0% found this document useful (0 votes)

56 views45 pages

Tharme-2003-River Research and Applications

Uploaded by

Mauri

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

56 views45 pages

Tharme-2003-River Research and Applications

Uploaded by

Mauri

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 45

RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/rra.736

A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW ASSESSMENT:

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW METHODOLOGIES FOR RIVERS

R. E. THARME*
Freshwater Research Institute, University of Cape Town, Rhodes Gift, 7701, South Africa

ABSTRACT
Recognition of the escalating hydrological alteration of rivers on a global scale and resultant environmental degradation, has led
to the establishment of the science of environmental flow assessment whereby the quantity and quality of water required for
ecosystem conservation and resource protection are determined.
A global review of the present status of environmental flow methodologies revealed the existence of some 207 individual
methodologies, recorded for 44 countries within six world regions. These could be differentiated into hydrological, hydraulic
rating, habitat simulation and holistic methodologies, with a further two categories representing combination-type and other
approaches.
Although historically, the United States has been at the forefront of the development and application of methodologies for
prescribing environmental flows, using 37% of the global pool of techniques, parallel initiatives in other parts of the world have
increasingly provided the impetus for significant advances in the field.
Application of methodologies is typically at two or more levels. (1) Reconnaissance-level initiatives relying on hydrological
methodologies are the largest group (30% of the global total), applied in all world regions. Commonly, a modified Tennant
method or arbitrary low flow indices is adopted, but efforts to enhance the ecological relevance and transferability of techniques
across different regions and river types are underway. (2) At more comprehensive scales of assessment, two avenues of applica-
tion of methodologies exist. In developed countries of the northern hemisphere, particularly, the instream flow incremental
methodology (IFIM) or other similarly structured approaches are used. As a group, these methodologies are the second most
widely applied worldwide, with emphasis on complex, hydrodynamic habitat modelling. The establishment of holistic meth-
odologies as 8% of the global total within a decade, marks an alternative route by which environmental flow assessment has
advanced. Such methodologies, several of which are scenario-based, address the flow requirements of the entire riverine eco-
system, based on explicit links between changes in flow regime and the consequences for the biophysical environment. Recent
advancements include the consideration of ecosystem-dependent livelihoods and a benchmarking process suitable for evaluat-
ing alternative water resource developments at basin scale, in relatively poorly known systems. Although centred in Australia
and South Africa, holistic methodologies have stimulated considerable interest elsewhere. They may be especially appropriate
in developing world regions, where environmental flow research is in its infancy and water allocations for ecosystems must, for
the time being at least, be based on scant data, best professional judgement and risk assessment. Copyright # 2003 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: environmental flow assessment; environmental flow methodologies; riverine ecosystems; country applications; global trends;
developing regions

INTRODUCTION
On a worldwide scale, existing and projected future increases in water demands have resulted in an intensifying,
complex conflict between the development of rivers (as well as other freshwater ecosystems) as water and energy
sources, and their conservation as biologically diverse, integrated ecosystems (Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994;
Abramovitz, 1995; Postel, 1995; McCully, 1996; World Commission on Dams (WCD), 2000; World Conservation
Union (IUCN), 2000; Green Cross International (GCI), 2000). A growing field of research dedicated to assessing
the requirements of rivers for their own water, to enable satisfactory tradeoffs in water allocation among all users of

*Correspondence to: Rebecca Tharme, International Water Management Institute, PO Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
E-mail: [email protected]

Received 8 March 2002

Revised 30 September 2002
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 10 October 2002
398 R. E. THARME

the resource and the resource base itself (the river), has been stimulated by this ongoing conflict. This paper aims to
provide a global overview of the current status of development and application of methodologies for addressing the
environmental flow needs of riverine ecosystems, against the background of an ever-increasing rate of hydrological
alteration of such systems worldwide and the resultant environmental impacts. It outlines the main types of envir-
onmental flow methodologies available and explores the extent to which they have been utilized in different coun-
tries and world regions, with emphasis on the identification of emerging global trends.

River regulation as a global phenomenon

Over half of the world’s accessible surface water is already appropriated by humans, and this is projected to
increase to an astounding 70% by 2025 (Postel et al., 1996; Postel, 1998). Water resource developments such
as impoundments, diversion weirs, interbasin water transfers, run-of-river abstraction and exploitation of aquifers,
for the primary uses of irrigated agriculture, hydropower generation, industry and domestic supply, are responsible
worldwide for unprecedented impacts to riverine ecosystems, most of which emanate from alterations to the nat-
ural hydrological regime (Rosenberg et al., 2000).
Revenga et al. (1998, 2000) estimate that 60% of the world’s rivers are fragmented by hydrologic alteration,
with 46% of the 106 primary watersheds modified by the presence of at least one large dam. In a study of 225
basins throughout the world, Nilsson et al. (2000, cited in Bergkamp et al., 2000) found that 83 (37%) and 54
(24%) of rivers in the basins were highly or moderately fragmented, respectively. Dynesius and Nilsson (1994)
calculated that 77% of the total discharge of the 139 largest river systems in North America, Europe and the repub-
lics of the former Soviet Union, is strongly or moderately affected by flow-related fragmentation of river channels.
Moreover, they observed that large areas in this northern third of the world entirely lack unregulated large rivers.
Members of the European Union regulate the flow of 60 to 65% of the rivers in their territories, while in Asia, just
under 50% of all rivers that are regulated have more than one dam (WCD, 2000). In the United States alone, over
85% of all inland surface waters are artificially controlled, including by more than 6575 large dams, with only 2%
of the region’s 5.1 106 km of rivers and streams remaining undeveloped and free-flowing (Abramovitz, 1995;
Pringle, 2000; WCD, 2000).
Flow regulation through impoundment represents the most prevalent form of hydrological alteration with,
according to most recent estimates, currently over 45 000 (and probably far closer to 48 000) large dams in over
140 countries (WCD, 2000); a further 800 000 small dams are estimated to exist worldwide (McCully, 1996). A
simplified, summary breakdown of the proportion of large dams by region and by country is given in Figure 1 and
Table I, respectively. The top five dam-building countries (Table I) account for close to 80% of all large dams
worldwide, with China alone possessing nearly half the world total. Furthermore, approximately two-thirds of
the world’s extant large dams are located in developing countries (Figure 1; WCD, 2000).
A vast body of scientific research has accumulated supporting a natural flow paradigm (sensu Poff et al., 1997),
where the flow regime of a river, comprising the five key components of variability, magnitude, frequency, dura-
tion, timing and rate of change, is recognized as central to sustaining biodiversity and ecosystem integrity (Poff and
Ward, 1989; Karr, 1991; Richter et al., 1997; Rapport et al., 1998; Rosenberg et al., 2000). Detailed discussions of
the incontrovertible ecological effects (and knock-on social and economic implications) of hydrological alterations
on riverine ecosystems, at globally relevant scales, with impacts ranging from genetic isolation through habitat
fragmentation, to declines in biodiversity, floodplain fisheries and ecosystem services, are presented in, for exam-
ple, Ward and Stanford (1979), Ward (1982), Petts (1984), Lillehammer and Saltviet (1984), Armitage (1995),
Cushman (1985), Craig and Kemper (1987), Gore and Petts (1989), Calow and Petts (1992), Boon et al. (1992,
2000), Richter et al. (1998), Postel (1998), Snaddon et al. (1999), Pringle (2000), WCD (2000), Bergkamp et al.
(2000), and Bunn and Arthington (2002). Numerous regional and/or country-specific discussions of the topic exist,
for example: Africa (Davies et al., 1993; Chenje and Johnson, 1996; Acreman et al., 2000); North America
(Sparks, 1992, cited in Richter et al., 1997; Contreras and Lozano, 1994; Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994; Pringle
et al., 2000); Australia (Walker, 1985; Walker et al., 1995; Kingsford, 2000); tropical Asia (Chen and Wu,
1987, cited in Richter et al., 1997; Dudgeon, 1992, 1995, 2000); Europe and Eurasia (Armitage, 1980; Newson,
1992; Dynesius and Nilsson, 1994); South and Central America (Pringle et al., 2000). Additional, recent treat-
ments of various aspects of river conservation for world regions are presented in Boon et al. (2000), as well as

Figure 1. Current regional distribution of large dams (adapted from WCD, 2000). China and Australasia (Australia, New Zealand, Papua
New Guinea and Fiji) were treated separately from the rest of Asia, and Central America (including Mexico) from North America
(United States and Canada)

Table I. The top 20 countries worldwide by number of large dams (adapted

from WCD, 2000)

Country ICOLD World Register Other Percent of

of Dams 1998 sources total dams

1 *China 1855 22 000 46.2

2 *United States 6375 6575 13.8
3 *India 4011 4291 9.0
4 *Japan 1077 2675 5.6
5 *Spain 1187 1196 2.5
6 Canada 793 793 1.7
7 South Korea 765 765 1.6
8 Turkey 625 625 1.3
9 Brazil 594 594 1.2
10 France 569 569 1.2
11 South Africa 539 539 1.1
12 Mexico 537 537 1.1
13 Italy 524 524 1.1
14 United Kingdom 517 517 1.1
15 Australia 486 486 1.0
16 Norway 335 335 0.7
17 Germany 311 311 0.7
18 Albania 306 306 0.6
19 Romania 246 246 0.5
20 Zimbabwe 213 213 0.4
Others 3558 3558 7.0
Total 25 423 47 655 100.0

*Estimates for the numbers of dams in these countries (particularly China) as well as for
the Russian Federation, differ according to available data sources.
ICOLD, International Commission on Large Dams.

in Gopal and Wetzel (1995), and Wetzel and Gopal (1999, 2001), for developing countries. These various sources
serve to confirm Abramovitz’s (1995) assertion that ‘as biological assets, freshwater systems are both dispropor-
tionately rich and disproportionately imperiled’.

Evolution of the science of environmental flow assessment

Recognition of the need to establish the extent to which the flow regime of a river can be altered from natural, for
the purposes of water resource development and management, while maintaining the integrity (Rapport et al.,
1998), or an accepted level of degradation, of the ecosystem has provided the impetus for accelerated development
of a relatively new science of environmental flow assessment (Tharme, 1996). An environmental flow assessment
(EFA) for a river may be defined simply as an assessment of how much of the original flow regime of a river should
continue to flow down it and onto its floodplains in order to maintain specified, valued features of the ecosystem
(Tharme and King, 1998; King et al., 1999). An EFA produces one or more descriptions of possible modified
hydrological regimes for the river, the environmental flow requirements (EFRs), each linked to a predetermined
objective in terms of the ecosystem’s future condition. For instance, these objectives may be directed at the main-
tenance or enhancement of the entire riverine ecosystem, including its various aquatic and riparian biota and com-
ponents from source to sea, at maximizing the production of commercial fish species, at conserving particular
endangered species, or protecting features of scientific, cultural or recreational value.
Typically, EFAs are performed for river systems that are already regulated or are the focus of proposed water
resource developments, but more recently, attention has also been directed at the flow-related aspects of river
restoration (e.g. Arthington et al., 2000). The resultant EFR may be specified at several levels of resolution, from
a single annual flow volume through to, more commonly nowadays, a comprehensive, modified flow regime
where the overall volume of water allocated for environmental purposes is a combination of different monthly
and event-based (e.g. low flows and flood pulses) allocations. The scale at which the EFA is undertaken may also
vary widely, from a whole catchment for a large river basin that includes regulated and unregulated tributaries, to a
flow restoration project for a single river reach (King et al., 1999). Different methodologies are appropriate over
such a broad range in spatial scale and resolution, as well as in accordance with constraints including the time
frame for assessment, the availability of data, technical capacity and finances (Tharme, 1996; Arthington et al.,
1998a). They range from relatively simplistic, reconnaissance-level approaches for the early phases of country-
wide, water resource planning initiatives, to resource intensive methodologies for highly utilized, individual
catchments or sites.
Concerted development of methodologies for prescribing EFRs began at the end of the 1940s, in the western
United States of America. Dramatic progress was achieved during the 1970s, primarily as a result of new envir-
onmental and freshwater legislation and demands from the water planning community for quantitative documen-
tation of EFRs (Stalnaker, 1982; Trihey and Stalnaker, 1985), in concert with the peak of the dam-building era
(WCD, 2000). Outside the United States, the route by which environmental flow methodologies (EFMs) became
established for use is less well documented (Tharme, 1996). In many countries, the process only gained significant
ground in the 1980s (e.g. Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa) or later (e.g. Brazil, Czech Republic,
Japan and Portugal). Other parts of the world, including eastern Europe, and much of Latin America, Africa and
Asia, appear poorly advanced in the field, with little published literature that deals specifically with environmental
flow issues.

Types of environmental flow methodologies

A vast body of formal methodologies now exists for addressing EFRs, which has been reviewed over time,
including Stalnaker and Arnette (1976), Wesche and Rechard (1980), Morhardt (1986), Estes and Orsborn
(1986), Loar et al. (1986), Kinhill Engineers (1988), Reiser et al. (1989a), Arthington and Pusey (1993), Growns
and Kotlash (1994), Karim et al. (1995), Tharme (1996, 1997, 2000), Jowett (1997), Stewardson and Gippel
(1997), Dunbar et al. (1998), Arthington (1998a), Arthington and Zalucki (1998a,b), Arthington et al.
(1998a,b) and King et al. (1999).

The majority of EFMs described can be grouped into four (of six) reasonably distinct categories, namely hydro-
logical, hydraulic rating, habitat simulation (or rating), and holistic methodologies, although differences in group
classifications do occur among authors (Loar et al., 1986; Gordon et al., 1992; Swales and Harris, 1995; Tharme,
1996; Jowett, 1997; Dunbar et al., 1998). These four methodology types comprise the focus of this paper.
The simplest, typically desktop EFMs, hydrological methodologies, rely primarily on the use of hydrological
data, usually in the form of naturalized, historical monthly or daily flow records, for making environmental flow
recommendations. They are often referred to as fixed-percentage or look-up table methodologies, where a set pro-
portion of flow, often termed the minimum flow (Cavendish and Duncan, 1986; Milhous et al., 1989), represents
the EFR intended to maintain the freshwater fishery, other highlighted ecological features, or river health at some
acceptable level, usually on an annual, seasonal or monthly basis. Occasionally, hydrology-based EFMs include
catchment variables (e.g. O’Shea, 1995), are modified to take account of hydraulic, biological and/or geomorpho-
logical criteria (e.g. Estes, 1996), or incorporate various hydrological formulae or indices (e.g. Ubertini et al.,
1996). Gordon et al. (1992), Stewardson and Gippel (1997) and Smakhtin (2001) review many of the well estab-
lished hydrological and regionalization techniques used to derive the latter flow indices for gauged and ungauged
catchments. As a result of their rapid, non-resource-intensive, but low resolution environmental flow estimates,
hydrological methodologies are considered to be most appropriate at the planning level of water resource devel-
opment, or in low controversy situations where they may be used as preliminary flow targets (Tharme, 1997;
Dunbar et al., 1998).
From the 1970s onwards, initially in North America and alongside hydrological EFMs, there was rapid devel-
opment of methodologies that utilized a quantifiable relationship between the quantity and quality of an instream
resource, such as fishery habitat, and discharge, to calculate EFRs (e.g. Stalnaker and Arnette, 1976; Prewitt and
Carlson, 1980). These examined, for the first time, the effects of specific increments in discharge on instream habi-
tat, with most emphasis placed on the passage, spawning, rearing and other flow-related maintenance requirements
of individual, economically or recreationally important fish species (Tharme, 1996). Pioneers of this approach
included Collings et al. (1972, cited in Trihey and Stalnaker, 1985) and Waters (1976). Two groups of transect-
based methodologies evolved from these foundations, hydraulic rating and habitat rating EFMs (Stalnaker, 1979;
Trihey and Stalnaker, 1985).
Loar et al. (1986) coined the term ‘hydraulic rating’ (also known as habitat retention) methodologies for
approaches that use changes in simple hydraulic variables, such as wetted perimeter or maximum depth, usually
measured across single, limiting river cross-sections (e.g. riffles), as a surrogate for habitat factors known or
assumed to be limiting to target biota. The implicit assumption is that ensuring some threshold value of the selected
hydraulic parameter at altered flows will maintain the biota and/or ecosystem integrity. Environmental flows are
calculated by plotting the variable of concern against discharge. Commonly, a breakpoint, interpreted as a thresh-
old below which habitat quality becomes significantly degraded, is identified on the response curve, or the mini-
mum EFR is set as the discharge producing a fixed percentage reduction in habitat.
Tharme (1996) and Dunbar et al. (1998) consider these methodologies to be the precursors of more sophisticated
habitat rating or simulation methodologies, also referred to as microhabitat or habitat modelling methodologies.
These techniques attempt to assess EFRs on the basis of detailed analyses of the quantity and suitability of instream
physical habitat available to target species or assemblages under different discharges (or flow regimes), on the
basis of integrated hydrological, hydraulic and biological response data. Typically, the flow-related changes in phy-
sical microhabitat are modelled in various hydraulic programs, using data on one or more hydraulic variables, most
commonly depth, velocity, substratum composition, cover and, more recently, complex hydraulic indices (e.g.
benthic shear stress), collected at multiple cross-sections within the river study reach. The simulated available
habitat conditions are linked with information on the range of preferred to unsuitable microhabitat conditions
for target species, lifestages, assemblages and/or activities, often depicted using seasonally defined habitat suit-
ability index curves. The resultant outputs, usually in the form of habitat–discharge curves for the biota, or
extended as habitat time and exceedence series, are used to predict optimum flows as EFRs.
Early reviewers recognized only the above three methodology types, while the emergence of a fourth type, ‘hol-
istic methodologies’, was first documented by Tharme (1996), and is explicitly considered in most subsequent
reviews, including those by Stewardson and Gippel (1997), Arthington (1998a) and King et al. (1999).

A holistic, ecosystems approach to river management, and specifically EFAs, has been advocated by freshwater
ecologists for well over a decade (Ward and Stanford, 1987; Petts, 1989; Hill et al., 1991) and, more recently, has
been heralded as one of the chief directions of evolution of the science (Arthington et al., 1992; King and Tharme,
1994; Richter et al., 1996; Dunbar et al., 1998). Indeed, Arthington (1998a) states that from a global perspective,
there does not appear to be ‘any competing paradigm for environmental flow assessment and management within
the context of sustaining water-dependent environmental systems’.
Holistic methodologies emerged from a common conceptual origin (Arthington et al., 1992) to form a distinct
group of EFMs focused from the outset towards addressing the EFRs of the entire riverine ecosystem. They rapidly
took precedence over habitat simulation EFMs in South Africa and Australia, countries that lack the high profile
freshwater fisheries characteristic of North America and where the emphasis is on ensuring the protection of entire
rivers and their often poorly known biota.
In a holistic methodology, important and/or critical flow events are identified in terms of select criteria defining
flow variability, for some or all major components or attributes of the riverine ecosystem. This is done either
through a bottom-up or, more common recently, a top-down or combination process that requires considerable
multidisciplinary expertise and input (Tharme 1996, 2000; Tharme and King, 1998; Arthington, 1998a). The basis
of most approaches is the systematic construction of a modified flow regime from scratch (i.e. bottom-up), on a
month-by-month (or more frequent) and element-by-element basis, where each element represents a well defined
feature of the flow regime intended to achieve particular ecological, geomorphological, water quality, social or
other objectives in the modified system (King and Tharme, 1994; Arthington, 1998a; Arthington and Lloyd,
1998; Arthington et al., 2000). In contrast, in top-down, generally scenario-based approaches, environmental flows
are defined in terms of acceptable degrees of departure from the natural (or other reference) flow regime, rendering
them less susceptible to any omission of critical flow characteristics or processes than their bottom-up counterparts
(Bunn, 1998).
The most advanced holistic methodologies routinely utilize several of the tools for hydrological, hydraulic and
physical habitat analysis featured in the three types of EFM previously discussed, within a modular framework, for
establishing the EFRs of the riverine ecosystem (Tharme, 2000). Importantly, they also tend to be reliant on quan-
titative flow-ecology models as input, especially if they are to possess the predictive capabilities required in EFAs
nowadays (Tharme and King, 1998; Arthington et al., 1998b; Dunbar and Acreman, 2001; Bunn and Arthington, in
press).
Tharme (1996) and Dunbar et al. (1998) recognize a diverse array of methodologies that bear characteristics of
more than one of the above four basic types, including partially holistic EFMs which incorporate holistic elements,
but within insufficiently developed methodological frameworks. These methodologies are classed as ‘combina-
tion’ (or hybrid) approaches for the purposes of this paper, alongside various other techniques not designed for
EFAs from first principles, but adapted or with potential to be used for this purpose. These latter approaches
are termed ‘other’ EFMs. Methodologies from both groups have been categorized by Dunbar et al. (1998) as ‘mul-
tivariate statistical’ techniques (a somewhat incomplete definition for this assemblage of disparate methods and
analytical techniques).
In addition to these six types of methodologies, and often housed within holistic EFMs, are approaches that have
diverged from an emphasis on the relationship between instream habitat, biota and flow, to explore other informa-
tion best suited to specific river components or other connected ecosystems. Recent (for the most part) reviews,
discussion documents or detailed examples are available for wetlands and lakes (McCosker, 1998; DWAF, 1999a),
estuaries and the nearshore coastal environment (Bunn et al., 1998; Loneragan and Bunn, 1999; DWAF, 1999b),
water quality (Dortch and Martin, 1989; Tharme, 1996; Malan and Day, 2002), geomorphology and sedimentology
(Reiser et al., 1987, 1989b; Tharme, 1996; Stewardson and Gippel, 1997; Brizga, 1998), riparian and aquatic vege-
tation (Tharme, 1996; McCosker, 1998; Mackay and Thompson, 2000; Werren and Arthington, 2003), aquatic
invertebrates (Tharme, 1996; Growns, 1998), fish (Tharme, 1996; Pusey, 1998; Kennard et al., 2000), water-depen-
dent vertebrates other than fish (Kadlec, 1976; Tharme, 1996; Zalucki and Arthington, 2000), groundwater-depen-
dent ecosystems (Kite et al., 1994; Hatton and Evans, 1998; DWAF, 1999c; Petts et al., 1999; Parsons and MacKay,
2000; Kirk and Soley, 2000), social dependence (Acreman et al., 2000; Pollard, 2000), and recreation, aesthetics
and cultural amenity (Mosley, 1983; Whittaker et al., 1993).

