  ECOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF INSTREAM FLOW-HABITAT MODELS , 1987 .

[7]  Ken D. Bovee,et al.  A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. IFIP No. 12 , 1982 .

[8]  H. B. N. Hynes,et al.  The Ecology of Running Waters , 1971 .

[9]  T. Wesche,et al.  Status of Instream Flow Legislation and Practices in North America , 1989 .

[10]  L. B. Leopold,et al.  The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some physiographic implications , 1953 .

[11]  Mary G. Cavendish,et al.  Use of the instream flow incremental methodology: a tool for negotiation , 1986 .

[12]  J. Pitlo,et al.  Largemouth bass response to habitat and water quality rehabilitation in a backwater of the upper Mississippi River , 1995 .

[13]  Luther P. Aadland,et al.  Stream Habitat Types: Their Fish Assemblages and Relationship to Flow , 1993 .

[14]  B. Waters.  A Methodology for Evaluating the Effects of Different Streamflows on Salmonid Habitat , 1976 .

[15]  C. Estes,et al.  Review and Analysis of Methods for Quantifying Instream Flow Requirements , 1986 .

[16]  Maurice J. Duncan,et al.  Flow variability in New Zealand rivers and its relationship to in‐stream habitat and biota , 1990 .

[17]  J. Richardson,et al.  Habitat preferences of common, riverine New Zealand native fishes and implications for flow management , 1995 .

[18]  D. Wegner,et al.  User's guide to the physical habitat simulation system (PHABISM) , 1984 .

[19]  J. Roff,et al.  Trout Biomass and Habitat Relationships in Southern Ontario Streams , 1986 .

[20]  G. Petts.  Complex response of river channel morphology subsequent to reservoir construction , 1979 .

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

[22]  Ian Goulter,et al.  Review of determination of instream flow requirements with special application to Australia , 1995 .

[23]  Christopher W. Hickey,et al.  Microhabitat preferences of benthic invertebrates and the development of generalised Deleatidium spp. habitat suitability curves, applied to four New Zealand rivers , 1991 .

[24]  M. Mosley.  Analysis of the effect of changing discharge on channel morphology and instream uses in a Braided River, Ohau River, New Zealand , 1982 .

[25]  Danielt O''h'a,et al.  Estimating Minimum Instream Flow Requirements for Minnesota Streams from Hydrologic Data and Watershed Characteristics , 1995 .

[26]  T. Wesche,et al.  A summary of instream flow methods for fisheries and related research needs , 1980 .

[27]  N. Allen Binns,et al.  Quantification of Fluvial Trout Habitat in Wyoming , 1979 .

[28]  T. Annear,et al.  Relative Bias of Several Fisheries Instream Flow Methods , 1984 .

[29]  G. Petts.  Perspectives for Ecological Management of Regulated Rivers , 1989 .

[30]  M. Church,et al.  The morphology of large rivers characterization and management , 1989 .