Instream Flow Assessment: From Holistic Approaches to Habitat Modelling

The conflict between the ever-increasing demand for river water (hydroelectric development, irrigation, drinking water, etc.) and the environmental need for sustaining flows during drought and low flow periods is a recurring problem in water resource management. Competition between water abstraction (offstream use) and instream flow needs (minimum flow for the protection of fish habitat) will undoubtedly increase in the future, as it is estimated that worldwide more than 50% of total accessible runoff is presently being used. Instream flow methods are the primary and essential tools used during environmental impact assessments to evaluate the level of aquatic habitat protection for rivers under reduced flow conditions. Since the 1970s, methodologies, applicable to various scopes of water utilization and of a range of sophistication, have been developed. These can be classified into three categories: historical streamflow, river hydraulics and habitat preference methods. New methods are widely used in North America, but important questions related to validation and range of applicability remain. Existing and new instream flow methods also need to take into consideration changing environmental conditions such as climate change, in establishing a level of protection. The research reported here focuses on the current knowledge, strengths and weaknesses of a variety of instream flow methods as well as their associated level of aquatic habitat protection. Recommendations are provided for future instream flow research depending on the range of complexity of applied methods being contemplated.

[1]  Paul R. Ehrlich,et al.  Human Appropriation of Renewable Fresh Water , 1996, Science.

[2]  Terence P. Speed,et al.  Uncertainty and instream flow standards , 1996 .

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

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

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

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

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

[8]  Donald J. Orth,et al.  Evaluation of the Incremental Methodology for Recommending Instream Flows for Fishes , 1982 .

[9]  I. Jowett.  Hydraulic geometry of New Zealand rivers and its use as a preliminary method of habitat assessment , 1998 .

[10]  Nassir El-Jabi,et al.  A Spatial and Temporal Evaluation of PHABSIM in Relation to Measured Density of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon in a Small Stream , 1996 .

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

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

[13]  C. S. Shirvell,et al.  A Critique of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and Observations on Flow Determination in New Zealand , 1987 .

[14]  Michael J. Stewardson,et al.  Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows , 1998 .

[15]  John G. Williams.  Lost in Space: Minimum Confidence Intervals for Idealized PHABSIM Studies , 1996 .