APPROACH
To date, there have been few assessments of either the numbers of individual methodologies of various types uti-
lized for EFAs in individual countries or across world regions, or of their relative frequency of application. This
paper addresses only the former subject in any detail, as published information on the numbers of applications per
methodology is presently inadequate for the majority of countries. An exception is North America, for which
Reiser et al. (1989a) reported the most commonly applied EFMs, based on the results of two non-statistical surveys
by the American Fisheries Society in the 1980s, and Armour and Taylor (1991) presented an evaluation of the
status of the instream flow incremental methodology (IFIM), as the most commonly applied EFM.
The emphasis in this paper is on riverine ecosystems (including their floodplains and connected wetlands). The
intention here is not to provide a definitive examination of the character, strengths, deficiences or case applications
of specific methodologies, as such information is readily available in the above-mentioned literature reviews.
Moreover, Tharme (1996), Jowett (1997) and King et al. (1999) provide summary tables describing the main types
of EFMs.
Data for the analysis of global trends in river EFMs were derived from the preliminary findings of an interna-
tional review of available information, from the inception of the field of EFAs to February 2002. Although some
information obtained after this time (notably at the March 2002 International Conference on Environmental Flows
for River Systems, incorporating the Fourth International Ecohydraulics Symposium, Cape Town, South Africa)
has been included here in a tabulated summary, it did not form part of the analysis. The paper is restricted in its
coverage of the international situation by the extent to which appropriate literature exists and was accessible, and
to which it was possible to establish direct contact informally with overseas researchers. It is acknowledged that a
more comprehensive survey is likely to indicate other countries for which new or additional information is avail-
able. This is particularly pertinent as the field is rapidly expanding, with the establishment and application of EFMs
strongly tied to ever-intensifying regional plans for water resource development, in addition to ongoing policy and
legislative reforms. Also in this regard, several known sources of information were not accessible at the time of
compilation of this paper.
For each country for which information was available, methodologies that have been developed and/or applied
locally were assigned to one of the six types described above. This included EFMs that have been used historically,
but appear to have been replaced by other approaches in recent years. Methodologies proposed for future use and/
or where no evidence of their actual application could be found, were listed but not included in analyses. Occa-
sionally, information obtained from literature sources was general rather than specific in nature with, for example,
reference made to the use of ‘various hydrological indices’, or generic approaches such as multiple transect ana-
lysis (MTA) and flow duration curve (FDC) analysis. Such cases were included, but treated singly. In many
instances, professional judgement was used alone or in conjunction with an established methodology, for recom-
mending environmental flows. In only the former case was its use counted as an independent approach. Where
approaches could not be assigned readily to a methodology type, most often due to poor documentation in the
mainstream literature, they were noted under the category, ‘other’. In cases where the developers or users of a
particular methodology did not designate it a name, an appropriate one has been assigned for ease of reference.
Although results are based simply on numbers of different methodologies and not on frequencies of application,
where there was clear evidence of preferential use of an EFM this has been highlighted.
For regional-scale analysis, countries were grouped according to geo-political affinities, with consideration of
the amount of information available within each region. Therefore, the number of countries (several of which are
further divided into states) per region is variable. Other potential sources of bias include the disproportionately
large volume of documented information on environmental flow issues in North America in contrast with the rest
of the world, and the fact that most available in-depth reviews of the topic have been written by researchers in
North America, Australia, South Africa, England and New Zealand.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Although not fully comprehensive, Appendix I provides a synopsis of the numbers of individual environmental
flow methodologies for rivers, by type, that have been and/or are being applied in various countries around the
world.

Figure 2. Number of environmental flow methodologies of each type in use worldwide and their relative proportions, compared with the global
total. Hydraulic, hydraulic rating; Combin, combination; Habitat Sim, habitat simulation; Hydrol, Hydrological. Methodology types as discussed
in the text

Global trends in types of environmental flow methodologies

At least 207 individual methodologies, within the six main types identified above, were recorded in use for 44
countries, within six broad world regions (Appendix I and Figure 2). Actual implementation of methodologies was
apparent for all except seven of the total of 51 countries listed. However, interest in a range of specified methodologies
was clearly demonstrated in the latter set of countries, which included Cambodia, Tanzania and Mozambique, where
environmental flow research is in its infancy. It is highly probable that several other countries not listed in Appendix I,
are also currently in the early stages of proposing or applying EFMs for riverine ecosystems.

Hydrological methodologies
Hydrology-based EFMs constituted the highest proportion of the overall number of methodologies recorded
(30%, followed closely by habitat simulation EFMs), with a total of 61 different hydrological indices or techniques
applied to date (Figure 2). Of these, few (four) appear to have become obsolete over time, and the vast majority
remain in use today, either in their original form, or with some degree of modification to improve transferability
among different hydrological regions and river ecotypes.
Reiser et al. (1989a) highlighted the Tennant (Montana) method as the second most widely used EFM in North
America, at that stage used routinely in 16 states or provinces. Since then, it has become the most commonly
applied hydrological methodology worldwide. Although superficially a standard-setting approach, the method,
developed in the United States by Tennant (1976) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, differs from many other
hydrological methodologies in that considerable collection of field habitat, hydraulic and biological data was
involved in its development. It comprises a table linking different percentages of average or mean annual flow
(AAF/MAF) to different categories of river condition, on a seasonal basis, as the recommended minimum flows.
The categories of flow-related condition range from ‘poor or minimum’ (10% AAF) to ‘optimum range’ (60–100%
AAF) (Tennant, 1976). At least 25 countries have either applied the method as originally expounded by Tennant
(1976), in a modified form on the basis of various hydrological, geomorphological, ecological or catchment-based
criteria (e.g. Tessman and Bayha modifications, Dunbar et al., 1998), or have simply utilized various (often arbi-
trarily designated) percentages or ranges of AAF (Appendix I). Several forms of the basic approach exist in North
America particularly, and Estes (1996) provides an example of a modification of the method for use in Alaska, with
the addition of specialist knowledge of fish ecology, flow duration estimates, and a mean monthly flow index.

Examples of the use of specific percentages of MAF to set environmental flows include 10% MAF in Spain, for
river catchments for which limited information is available (Docampo and De Bikuña, 1993), and routine applica-
tion of 2.5–5% MAF in Portugal (Alves and Henriques, 1994).
Various exceedence percentiles (or even proportions thereof ) derived from analysis of flow duration curves,
which display the relationship between discharge and the percentage of time that it is equalled or exceeded
(Gordon et al., 1992), and other single flow indices comprise the second largest subgroup of hydrological
approaches applied globally, in some 18 countries (Appendix I). Common percentiles and indices recorded in sev-
eral countries, most often used as minimum flow recommendations, include: Q95, frequently applied, often at a
seasonal level, in the United Kingdom (UK), as well as in Bulgaria, Taiwan and Australia; Q90, in Brazil, Canada,
and the UK; 7Q10 (consecutive 7-day low flow event with a 1:10 year return period) applied across Brazil at a
statewide level (A. Benetti, Instituto de Pesquisas Hidráulicas, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil,
personal communication), as well as in North America and Italy; and the Q364 (natural discharge exceeded for 364
days of the year) and similar indices used throughout Europe.
Since the early 1990s, several EFMs based on hydrological indices that more adequately address flow variability
and/or are purported to be more ecologically relevant, have evolved. Such methodologies include the Texas
method (Matthews and Bao, 1991) and basic flow method (Palau and Alcazar, 1996), used in at least four and
two countries, respectively (Appendix I), as well as the range of variability approach (RVA; Richter et al.,
1996, 1997) and flow translucency approach (Gippel, 2001).
Of these approaches, RVA, primarily its component indicators of hydrologic alteration (IHA) software, has
been applied most intensively since its inception, in more than 30 environmental flow-related studies in the
United States of America (USA) and Canada (B. D. Richter, unpublished document, 2001), as well as in South
Africa (G. P. W. Jewitt pers. comm.; V. Taylor pers. comm.). It has also attracted international interest in at least
three other countries, is used as a research tool in Australia (A. Arthington, pers. comm.), and merits further inves-
tigation according to Tharme (1997), Dunbar et al. (1998) and Arthington (1998a).
The RVA aims to provide a comprehensive statistical characterization of ecologically relevant features of a flow
regime, where the natural range of hydrological variation is described using 32 different hydrological indices
derived from long-term, daily flow records (Richter et al., 1997). The indices, termed IHAs, are grouped into five
categories based on regime characteristics with flow management targets, set as ranges of variation in each index,
which can be monitored and refined over time (Richter et al., 1996). In the majority of cases the methodology has
been used in trend analysis of pre- and post-regulation scenarios, to characterize the flow-related changes experi-
enced by regulated rivers. However, in several instances, such changes have been correlated with ecological factors
(e.g. fish populations, vegetation, water quality, geomorphological processes and species habitat), or have been
used to supplement the results of physical microhabitat modelling (Normandeau Associates, pers. comm.). It is
noteworthy that several researchers consider RVA an holistic (Arthington, 1998a) or ecologically grounded (Bragg
et al., 1999) approach. However, this author suggests that further demonstration of the ecological relevance of the
indices should be one of the required steps in this direction.
In another recent hydrological approach that originated in Australia, also based on the tenets of the natural flow
paradigm (Poff et al., 1997), and here referred to as the flow translucency approach, the natural flow regime is
scaled down in magnitude (using various functions) whilst maintaining similar levels of flow variability, to produce
a recommended regulated flow regime (Gippel, 2001). Although showing value, more adequate incorporation of
ecological and geomorphological considerations into the methodology is required, according to Gippel (2001).

Hydraulic rating methodologies

Of the 23 hydraulic rating methodologies reported (Appendix I), representing roughly 11% of the global total,
most were developed to recommend instream flows for economically important salmonid fisheries in the USA dur-
ing the 1960s to 1970s (Stalnaker and Arnette, 1976; Tharme, 1996) and have been superseded by more sophis-
ticated habitat simulation EFMs in recent years (or absorbed within holistic EFMs).
The most commonly applied hydraulic rating methodology worldwide today, and already the third most used
methodology in North America more than a decade ago (Reiser et al., 1989a), is the generic wetted perimeter
method. In the method it is firstly assumed that river integrity can be directly related to the quantity of wetted

perimeter, typically in riffles or other critically limiting biotopes, and secondly that preservation of such areas will
ensure adequate habitat protection overall. An established empirical or hydraulically modelled relationship
between wetted perimeter and discharge is used to determine minimum or preservation flows, usually for fish
rearing or maximum production by benthic invertebrates (e.g. Nelson, 1980; Richardson, 1986; Gippel and
Stewardson, 1998). The EFR is generally identified from discharges near the curve breakpoint, which is presumed
to represent the optimal flow, and below which habitat is rapidly lost (Stalnaker et al., 1994; Gippel and Steward-
son, 1996, 1998; Espegren, 1998), or using arbitrary percentages, such as 50% of optimum habitat. A recent
detailed application and evaluation of the method is provided in Gippel and Stewardson (1998), for Australia,
and it is also used in Europe and most commonly, the USA.
The R-2 cross method also remains in use today, despite being developed in its basic form more than 25 years
ago (Anon, 1974, cited in Stalnaker and Arnette, 1976; Nehring, 1979; Espegren, 1998). However, its application is
far more localized than the wetted perimeter method, in Colorado, USA, where it is the standard, state-wide
method for assessing environmental flows for the region’s coldwater rivers (Espegren and Merriman, 1995, cited
in Dunbar et al., 1998; Espegren, 1998). As with several other hydraulic rating approaches (Bovee and Milhous,
1978; Tharme, 1996), the method relies on a hydraulic model, R-2 cross, to generate relationships between flow
and instream hydraulics, from which EFRs (for fish) are derived using critical hydraulic parameters and expert
opinion.
The results presented in Appendix I suggest that there are few recent advances in hydraulic rating methodologies
per se. Rather, they seem to have fulfilled key roles both in stimulating the development of the more advanced
group of habitat simulation EFMs and as tools within holistic methodologies. Additionally, although it is possible
that hydraulic rating EFMs will continue to be applied in future, they will likely feature far less prominently than
other methodologies.

Habitat simulation methodologies

Habitat simulation methodologies ranked second only to hydrological EFMs at a global scale (28% of the over-
all total), with approximately 58 recorded from countries throughout the world (Appendix I). Of this number, how-
ever, roughly half represent ad hoc habitat rating approaches used only a few times historically, within the United
States, such as the Idaho method (White, 1976, cited in Stalnaker and Arnette, 1976). Most importantly, a subset of
complex EFMs representing the current state of the art, has developed gradually from the earlier, simpler techni-
ques described above. This subgroup includes IFIM (including its cornerstone, the physical habitat simulation
model, PHABSIM; Bovee, 1982; Milhous et al., 1989; Nestler et al., 1989; Stalnaker et al., 1994; Milhous,
1998a), and a more recently established suite of habitat simulation models of similar character and data
requirements.
The IFIM, initially devised by the then Co-operative Instream Flow Service Group of the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), Colorado, in the late 1970s (Reiser et al., 1989a), has been considered by some environmental
flow practitioners as the most scientifically and legally defensible methodology available for assessing EFRs
(Shirvell, 1986; Gore and Nestler, 1988; Dunbar et al., 1998). In essence, it comprises a vast array of hydraulic
and habitat simulation models, now housed in a Windows environment (Milhous et al., 1989; Stalnaker et al.,
1994; Milhous, 1998a; Stalnaker, 1998; USGS, 2000), that integrate flow-related changes in habitat (as weighted
usable area, WUA), with the preferred hydraulic habitat conditions for target species or assemblages. The resultant
outputs, often depicted as effective habitat time series and duration curves, are used for recommending EFRs and
evaluating alternative flow regulation scenarios (Waddle, 1998a,b). Most often, IFIM has addressed the EFRs of
target fish, and to a lesser extent, invertebrate species (e.g. Orth and Maughan, 1982; Gore, 1987; King and
Tharme, 1994; Stalnaker et al., 1996), but in recent years, it has been adapted for a variety of other ecosystem
components and situations (Tharme, 2000). For instance, Milhous (1998b) reports on the use of IFIM for an assess-
ment of flows for sediment flushing, while Gustard and Elliott (1998) provide examples of its application in UK
river restoration projects.
Reiser et al. (1989a) showed IFIM to be the most commonly used EFM in North America, applied in 38 states
or provinces by the late 1980s, and the preferred methodology in 24 cases. Furthermore, a total of 616 IFIM
applications, specifically by USFWS offices, was reported in 1988 (Armour and Taylor, 1991). The use of IFIM

has accelerated tremendously since then, judging by the plethora of published case studies (Stalnaker, 1998), prob-
ably in part due to its long existence, the ready availability of the component software and well-developed training
courses. The reader is referred to the recent applications of IFIM listed in Appendix I for various countries, includ-
ing, among others, studies in Portugal, Japan (Tamai et al., 1996; Nakamura, 1999), the Czech Republic (Blažková
et al., 1998), and UK (Gustard and Cole, 1998; Gustard and Elliott, 1998).
It is, therefore, unsurprising that IFIM far exceeds the other methodologies of its type in use worldwide to date,
with confirmed use in 20 countries, probable application in at least a further three, and some three countries using
the commercially available equivalent, the riverine habitat simulation program (RHABSIM; Payne and Associates,
2000). This trend is in spite of the extensive body of criticism levelled at IFIM over the years, dealing with issues
such as the validity of the methodology’s base assumptions, the construction and degree of transferability of habitat
suitability curves, implementation of the macrohabitat component, the nature of the WUA–discharge output, and
the methodology’s lack of ecological predictive capability (Mathur et al., 1985; Shirvell, 1986; Scott and Shirvell,
1987; Gan and McMahon, 1990; Arthington and Pusey, 1993; King and Tharme, 1994; Tharme, 1996; Jowett,
1997; Arthington and Zalucki, 1998a).
After IFIM, the computer aided simulation model for instream flow requirements in regulated streams (CASI-
MIR; Jorde, 1996; Jorde and Bratrich, 1998; Jorde et al., 2000, 2001), first used to model relationships between
temporal and spatial patterns in river bottom shear stress and changes in discharge, linked to habitat suitability
curves for invertebrates, was reported in use for six countries, all but one in Europe. The Norwegian river system
simulator (RSS), comprising hydrological, hydraulic and habitat simulation models for application to rivers regu-
lated by hydropower schemes (e.g. Alfredsen, 1998), and the French evaluation of habitat method (EVHA; Ginot,
1995, cited in Dunbar et al., 1998) also have been used in a few European countries. Other similarly advanced
EFMs presently in use globally include: the New Zealand river hydraulics and habitat simulation program (RHY-
HABSIM; Jowett, 1989; Jowett and Richardson, 1995); the Canadian microhabitat modelling system, HABIOSIM
(Dunbar et al., 1998); and the riverine community habitat assessment and restoration concept (RCHARC; Nestler
et al., 1996).
The most apparent trends common to several EFMs within this methodology type are a move towards increas-
ingly advanced hydraulic and habitat modelling, at two- and three-dimensional levels of resolution (Hardy, 1996;
Ghanem et al., 1996; Blažková et al., 1998; Crowder and Diplas, 2000), the inclusion of complex, spatially explicit
habitat metrics, and the use of geographical information system (GIS)-based spatial display platforms (Waddle,
1998b).

Holistic methodologies
Although currently representing only 7.7% of the global total (Figure 2), with in the order of 16 methodologies
(listed under Australia, South Africa and the UK in Appendix I), holistic EFMs have contributed greatly to the field
of environmental flow assessment in recent years. A synopsis of this broad suite of methodologies is provided in
Appendix II, focusing on approaches that are well established and/or present recent advances. Astonishingly, the
building block methodology (BBM) remains one of only two EFMs in the world for which a manual has been
written (King et al., 2000), the other being IFIM (Milhous et al., 1989).
The origins of perhaps the first holistic EFM to be formalized, the South African BBM (King and Tharme, 1994;
Tharme and King, 1998; King and Louw, 1998), can be traced to two early EFA workshops documented in King
and O’Keeffe (1989) and Bruwer (1991). Development of the basic approach progressed further through collabora-
tion with Australian researchers, resulting in the establishment of a conceptual framework in 1991, the holistic
approach (Arthington et al., 1992). Significantly, the BBM and holistic approach (see Arthington 1998a), which
subsequently advanced in parallel in South Africa and Australia, respectively, have provided much of the impetus
for the rapid establishment within only a decade of most other methodologies of this type (Tharme, 1996).
The BBM is presently the most frequently applied holistic EFM in the world, with c. 15 standard applications in
South Africa (Tharme and King, 1998; King et al., 2000), and single applications in Australia (Arthington and
Long, 1997; Arthington and Lloyd, 1998) and Swaziland (AfriDev/Knight Piesold Joint Venture and JTK Associ-
ates, 1999). Moreover, modified forms of this bottom-up methodology, the intermediate and comprehensive deter-
mination methods, for calculation of the ecological reserve founded on legislative reforms (DWAF, 1999d,e), have

been applied or are in the process of being used for collectively 33 South African rivers (DWAF, unpublished data,
2001). Within several such applications, a newly established flow stress or response (FSR) method (O’Keeffe et al.,
2001) uses relationships between low (and high) flows and corresponding ecological stresses to generate time ser-
ies of stress indices, linked to a river’s flow regime. These stress regimes allow for the examination of a range of
flow scenarios, each with expression of the potential risk of change in river ecological condition.
Recently evolving from the BBM and other similar EFMs as an interactive, top-down holistic methodology
comprising four modules (biophysical, social, scenario development and economic), the downstream response
to imposed flow transformations (DRIFT) process (Metsi Consultants, 2000; King et al., this issue) offers inno-
vative advances in environmental flow assessment. It focuses on identification, by a multidisciplinary team, of the
consequences of reducing river discharges from natural, through a series of flow bands associated with particular
sets of biophysical functions, and of specific hydrological and hydraulic character, in terms of the deterioration in
system condition. As the methodology is scenario-based, there is considerable scope for the comparative evalua-
tion of the consequences of a number of recommended flow regimes. Additionally, links between social
consequences for subsistence users, are evaluated alongside ecological and geomorphological ones, and economic
implications in terms of mitigation and compensation, which evolved through its application in southern Africa,
for the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (C. A. Brown and J. M. King, pers. comm.).
Very recently, a scenario-based combination of the BBM and DRIFT, here referred to as the adapted BBM-
DRIFT, simplified to deal with developing country constraints in terms of available resources (data, time and
finances) and instances where clear dependencies by rural people on riverine resources exist, has been tested in
Zimbabwe (Steward, 2002).
Most applications of holistic EFMs in Australia, especially early on, have centred on the holistic approach
(Arthington et al., 1992; Arthington, 1998a) as well as the use of expert panel approaches (broadly discussed
in Cottingham et al., 2002) such as the expert panel assessment method (EPAM; Swales et al., 1994; Swales
and Harris, 1995) and the more developed scientific panel assessment method (SPAM; Thoms et al., 1996)
(Appendices I and II). Increasingly comprehensive, diverse methodologies have emerged over the past few years
from this basis; notable among these is the flow restoration methodology (FLOWRESM; Arthington, 1998b;
Arthington et al., 2000), developed during an EFA for the Brisbane River, and aimed specifically at addressing
EFRs in river systems exhibiting a long history of flow regulation and requiring restoration. Following an alter-
native route, the habitat analysis method and extensive basin-wide water allocation and management planning
(WAMP) initiatives in Queensland, Australia (Burgess and Vanderbyl, 1996; Burgess and Thoms, 1998;
Arthington, 1998a; acted as precursors to the establishment of the benchmarking methodology (Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), cited in Arthington, 1998a), thus far the sole holistic EFM specifically designed to
assess the risk of environmental impacts due to river regulation at a basin scale (Arthington, 1998a). The bench-
marking methodology has been adopted as the standard methodology for determining environmental flow objec-
tives (and associated performance indicators) in Queensland’s water resource planning framework, applied or in
use in eight local river basins (Whittington, 2000). The methodology is geared to relating information on alteration
of the natural hydrological regime with ecological and geomorphological impacts, by evaluating the river condi-
tion (in terms of all major ecosystem components, e.g. riparian vegetation, fish and hydraulic habitat) of a range of
sites (preferably, but not necessarily within the study river system) selected to illustrate the effects of various
degrees of change in hydrological regime. A suite of core flow statistics or indicators deemed to be of ecological
relevance are used to describe the features of the flow regime of the study river. Individual flow indicators are then
used to develop benchmarking models, linking flow regime change with ecological responses, which are subse-
quently used to establish a risk assessment framework to evaluate future water resource management scenarios in
terms of their potential environmental impacts.
It is noteworthy that the River Babingley (Wissey) method, developed in England (Petts, 1996; Petts et al.,
1999), appears to represent the only documented holistic EFM developed or applied outside the southern hemi-
sphere countries of Australia and South Africa. Although it originated independently of other holistic EFMs, it
appears to exhibit several features in common with several of them, including the holistic approach and BBM.
Arthington et al. (1998a) observe that bottom-up holistic EFMs are likely to continue to be applied most com-
monly in the near future, but suggest that ultimately, the most rigorous approach would be a combined bottom-up/
top-down approach. The former process would be used to derive one or several modified flow regimes, with

subsequent risk-based evaluation of the ecological consequences of each regime using a top-down procedure incor-
porating benchmarking. Cross-country exchange of expertise (e.g. during applications of the BBM and DRIFT)
has been found to be integral in promoting the uptake and rapid development of holistic EFMs of all forms in both
countries in which they predominate, as well as in developing countries such as Zimbabwe and Lesotho. A highly
significant result of the analysis conducted in this paper is the strong expression of interest by at least 12 countries
in Europe, Central-South America, Asia and Africa, in holistic methodologies (Appendix I).

Combined methodologies and other approaches

A fairly high number of methodologies (16.9% of the global total) representing some combination of hydrolo-
gical, habitat-discharge and/or partial holistic approaches have been developed and applied across the world
(Figure 2), although the figure may, in part, reflect the difficulties inherent in correctly classifying several of
the methodologies documented in the literature (especially those for which information was limited or abstruse).
Of these, roughly half are clearly associated with an established procedure. The methodologies range from
the country-specific, combined hydraulic and biotic Basque method (Docampo and De Bikuña, 1993), through
to more broadscale approaches, such as frameworks based on the habitat evaluation procedure (e.g. Duel et al.,
1996), and use of physical biotopes/functional habitats (Appendix I). The most commonly applied combination
EFM was recorded as the managed flood release approach of Acreman et al. (2000) or similar approaches based on
experimental flow releases, mostly applied across Subsaharan Africa, as well as in Asia and the USA.
As envisaged, the smallest proportion of the overall total number of methodologies (6.8%; Figure 2) was found
for the ‘other’ category comprising alternative approaches for assessing EFRs (and professional judgement). The
13 approaches, the majority of which utilize multivariate regression analyses, were not developed primarily for
EFAs and presently possess extremely limited scope in this regard. However, a few, for example, the river inverte-
brate prediction and classification system (RIVPACS; Wright et al., 1996), have been used to recommend environ-
mental flows (e.g. Brown et al., 1991, cited in Dunbar et al., 1998) and/or exhibit potential for future extension as
tools at various stages of such assessments (e.g. Choy et al., 2000, for invertebrates; Kennard et al., 2000, for fish).

Trends in methodology types among world regions

The information presented in Appendix I for individual countries was aggregated by type and region, to identify
any trends in the methodology types applied for six predefined world regions, as depicted in Figure 3. No cogni-
sance was taken of actual numbers of applications for methodologies within each type in the calculation of propor-
tions.
Although all regions employ hydrological methodologies, Europe (here including the Middle East) and North
America were found to apply a markedly higher percentage of them than the remaining regions, at 38% and 26%,
respectively (Figure 3). In contrast, very few such EFMs are in use in the Asian Pacific, outside of Australia and
New Zealand.
The regionally limited scope of hydraulic rating methodologies is evidenced by the application of disproportio-
nately more hydraulic rating methodologies in North America than in any other world region (76%), with only two
other regions (Europe and Australasia) having used these EFMs to any great extent to date (Figure 3).
Again, with habitat simulation methodologies, North America is at the forefront, with more than half the estab-
lished methodologies recorded in the United States. All of the remaining five regions have used such techniques,
although at low levels of application in Africa and Latin America (Figure 3).
The majority of the diverse range of holistic EFMs currently available have been used within the Australasian
region, at 65% of the overall total (Figure 3), though solely in Australia (the distinct differences between Australia
and New Zealand in the development and application of EFMs are discussed further below). Africa was recorded
as possessing the next highest representation of this methodology type, principally as a result of the range of meth-
odologies in place in South Africa, with Europe (only the UK) being the other region to employ such an approach.
The absence of any applications of such EFMs in North America is striking, and highlights the particular emphasis
on habitat simulation methodologies characteristic of the region where they originated. Europe has applied the
most combination EFMs and other approaches of all regions, at 39% and 57%, respectively, while these two types
have had little or no exposure in South and Central America (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Relative percentage use of each of the six types of environmental flow methodologies for different world regions

The full suite of methodology types is employed only in Australasia (Australia) and Europe, while only the two
types utilized by all regions (i.e. hydrological and habitat simulation methodologies) are represented in Central-
South America.

Country-specific trends
The numbers of individual EFMs of different types and the proportions of the corresponding global totals, for
the ten countries for which the highest total numbers of methodologies were recorded, are summarized in Table II.
The proportional representation of the six methodology types for each of these same countries is illustrated in
Figure 4.
Significantly, the USA has applied more than double the number of methodologies of the next ranked country,
at 77 (37% of the global total), demonstrating a considerable allocation of resources to EFAs, and reflecting the
comparatively long history of such assessments in this country. However, many of the methodologies applied in the
earlier years of EFAs, including most of the 19 or so hydraulic rating EFMs (a considerable 83% of the world total
for this EFM type), have since fallen into disuse (Appendix I). Of the ten countries examined, the USA had the
highest use of individual hydrological methodologies (although regionally, Europe emerged above North America)
and habitat simulation EFMs (half the global total documented).
Australia was found to rank second globally, in numbers of approaches applied (about 37), and with the UK, had
tested all broad types of methodology locally. Australia and South Africa, in combination, accounted for the vast

Table II. Numbers of environmental flow methodologies (EFMs) of different types and proportions of global totals, for the ten
countries for which the highest total numbers of methodologies were recorded

Country No. EFMs Total no. No. No. No. No. No. No.
(% of types Hydro Hydraulic Habitat Holistic Combin Other
GT 207) (max 6) (% of (% of Sim (% of (% of (% of
GT 61) GT 23) (% of GT 16) GT 58) GT 14) GT 35)

USA 77 (37%) 5 20 (33%) 19 (83%) 29 (50%) — 8 (23%) 1 (7%)

Australia 37 (18%) 6 11 (18%) 1 (4%) 6 (10%) 11 (69%) 6 (17%) 2 (14%)
UK 23 (11%) 6 10 (16%) 1 (4%) 1 (2%) 1 (6%) 3 (9%) 7 (50%)
Canada 22 (11%) 4 9 (15%) 1 (4%) 10 (17%) — — 2 (14%)
South Africa 20 (10%) 5 6 (10%) — 2 (3%) 5 (31%) 4 (11%) 3 (21%)
New Zealand 20 (10%) 5 8 (13%) 2 (9%) 6 (10%) — 3 (9%) 1 (7%)
Spain 14 (7%) 4 8 (13%) — 4 (7%) — 1 (3%) 1 (7%)
Italy 11 (5%) 5 4 (7%) 1 (4%) 1 (2%) — 4 (11%) 1 (7%)
France 10 (5%) 3 3 (5%) — 6 (10%) — 1 (3%) —
Portugal 10 (5%) 4 7 (11%) 1 (4%) 1 (2%) — 1 (3%) —

Abbreviations: GT, global total; Hydro, hydrological; Hydraulic, hydraulic rating; Habitat Sim, habitat simulation; Combin, combination. A
dash indicates no recorded application of the specific methodology type.

Figure 4. Relative percentage use of different types of environmental flow methodologies for the ten countries for which the highest total num-
bers of methodologies were recorded (ranked from highest to lowest total number)

majority of applications of holistic EFMs globally, as well as of combination and alternative approaches. Interest-
ingly, Figure 4 highlights the fact that New Zealand has followed a vastly different trajectory of development and
application of methodologies from that of Australia, with considerable investment in hydrological and habitat
simulation EFMs, but negligible attention directed at holistic approaches. As indicated in the regional analysis,
the USA and Canada also have not invested much, if any, effort in exploring holistic methodologies per se,
although they are undertaking focused research on the ecological relevance of various elements of the flow regime
(e.g. B. D. Richter, pers. comm.).
The UK, Canada, South Africa (most active in Africa) and New Zealand were identified as engaged at similar
levels in environmental flow research (20–23 EFMs applied, Table II). The presence of the USA, Australia and
Canada in the five most active countries, may in part reflect the variety of approaches adopted at state level, in
contrast with possibly more unified national-level initiatives elsewhere.
The remaining group of countries, for which a fairly high number of different methodologies have been docu-
mented (c. 10–14), are located within southwest Europe. Of these, Portugal and Spain have invested considerable
effort in hydrological methodologies, France in habitat simulation EFMs, and Italy in hydrological and combined
approaches (Figure 4). For South-Central America and Asia (not represented in Table II), Brazil and Japan are at
the forefront of regional developments in environmental flow assessment (Appendix I).

Developed versus developing countries

Just over half (52%) of the countries representing the developed world were shown to be routinely involved in
environmental flow initiatives, at various levels of advancement (Tables II). In stark contrast, in developing coun-
tries (WRI, 2002), the field of EFAs is nascent or only very locally active, with merely 11% of such countries
recorded as applying EFMs.
Presently, 49 countries are formally designated ‘Least Developed Countries’ (LDCs) by the Economic and
Social Council of the United Nations, on the basis of the criteria: low income, human resource weakness and eco-
nomic vulnerability (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development website, 2002). Of these, five African
countries (or 10%) have implemented some kind of EFA. In all cases but one, a managed flood release approach
was adopted, focused on river floodplain restoration for fisheries production and the sustainment of dependent live-
lihoods (Acreman et al., 2000). Notably, the holistic DRIFT process was used in the fifth case, for Lesotho, also
with cognisance of direct social and economic implications for the population at risk (King et al., this issue).

CONCLUSIONS
Examination of the emerging trends in evidence from this survey of the methodologies of various types developed
and applied globally, indicates several paths of progress in environmental flow assessment. As identified in King
et al. (1999), and confirmed in this review, there is a widespread move towards hierarchical application of envir-
onmental flow methodologies in many countries, with at least two stages to the framework: (1) reconnaissance-
level assessment, primarily using hydrological methodologies; (2) comprehensive assessment, using either habitat
simulation or holistic methodologies. For example, two-tier application of methodologies occurs at a state-wide
level in Alaska (Estes, 1996), and at a national scale in the Czech Republic (Bernadová, 1998). Several countries,
including South Africa (Tharme, 1997; DWAF, 1999d), the UK (Petts et al., 1996, cited in Dunbar et al., 1998), and
Australia (Arthington et al., 1998a), advocate the use of flexible, multiple-level hierarchies over a range of spatial
scales, driven by the availability or access to resources, including time, data, finances, and technical capacity.
The South African hierarchy of methodologies provides a recent example, from rapid, simple desktop estimate
to comprehensive determination, for allocating the reserve for basic human needs and ecosystem protection
(including the ecological reserve, the EFR; DWAF, 1999d), the only two water rights by law. The process by which
the reserve framework became established (Palmer, 1999) highlights the instrumental role of revised freshwater
policy and legislation, in addition to the existence of suitable types of environmental flow methodologies and
demonstrable capability in the execution of EFAs, in revolutionizing the arena of EFAs on a national scale. Similar
initiatives are underway elsewhere at national and broader scales, for example in Australia, in relation to the
national water reform process and policy guidelines for the allocation of water for ecosystems (Agriculture and

Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ) and Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), 1996), as well as for the European Union, in line with the
Water Framework Directive (Lanz and Scheuer, 2001).
The first stage of an EFA is typically aimed at a national or basin-wide planning or reconnaissance level, and
characteristically invokes the use of hydrological EFMs. Such methodologies, currently numbering above 60, a
significant 30% of the remarkably high (207) number of methodologies worldwide, and in use in all world regions
examined, are particularly well suited for adoption at this level of assessment. This is primarily due to their rapid,
low-resource intensity application at a desktop level, providing routine, simple yet low resolution estimates, of
quantities of water to be set aside for environmental purposes.
In recent years, more sophisticated hydrology-based methodologies, most notably RVA (Richter et al., 1996,
1997), have drawn interest outside of the countries in which they were developed, through their increased emphasis
on flow variability and/or utilization of ecologically relevant, multiple hydrological indices in the determination of
environmental flows. Such advances represent a means of redressing the common tendency, still observed in many
countries, of applying hydrological indices and methods such as the Tennant method (Tennant, 1976) arbitrarily and
indiscriminantly across different countries, geographic regions and river types, without sufficient understanding of
the system-specific ecological implications of the minimum flows they represent, or of the bounds of transferability.
Beyond this first level of environmental flow assessment, two main avenues of development of methodologies
are in evidence at present. In developed countries of the northern hemisphere particularly, as well as in developing
countries that receive technical support for EFAs from the USA or Europe, there is ongoing application of habitat
simulation methodologies, which have evolved rapidly from now largely obsolete hydraulic rating techniques, to
become the second most commonly applied group. Although some 58 individual approaches have been reported in
different countries across the world, IFIM (Stalnaker et al., 1994; Milhous, 1998a) far exceeds all established
hydraulic-habitat modelling approaches of similar type, with applications in at least 20 countries. In most
instances, such methodologies remain biased towards the assessment of the flow requirements of target fish spe-
cies, with recent efforts concentrated on major advances in multidimensional habitat modelling and the inclusion
of complex, spatially explicit habitat metrics. This is despite the still largely unexplored potential some of these
methodologies possess for addressing flows for other biota or ecosystem components.
The second branch of development, that of holistic methodologies aimed at assessing the EFRs of the entire
riverine ecosystem, and with explicit links to all aspects of the hydrological regime, is historically less well
entrenched in the field of environmental flow assessment, originating in the early 1990s (Tharme, 1996). However,
prolific development and application of some 16 methodologies of this type (already 7.7% of the global total)
within a decade, have provided the impetus for significant, new directions in EFAs, accentuating the shift from
a single-species to a biodiverse, whole-ecosystem focus. Although the use of such methodologies presently
remains strongly based in Australia and South Africa, with marked bilateral collaboration in research and applica-
tions, holistic EFMs have attracted growing international interest, particularly in the Southern African Develop-
ment Community (SADC), as well as southwestern Europe, southeast Asia and Latin America.
Interestingly, South Africa has concentrated its efforts thus far on rigorous, routine application of this metho-
dology type, using the BBM (King and Louw, 1998; King et al., 2000) and related approaches for standard reserve
determinations, with the BBM the most frequently applied holistic methodology globally. In contrast, Australia has
invested resources in developing and applying a particularly high diversity of holistic methodologies.
Although the emphasis thus far has been on prescriptive, bottom-up methodologies for construction of a recom-
mended environmental flow regime, there have been significant advances recently in interactive, top-down
processes; Arthington et al. (1998a) provide a convincing argument for combining the two kinds of approach
in future. Notably, of the top-down approaches, the South African DRIFT process (King et al., this issue) has
emerged from the foundations of the BBM, as a frontrunner of scenario-based methodologies, with explicit
consideration of social consequences for subsistence users, linked to the biophysical consequences of flow regula-
tion, and the associated economic implications. Another singularly important advance has been the establishment,
in Queensland, Australia, of the benchmarking methodology, demonstrated to be particularly suitable for the
generation of risk assessment frameworks for basin-scale evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of
future scenarios of water resource management, especially for relatively poorly studied systems (Arthington,
1998a; Bunn, 1998).

Significantly, holistic methodologies have yet to be explored in depth in the northern hemisphere, possibly in
large part due to the long-standing reliance on and research investment in habitat simulation EFMs to generate
environmental flow recommendations for economically important fish species. This author and others (King
et al., 1999) contend, however, that holistic methodologies are typically more appropriate than habitat simulation
methodologies per se, particularly from the perspective of developing countries. This is due to the absolute need of
such countries to focus on protection of the resource at an ecosystem scale, as well as the strong livelihood depen-
dencies on the goods and services provided by aquatic ecosystems. Furthermore, the inherent capacity of holistic
methodologies to further incorporate advanced single-issue techniques, such as hydraulic and habitat modelling
tools, and other types of predictive models, as these become available, as well as their consideration of multiple
ecosystem components, is liable to render them increasingly suitable in this regard. Several of the more advanced
holistic, as well as combination approaches (16.9% of the world total), recorded in use underscore the potential for
future coupling of tools or cross-pollination among different methodology types, perhaps generating a new multi-
scale typology of highly adaptable techniques (the ‘tool-kit’ referred to below).
This overview of global trends has clearly shown that the greatest activity in environmental flow work resides in
developed countries, in North America (with the United States having applied a disproportionately high number of
methodologies, at 37% of the global total), Australasia (with Australia ranked second worldwide), Europe, and
South Africa. Furthermore, it has exposed marked gaps in terms of environmental flow initiatives for entire world
regions and individual countries, especially those accorded developing or least developed status, where awareness
of and access to the vast amount of global expertise is limited. The lack of endeavour in many such countries is
apparent even in water-scarce parts of the world, where the availability, quality and sustainability of freshwater
resources play a crucial role in socio-economic upliftment. Moreover, it is despite existing and proposed intensive
water-resource development, particularly in the form of river regulation by large dams, with an estimated average
of 160–320 new large dams being constructed annually worldwide (WCD, 2000). This is particularly true for
China and India, with both countries featuring in the top five countries worldwide in terms of both numbers of
existing (Table I) and proposed large dams, yet without substantial evidence of investment in environmental flow
assessment. Also, in South-Central America at present, only two types of methodologies are used, with the lowest
recorded incidence of EFAs worldwide. This is regardless, for instance, of current plans for over 70 dams for the
Amazonian region of Brazil alone (Pringle et al., 2000), as well as the massive, transboundary 20-year Hidrovia
project, for which the first stages are under construction, affecting Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and
Bolivia (Abramovitz, 1995).
These trends suggest that many countries have not yet recognized and embedded in water resources policy and
management the critical importance of the hydrological regime as the primary driver of ecological processes in
river–floodplain systems (Junk et al., 1989; Poff et al., 1997; Richter et al., 1997) and the role of environmental
flows in the long-term maintenance and sustainability of such systems, or have not yet made such assessments a
priority (Tharme, 1996). However, the analysis of global trends also yielded encouraging signs of the initiation of
environmental flow work in several countries, among others the lower basin countries of the Mekong River
(the third largest river in Asia by drainage basin size, and scheduled for intensive water resource development;
Dudgeon, 2000), Indonesia, Mozambique, Brazil and Zimbabwe. Such initiatives are often, at least in part, a result
of the sourcing of expertise from neighbouring countries where the science is already well established or of inter-
national collaborative research projects.
Large, often transboundary river basins, several with complex, interrelated multiple-component aquatic ecosys-
tems, present a special challenge still to be met in environmental flow assessment, at both statewide and country
scales. There are an estimated 261 to 280 such basins traversing the political boundaries of two or more countries,
accounting for some 80% of river flow and affecting roughly 40% of the world population (Wolf et al., 1999, cited
in WCD, 2000; GCI, 2000). Cross-border collaboration would seem essential in such situations. However, to date,
with the majority of EFAs for transboundary systems, neighbouring countries have most often been excluded from
the assessments. There is also likely to be a need for increased expenditure of effort in addressing environmental
flow issues for river restoration and dam decommissioning projects, both of which are on the upsurge (WCD,
2000). Furthermore, the vast majority of methodologies available globally have focused exclusively on river sys-
tems, with the scope for adaptation and extension of such approaches to other aquatic ecosystems (e.g. ground-
water-dependent wetlands and estuaries) being, for the most part, weakly explored.

Realistically, the selection of an appropriate environmental flow methodology for application in any country is
likely to be context-specific and primarily constrained by the availability of appropriate data on the river system of
concern, as well as local limitations in terms of time, finances, expertise and logistical support (King et al., 1999).
However, the still observed, rather arbitrary or ad hoc application of certain EFMs in numerous countries should be
replaced by the use of a comprehensive hierarchically arranged suite of methodologies, if appropriate scientifically
(and legally) defensible results are to be achieved. An internationally collaborative research effort might facilitate
the establishment of such a framework-based tool-kit, founded on best practice and sufficiently flexible to meet the
needs of each situation and country. Additionally, it is imperative that more concerted efforts are made to imple-
ment, in their entirety, the environmental flow regimes recommended for rivers, to ascertain their relative success
through post-implementation monitoring and appropriate evaluation techniques, and subsequently, to refine the
flow recommendations. As Arthington et al. (1998a), King et al. (1999) and Gippel (2001) point out, these crucial
areas of environmental flow assessment have received negligible attention worldwide.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following colleagues (in alphabetical order, and referenced by the institution they represented at the time)
contributed significantly and willingly to the body of information for review, and hence to the scope of this manu-
script, for which I am sincerely grateful: Mike Acreman (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), UK); Alberto
Agirre (Anbiotek S.L., Spain); Helena Alves (Instituto da Água, Portugal); Felix Amerasinghe (International
Water Management Institute (IWMI), Sri Lanka); Angela Arthington (Centre for Catchment and In-Stream
Research, Griffith University, Australia); John Bartholow (United States Geological Survey (USGS), USA);
Antônio Benetti (Instituto de Pesquisas Hidráulicas, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil); Shirley
Bethune (Department of Water Affairs, Namibia); Andrew Birkhead (Streamflow Solutions, South Africa); Ter-
ence Boyle (Biological Resources Division, USGS, Colorado State University, USA); John Brittain (Norwegian
Water Resources and Energy Directorate, NVE, Norway); Cate Brown (Southern Waters Ecological Research and
Consulting (SW), South Africa); Andrea Buffagni (CNR-IRSA Water Research Institute, Italy); Ian Campbell
(School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Australia); Mark Chutter (AfriDev Consultants, South Africa);
Bryan Davies (FRU, UCT, South Africa); Matthew Davis (Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University
of California, USA); Jenny Day (Freshwater Research Unit (FRU), University of Cape Town (UCT), South
Africa); Michael Dunbar (CEH, UK); Christopher Estes (Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska); Chris
Gippel (Fluvial Systems, Australia); Dana Grobler (Directorate Scientific Services, Department of Water Affairs
and Forestry (DWAF), South Africa); Barry Hart (Water Studies Centre, Monash University, Australia); Peter Hor-
ton (Water Research Laboratory, University of New South Wales, Australia); Denis Hughes (Institute for Water
Research (IWR), Rhodes University, South Africa); Graham Jewitt (School of Bioresources Engineering and
Environmental Hydrology, University of Natal, South Africa); Klaus Jorde (Ecohydraulics Research Group, Uni-
versity of Idaho, USA); Ian Jowett (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand); Chris
Katopodis (Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Freshwater Institute, Canada); Mark Kennard (Centre for Catchment and
In-Stream Research, Griffith University, Australia); Jackie King (SW, South Africa); Neels Kleynhans (Institute
for Water Quality Studies (IWQS), DWAF, South Africa); Tony Ladson (Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for
Catchment Hydrology, Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia); Delana
Louw (IWR Environmental, South Africa); Heather MacKay (IWQS, DWAF, South Africa); Heather Malan (FRU,
UCT, South Africa); Daniel Mattas (T.G. Masaryk Water Research Institute, Czech Republic); Robert Milhous
(Midcontinent Ecological Science Center, United States Geological Survey (USGS), USA); Nikite Muller
(IWR, Rhodes University, South Africa); Shunroku Nakamura (Dept. Architecture and Civil Engineering, Toyo-
hashi University of Technology, Japan); Malcom Newson (Department of Geography, University of Newcastle,
UK); Jay O’Keeffe (IWR, Rhodes University, South Africa); Catherine Padmore (Department of Geography, Uni-
versity of Newcastle, UK); Piotr Parasiewicz (Instream Habitat Program, Department of Natural Resources, Cor-
nell University, USA); Geoffrey Petts (School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, University of
Birmingham, UK); Sharon Pollard (Wits Rural Facility, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa); Brian
Richter (Freshwater Initiative, The Nature Conservancy, USA); Bill Rowlston (Directorate Strategic Planning,
DWAF, South Africa); Kate Rowntree (Dept. Geography, Rhodes University, South Africa); Robson Sarmento

(Universidade Federal do Espı́rito Santo, Brazil); Denise Schael (FRU, UCT, South Africa); Jean-Marc Sinnas-
samy (Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, France); Jamie Skinner (World Commission on Dams (WCD), Cape
Town Secretariat, South Africa); Helen Steward (Mott MacDonald Ltd., UK); Michael Stewardson (CRC for
Catchment Hydrology, Dept. Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia); Valerie
Taylor (School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, University of Natal, South Africa);
Martin Thoms (CRC for Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra, Australia); Chaman Trisal (Wetlands Inter-
national, South Asia Programme, India); Wim Van der Hoek (IWMI, Sri Lanka); Terry Waddle (Midcontinent
Ecological Science Center, USGS, USA); and Roy Wadeson (IWR Environmental, South Africa). Thanks are also
extended to the various non-governmental organizations and other institutions worldwide that provided invaluable
information, notably the World Commission on Dams, International Rivers Network, Green Cross International,
and the European Rivers Network.
Jackie King and Jay O’Keeffe, particularly, are thanked for thought-provoking discussions on environmental
flows. The interest and support of friends and colleagues within the Freshwater Research Unit at UCT are much
appreciated. The manuscript benefited greatly from review by Angela Arthington, as well as from suggestions by
Heather Malan and Marius Burger. The Water Research Commission of South Africa is acknowledged for funding
the acquisition of some of the literature reviewed.

REFERENCES

Abramovitz JN. 1995. Freshwater failures: the crises on five continents. World Watch 8: 27–35.
Acreman MC, Farquharson FAK, McCartney MP, Sullivan C, Campbell K, Hodgson N, Morton J, Smith D, Birley M, Knott D, Lazenby J,
Wingfield R, Barbier EB. 2000. Managed Flood Releases from Reservoirs: Issues and Guidance. Report to DFID and the World Commission
on Dams. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Wallingford, UK.
AfriDev/Knight Piesold Joint Venture and JTK Associates. 1999. MDC-6 Environmental Impact Assessment and Instream Flow Requirement.
CMP supporting report E (Working Document).
Alfredsen K. 1998. Habitat modelling in Norway—an overview of projects and future developments. In Hydroecological Modelling.
Research, Practice, Legislation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey,
Biological Research Division and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha;
33–35.
Alfredsen K, Killingtveit A. 1996. The habitat modelling framework—a tool for creating habitat analysis programs. In Ecohydraulics 2000.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-
Eau: Québec, Canada; 215–225.
Alves MH, Henriques AG. 1994. Instream flow determination for mitigating environmental impact on fluvial systems downstream from dam
and reservoirs. In Advances in Water Resources and Management, Tsakiris G, Santos MA (eds). A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam; 351–358.
Annear CT, Conder AL. 1984. Relative bias of several fisheries instream flow methods. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 4:
531–539.
Annoni P, Saccardo I, Gentili G, Guzzi L. 1996. A multivariate model to relate hydrological, chemical and biological variables to salmonid
standing crop in Italian alpine rivers. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc
M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B507–518.
Anon. 2001. Managing River Flows for Biodiversity. A Conference on Science, Policy, and Conservation Action. Conference Proceedings.
Colorado State University: Fort Collins, CO.
ARMCANZ, ANZECC (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Australian and New Zealand Envir-
onment and Conservation Council). 1996. National Principles for the Provision of Water for Ecosystems. Occasional Paper SWR No. 3.
ARMCANZ and ANZECC: Canberra, Australia.
Armitage PD. 1980. Stream regulation in Great Britain. In The Ecology of Regulated Streams, Ward JV, Stanford JA (eds). Plenum Press:
New York; 165–181.
Armitage PD. 1995. Faunal community change in response to flow manipulation. In The Ecological Basis for River Management, Harper DM,
Ferguson AJD (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 59–78.
Armour CL, Taylor JG. 1991. Evaluation of the instream flow incremental methodology by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field users. Fisheries
16(5): 36–43.
Arthington AH. 1998a. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Holistic Methodologies. Occasional
Paper No. 26/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia.
Arthington AH. 1998b. Brisbane River trial of a Flow Restoration Methodology (FLOWRESM). In Water for the Environment: Recent
Approaches to Assessing and Providing Environmental Flows, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Proceedings of AWWA forum. AWWA:
Brisbane; 35–50.

Arthington AH, Lloyd R (eds). 1998. Logan River Trial of the Building Block Methodology for Assessing Environmental Flow Requirements.
Workshop Report. Centre for Catchment and In-stream Research and Department Natural Resources: Brisbane, Australia.
Arthington AH, Long GC (eds). 1997. Logan River Trial of the Building Block Methodology for Assessing Environmental Flow Requirements.
Background Papers. Centre for Catchment and In-Stream Research, Griffith University and Queensland Department of Natural Resource:
Brisbane, Australia.
Arthington AH, Pusey BJ. 1993. In-stream flow management in Australia: methods, deficiencies and future directions. Australian Biology 6:
52–60.
Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). 1998a. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods. Occa-
sional Paper No. 27/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia.
Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). 1998b. Water for the Environment: Recent Approaches to Assessing and Providing Environmental Flows.
Proceedings of AWWA Forum. AWWA: Brisbane, Australia.
Arthington AH, King JM, O’Keeffe JH, Bunn SE, Day JA, Pusey BJ, Blühdorn DR, Tharme RE. 1992. Development of an holistic approach for
assessing environmental flow requirements of riverine ecosystems. In Proceedings of an International Seminar and Workshop on Water
Allocation for the Environment, Pigram JJ, Hooper BP (eds). The Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England: Armidale,
Australia.
Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Kennard MJ. 1998a. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Best Practice Frame-
work. Occasional Paper No. 25/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia.
Arthington AH, Pusey BJ, Brizga SO, McCosker RO, Bunn SE, Growns IO. 1998b. Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment
Techniques: R & D Requirements. Occasional Paper No. 24/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation:
Canberra, Australia.
Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Choy SC, Kennard MJ, Mackay SJ, McCosker, RO, Ruffini JL, Zalucki JM. 2000. Environmental Flow Require-
ments of the Brisbane River Downstream of Wivenhoe Dam. South East Queensland Water Corporation, and Centre for Catchment and
In-Stream Research, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia.
Bartschi DK. 1976. A habitat-discharge method of determining instream flows for aquatic habitat. In Symposium on Instream Flow Needs,
Orsborn JF, Allman CH (eds). American Fisheries Society: Bethseda, MD; 285–294.
Beilfuss RD, Davies BR. 1999. Prescribed flooding and wetland rehabilitation in the Zambezi Delta, Mozambique. In An International Per-
spective on Wetland Rehabilitation, Streever W (ed.). Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht; 143–158.
Bergkamp G, McCartney M, Dugan P, McNeely J, Acreman M. 2000. Dams, Ecosystem Functions and Environmental Restoration. WCD The-
matic Review—Environmental Issues II.1. Final Report to the World Commission on Dams. Secretariat of the World Commission on Dams:
Cape Town, South Africa.
Bernardo JM, Alves MH. 1999. New perspectives for ecological flow determination in semi-arid regions. Regulated Rivers: Research and Man-
agement 15: 221–229.
Bernadová I. 1998. Methods for determination of minimum flows in the CR watercourses. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice,
Legislation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division
and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 31–32.
Bietz BF, Kiell DJ. 1982. The applicability of instream flow incremental methodology for impact assessment in Newfoundland (sic). Third
International Conference on State-of-the-Art in Ecological Modelling. Colorado State University, 24–28 May 1982; 907–914.
Binns NA, Eiserman FM. 1979. Quantification of fluvial trout habitat in Wyoming. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 108:
215–228.
Bird DJ. 1996. Problems with the use of IFIM for salmonids and guidelines for future UK studies. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the
2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec,
Canada; B407–418.
Blažková Š. 1998. Habitat time series—case studies in the Czech Republic. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and
Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water
Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 35–39.
Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). 1998. Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and Decision-making. Report by
US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech
Republic. VUV: Praha, Czech Republic.
Boon PJ, Calow P, Petts GE (eds). 1992. River Conservation and Management. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.
Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts GE (eds). 2000. Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy and Practice. John Wiley & Sons:
Chichester, UK.
Bovee KD. 1982. A Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper 12.
FWS/OBS-82/26. USDI Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biology Services: Washington, DC.
Bovee KD, Milhous R. 1978. Hydraulic Simulation in Instream Flow Studies: Theory and Techniques. Instream Flow Information Paper 5.
FWS/OBS-78/33. Cooperative Instream Flow Service Group: Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Bovee KD, Gore JA, Silverman A. 1978. Field Testing and Adaptation of a Methodology to Measure ‘In-stream’ Values in the Tongue River,
Northern Great Plains (NGP) Region. Report No. EPA-908/4-78-004A. US Environmental Protection Agency, Rock Mountain-Prairie
Region. Office of Energy Activities. Contract No. 68-01-2653.
Bragg OM, Black AR, Duck RW. 1999. Anthropogenic Impacts on the Hydrology of Rivers and Lochs. Literature Review and Proposed Meth-
ods. Revised Stage 1 Report No. W98(50) I1. Scotland and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research. Geography Department,
University of Dundee, Scotland.

Bratrich S, Truffer B. 2001. Green Electricity Certification for Hydropower Plants—Concept, Procedure, Criteria. Green Power Publications
Issue 7. EAWG: Switzerland.
Breil P, Capra H. 1996. Likelihood expression of hydrological structuring events for brown trout population dynamics: methodological
approach. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin
S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; 421–431.
Brittain JE, Henning L’Abée-Lund J. 2001. The Norwegian R&D Programme for environmental flows. Proceedings of 4th International Con-
ference on Hydropower. Bergen, Norway.
Brizga SO. 1998. Methods addressing flow requirements for geomorphological purposes. In Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow
Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Occasional Paper No. 27/98. Land and Water Resources
Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia; 8–46.
Bruwer C (ed.). 1991. Proceedings of a Workshop on the Flow Requirements of Kruger National Park Rivers. Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry: Pretoria.
Buffagni A. 2001. The use of benthic invertebrate production for the definition of ecologically acceptable flows in mountain rivers. In Hydro-
ecology: Linking Hydrology and Aquatic Ecology, Acreman MC (ed.). Publication No. 266. IAHS Press, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology:
Wallingford, UK; 31–41.
Bullock A, Gustard A, Grainger ES. 1991. Instream Flow Requirements of Aquatic Ecology in two British Rivers. Application and Assessment of
the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology Using the PHABSIM System. Report No. 115. Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford.
Bunn SE. 1998. Recent approaches to assessing and providing environmental flows: concluding comments. In Water for the Environment:
Recent Approaches to Assessing and Providing Environmental Flows, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Proceedings of AWWA Forum.
AWWA: Brisbane, Australia; 123–129.
Bunn SE, Arthington AH. (2002). Basic principles and consequences of altered hydrological regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental
Management 30(4): 492–507.
Bunn SE, Loneragan NR, Yeates M. 1998. The influence of river flows on coastal fisheries. In Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow
Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Occasional Paper No. 27/98. Land and Water Resources
Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia; 106–114.
Burgess GK, Thoms MC. 1998. Environmental flow management in Queensland river systems. In Water for the Environment: Recent
Approaches to Assessing and Providing Environmental Flows, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Proceedings of AWWA Forum. AWWA:
Brisbane, Australia; 11–20.
Burgess GK, Vanderbyl TL. 1996. Habitat analysis method for determining environmental flow requirements. In Water and the Environment.
Proceedings 23rd hydrology and water resources symposium, Hobart. Institution of Engineers: Barton, Australian Capital Territory; 83–92.
Caissie D, El-Jabi N. 1994. Comparison and regionalization of hydrologically based instream flow techniques in Atlantic Canada. Canadian
Journal of Civil Engineering 22: 235–246.
Calow P, Petts GE (eds). 1992. The Rivers Handbook. Vol. 1: Hydrological and Ecological Principles. Blackwell Scientific: Oxford.
Campbell IC (ed.). 1986. Stream Protection: The Management of Rivers for Instream Uses. Water Studies Centre, Chisholm Institute of Tech-
nology: East Caulfield, Australia.
Capra H, Breil P, Souchon Y. 1995. A new tool to interpret magnitude and duration of fish habitat variations. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 10: 281–289.
Cavendish MG, Duncan MI. 1986. Use of the instream flow incremental methodology: a tool for negotiation. Environmental Impact Assessment
Review 6: 347–363.
Chenje M, Johnson P (eds). 1996. Water in Southern Africa. SADC/IUCN/SARDC: Maseru / Harare.
Cheslak EF, Jacobsen AS. 1990. Integrating the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology with a population response model. Rivers 1(4):
264–288.
Choy SC, Marshall JC, Conrick DL. 2000. Flow requirements of aquatic invertebrates. In Environmental Flow Requirements of the Brisbane
River downstream of Wivenhoe Dam, Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Choy SC, Kennard MJ, Mackay SJ, McCosker RO, Ruffini JL, Zalucki JM
(eds). South East Queensland Water Corporation, and Centre for Catchment and In-Stream Research, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia;
219–264.
Clayton SR. 2002. Quantitative Evaluation of Physical and Biological Responses to Stream Restoration. PhD dissertation, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho, USA.
Contreras BS, Lozano VML. 1994. Water, endangered fishes, and development perspectives in arid lands of Mexico. Conservation Biology 8:
379–387.
Cottingham P, Stewardson M, Roberts J, Metzeling L, Humphries P, Hillman T, Hannan G. 2001. Report of the Broken River Scientific Panel on
the Environmental Condition and Flows of the Broken River and Broken Creek. Technical Report 10/2001. Cooperative Research Centre for
Freshwater Ecology, University of Canberra: Canberra, Australia.
Cottingham P, Thoms MC, Quinn GP. 2002. Scientific panels and their use in environmental flow assessment in Australia. Australian Journal of
Water Resources 5(1): 103–111.
Craig JF, Kemper JB (eds). 1987. Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology. Plenum Press: New York.
Cross H, Ardill S, Shaw J. 1994. Management of environmental flows in NSW—a review of techniques. In Environmental Flows Seminar
Proceedings. AWWA Inc.: Artarmon, Australia; 70–75.
Crowder DW, Diplas P. 2000. Using two-dimensional hydrodynamic models at scales of ecological importance. Journal of Hydrology 230:
172–191.

Cubillo F. 1992. Some environmental aspects of the management of water supplies for the region of Madrid. Journal of Institute for Water and
Experimental Management 6: 101–111.
Cushman RM. 1985. Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream of hydroelectric facilities. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 5: 330–339.
Dacova Sn, Uzunov Y, Mandadjiev D. 2000. Low flow—the river’s ecosystem limiting factor. Ecological Engineering 16: 167–174.
Davies BR, O’Keeffe JH, Snaddon CD. 1993. A Synthesis of the Ecological Functioning, Conservation and Management of South African River
Systems. Water Research Commission Report No. TT62/93. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
Davies PE, Humphries P, Mulcahy M. 1995. Environmental Flow Requirements for the Meander, Macquarie and South Esk Rivers, Tasmania.
Report to National Landcare Program: Canberra, Australia.
De Vries M. 1996. Integrated system analysis: effects of water management on the habitat suitability for key species in the Sea of Azov. In
Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A,
Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A59–70.
Docampo L, De Bikuña BG. 1993 (/1995). The Basque method for determining instream flows in northern Spain. Rivers 4(4): 292–311.
Dortch MS, Martin JL. 1989. Water quality modeling of regulated streams. In Alternatives in Regulated River Management, Gore JA, Petts GE
(eds). CRC Press: Florida, USA; 63–90.
Dudgeon D. 1992. Endangered ecosystems: a review of the conservation status of tropical Asian rivers. Hydrobiologia 248: 167–191.
Dudgeon D. 1995. River regulation in southern China: ecological implications, conservation and environmental management. Regulated Rivers:
Research and Management 11: 35–54.
Dudgeon D. 2000. Large-scale hydrological changes in tropical Asia: prospects for riverine biodiversity. BioScience 50(9): 793–806.
Duel H, Pedroli B, Laane WEM. 1996. The Habitat Evaluation Procedure in the policy analysis of inland waters in the Netherlands: towards
ecological rehabilitation. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra
H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A619–630.
Duel H, Baptist MJ, Penning WE (eds). 2001. Cyclic Flooplain Rejuvenation—A New Strategy Based on Floodplain Measures for Both Flood
Risk Management and Enhancement of the Biodiversity in the River Rhine. NCR-Publication 14–2001.
Dunbar MJ, Acreman MC. 2001. Applied hydro-ecological science for the twenty-first century. In Hydro-ecology: Linking Hydrology and
Aquatic Ecology, Acreman MC (ed.). Publication No. 266. IAHS Press, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Wallingford, UK; 1–17.
Dunbar MJ, Gustard A, Acreman MC, Elliott CRN. 1998. Review of Overseas Approaches to Setting River Flow Objectives. Environment
Agency R&D Technical Report W6B(96)4. Institute of Hydrology: Wallingford, UK.
DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). 1999a. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 4: Wetland
Ecosystems. Version 1.0. Institute for Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa.
DWAF. 1999b. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 5: Estuarine Ecosystems. Version 1.0. Institute for Water
Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa.
DWAF. 1999c. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 6: Groundwater Component. Version 1.0. Institute for
Water Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa.
DWAF. 1999d. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 2: Integrated Manual. Version 1.0. Institute for Water
Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa.
DWAF. 1999e. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. Volume 3: River Ecosystems. Version 1.0. Institute for Water
Quality Studies, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry: Pretoria, South Africa.
Dynesius M, Nilsson C. 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. Science 266: 753–762.
Elliott CRN, Willis DW, Acreman MC. 1996. Application of the Physical Habitat Simulation (PHABSIM) model as an assessment tool for
riverine habitat restoration techniques. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics,
Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B607–618.
Elser AA. 1972. A partial evaluation and application of the ‘Montana method’ of determining stream flow requirements. In A Transcript of
Proceedings of the Instream Flow Requirement Workshop. 15–16 March 1972. Pacific Northwest River Basin Commission: Portland, Oregon;
3–11.
Elser AA. 1976. Use and reliability of water surface profile program data on a Montana prairie stream. In Symposium on Instream Flow Needs,
Orsborn JF, Allman CH (eds). American Fisheries Society: Bethseda; 496–504.
Espegren GD. 1998. Evaluation of the Standards and Methods Used for Quantifying Instream Flows in Colorado. Final Report. Colorado Water
Conservation Board: Denver, CO, USA.
Estes CC. 1996. Annual Summary of Instream Flow Reservations and Protection in Alaska. Fisheries Data Series No. 96–45. Alaska Department
of Fish and Game: Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
Estes CC, Orsborn JF. 1986. Review and analysis of methods for quantifying instream flow requirements. Water Resources Bulletin 22(3):
389–398.
Extence CA, Balbi DM, Chadd RP. 1999. River flow indexing using British benthic macroinvertebrates: a framework for setting hydroecological
objectives. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 15: 543–574.
Ferrar AA (ed.). 1989. Ecological Flow Requirements for South African Rivers. South African National Science Programme Report No. 162.
Foundation for Research Development, CSIR: Pretoria, South Africa.
Gan KC, McMahon TA. 1990. Comparison of Two Computer Models for Assessing Environmental Flow Requirements. Centre for Environ-
mental Applied Hydrology Report. University of Melbourne: Victoria, Australia.
Garcia de Jalón D. 2002. Ecological regimes of instream flows based on physical habitat simulations: the Spanish experience. Proc. Environ-
mental Flows for River Systems and 4th International Ecohydraulics Symposium, Southern Waters, Cape Town, South Africa (Abstract).

Ghanem A, Steffler P, Hicks F, Katopodis C. 1996. Two-dimensional hydraulic simulation of physical habitat conditions in flowing streams.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12: 185–200.
Gibbins CN, Acornley RM. 2000. Salmonid habitat modelling studies and their contribution to the development of an ecologically acceptable
release policy for Kielder Reservoir, north-east England. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16: 203–224.
Gippel CJ. 2001. Australia’s environmental flow initiative: filling some knowledge gaps and exposing others. Water Science and Technology
43(9): 73–88.
Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ. 1995. Development of an environmental flow management strategy for the Thomson River, Victoria, Australia.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10: 121–135.
Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ. 1996. Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the
2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec,
Canada; A571–582.
Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ. 1998. Use of wetted perimeter in defining minimum environmental flows. Regulated Rivers: Research and Manage-
ment 14: 53–67.
Gippel CJ, Stewardson MJ, Jayasuriya MDA, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA. 1994. Development of an holistic flow management strategy for the
Thomson River, Victoria. In Environmental Flows Seminar Proceedings. AWWA Inc.: Artarmon, Australia; 111–118.
Gopal B, Wetzel RG (eds). 1995. Limnology in Developing Countries. Vol. I. International Association for Theoretical and Applied Limnology
(SIL). International Scientific Publications: New Delhi, India.
Gordon ND, McMahon TA, Finlayson BL. 1992. Stream Hydrology. An Introduction for Ecologists. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Gore JA. 1987. Development and application of macroinvertebrate instream flow models for regulated flow management. In Regulated Streams:
Advances in Ecology, Craig JF, Kemper JB (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 99–116.
Gore JA. 1989. Models for predicting benthic macroinvertebrate habitat suitability under regulated flows. In Alternatives in Regulated River
Management, Gore JA, Petts GE (eds). CRC Press: Florida; 253–265.
Gore JA. 1998. Instream flow studies and habitat suitability—criteria for macroinvertebrates. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Prac-
tice, Legislation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research
Division and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 14–16.
Gore JA, King JM. 1989. Application of the revised physical habitat simulation (PHABSIM II) to minimum flow evaluations of South African
rivers. In Proceedings of the Fourth South African National Hydrological Symposium, Pretoria, 20–22 November, Kienzle S, Maaren H (eds).
289–296.
Gore JA, Nestler JM. 1988. Instream flow studies in perspective. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 2: 93–101.
Gore JA, Petts GE (eds). 1989. Alternatives in Regulated River Management. CRC Press: Florida.
Gore JA, Nestler JM, Layzer JB. 1989. Instream flow predictions and management options for biota affected by peaking-power hydroelectric
operations. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 3: 35–48.
Gore JA, Layzer JB, Russel IH. 1990. A non-traditional application of instream flow techniques for conserving habitat of biota in the Sabie river
of southern Africa. Congress on the Conservation and Management of Rivers, University of York, 10–13 September 1990.
Green Cross International (GCI). 2000. National Sovereignty and International Watercourses. Ruckstuhl SA: Renens, Switzerland.
Growns IO. 1998. Methods addressing the flow requirements of aquatic invertebrates. In Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow
Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Occasional Paper No. 27/98. Land and Water Resources
Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia; 115–140.
Growns IO, Kotlash A. 1994. Environmental Flow Allocations for the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System: a Review of Information. Australian
Water Technologies EnSight Report No. 94/189.
Gustard A, Bullock A. 1991. Advances in low flow estimation and impact assessment. Proceedings of BHS 3rd National Hydrological Sympo-
sium. Southampton, UK; 2.73–2.80.
Gustard A, Cole GA. 1998. Water abstraction and impoundment legislation in England and Wales. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research,
Practice, Legislation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research
Division and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 56–60.
Gustard A, Elliott CRN. 1998. The application of hydro-ecological modelling in the UK. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice,
Legislation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division
and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 23–31.
Hall DN. 1989. Preliminary Assessment of Daily Flows Required to Maintain Habitat for Existing Fish Assemblages in the LaTrobe, Thomson,
Mitchell and Snowy Rivers, Gippsland. Technical Report Series No. 85. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of
Conservation, Forests and Lands: Victoria, Australia.
Hardy TB. 1996. The future of habitat modeling. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydrau-
lics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B447–463.
Hatton T, Evans R. 1998. Dependence of Ecosystems on Groundwater and its Significance to Australia. Occasional Paper No. 12/98. Land and
Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, CSIRO: Australia.
Heeg J, Breen CM. 1982. Man and the Pongola Floodplain. South African National Science Programme Report No. 56. Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research: Pretoria, South Africa; 1–26.
Heggenes J, Harby A, Bult T. 1996. Microposition choice in stream-living Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) parr and brown trout (Salmo trutta):
habitat-hydraulic 3-dimensional model and test. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydrau-
lics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada.

Heyns P, Montgomery S, Pallett J, Seely M (eds). 1998. Namibia’s Water, a Decision Maker’s Guide. Desert Research Foundation of Namibia
and Department of Water Affairs: Windhoek, Namibia.
Hill MT, Platts WS, Beschta RL. 1991. Ecological and geomorphological concepts for instream and out-of-channel flow requirements. Rivers
2(3): 198–210.
Hughes DA. 1999. Towards the incorporation of magnitude-frequency concepts into the Building Block Methodology used for quantifying
ecological flow requirements of South African rivers. Water SA 25(3): 279–284.
Hughes DA. 2001. Providing hydrological information and data analysis tools for the determination of ecological instream flow requirements
for South African rivers. Journal of Hydrology 241: 140–151.
Hughes DA, Ziervogel G. 1998. The inclusion of operating rules in a daily reservoir simulation model to determine ecological reserve releases
for river maintenance. Water SA 24(4): 293–302.
Hughes DA, O’Keeffe JH, Smakhtin V, King JM. 1997. Development of an operating rule model to simulate time series of reservoir releases for
instream flow requirements. Water SA 23(1): 21–30.
Huusko A, Yrjänä T. 1996. Effects of instream enhancement structures on brown trout habitat availability in a channelized boreal river: a PHAB-
SIM-approach. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valen-
tin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B619–630.
International Rivers Network (IRN). 1997. Feasibility Study for the Cunene Hydropower Project. Draft Report. http://www.irn.org.
International Water Management Institute (IWMI), General Directorate of Rural Services Turkey. 2000. Irrigation in the Basin Context: The
Gediz Study. International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Jewitt GPW, Heritage GL, Weeks DC, Mackenzie JA, Van Niekerk A, Görgens AHM, O’Keeffe JH, Rogers K, Horn M. 1998. Modelling Abio-
tic-biotic Links in the Sabie River. Water Research Commission Report No. 777/1/98. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
Jiřinec P, Mattas D. 1998. To calibration of hydraulic part of PHABSIM system (sic). In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Leg-
islation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and
Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 16–19.
Johnson IW, Elliott CRN, Gustard A. 1995. Modelling the effect of groundwater abstraction on salmonid habitat availability in the River Allen,
Dorset, England. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 10: 229–238.
Jorde K. 1996. Ecological evaluation of instream flow regulations based on temporal and spatial variability of bottom shear stress and hydraulic
habitat quality. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin
S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B163–174.
Jorde K. 1997. Oekologisch Begruendete, Dynamische Mindestwasserregelungen bei Ausleitungskraftwerken. PhD dissertation, Mitteilungen
des Instituts für Wasserbau, Heft 90, Universitaet Stuttgart, Germany.
Jorde K, Bratrich C. 1998. Influence of river bed morphology and flow regulations in diverted streams on bottom shear stress pattern and hydrau-
lic habitat. In Advances in River Bottom Ecology IV, Bretschko G, Helešic J (eds). Backhuys Publishers: Leiden, The Netherlands; 47–63.
Jorde K, Schneider M, Zoellner F. 2000. Analysis of instream habitat quality—preference functions and fuzzy models. In Stochastic Hydraulics
2000, Wang H (ed.). Balkema: Rotterdam; 671–680.
Jorde K, Schneider M, Peter A, Zoellner F. 2001. Fuzzy based models for the evaluation of fish habitat quality and instream flow assessment.
CD-ROM Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics. 5–8 December 2001, Tempe, AZ.
Jourdonnais JH, Stanford JA, Hauer FR, Hall CAS. 1990. Assessing options for stream regulation using hydrologic simulations and cumulative
impact analysis: Flathead river basin, U.S.A. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 5: 279–293.
Jowett IG. 1989. River Hydraulic and Habitat Simulation, RHYHABSIM Computer Manual. Fisheries Miscellaneous Report 49. New Zealand
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries: Christchurch.
Jowett IG. 1997. Instream flow methods: a comparison of approaches. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 13: 115–127.
Jowett IG, Richardson J. 1995. Habitat preferences of common riverine New Zealand native fishes and implications for flow management. New
Zealand Journal of Marine Freshwater Research 29: 13–23.
Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. In Proceedings of the International Large River
Symposium (LARS), Dodge DP (ed.). Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 106: 110–127.
Kadlec JA. 1976. Methodologies for assessing instream flows for wildlife. In Methodologies for the Determination of Stream Resource Flow
Requirements: An Assessment, Stalnaker CB, Arnette SC (eds). US Fish and Wildlife Services, Office of Biological Services Western Water
Association: Washington, DC.
Karim K, Gubbels ME, Goulter IC. 1995. Review of determination of instream flow requirements with special application to Australia. Water
Resources Bulletin 31(6): 1063–1077.
Karr JR. 1991. Biological integrity: a long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1: 66–84.
Kennard MJ, Arthington AH, Thompson CT. 2000. Flow requirements of freshwater fish. In Environmental Flow Requirements of the Brisbane
River Downstream of Wivenhoe Dam, Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Choy SC, Kennard MJ, Mackay, SJ, McCosker RO, Ruffini JL, Zalucki JM
(eds). South East Queensland Water Corporation, and Centre for Catchment and In-Stream Research, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia;
265–329.
King JM, Louw MD. 1998. Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the Building Block Methodology. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health and Management 1: 109–124.
King JM, O’Keeffe JH. 1989. Looking to the future—South Africa’s requirements. In Ecological Flow Requirements for South African
Rivers, Ferrar AA (ed.). South African National Scientific Programmes Report No. 162. Foundation for Research Development, CSIR:
Pretoria, South Africa.

King JM, Tharme RE. 1994. Assessment of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and Initial Development of Alternative Instream Flow
Methodologies for South Africa. Water Research Commission Report No. 295/1/94. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
King JM, Schael DM. 2001. Assessing the Ecological Relevance of a Spatially-nested Geomorphological Hierarchy for River Management.
Water Research Commission Report No. 754/1/01. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
King JM, Tharme RE, Brown CA. 1999. Definition and Implementation of Instream Flows. Thematic Report for the World Commission on
Dams. Southern Waters Ecological Research and Consulting: Cape Town, South Africa.
King JM, Tharme RE, De Villiers M (eds). 2000. Environmental Flow Assessments for Rivers: Manual for the Building Block Methodology.
Water Research Commission Technology Transfer Report No. TT131/00. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
King J, Brown C, Sabet H. 2003. A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Research and Applica-
tions 19: 619–639.
Kingsford RT. 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology
25: 109–127.
Kinhill Engineers. 1988. Techniques for Determining Environmental Water Requirements—a Review. A report to the Department of Water
Resources Victoria, Australia. Technical Report Series Report No. 40.
Kirk S, Soley R. 2000. A framework for assessing water resources and abstraction sustainability. In Groundwater: Past Achievements and
Future Challenges, Sililo et al. (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam; 953–957.
Kite JM, Ventriss HB, Arrowsmith NJ. 1994. Environmental water provisions for groundwater fed ecosystems in Western Australia. In Envir-
onmental Flows Seminar Proceedings. AWWA Inc.: Artarmon, Australia; 142–148.
Koehn J. 1986. Approaches to determining flow and habitat requirements for freshwater native fish in Victoria. In Stream Protection: The Man-
agement of Rivers for Instream Uses, Campbell IC (ed.). Water Studies Centre, Chisholm Institute of Technology: Australia; 95–113.
Kulik BH. 1990. A method to refine the New England Aquatic Base Flow policy. Rivers 1(1): 8–22.
Lamb BL. 1998. Protection of instream uses of water in the U.S. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and Decision-
making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water Research
Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 55–56.
Lamoroux N, Capra H, Pouilly M. 1998. Predicting habitat suitability for lotic fish: linking statistical hydraulic models with multivariate habitat
use models. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 14: 1–11.
Lamoroux N, Olivier J, Persat H, Pouilly M, Souchon Y, Statzner B. 1999. Predicting community characteristics from habitat conditions: fluvial
fish and hydraulics. Freshwater Biology 42: 1–25.
Lanz K, Scheuer S. 2001. European Environmental Bureau (EEB) Handbook on European Union (EU) Water Policy Under the Water Frame-
work Directive. EEB: Brussels.
Leathe S, Nelson FA. 1986. A Literature Evaluation of Montana’s Wetted Perimeter Inflection Point Method for Deriving Instream Flow Recom-
mendations. Helena Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, USA.
Leclerc M, Boudreault A, Bechara J, Corfa G. 1995. Two-dimensional hydrodynamic modelling: a neglected tool in the Instream Flow Incre-
mental Methodology. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124(5): 645–662.
Lillehammer A, Saltveit SJ (eds). 1984. Regulated Rivers. Universitetsforlaget As: Oslo, Norway.
Loar JM, Sale MJ. 1981. Analysis of Environmental Issues Related to Small-scale Hydroelectric Development. V. Instream Flow Needs for
Fisheries Resources. Environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 1829 ONRL/TM-7861. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Depart-
ment of Energy.
Loar JM, Sale MJ, Cada GF. 1986. Instream flow needs to protect fishery resources. Water Forum ’86: World Water Issues in Evolution. Pro-
ceedings of ASCE Conference. Long Beach, California, 4–6 August 1986.
Locke AGH. 1996. Recommending variable flow values for fish. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on
Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A559–570.
Loneragan NR, Bunn SE. 1999. River flows and estuarine ecosystems: implications for coastal fisheries from a review and a case study of the
Logan River, southeast Queensland. Australian Journal of Ecology 24: 431–440.
Mackay SJ, Thompson CT. 2000. Flow requirements of submerged aquatic macrophytes. In Environmental Flow Requirements of the Brisbane
River Downstream of Wivenhoe Dam, Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Choy SC, Kennard MJ, Mackay SJ, McCosker RO, Ruffini JL, Zalucki JM
(eds). South East Queensland Water Corporation, and Centre for Catchment and In-Stream Research, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia;
169–218.
Malan HL, Day JA. 2002. Linking Discharge, Water Quality and Biotic Response in Rivers: A Literature Review. Water Research Commission
Report No. 956/2/02. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
Mathur D, Bason WH, Purdy EJ, Jr, Silver CA. 1985. A critique of the instream flow incremental methodology. Canadian Journal of Fisheries
and Aquatic Sciences 42: 825–831.
Matsuno Y, van der Hoek W, Ranawake M (eds). 1998. Irrigation Water Management and the Bundala National Park. International Water
Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Matthews RC, Jr, Bao Y. 1991. The Texas method of preliminary instream flow determination. Rivers 2(4): 295–310.
McCosker RO. 1998. Methods addressing the flow requirements of wetland, riparian and floodplain vegetation. In Comparative Evaluation of
Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques: Review of Methods, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Occasional Paper No. 27/98. Land and
Water Resources Research and Development Corporation: Canberra, Australia; 47–65.
McCully P. 1996. Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams. ZED books: London and New Jersey.

Merle G, Eon J. 1996. A full-scale test to validate the contribution of the IFIM procedure in the choice of a guaranteed flow downstream hydro-
stations. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S,
Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B419–430.
Metsi Consultants. 2000. Consulting Services for the Establishment and Monitoring of the Instream Flow Requirements for River Courses
Downstream of LHWP (Lesotho Highlands Water Project) dams. Final Report: summary of main findings. Report No. 648-F-02. (Authors:
King J, Sabet H, Brown C, Hirst S.) Lesotho Highlands Development Authority Contract 648: Maseru, Lesotho.
Milhous RT. 1998a. A review of the physical habitat simulation system. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and
Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water
Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 7–8.
Milhous RT. 1998b. Application of the principles of IFIM to the analysis of environmental flow needs for substrate maintenance in the Trinity
River, northern California. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and Decision-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C,
Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water Research Institute, Fort Collins, and Water
Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 50–52.
Milhous RT, Updike MA, Schneider DM. 1989. Physical Habitat Simulation System Reference Manual—Version 2. Instream Flow Information
Paper 26. USDI Fish and Wildlife Services, Biology Report 89(16).
Moosmann LK, Jorde K, Schneider M, Meier W, Peter A, Wüest A. 2002. Restwasserbemessung fürökostrom am Beispiel des Brunno
(Bleniotal, TI). Ökostrom Publikationen Band 9. EAWAG: Switzerland.
Morhardt JE. 1986. Instream Flow Methodologies. EA-4819 Research Project 2194-2. Electric Power Research Institute: California.
Mosley MP. 1983. Flow requirements for recreation and wildlife in New Zealand rivers—a review. Journal of Hydrology (N.Z.) 22(2): 152–174.
Mosley MP, Jowett IG. 1985. Fish habitat analysis using river flow simulation. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 19:
293–309.
Muotka J, Maki-Petays A, Kreivi P. 1996. Spatial relationships between lotic fishes, benthic macroinvertebrates and the stream habitat: towards
a GIS-assisted approach. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra
H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B45–54.
Nakamura S. 1999. Recent river ecosystem conservation efforts downstream of power dams in a densely populated and highly industrialized
country: Japan. Keynote speech. In International Energy Agency, Annex III—Hydropower and Environment. Technical seminar, Madrid,
Spain, March 1999.
Nehring RB. 1979. Evaluation of Instream Flow Methods and Determination of Water Quantity Needs for Streams in the State of Colorado.
Colorado Division of Wildlife: Fort Collins, CO.
Nelson FA. 1980. Evaluation of selected instream flow methods in Montana. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Western Associa-
tion of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 412–432.
Nestler JM, Milhous RT, Layzer JB. 1989. Instream habitat modeling techniques. In Alternatives in Regulated River Management, Gore JA,
Petts GE (eds). CRC Press: Florida; 295–315.
Nestler JM, Schneider LT, Latka D, Johnson P. 1996. Impact analysis and restoration planning using the riverine community habitat assessment
and restoration concept (RCHARC). In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc
M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A871–876.
Newcombe C. 1981. A procedure to estimate changes in fish populations caused by changes in stream discharge. Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 110: 382–390.
Newson MD. 1992. River conservation and catchment management: a UK perspective. In River Conservation and Management, Boon PJ,
Calow P, Petts GE (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 385–396.
O’Keeffe JH, Davies BR. 1991. Conservation and management of the rivers of the Kruger National Park: suggested methods for calculating
instream flow needs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 1: 55–71.
O’Keeffe JH, Danilewitz DB, Bradshaw JA. 1987. An expert system approach to the assessment of the conservation status of rivers. Biological
Conservation 40: 69–84.
O’Keeffe JH, Weeks DC, Fourie A, Davies BR. 1996. A Pre-impoundment Study of the Sabie-Sand River system, Mpumalanga with Special
Reference to Predicted Impacts on the Kruger National Park. Water Research Commission Report No. 294/3/96.
O’Keeffe JH, Hughes DA, Tharme RE. 2002. Linking ecological responses to altered flows for use in environmental flow assessments: the Flow
Stress or Response method. Verhandhungen International Vereinigung Limnologie 28: 84–92.
Orth DJ. 1987. Ecological considerations in the development and application of instream flow-habitat models. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 1: 171–181.
Orth DJ, Leonard PM. 1990. Comparison of discharge methods and habitat optimization for recommending instream flows to protect fish habi-
tat. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 5: 129–138.
Orth DJ, Maughan OE. 1981. Evaluation of the ‘Montana method’ for recommending instream flows in Oklahoma streams. Proceedings of the
Oklahoma Academy of Science 61: 62–66.
Orth DJ, Maughan OE. 1982. Evaluation of the Incremental Methodology for recommending instream flows for fishes. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 111: 413–445.
O’Shea DT. 1995. Estimating minimum instream flow requirements for Minnesota streams from hydrologic data and watershed characteristics.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management 15: 569–578.
Ott T. 2001. Juvenile Salmon Behaviour as a Response to the Flow Manipulation in Mandal River and Fuzzy-rule Based Habitat Simulation.
MSc thesis, Institute of Hydraulic Engineering, University of Stuttgart, Germany, and SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway.

Padmore CL. 1998. The role of physical biotopes in determining the conservation status and flow requirements of British rivers. Aquatic
Ecosystem Health and Management 1: 25–35.
Palau A, Alcazar J. 1996. The basic flow: an alternative approach to calculate minimum environmental instream flows. In Ecohydraulics 2000.
Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds).
INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A547–558.
Palmer CG. 1999. The application of ecological research in the development of a new water law in South Africa. Journal of the North American
Benthological Society 18: 132–142.
Parsons R, MacKay H. 2000. Determination of the groundwater component of the Reserve using the Intermediate Reserve Determination
method. In Groundwater: Past Achievements and Future Challenges, Sililo et al. (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam; 999–1004.
Payne and Associates 2000. RHABSIM: http://www.northcoast.com/ntrpa/
Petts GE. (ed.). 1984. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.
Petts GE. 1989. Perspectives for ecological management of regulated rivers. In Alternatives in Regulated River Management, Gore JA, Petts GE
(eds). CRC Press: Florida; 3–24.
Petts GE. 1996. Water allocation to protect river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12: 353–365.
Petts GE, Maddock I. 1994. Flow allocation for in-river needs. In River Restoration, Petts GE, Calow P (eds). Blackwell Science: Oxford;
60–79.
Petts GE, Maddock I, Bickerton MA, Ferguson AJD. 1995. Linking hydrology and ecology: the scientific basis for river management. In The
Ecological Basis for River Management, Harper DM, Ferguson AJD (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 1–16.
Petts GE, Bickerton MA, Crawford C, Lerner DN, Evans D. 1999. Flow management to sustain groundwater-dominated stream ecosystems.
Hydrological Processes 13: 497–513.
Peviani MA, Saccardo I, Crosato A, Gentili G. 1996. Natural/artificial floods connected with river habitat. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings
of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec,
Canada; B175–186.
Poff NL, Ward JV. 1989. Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic community structure: a regional analysis of stream-
flow patterns. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46: 1805–1818.
Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. 1997. The natural flow regime. A paradigm for
river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47: 769–784.
Pollard S. 2000. Social use of riverine resources. In Environmental Flow Assessments for Rivers: Manual for the Building Block Methodology,
King JM, Tharme RE, De Villiers MS (eds). Water Research Commission Technology Transfer Report No. TT131/00. Water Research Com-
mission: Pretoria; 95–116.
Postel SL. 1995. Where have all the rivers gone? World Watch 8: 9–19.
Postel SL. 1998. Water for food production: will there be enough in 2025? BioScience 48: 629–637.
Postel SL, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR. 1996. Human appropriation of renewable freshwater. Science 271: 785–788.
Prewitt CG, Carlson CA. 1980. Evaluation of Four Instream Flow Methodologies Used on the Yampa and White Rivers, Colorado. Biological
Sciences Series Number Two. Bureau of Land Management: Denver, CO.
Pringle CM. 2000. River conservation in tropical versus temperate latitudes. In Global Perspectives on River Conservation: Science, Policy and
Practice, Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts GE (eds). John Wiley & Sons: Chichester; 371–384.
Pringle CM, Freeman MC, Freeman BJ. 2000. Regional effects of hydrologic alterations on riverine macrobiota in the New World: tropical-
temperate comparisons. BioScience 50(9): 807–823.
Pusey BJ. 1998. Methods addressing the flow requirements of fish. In Comparative Evaluation of Environmental Flow Assessment Techniques:
Review of Methods, Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds). Occasional Paper No. 27/98. Land and Water Resources Research and Development
Corporation: Canberra, Australia; 66–105.
Ractliffe SG, King JM. 1996. Bulk Water Estimate of the Instream Flow Requirements for the Malibamatso River. Lesotho Highlands Devel-
opment Authority Report No. 1013/D10A/00. Matsoku Diversion Partnership: Maseru, Lesotho; in association with Southern Waters: Cape
Town, South Africa.
Rapport DJ, Costanza R, McMichael AJ. 1998. Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 397–402.
Reiser DW, Ramey MP, Lambert TR. 1987. Considerations in assessing flushing flow needs in regulated stream systems. In Regulated Streams:
Advances in Ecology, Craig JF, Kemper JB (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 45–57.
Reiser DW, Wesche TA, Estes C. 1989a. Status of instream flow legislation and practise in North America. Fisheries 14(2): 22–29.
Reiser DW, Ramey MP, Wesche TA. 1989b. Flushing flows. In Alternatives in Regulated River Management, Gore JA, Petts GE (eds). CRC
Press: Florida; 91–138.
Revenga C, Murray S, Abramowitz J, Hammond A. 1998. Watersheds of the World: Ecological Value and Vulnerability. World Resources
Institute and Worldwatch Institute: Washington, DC.
Revenga C, Brunner J, Henninger N, Kassem K, Payne R. 2000. Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems: Freshwater Ecosystems. World Resources
Institute: Washington, DC.
Richardson BA. 1986. Evaluation of instream flow methodologies for freshwater fish in New South Wales. In Stream Protection: The Manage-
ment of Rivers for Instream Uses, Campbell IC (ed.). Water Studies Centre: Chisholm Institute of Technology, Australia; 143–167.
Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. 1996. A method for assessing hydrological alteration within ecosystems. Conservation
Biology 10(4): 1163–1174.
Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37: 231–249.
Richter BD, Braun DP, Mendelson MA, Master LL. 1998. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11: 1081–1093.

Roberts CPR. 1983. Environmental constraints on water resources development. Proceedings of the South African Institution of Civil Engineers
1: 16–23.
Rogers K, Bestbier R. 1997. Development of a Protocol for the Definition of the Desired State of Riverine Systems in South Africa. Department
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism: Pretoria; South Africa.
Rosenberg DM, McCully P, Pringle CM. 2000. Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological alterations: introduction. BioScience 50(9):
746–751.
Rowntree KM, Wadeson RA. 1997. A hierarchical geomorphological model for the assessment of instream flow requirements. Geoöko Plus 4:
85–100.
Rowntree KM, Wadeson RA. 1998. A geomorphological framework for the assessment of instream flow requirements. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management 1: 125–141.
Rowntree KM, Wadeson RA. 1999. A Hierarchical Geomorphological Model for the Classification of Selected South African river systems.
Water Research Commission Final Report. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
Salverda AP, Kerkhofs MJJ, Verbraak PJJ, Klein JD. 1996. Towards a method to reconstruct a natural hydrograph for defining ecologically
acceptable discharge fluctuations. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc
M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec City, Canada; A711–722.
Schneider M. 2001. Habitat-und Abflussmodellierung für Fliessgewässer mit unscharfen Berechnungsansätzen. PhD dissertation, Mitteilungen
des Instituts für Wasserbau, Heft 108, Universitaet Stuttgart, Germany.
Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (SWK). 1992. Method for Assessment of Low Flow Conditions Caused by Abstraction. R&D Note 45. National Rivers
Authority: Bristol, UK.
Scott D, Shirvell CS. 1987. A critique of the instream flow incremental methodology and observations on flow determination in New Zealand. In
Regulated Streams: Advances in Ecology, Craig JF, Kemper JB (eds). Plenum Press: New York and London; 27–43.
Scruton DA, LeDrew LJ. 1996. A retrospective assessment of a regulated flow regimen for a Newfoundland (Canada) river. In Ecohydraulics
2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds).
INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A533–A546.
Scruton D, Heggenes J, Valentin S. 1996. Field sampling design and spatial scale in habitat-hydraulic modelling: comparison of three models. In
Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S, Boudreault A,
Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B307–B321.
Semmekrot S, Kerkhof MJJ, Van Liebergen JCG. 1996. Ecological rehabilitation of the River Meuse: a framework for assessment of ecological
effects of discharges. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H,
Valentin S, Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; A595–A606.
Sheail J. 1984. Constraints on water-resource development in England and Wales: concept and management of compensation flows. Journal of
Environmental Management 19: 351–361.
Sheail J. 1987. River regulation in the United Kingdom: an historical perspective. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 2: 221–232.
Shirvell CS. 1986. Pitfalls of Physical Habitat Simulation in the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. Canadian Technical Report of Fish-
eries and Aquatic Sciences 1460.
Shirvell CS, Dungey RG. 1983. Microhabitats chosen by brown trout for feeding and spawning in rivers. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 112(3): 355–367.
Singh KP, Broeren SM. 1989. Hydraulic geometry of streams and stream habitat assessment. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Manage-
ment 115(5): 583–597.
Sinisalmi T, Forsius J, Muotka T, Riihimäki J, Soimakallio H, Vehanen T, Yrjänä T. 1997. Short-term Regulation of Hydro Powerplants—Stu-
dies on the Environmental Effects. IVO Technology Centre: Finland.
Smakhtin VU. 2001. Low flow hydrology: a review. Journal of Hydrology 240: 147–186.
Smolar-Zvanut N, Vrhovsek D. 2002. Evaluation and application of environmental flows for running waters in Slovenia. Proceedings of
Environmental Flows for River Systems and 4th International Ecohydraulics Symposium. Southern Waters, Cape Town, South Africa
(Abstract).
Snaddon CD, Davies BR, Wishart MJ. 1999. A Global Overview of Inter-basin Water Transfer Schemes, with an Appraisal of their Ecological,
Socio-economic and Socio-political Implications, and Recommendations for their Management. Water Research Commission Technology
Transfer Report TT 120/00. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa.
Spence R, Hickley P. 2000. The use of PHABSIM in the management of water resources and fisheries in England and Wales. Ecological Engi-
neering 16: 153–158.
Stalnaker CB. 1979. The use of habitat stucture preferenda for establishing flow regimes necessary for maintenance of fish habitat. In The
Ecology of Regulated Streams, Ward JV, Stanford JA (eds). Plenum Press: New York and London; 321–337.
Stalnaker CB. 1982. Instream flow assessments come of age in the decade of the 1970’s. In Research on Fish and Wildlife Habitat, Mason WT,
Iker S (eds). EPA-600/8-82-022. Office of Research and Development. US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC; 119–142.
Stalnaker CB. 1998. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and Deci-
sion-making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water Research
Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 9–11.
Stalnaker CB, Arnette SC. 1976. Methodologies for the Determination of Stream Resource Flow Requirements: An Assessment. US Fish and
Wildlife Services, Office of Biological Services Western Water Association.
Stalnaker CB, Lamb BL, Henriksen J, Bovee KD, Bartholow J. 1994. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology: A Primer for IFIM.
National Ecology Research Center, Internal Publication. National Biological Survey: Fort Collins, CO, USA.

Stalnaker CB, Bovee KD, Waddle TJ. 1996. Importance of the temporal aspects of habitat hydraulics to fish population studies. Regulated
Rivers: Research and Management 12: 145–153.
Stanford JA, Ward JV, Liss WJ, Frissell CA, Williams RN, Lichatowich JA, Coutant CC. 1996. A general protocol for restoration of regulated
rivers. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 12(4–5): 391–413.
Statzner B, Kohmann F, Schmedtje U. 1990. A method of ecological appraisal for determining instream flow requirements in diverted streams.
Wasserwirtschaft 80(5): 248–254.
Steward HJ, Madacombe EK, Topping CC. 2002. Adapting environmental flows technologies for Zimbabwe. Proceedings of Environmenal
Flows for River System and 4th International Ecohydraulics Symposium. Southern Waters, Cape Town, South Africa.
Stewardson M. 2001. The flow events method for developing environmental flow regimes. In The Value of Healthy Rivers, Rutherfurd I et al.
(eds). Proceedings of the 3rd Australian Stream Management Conference. 27–29 August 2001, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; 577–582.
Stewardson M, Gippel C. 1997. In-stream Environmental Flow Design: A Review. Draft Report. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment
Hydrology, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne: Victoria, Australia.
Sutton RJ, Miller WJ, Patti SJ. 1997. Application of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology to a tropical river in Puerto Rico. Rivers 6(1):
1–9.
Swales S, Harris JH. 1995. The expert panel assessment method (EPAM): a new tool for determining environmental flows in regulated rivers. In
The Ecological Basis for River Management, Harper DM, Ferguson AJD (eds). John Wiley & Sons: New York; 125–134.
Swales S, Bishop KA, Harris JH. 1994. Assessment of environmental flows for native fish in the Murray-Darling Basin—a comparison of
methods. In Proceedings of Environmental Flows Seminar. Australian Water and Wastewater Association Inc.: Artarmon, NSW, Australia;
184–192.
Tamai N, Kim HR, Kawahara Y. 1996. Application of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology to conservation flow for freshwater fishes in
Japan. In Ecohydraulics 2000. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Habitat Hydraulics, Leclerc M, Capra H, Valentin S,
Boudreault A, Côté Y (eds). INRS-Eau: Québec, Canada; B239–250.
Tennant DL. 1976. Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1(4): 6–10.
Tharme RE. 1996. Review of International Methodologies for the Quantification of the Instream Flow Requirements of Rivers. Water law review
final report for policy development for the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Freshwater Research Unit, University of Cape
Town, South Africa.
Tharme RE. 1997. Review of IFR methodologies. In Task 1 Report: IFR Methodology and Parameters, Consulting Services for the Establish-
ment and Monitoring of the Instream Flow Requirements for River Courses Downstream of LHWP dams, Metsi Consultants, Lesotho High-
lands Water Project. Report No. 648–02. Lesotho Highlands Development Authority: Lesotho.
Tharme RE. 2000. An overview of environmental flow methodologies, with particular reference to South Africa. In Environmental Flow Assess-
ments for Rivers: Manual for the Building Block Methodology, King JM, Tharme RE, De Villiers MS (eds). Water Research Commission
Technology Transfer Report No. TT131/00. Water Research Commission: Pretoria, South Africa; 15–40.
Tharme RE, King JM. 1998. Development of the Building Block Methodology for Instream Flow Assessments, and Supporting Research on the
Effects of Different Magnitude Flows on Riverine Ecosystems. Water Research Commission Report No. 576/1/98.
Thompson AR. 1992. Water allocation for the environment—the Canadian experience. In Proceedings of an International Seminar and
Workshop on Water Allocation for the Environment, Pigram JJ, Hooper BP (eds). The Centre for Water Policy Research, University of
New England: Armidale, Australia; 155–168.
Thoms MC, Sheldon F, Roberts J, Harris J, Hillman TJ. 1996. Scientific Panel Assessment of Environmental Flows for the Barwon-Darling
River. A report to the Technical Services Division of the New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation, Australia.
Tierney L. 1986. River protection and flow requirements for fish: the New Zealand experience. In Stream Protection. The Management of Rivers
for Instream Uses, Campbell IC (ed.). Water Studies Centre, Chisholm Institute of Technology: East Caulfield, Australia; 169–197.
Trihey EW, Stalnaker CB. 1985. Evolution and application of instream flow methodologies to small hydropower developments: an overview of
the issues. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Small Hydropower and Fisheries, Olson FW, White RG, Hamre RH (eds). Aurora, CO.
Ubertini L, Manciola P, Casadei S. 1996. Evaluation of the minimum instream flow of the Tiber River Basin. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 41: 125–136.
USGS. 2000. United States Geological Survey web site http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/rsm/IFIM.html
Vismara R, Azzellino A, Bosi R, Crosa G, Gentili G. 2001. Habitat suitability curves for brown trout (Salmo trutta fario L.) in the River Adda,
northern Italy: comparing univariate and multivariate approaches. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 37–50.
Waddle T. 1998a. Integrating microhabitat and macrohabitat. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and Decision-
making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water Research
Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 12–14.
Waddle T. 1998b. Development of 2-dimensional habitat models. In Hydroecological Modelling. Research, Practice, Legislation and Decision-
making, Blažková Š, Stalnaker C, Novický O (eds). Report by US Geological Survey, Biological Research Division and Water Research
Institute, Fort Collins, and Water Research Institute, Praha, Czech Republic. VUV: Praha; 19–22.
Wadeson RA, Rowntree KM. 1998. Application of the hydraulic biotope concept to the classification of instream habitats. Aquatic Ecosystem
Health and Management 1: 143–157.
Walker KF. 1985. A review of the ecological effects of river regulation in Australia. Hydrobiologia 125: 111–129.
Walker KF, Sheldon F, Puckridge JT. 1995. A perspective on dryland river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 11: 85–
104.
Walter AC, Burgess GK, Johnston PJ. 1994. Assessment of a process for determining environmental flows. In Environmental Flows Seminar
Proceedings. AWWA Inc.: Artarmon, Australia; 195–201.

Ward JA. 1982. Ecological aspects of stream regulation: responses in downstream lotic reaches. Water Pollution and Management Reviews (New
Delhi) 2: 1–26.
Ward JA, Stanford JA (eds). 1979. The Ecology of Regulated Streams. Plenum Press: New York.
Ward JA, Stanford JA. 1987. The ecology of regulated streams: past accomplishments and directions for future research. In Regulated Streams:
Advances in Ecology, Craig JF, Kemper JB (eds). Plenum Press: New York; 391–409.
Waters BF. 1976. A methodology for evaluating the effects of different stream flows on salmonid habitat. In Symposium on Instream Flow
Needs, Orsborn JF, Allman CH (eds). American Fisheries Society: Bethseda, MD, USA.
Werren GL, Arthington AH. 2003. The assessment of riparian vegetation as an indicator of stream condition, with particular emphasis on the
rapid assessment of flow-related impacts. In Landscape Health of Queensland, Playford J, Shapcott A, Franks A (eds). Royal Society of
Queensland: Brisbane; 194–222.
Wesche TA, Rechard PA. 1980. A Summary of Instream Flow Methods for Fisheries and Related Needs. Eisenhower Consortium Bulletin No. 9.
Water Resources Research Institute, University of Wyoming, for the USDA Forest Service.
Wetzel RG, Gopal B (eds). 1999. Limnology in Developing Countries. Volume II. International Association for Theoretical and Applied Lim-
nology (SIL). International Scientific Publications: New Delhi, India.
Wetzel RG, Gopal B (eds). 2001. Limnology in Developing Countries. Volume III. International Association for Theoretical and Applied Lim-
nology (SIL). International Scientific Publications: New Delhi, India.
Whittaker D, Shelby B, Jackson W, Beschta R. 1993. Instream Flows for Recreation: A Handbook on Concepts and Research Methods. USDI
National Parks Service, Alaska Region: Anchorage, Alaska, USA.
Whittington J. 2000. Technical Review of Elements of the WAMP Process of the Queensland DNR: Outcomes of a Workshop Held at the River
Glen Conference Centre on the 9th and 10th November 1999. Technical Report. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology: Aus-
tralia.
Williams JB, McKellar HN, Jr. 1984. Determination of optimum minimum flow from a dam by using energy analysis. Environmental Manage-
ment 8(4): 345–352.
World Commission on Dams (WCD). 2000. Dams and Development. A New Framework for Decision-making. The report of the World Commis-
sion on Dams. Earthscan Publications: London.
World Conservation Union (IUCN). 2000. Vision for Water and Nature. A World Strategy for Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Water Resources in the 21st Century. IUCN: Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
WRI. 2002. World Resources Institute. http://www.wri.org/
Wright JF, Blackburn JH, Gunn RJM, Furse MT, Armitage PD, Winder JM, Symes KL. 1996. Macroinvertebrate frequency data for the
RIVPACS III sites in Great Britain and their use in conservation evaluation. Aquatic Conservation 6: 141–167.
Zalucki JM, Arthington AH. 2000. Vertebrates associated with the Brisbane River. In Environmental Flow Requirements of the Brisbane River
Downstream of Wivenhoe Dam, Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Choy SC, Kennard MJ, Mackay SJ, McCosker RO, Ruffini JL, Zalucki JM (eds).
South East Queensland Water Corporation, and Centre for Catchment and In-Stream Research, Griffith University: Brisbane, Australia;
349–356.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)
Appendix I. Environmental flow methodologies currently in use, historically used but probably superseded by more recent approaches,# or recommended for potential future
428

application,* for rivers in various countries worldwide. Countries are listed in alphabetical order, with regional affinities designated as follows: aAustralasia (Australia and
New Zealand); brest of Asia; cAfrica; dNorth America; eCentral and South America (including Mexico and the Caribbean); fEurope and the Middle East. Methodologies are
listed according to type, namely: 1) hydrological; 2) hydraulic rating; 3) habitat simulation; 4) holistic; 5) combination; 6) other. Where reported, the most widely used or
preferred methodologies are highlighted in bold. ? ¼ unconfirmed. Abbreviations are listed in the footnote. Major sources of information used include: Stalnaker and
Arnette (1976); Reiser et al. (1989a); Tharme (1996, 1997, unpublished report); Dunbar et al. (1998); Arthington (1998a); Arthington and Zalucki (1998a); and King
et al. (1999), as well as personal communications with at least 60 country experts (see below and Acknowledgements). Selected references for methodology development
and case studies of application in individual countries are provided, where numbered superscripts 1-225 are used to distinguish the various methodologies tabulated

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

a 89
Australia 1) 1Tennant Method; 29Q95 (or a multiple thereof); 33FDC analysis & Koehn, 1986; 1,29,33,53,89,118Richardson, 1986; Campbell, 1986;
89
various percentiles (incl. ecological & geomorphological data); 14Various Kinhill Engineers, 1988; 89,143,188Hall, 1989; Pigram & Hooper, 1992;
147
percentages of pre-regulation MAR (e.g. 22%, 10%); 50Texas Arthington et al., 1992; 1,33,89,118,147,153,169Arthington & Pusey, 1993

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Method; 61Orth & Leonard Regionalization Method; 60RQ Index of (& refs. cited: 169Anderson & Morison, 1988a, b; 65,143Tunbridge &
Disturbance; 23Q80 (of unregulated mean daily flow regime); 58Flow Glenane, 1988; 89,95Gan & McMahon, 1990; 33,143,188Hall, 1991;
95,147
Translucency Approach; 53Modified Hoppe & Finnell Method (coupled Arthington et al., 1992, a, b); 33,45,147,153Cross et al., 1994 (& refs.
with FDC analysis); 45VHI; *44RVA cited: 1,33,50,61,213Green, 1993; 168Cooney, 1994b; 168Ardill & Cross, 1994);
1,14,33,89,147,153,186
2) 65Wetted Perimeter Method Growns & Kotlash, 1994; 53,118,143,153Swales et al., 1994;
153,156
3) 89IFIM; 95RHYHABSIM; 118MTA; 143Physical Habitat Analysis; Walter et al., 1994; 14,187Gippel et al., 1994; 89,144Gippel & Stewardson,
143
Fish Habitat Analysis; 144Habitat Duration Analysis (median or 1995, 651998; 153Swales & Harris, 1995; 1,147Karim et al., 1995; 65, 89Davies
other percentile of habitat condition) & Humphries, 1995; SGCMC, 1996, cited in Stewardson, 2001; 154Thoms
4) 147Holistic Approach (incl. use of ADVICE Hydrological et al., 1996; 156Burgess & Vanderbyl, 1996; 189Stewardson & Gippel, 1997
Program, RHYHABSIM, *multivariate index of environmental (& refs. cited: 23Knights & Fitzgerald, 1994; 60Gehrke et al., 1995);
44,95,147,153,154,156,160
effectiveness; *IFIM-based analyses); 148BBM; 153EPAM; 154SPAM Arthington 1998a (& refs. cited: 89Pusey & Arthington,
R. E. THARME

(incl. use of IQQM); 163Snowy Inquiry Methodology; 156Habitat 1991; Arthington et al., 1992b; Arthington, 1994; Blühdorn & Arthington, 1995;
Analysis Method (incl. TAP & IQQM); 157WAMP Expert Panel Young et al., 1995; 153SREP, 1996; 153,163Bishop, 1996; 153Cooksey, 1996;
153
Method (incl. IQQM); 158Benchmarking Methodology (incl. IQQM, CWPR, 1996; 147Davies et al., 1996; 156,157,158Burgess & Thoms, 1997;
147
typically in association with Queensland WAMP, for water Resource Growns & Growns, 1997; 147Scott et al., 1998; McCosker 1998a, b;
157,158
Plans); 159FLOWRESM (incl. IQQM); 161Flow Events Method; Vanderbyl, 1998; DNR 1998a, b); 159Arthington, 1998b;
160 156,157,158,159
Local FLOWRESM-type approaches for river restoration; *DRIFT Arthington & Zalucki, 1998a, b; 148Arthington & Lloyd, 1998;
(specialist development and input overseas, but not applied locally) Arthington et al., 1998a, b, 1592000; 1,61,153,154Pusey, 1998; Brizga, 1998;
157,158
5) 168Studies of threshold components of flow regime; 186DWR Bunn, 1998; 157,158Burgess & Thoms, 1998; 157,158Thoms & Swirepik,
case-specific holistic-based approaches (minimising deviation of flow 1998, cited in Bragg et al., 1999; 157,158Whittington, 2000; 161Stewardson,
regime from natural); 187Thomson River Fish Habitat-Flow 2001; 161Cottingham et al., 2001; 58Gippel, 2001 (& refs. cited: 163SWI, 1998;
163
Approach; 169Wimmera River Habitat-based Approach (primarily fish Gippel et al., 1999); 158DNR, 1998, 2000; 158Brizga, 2000;
158
habitat, incl. water quality & experimental flow release); Brizga et al., 2000a, b; 158Brizga et al., 2001a, b, c,
#188
Hall Fish Habitat Approach; 189Physical Biotopes approaches d); pers. comm: 44T. Ladson; 158A. Arthington; M. Stewardson; C. Gippel;
6) PJ; 213Means of recommended Qs derived from multiple M. Kennard; I. Campbell
methodologies
f 115,166
Austria 1) VHI? Dunbar et al., 1998
3) 115Quantitative fish habitat modelling (unspecified); IFIM?
5) 166Holistic framework combining expert opinion, various criteria
(unspecified), a 7-point naturalness scale & elements of IFIM/PHABSIM

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

f 190
Belgium 1) VHI? Salverda et al., 1996
5) 190Hydrograph Reconstruction Approach (Meuse River, shared
with Netherlands & France)
e 24,25,26,38,39,89
Brazil 1) 3850% or 3970% of 7Q10 (reference flow); 2610% of Q90 A.D. Benetti et al., unpubl. paper 2002; pers. comm:
24,25,26,38,39,89
(regulated flow); 24,255–20% of Q90 (reference flow) A. Benetti; 89R. Sarmento
3) 89IFIM
5) *Ecohydrological modelling
f 29,185
Bulgaria 1) 29Q95 (based on Mean Monthly Q) Dacova et al., 2000
5) 185Correlations between Q95, four groups of physico-chemical &
one group of biotic indices
b
Cambodia 4) *Holistic methodologies pers. comm: IWMI; I. Campbell
5) *Habitat-based hydrological modelling linked to fish populations

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(incl. SLURP Model, satellite remote sensing, for lower Mekong
Basin countries)
c 164
Cameroon 5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. socio-economic links) Acreman et al., 2000
d 1 2 119
Canada 1) Tennant Method; Tessman Modification of Tennant Method; Newcombe, 1981; 89Bietz & Kiell, 1982; 89Shirvell, 1986;
6 1,11,65,89,140
Two-level Seasonal Modified Tennant Method (with PJ); 1125% MAF; Reiser et al., 1989a; Thompson, 1992; 1,11,19,24,37,47Caissie &
37
7Q10; 19Median Monthly Flow; 47(New England) ABF Method; El-Jabi, 1994; 11,24Caissie, 1995, cited in Dunbar et al., 1998; 89,111Leclerc
24
Q90; RVA et al., 1995; 6,89Scruton & LeDrew, 1996; 89,96,98,99,111Scruton et al., 1996;
89,93
2) 65Wetted Perimeter Method Locke, 1996 (& refs. cited: 1Longmore & Stenton, 1981); 89Tharme, 1996,
109
3) 89IFIM (primarily PHABSIM); 93Fish Rule Curve Method in prep.; 2,89,102,203Dunbar et al., 1998; 109University of Alberta web site,
(incl. PHABSIM/habitat time series, BSPs, HDCs); 109River2D Model 2001; pers. comm.: C. Estes; C. Katopodis; R. Milhous; B. Richter
(incl. sediment transport module); 1112D/3D hydrodynamic modelling;
98
EVHA; 96RHABSIM; 99RSS (HABITAT Model); 102HABIOSIM;
119
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Newcombe’s Methodology; 140WSP Hydraulic Model (with PJ)

6) PJ; 203Correlations of fish year class to spawning flow
e 10,89
Chile 1) 1010% MAF or 16Mean Monthly Flow H. D. Davis & M. F. Riestra, unpubl. abs. 2002; 10,16,148M. Davis,
3) 89PHABSIM component of IFIM pers. comm.
4) *148BBM
f 35,36,112
Czech 1) Bern35Q355 or 36Q364 (where Q355 ¼ 0, present-day hydrology); 45VHI Bernadová, 1998 (& refs. cited: Bernadová & Mrázek 1995, 1996);
89
Republic 3) 89IFIM (incl. 2-D/3-D hydrodynamic modelling); 112hydraulic habitat Blažková et al., 1998; 89,112Blažková, 1998; 89Jiřinec & Mattas, 1998;
45
modelling D. Mattas, pers. comm.
f 20
Denmark 1) 20Median of Annual Minima (Median Qmin; or a proportion thereof, Miljoestyrelsen, 1979, cited in Jowett, 1997; 20Clausen & Rasmussen, 1988,
depending on river value); 33Low flow indices from FDC analysis cited in Dunbar et al., 1998; 33,40Dunbar et al., 1998
(unspecified); 40Flow indices from frequency analyses (unspecified)
f
Finland 3) 98EVHA; 90PHABSIM (incl. HSI curves, primarily for fish Sinisalmi 1997; 98Riihimäki et al., 1996, cited in Dunbar et al., 1998;
208
habitat restoration) Muotka et al., 1996; 90Huusko & Yrjänä, 1996
6) PJ; 208Direct use of GIS-based studies of physical habitat for
fish/invertebrate species
429

Continues

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Appendix I. Continued
430

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

f
France 1) 81/40th of annual mean flow (i.e. 2.5% MAF, existing WRDs); Belaud et al., 1989, 89Souchon & Valentin, 1991, cited in Stewardson &
10
1/10th of annual mean flow (i.e. 10% MAF, over minimum 5-year Gippel, 1997; 10,13Docampo & De Bikuña, 1993;
98
period, new/renewed WRDs); 1320% MAF (for MAF > 80 m3 s1) Ginot 1995, cited in Dunbar et al., 1998; 98Pouilly et al., 1995, cited in
3) 98EVHA; 89IFIM (or ‘microhabitat’ methodology); 106Linked Lamoroux et al., 1999; 145Capra et al., 1995; 145Breil & Capra, 1996 (& refs.
statistical hydraulic & multivariate habitat use models; 103ENSA cited: 89Valentin et al., 1994); 8,10,89Merle & Eon, 1996; 103,113,172Dunbar
Toulouse Method; 113Fish population modelling within an IFIM-type et al., 1998; 106Lamoroux et al., 1998, 1999; 97K. Jorde, pers. comm.
framework; 145Continuous Over (Under) Threshold Procedure
(incl. habitat duration & spell analyses); 97CASIMIR
5) 172GIS-based AGIRE (multipurpose, incl. habitat simulation)
f 16,19,34,114

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Germany 1) 17Mean Qmin or a 18fraction thereof (with case-specific PJ); 16MQ; Statzner et al., 1990; 97Jorde, 1996; 97Jorde, 1997; 97Jorde &
19
MNQ; 34Q347 Bratrich, 1998; 17,18Dunbar et al., 1998; 97Schneider, 2001; 97K. Jorde,
3) 97CASIMIR (benthic shear stress, fish habitat & riparian zone pers. comm.
models); 114FST-hemisphere-Benthos hydraulic modelling; IFIM?
6) PJ
f 112 112
Hungary 3) Hydraulic habitat simulation modelling (EFMs from Netherlands) Dunbar et al., 1998
b
India 4) *Holistic approaches C. Trisal, pers. comm.
b 89 89
Indonesia 3) IFIM (primarily PHABSIM) S. Nakamura, pers. comm.
f 43 179
Italy 1) Regression-based regionalization of 7Q10 (based on basin area & Annoni et al., 1996; 195Peviani et al., 1996; 34,37,43,89Ubertini et al. 1996
R. E. THARME

BFI); 377Q10 (or Q7,10); 34Q347; 7Regionalization of %AAFs from (& refs. cited: Crosa et al., 1988; 7Casadei, 1990; Martini et al., 1993/4;
Tennant Method; *42Regionalization of Q95 values, based on geology Santoro, 1994); 89,174L. Viganò et al., unpubl. paper 1997 (& refs. cited: Binns
& catchment area; *61Orth & Leonard Regionalization Method 1982; Marchetti et al., 1991; Manciola et al., 1994; Saccardo et al., 1994;
2) 88Hydraulic-based methodologies (unspecified); *65Wetted Perimeter Cotta Ramusino et al., 1994; 179Saccardo, 1997; Benedini, 1997; Rambaldi
Method et al., 1997; 179Gentili et al., 1997); Dunbar et al. 1998 (& refs. cited:
3) 89IFIM (primarily PHABSIM, incl. locally developed HSI curves) Saccardo et al. 1994; Bagnati et al. 1994); 175Buffagni, 2001; 88,89,184
4) *Holistic methodologies (e.g. BBM/DRIFT or similar) Vismara et al., 2001; A. Buffagni, pers. comm.
5) 175BENHFOR Procedure; 174Po River Basin Method (links between
VHI, catchment variables & water quality); 179Modified HQI Method;
195
MORIMOR-HAFIMO Integrated Model; *184Singh Regionalization
Method
6) Direct use of hydrology, water quality data & various biotic indices;
*Studies relating fisheries data to environmental variables
b 89,96
Japan 1) 15OCFR (0.1–0.3 cm per 100 km2); 15NPF (approx. 10 OCFR value Tamai et al., 1996; 15,89Nakamura, 1999 (& refs. cited: Nakamura et al.,
per 100 km2) 1994, 1131995; 113Kim et al., 1996; 113Kim, 1997; 89Tamai, 1998; 113Nagarei,
3) 89IFIM (primarily PHABSIM, incl. 1-D/2-D/3-D hydraulic 1998; 89Nakamura et al., 1999); 89,113S. Nakamura, pers. comm.
modelling, use of multivariate HSI criteria, habitat time series &
duration analyses); 113PHABSIM-based local physical habitat
simulation tools; 96RHABSIM
4) *Holistic methodologies (e.g. BBM)

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

5) NPFs calculated using various approaches (unspecified)
c 164
Kenya 5) *164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. socio-economic links, Acreman et al., 2000
hydrological modelling)
b 89
Korea 3) 89IFIM S. Nakamura, pers. comm.
c 150 150
Lesotho 4) DRIFT (incl. socio-economic links) Brown & King, unpubl. report, 2000; 150Metsi Consultants, 2000;
King et al., this issue
c 164
Mali 5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. socio-economic links) Acreman et al., 2000
c 164 164
Mauritania 5) Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. socio-economic links) Acreman et al., 2000
e 89 89
Mexico 3) * IFIM R. Milhous, pers. comm.
f 112
Moldavia 3) 112Hydraulic habitat simulation modelling (EFMs from Netherlands) Dunbar et al., 1998
c 164

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Mozambique 4) *Holistic approaches (e.g. DRIFT/BBM or similar) Beilfuss & Davies, 1999; Brown & King, unpubl. report, 1999; pers. comm:
5) *164Managed Flood Releases Approach (inc. RVA analysis, B. Davies; J. King
multiple-scale ecological analyses, socio-economic links)
c 202
Namibia 4) *Holistic methodologies IRN, 1997; 164Heyns et al., 1998; Bethune et al., 2002; S. Bethune,
5) 164Managed releases approach (unspecified) pers. comm.
6) 202PJ
f
(The) 1) 45VHI (use of PAWN Hydrological Model/other methods) USFWS, 1980, cited in Duel et al., 1996; 110Semmekrot et al., 1996; 177Duel
Netherlands 3) 110Integrated GIS-based habitat simulation model (incl. species et al., 1996; 45Dunbar et al., 1998; 97 Duel et al., 2001; 97M. J. Baptist et al.,
HSI models, hydraulic & geomorphological simulation, & water unpubl. abs., 2002; 97K. Jorde, pers. comm.
quality-Q elements); 97CASIMIR (river floodplain restoration,
incl. Delft3D 2-D hydro- & morphodynamic modelling);
Microhabitat simulation models for large rivers (unspecified); IFIM?
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

5) 177HEP-based framework (ecotope classification of aquatic systems,

ECLAS; species potential carrying capacity model, MORRES; species
HSI models; policy & alternatives analysis model, AMOEBA)
a 4
New 1) 4Modified Tennant Method; 1010% AAF; 1230% AAF; 1630% Fraser, 1978, cited in Tierney, 1986; 95Jowett, 1982, cited in Arthington &
Zealand Mean Monthly Flow; 61Orth & Leonard Regionalization Method; Pusey, 1993; 89,108,193Mosley, 1983 (& refs. cited: 193Jowett, 1980, 891983;
22 89
30–75% of 1 in 5 year low flow; 31Q96; VHI (using historic, Glova, 1982; Mosley, 1931982b, c, 1983a, 68b; O’Donnell & Moore, 1983;
16
natural flows) Scarf, 1983; Robertson et al., 1983; 89Glova & Duncan, 1983); 89Shirvell &
2) 68Empirical Discharge-Water Surface Area (as habitat) Approach; Dungey, 1983; 108Mosley & Jowett, 1985; 4Tierney, 1986; 194Hughey, 1986,
69
Hydraulic Geometry-Discharge Relationships; Wetted cited in Karim et al., 1995; 89Scott & Shirvell, 1987; 95Jowett, 1989,
10,12,22,31,89,92,116
Perimeter Method? 1997 (& refs. cited: 146Jowett & Wing, 1980; 69Mosley, 1992;
22,31
3) 95RHYHABSIM (recent features addressed incl. sediment flushing, Forlong, 1994; 146Jowett et al., 1995); 95Jowett & Richardson, 1995;
61
temperature, flow variability); 89IFIM (incl. local development of HSI Dunbar et al., 1998 (& refs. cited: 198Jowett, 1993a, b); 22,31Snelder et al.,
curves); 108IFIM-type habitat simulation using MWD RIVERS 1998, cited in Bragg et al., 1999; I. Jowett, pers. comm.
Program; 146Habitat methods (unspecified); 116Food-producing Habitat
Retention Approach; 9220% Food-producing WUA Approach
5) 194Holistic-type approach; 198Fish Habitat-based Regionalization
Models; 193Various (river-specific) flow event-based approaches
6) PJ
431

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Continues
Appendix I. Continued
432

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

c 164
Nigeria 5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. hydrological modelling, Acreman et al., 2000
socio-economic links)
f 100
Norway 1) 46Simple hydrological formulae (unspecified, desktop) Vaskinn, 1985, cited in Kinhill Engineers, 1988; 89Saltveit & Heggenes,
3) 99RSS (a habitat modelling framework, incl. BioRiv I & II 1991, cited in Stewardson & Gippel, 1997; 99Heggenes et al., 1996;
99
macrohabitat & temperature models, HABITAT Model & Bioenergetic Alfredsen & Killingtviet, 1996; 46,202Dunbar et al., 1998 (& refs. cited:
99
Model with links to 1-D/2-D/3-D hydraulic models, incl. HEC-2, Killingtviet & Fossdal, 1992, 1994; 99Killingtviet & Harby 1994a, b);
99,100
ENMAG Reservoir Operation & Hydropower Production Model, Alfredsen, 1998 (& refs. cited: 99Killingtviet et al., 1992; 99Arnekleiv &
HBV Rainfall-runoff Model & Param Time Series Analysis Model); Harby, 1994; 99Harby et al., 1994); 46,99J. E. Brittain & J. Henning
#100
RIMOS (RSS precursor); 89IFIM (WUA); 97CASIMIR L’Abée-Lund, unpubl. paper 2001 (& refs. cited: 46Ziegler, 1986; 225Faugli,

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

6) 225Expert method for minimum flows; 202PJ 1997); 97Ott, 2001
b 164
Pakistan 5) *164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. sediment flushing & Acreman et al., 2000
socio-economic links)
f 1,8,9,65,89
Portugal 1) 82.5% to 95% MAF (i.e. ‘Portuguese criterion’, based Alves & Henriques, 1994; 49Palau & Alcazar, 1996;
196
preferentially on natural flow regime); 1Tennant Method; Bernardo & Alves, 1999; 196L. Ribeiro et al., unpubl. abs., 2000;
5
Ecotype-based Modified Tennant Method; 50Texas Method; pers. comm: H. Alves; J. King
47
New England ABF Method; 49Basic Flow Method
2) 65Wetted Perimeter Method
3) 89IFIM
4) *DRIFT/BBM or similar
5) 196River Enxoé Approach (temporary rivers);
R. E. THARME

*Physical Biotopes/Flow Types approach

e 89
Puerto Rico 3) 89IFIM Sutton et al., 1997
f 177 177
Russian 5) Delft Hydraulics Framework Analysis (incl. use of De Vries, 1996
Federation HEP, HSI & water quality data in scenario-based habitat modelling)
c 164
Senegal 5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. socio-economic links) Acreman et al., 2000
f
Slovenia 1) Hydrological methods (unspecified) Smolar-Zvanut & Vrhovsek, 2002
5) Ecological methods (unspecified)
c 164
South Africa 1) 62Desktop Estimate; 63Rapid (Reserve) Determination; 33FDC Heeg & Breen, 1982 (& refs. cited: Phélines et al., 1973; Bruton & Cooper,
percentiles; 44RVA (primarily IHA, *indices for semi-arid regions); 1980); 45Roberts, 1983; 219O’Keeffe et al., 1987; 33,148Ferrar, 1989; King &
45
VHI; #64BWE; *5Ecotype-based Modified Tennant Method O’Keeffe, 1989; 199,219O’Keeffe & Davies, 1991; 89Gore & King, 1989;
89
3) 89IFIM; 118MTA; *1112-D/3-D hydrodynamic modelling; Gore et al., 1990; 148Arthington et al., 1992; 89,148,189King & Tharme, 1994;
64
*112Biotope-level modelling Ractliffe & King, 1996; 33,148,118Tharme, 1996, 441997,
5,111,112,158,159
4) 148BBM (incl. CRD framework, IFR Operating Rule Model, unpubl. report; 152Muller, unpubl. reports 1996, 1997;
167
WRYM, FSR Method); 149Abbreviated BBM (incl. IRD O’Keeffe et al., 1996; 148Rogers & Bestbier, 1997; 148Hughes et al., 1997;
148
framework, FSR Method); 150DRIFT (incl. framework for CRD); Hughes & Ziervogel, 1998; 148King & Louw, 1998; 112,148Tharme & King,
152
Environmental Flow Management Plan Method; *Adapted 1998; 189Wadeson & Rowntree, 1998; 220Jewitt et al., 1998, 44unpubl. paper,
BBM-DRIFT (assistance in development, but not applied locally); 1999; Palmer, 1999; 33,44,62,63,64,89,118,148,149,150,152,164King et al., 1999,
62,63,148,149,150
*158Benchmarking Methodology; *159FLOWRESM; *Combined 2000, 150this issue; 148Hughes, 1999; 62,63,148,149DWAF, 1999d, e;

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

150
BBM/DRIFT Brown et al., unpubl. report, 2000; 150Brown & King, unpubl. report, 2000,
5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. socio-economic 2002; 150Metsi Consultants, 2000; 164Acreman et al., 2000; 44Taylor et al.,
links); 189Physical Biotopes/Flow Types approaches; unpubl. paper, 2001; 148DWAF, pers. comm., 2001; 62,63Hughes, 2001 (& refs.
167
Ecohydrological Models; #199KNP Consumptive/Non-Consumptive cited: 62Hughes et al., 1998; 62Hughes & Münster, 1999); 148O’Keeffe et al.,
Approach 2001; 189King & Schael, 2001; 148O’Keeffe & Hughes, unpubl. abs., 2002;
164
6) #219River Conservation System (expert system); Direct use of Poultney et al., unpubl. abs., 2002; pers. comm: J. King; J. O’Keeffe; H.
hydrological & water quality data with various biotic indices; s MacKay; G. Jewitt; V. Taylor; D. Grobler
PJ; *220Abiotic-Biotic Links Model
f 104,105
Spain 1) 1010% MAF; 1550 litres s1or 34,46one of three other Cubillo, 1992; 10,13,173Docampo & De Bikuña, 1993 (& refs. cited:
15,34,46
hydrological formulae based on Q347; 49Basic Flow Method CHNE, 1987); 89Garcı́a de Jalón et al., 1994, cited in Dunbar et al.,
(Qb range: 5–50% MAF); Texas Method; Modified Tennant 1998; 49Palau & Alcazar, 1996; Alves et al., 1996; 107,181,216Dunbar et al.,
Method; 1333–46% MAF; VHI 1998; 89 Garcı́a de Jalón, unpubl. abs., 2002
3) 89IFIM; 104Cubillo Method; 105Fleckinger Approach;
107

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integration of IFIM/PHABSIM with habitat quality
classification (fisheries biomass) using multivariate
statistical models
5) 173Basque Method; *181Combination of IFIM &
elements of holistic methodologies
6) 216Multivariate biomass models
b 202
Sri Lanka 4) *Holistic methodologies Matsuno et al., 1998; 164Acreman et al., 2000; pers. comm: F.
5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach (incl. sediment Amerasinghe; W. van der Hoek
flushing, disease vector control & socio-economic links)
6) 202PJ
c 148
Swaziland 4) 148BBM (incl. social & economic links) AfriDev/Knight Piesold Joint Venture & JTK Associates, 1999;
148
M. Chutter, pers. comm.
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

f 99
Sweden 1) VHI? Alfredsen, 1998
3) 99RSS
f
Switzerland 1) 15Minimum Q of 50 litres s1or 34Q347 (with minimum Hainard et al., 1987, cited in Docampo & De Bikuña, 1993; 15,34Docampo &
depth ¼ 0.20 m, for Q > 50 litres s1); 45VHI De Bikuña, 1993; 221Bernadová, 1998; 45,181Dunbar et al., 1998; 97Schneider
3) 97CASIMIR & Peter, unpubl. abs., 1999; 97Jorde et al., 2000, 972001; 97Bratrich & Truffer,
5) *181Combination of IFIM-type models with elements of 2001; 97Moosmann et al., 2002; K. Jorde, pers. comm.
holistic methodologies (incl. floodplain ecological data)
6) PJ; 221Dilution Ratio-based Method (unspecified)
b 90 29
Taiwan 1) 29Q95 pers. comm: S. Nakamura; J. King
3) 90PHABSIM component of IFIM
4) *Holistic methodologies (BBM & DRIFT)
c
Tanzania 4) *Holistic methodologies (incl. socio-economic analysis) Sarunday, unpubl. abs., 2002; J. King, pers. comm.
f 204 204
Turkey 5) Scenario-based analysis (incl. SLURP Hydrological IWMI & GDRS-T, 2000; W. van der Hoek, pers. comm.
Model & PJ)

Continues
433

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Appendix I. Continued
434

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

f 177
Ukraine 5) 177Delft Hydraulics Framework Analysis (incl. HEP, HSI, De Vries, 1996; 177Dunbar et al., 1998
water quality, habitat modelling)
f 202
United 1) 29Q95 (DWF, or proportion or multiple thereof Sheail, 1984, 1987; 21,29,89,223Bullock et al., 1991 (& refs. cited; 29Drake &
Kingdom e.g.1.0 DWF for sensitive rivers or 0.5 DWF for least Sherriff, 1987); 21,29Gustard & Bullock, 1991; Petts & Maddock, 1994; 89Johnson
(England, sensitive rivers, calculated using MICRO LOW FLOW/other et al., 1995; 89Elliott et al., 1996; 217Wright et al., 1996; 189Padmore, 1998;
5,21,28,30,34,44,50,52,66,89,97,106,147,148,153,173,181,189,198,201,206,207,209,210,217,224
Wales, programs; 32Q98 (for less sensitive rivers, versus Q95); 24Q90; Dunbar
21
Scotland, MAM(7) (DWF, or proportion thereof, MICRO LOW et al., 1998 (& refs. cited: 34,41,45Gustard et al., 1987; 217Brown et al., 1991;
223
Northern FLOW/other programs); 34Q347 (considered equivalent to Q95); Lawson et al., 1991; 41Bullock et al., 1994; 89Bird, 1996; 41Young et al., 1996;
30
Ireland) & Welsh Water Authority Procedure (based on Q95); 28NGPRP Hardy, 1996; O’Grady, 1996; 155Ibbotson, 1996; Acreman & Adams, 1997);
89

Republic of Method; 61Orth & Leonard Gustard & Cole, 1998; 89Gustard & Elliott, 1998 (& refs. cited: 89Johnson et al.,
Ireland Regionalization Method; 59Flow Recession Approach; 45VHI 1993a, b; 162Petts & Bickerton, 1994; Maddock & Petts, 1995); 29,59,61,67,222Petts
(notably low flow statistics); *5Ecotype-based Modified Tennant et al., 1995; 162Petts, 1996; 162Petts et al., 1999 (& refs. cited: 29Gustard, 1989;
Method; *52Hoppe & Finnell Method; *50Texas Method NRA, 1995, 1996); 21,24,29,44,147Bragg et al., 1999 (& refs. cited: 162Evans, 1997;
32
(on ecotype basis); *41Regionalization of seasonal FDCs for Kirmond & Barker, 1997); 218,205Extence et al., 1999 (& refs. cited: 206Jones &
river ecotypes; *44RVA (for England, & particularly Scotland, Peters, 1977; 205SWK, 1992); 89Spence & Hickley, 2000; 89,181Gibbins & Acornley,
with modifications) 2000; 29,218Dunbar et al., unpubl. paper, 2002; 29,192Sambrook & Petts, unpubl. abs.,
2) 67Wetted Bed Area-Flow Method; *66R-2 Cross Method 2002; 217Tharme, unpubl. report.
(for Wales & Scotland, particularly)
3) 89IFIM (*incl. habitat-biomass/population relationships,
mesohabitat/biotope HSI curves & modelling); *97CASIMIR;
R. E. THARME

*106Linked statistical hydraulic & multivariate habitat use models

4) 162River Babingley (Wissey) Method (incl. various
eco-hydrological models/methods to determine benchmark flows
for EAFR, e.g. PHABSIM & FDC analyses); *147Holistic
Approach; *148BBM; *153EPAM
5) 189Physical Biotopes/Functional Habitats approaches; 155Expert
panel studies (unspecified); 201DSHHP Method (associated with
SWALP); 192holistic elements based on natural flow regime;
*181Combination of IFIM/PHABSIM analyses for target species
with holistic elements; *173Basque Method; *181IFIM in
association with other flow regime elements; *198Regionalization
methods based on habitat modelling
6) 202PJ; 217RIVPACS (incl. *additional development, e.g.
flow-related variables & species responses); 222Habitat Attribute-
BMWP Model; 218LIFE Method; 205SWK Method; 209Direct
use of fisheries population data (incl. migration & spawning
activities—Ireland); 223Fish Management Models; *206Jones &
*Peters Method; 207HABSCORE (with additional developments);
*224Regional regression-based models (unspecified, with
additional developments); *210Analysis of raw population

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

data under alternative river management procedures
d
United 1) 1Tennant Method (with regional adjustments for local Elser, 1972; 65Bartschi, 1976; 1,28,33,55,56,66,120,121,130,132Stalnaker & Arnette, 1976
States of hydrological regimes, inclusion of fish periodicity data, flow (& refs. cited: 65,72Curtis, 1959; 86,126,127Sams & Pearson, 1963; 85Rantz, 1964;
87
America duration, QAM); 2Tessman Modification of Tennant Method; Herrington & Dunham, 1967; Robinson, 1969; 80Pearson et al., 1970; 52Hoppe &
3
(incl. Alaska) Bayha Modification of Tennant Method; 1230% MAF; Finnell 1970, 1973; 125,126Thompson, 831972, 1974; 131Wesche, 1973; 65,72Hooper,
47
(New England) ABF Method (or 47Constant Yield 1973; 133Bishop & Scott, 1973; 84Anon, 1973; 66Anon, 1974; 133Collings, 1972,
65,83
Method); 48Refined ABF Method; 377Q10; 19Median Monthly 1974; 122Banks et al., 1974; 139Bovee, 1974; 81,82Hoppe 1975; 87Dunham &
Flow; 16QAM; 50Texas Method; 51O’Shea Hydrological/ Collotzi, 1975; 123Waters, 1975; White, 118,1281975, 129,1401976; 129White &
Watershed Characteristics Method; 33FDC percentiles; Cochnauer, 1975; 66,84US Forest Service); 70Russell & Mulvaney, 1973, cited in
44
RVA (primarily IHA, incl. relationships between indices Growns & Kotlash, 1994; 134Swank, 1975, cited in Kinhill Engineers, 1988;
1
& biotic responses); 28NGPRP/Q90 Method; #54September Tennant, 1976; 138Waters, 1976; 1,140Elser, 1976; 66,140,142Bovee & Milhous, 1978;
139
Median Flow Method; 61Orth & Leonard Regionalization Bovee et al., 1978; 37Stalnaker, 1979; 178Binns & Eiserman, 1979;
1,28,70,75,82,86,128,129,131,133,134
Method; #55Robinson Method; #56Washington Base Flow Wesche & Rechard, 1980; 74Colorado Division of
Methodology; 52Hoppe & Finnell Method; VHI Wildlife, cited in Prewitt & Carlson, 1980; 1,65,66,74,83,120,140,141Prewitt & Carlson,
2) 65Wetted Perimeter Method (with various % reductions 1980; 65Nelson, 1980; 1,89,118Orth & Maughan, 1981; 1Newcombe, 1981; 89Sale

in wetted perimeter); 66R-2 Cross Method (primarily R-2 Cross et al., 1981, cited in Locke, 1996; 28,33,47Loar & Sale, 1981; 37,89Bovee, 1982;
1,71
Hydraulic Model); 76USGS Toe-Width Method; 77Arkansas Annear & Conder, 1984; 180Williams & McKellar, 1984; 89Cavendish & Duncan,
Method; 78Oregon Method; 79Vermont Fish-Flow Method; 1986; 139Loar et al., 1986; 89Orth, 1987; Gore & Nestler, 1988;
74 1,37,47,54,65,76,77,78,79,89,141
Standard Depth Approach; #72Curtis & Hooper Approach; Reiser et al., 1989a; 89,141Milhous et al., 1989; 184Singh &
#80 89
Pearson et al. Approach; #81Hoppe Limiting Factor-Transect Broeren, 1989; Gore, 1989, 1998; 89Gore et al., 1989; 1,37,61Orth & Leonard, 1990;
47
Approach; #82Hoppe’s 1975 Method; #83Collings’ Methodology; Kulik, 1990; 171Jourdonnais et al., 1990 (& refs. cited: 171Bain et al., 1986; 171Hall
#84
USFS Region 2/Critical Area Method; #85Rantz Regression et al., 1989); 89Armour & Taylor, 1991; 50Matthews & Bao, 1991; 170Hill et al.,
Equation Method; #86Average Stream Width/One Flow Method; 1991; 28,33,37Caissie & El-Jabi, 1994 (& refs. cited: 28NGPRP 1974; 19,47USFWS,
87
US Fisheries Service Personnel Region 4 Method; 70Colorado 1981; 12,89Annear & Conder, 1983); Swank, 1975, cited in Growns & Kotlash, 1994;
115
Method; 71Colorado Division of Wildlife Method; 75Simplified Cheslak & Jacobsen, 1990 142Gordon et al., 1992; 89Stalnaker et al., 1994;
101
staff-gauge analysis (with various limiting habitat criteria) Nestler et al., 1994, cited in Richter et al., 1997; 51O’Shea, 1995; 47Karim et al.,
3) 89IFIM (primarily PHABSIM, incl. 2D hydrodynamic 1995 (& refs. cited: Wesche, 1976); 1Estes, 1996; 89Tharme, 1996; Gippel &
modelling, 2D habitat metrics in Windows environment; Stewardson, 1998 (& refs. cited: 65Cochnauer, 1976; 65Nelson, 1980; 65Filipek
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

habitat duration curves & time series); 115Integration of IFIM et al., 1987); 191Stanford et al., 1996; 101Nestler et al., 1996; 89Ghanem et al., 1996;
1,44,170
with population response (/hydrologic/water quality) models; Richter et al., 1996, 1997; 89Stalnaker, 1998; 1,65,66,89Espegren, 1998 (& refs.
96
RHABSIM; 118MTA; 101RCHARC; 94mesoHABSIM Model; cited: 66,71Nehring, 1979; US Fish & Wildlife Service, 1981; 66Espegren, 1996);
97 89
CASIMIR; 140WSP Hydraulic Model (with PJ); 142HEC-2 Waddle, 1998a, b; 89Milhous, 1998a, b; 2,3,135,136,137,176,178Dunbar et al. 1998 (&
Hydraulic Model (with PJ); 141AVDEPTH Hydraulic Model references cited: 184Singh, 1993; 1,37Caissie, 1995; USFS); 165King et al., 1999;
94,192
(with PJ); #120Resting Microhabitat Analysis; #121Subjective Anon, 2001; 96Payne & Associates web site, 2000; 94IHP/DNR,
Cover Rating Method; #132Wesche’s Cover Rating System; Cornell University web site, 2001; 97Clayton, 2002; pers. comm: T. Boyle; R.
#122
Banks et al. Approach; #123California Pit River Milhous; B. Richter; T. Waddle; J. Bartholow; C. Estes; 94P. Parasiewicz; 97K. Jorde
Approach; #124White’s Methodology (incl. WSP Hydraulic
Model); #125Thompson’s Methodology; #126Usable Width
Method; #128Oregon UW Method; #127Weighted UW Method
(incl. Average Velocity Analysis); #139Critical Area-Indicator
Species Methodology (incl. Contour Hydraulic Model);
#129
Idaho Method; #130USFWS Method; #131WRRI Cover
Method; #133Washington Dept. Fisheries Method; #134USFS
Region 6 (R-6) Method; #135USFS Region 4 Method; #136West
Virginia Method; #137Connecticut River Basin Method; #138
Waters’ Methodology
435

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Continues
Appendix I. Continued
436

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

5) 170Hill, Platts & Beschta Methodology; 165Experimental Flood

Release Approach (e.g. Colorado River); 171Multiattribute
Tradeoff Analysis; 180Energy Analysis; 184Singh Regionalization
Method; 176HEP; 192Holistic elements based on natural flow
regime (e.g. Missouri River ‘spring rise/split navigation season’
*flow plan); 178HQI Method; 191Restructuring of altered
flow regimes
6) PJ
c 164
Zambia 5) 164Managed Flood Releases Approach Acreman et al., 2000

c 151 202
Zimbabwe 4) Adapted BBM-DRIFT P. Macy, pers. comm., cited in Brown & King, unpubl. report, 1999;
151
6) 202PJ Steward et al., unpubl. paper, 2002

Abbreviations
1D/2D/3D—one/two or three-dimensional (hydrodynamic modelling); 7Q10—the minimum average 7-day (consecutive) flow expected to occur once every 10 years; AAF—Average Annual
Flow ( ¼ MAF); ABF—Average Base Flow/Aquatic Base Flow; BBM—Building Block Methodology; BENHFOR—Benthic Habitat For Optimum Flow Reckoning; BFI—Base Flow Index;
BMWP—Biological Monitoring Working Party (score); BSP—Biologically Significant Period; BWE—Bulk Water Estimate; CASIMIR—Computer Aided Simulation Model for Instream
flow Requirements in regulated/diverted streams; CHNE—Confederación Hidrográfica del Norte de España; CRD—Comprehensive (Reserve) Determination; CWPR—Centre for Water Pol-
icy Research; DNR—Department of Natural Resources; DRIFT—Downstream Response to Imposed Flow Transformations; DSHHP—Drake, Sherriff/Howard Humphreys & Partners;
DWAF—Department of Water Affairs and Forestry; DWF—Dry Weather Flow; DWR—Department of Water Resources; EAFR—Ecologically Acceptable Flow Regime; EFM—Environ-
mental flow methodology; EFR—Environmental flow requirement; EVHA—Evaluation of Habitat Method; EPAM—Expert Panel Assessment Method; FDC—Flow Duration Curve; FSR
R. E. THARME

Method—Flow Stress or Response Method; FST—Fliesswasserstammtisch; GIS—Geographical Information System; GDRS-T—General Directorate of Rural Services, Turkey; HDC—Habi-
tat Duration Curve; HEP—Habitat Evaluation Procedure; HSI—Habitat Suitability Index; IHA—Indices of Hydrologic Alteration; IHP—Instream Habitat Program; IFIM—Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology; IFR—Instream Flow Requirement; incl.—including; IQQM—Integrated Quantity Quality Model for hydrological modelling; IRD—Intermediate (Reserve) Deter-
mination; IWMI—International Water Management Institute; KNP—Kruger National Park (South Africa); LIFE—Lotic-invertebrate Index for Flow Evaluation; MAF—Mean Annual Flow
( ¼ AAF); MAM(7)—mean annual minimum 7-day flow frequency statistic; MQ—Mean Discharge? (unspecified in source reference); MAR—Mean Annual Runoff ( ¼ AAF); MNQ—Med-
ian Discharge? (unspecified in source reference); Mean Qmin —mean of annual 1-day minimum daily flows over the period of record; Median Qmin (or Median Minimum) ¼ median of annual 1-
day minimum daily flows over the period of record; MTA—Multiple Transect Analysis; MWD—Ministry of Works and Development; NGPRP—Northern Great Plains Resource Program;
NPF—Normality Preservation Flow; NRA—National River Authority; OCFR—Obligated Conservation Flow Release; PAWN—Policy Analysis Water Management of the Netherlands;
PHABSIM—Physical Habitat Simulation Model; PJ—(case-specific) professional judgement; Q—discharge; Q90, Q95, Q50, Qn —discharge equalled or exceeded 90%, 95%, 50%
( ¼ Median Monthly Flow), n% of the time, based on FDC analysis; Q347 or Q347d (equivalent to Q95; Dunbar et al., 1998) and Q355(d), Q364(d), etc.—discharge equalled or exceeded for
the specified number of days per year; QAM—Mean Monthly Flow; RVA—Range of Variability Approach; refs.—references; RHABSIM—Riverine Habitat Simulation Program; RHYHAB-
SIM—River Hydraulics and Habitat Simulation Program; RIMOS—River Modelling System; RSS—River System Simulator; RCHARC—Riverine Community Habitat Assessment and
Restoration Concept; RIVPACS—River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System, UK; SGCMC—Snowy Genoa Catchment Management Committee; SLURP—Semi-distributed
Land Use-based Runoff Processes; SREP—Snowy River Expert Panel; SWALP—Surface Water Abstraction Licencing Policy; SWI—Snowy Water Inquiry; SWK—Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick;
TAP—Technical Advisory Panel; USFS—United States Forest Service; USFWS—United States Fish and Wildlife Service; USGS—United States Geological Survey; UW—Usable Width;
VHI—various simple hydrological indices (unspecified, in addition to any specific flow indices listed); WAMP—Water Allocation and Management Planning; WRD—water resource devel-
opment; WRRI—Water Resources Research Institute; WRYM—Water Resources Yield Model; WSP—Water Surface Profile.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Appendix II. Summary of select holistic environmental flow methodologies (EFMs) applied globally, highlighting salient features, strengths and limitations, as well as
their current status in terms of development and application. Select references are provided for each methodology, with additional supporting references and abbreviations
listed in Table II. EFMs are presented in no particular order (EF, environmental flow: EFA, EF assessment; EFR, EF requirement)

Methodology Origins Main features, strengths and limitations Status

(key references)

Benchmarking Developed in Comprehensive, scenario-based, top-down approach for application at a whole-of-basin scale, Sole holistic EFM for
Methodology (DNR, Queensland, using field & desktop data for multiple river sites; EFM has 4 main stages—(1) establishment: basin-scale EFAs;
1998b, cited in Australia, by formation of multidisciplinary expert panel (TAP) & development of hydrological model, (2) adopted as standard
Arthington, 1998a; numerous local ecological condition & trend assessment: development of spatial reference framework, EFM in Queensland’s
Brizga, 2000) researchers & DNR, assessment of ecological condition for suite of ecosystem components (using 5-point rating of WRD planning

to provide a degree of change from reference condition & appropriate methods for each component), framework;
framework for development of generic models defining links between flow regime components & ecological applications in 8
assessing risk of processes, selection of key flow indicators with relevance to these relationships, modelling- basins; only applied in
environmental based assessment of hydrological impacts, (3) development of an EF risk assessment Australia to date
impacts due to WRD, framework: models are developed for all/some key flow indicators showing levels of risk of
at basin scale ecological/geomorphological impacts associated with different degrees of flow regime
change, risk levels are defined by association with benchmark sites which have undergone
different degrees of flow-related change in condition, link models are used to show how the
modelled flow indicators affect ecological condition, (4) evaluation of future WRD scenarios,
using risk assessment & link models, ecological implications of scenarios & associated levels
of risk readily expressed in graphical form; EFM is particularly suited to data poor situations;
potential for use in developing countries context & for application to other aquatic
ecosystems; utilises a wide range of specialist expertise; presents a comprehensive
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

benchmarking process; provides several ways of developing risk assessment models, guidance
on key criteria for assessing condition, & key hydrological & performance indicators; recent
approach built on several preceding EFA initiatives; no explicit consideration of social
component, but with scope for inclusion; requires evaluation of several aspects (e.g.
applicability/sensitivity of key flow statistics, degree to which benchmarks from other basins/
sites are valid considering differences in river hydrology & biota)
Holistic Approach Developed in Loosely structured set of methods for bottom-up construction of EF regime, with no explicit Represents
(Arthington, 1998a & Australia to address output format; principally represents a flexible conceptual framework, elements of which have conceptual basis of
cited references: the flow requirements been adapted in a variety of ways for individual studies; lack of structured set of procedures & most other holistic
Arthington et al., of the entire riverine clear identity for EFM hinders rigorous routine application; basic tenets & assumptions as per EFMs; applied in
1992b; Arthington, ecosystem; shared BBM; systematic construction of a modified flow regime, on a monthly-by-month & flow various forms in
1994; Davies et al., conceptual basis with element-by-element basis, to achieve predetermined objectives for future river condition; Australia
1996; Growns & BBM incorporates more detailed assessment of flow variability than early BBM studies; includes
Growns, 1997) method for generating tradeoff curves for examining alternative water use scenarios; some risk
of inadvertent omission of critical flow events; represents the theoretical basis for most other
holistic EFMs

Continues
437

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Appendix II. Continued
438

Methodology Origins Main features, strengths and limitations Status

(key references)

Building Block Developed in South Rigorous & extensively documented (manual available); prescriptive bottom-up approach; Most frequently used
Methodology (BBM) Africa by local moderate to highly resource intensive; developed to differing extents for both intermediate- holistic EFM globally,
(King & Tharme, researchers & DWAF, level (2 months) or comprehensive (1–2 years) EFAs, within Reserve framework; based on a applied in 3 countries;
1994; Tharme & through application in number of sites within representative/critical river reaches; includes a well established social adopted as the
King, 1998; King & numerous WRD component (dependent livelihoods); functions in data poor/rich situations; comprises 3-phase standard South
Louw, 1998; King projects to address approach—(1) preparation for workshop, including stakeholder consultation, desktop & field African EFM for
et al., 2000) EFRs for entire studies for site selection, geomorphological reach analysis, river habitat integrity & social Reserve
riverine ecosystems surveys, objectives setting for future river condition, assessment of river importance & determinations
under conditions of ecological condition, hydrological & hydraulic analyses, (2) multidisciplinary workshop-

variable resources; based construction of modified flow regime through identification of ecologically essential
adapted for flow features on a month-by-month (or shorter time scale), flow element-by-flow element
determination of the basis, for maintenance & drought years, based on best available scientific data, (3) linking of
ecological Reserve EFR with WRD engineering phase, through scenario modelling & hydrological yield analysis;
under new Water Law EFM exhibits limited potential for examination of alternative scenarios relative to DRIFT, as
BBM EF regime is designed to achieve a specific predefined river condition; incorporates a
monitoring programme; some risk of inadvertent omission of critical flow events; high
potential for application to other aquatic ecosystems; links to external stakeholder/public
participation processes; flexible & amenable to simplification for more rapid assessments; less
time, cost & resource intensive than DRIFT; shared conceptual basis with Holistic Approach;
applicable to regulated/unregulated rivers, & in flow restoration context; FSR Method under
R. E. THARME

development to facilitate scenario-based assessment of alternative flow regimes

Downstream Developed in Appropriate for comprehensive EFAs (1–3 years) based on several sites within representative/ EFM with most
Response to Imposed southern Africa by critical river reaches; flexible, interactive, top-down, scenario-based process comprised of 4 developed capabilities
Flow Southern Waters & modules—(1) biophysical module: used to describe present ecosystem condition, to predict for scenario analysis
Transformations Metsi Consultants how it will change under a range of different flow alterations for synthesis in a database, uses & explicit
Process (DRIFT) (with inputs from generic lists of links to flow & relevance for each specialist component, direction & severity of consideration of
(Metsi Consultants, Australian & southern change are recorded to quantify each flow-related impact, (2) sociological module: used to social & economic
2000; King et al., this African researchers) identify subsistence users at risk from flow alterations & to quantify their links with the river effects of changing
issue) to address the need for in terms of natural resource use & health profiles, (3) scenario development module: links first river condition on
an interactive 2 modules through querying of database, to extract predicted consequences of altered flows subsistence users;
scenario-based (with potential for presentation at several levels of resolution) used to create flow scenarios limited application to
holistic EFM with an (typically 4 or 5), (4) economic module: generates description of costs of mitigation & date, within southern
explicit socio- compensation for each scenario; EFM modules require refinement; well developed ability to Africa
economic component address socio-economic links to ecosystem; considerable scope for comparative evaluation of
alternative modified flow regimes; resource intensive, high potential for application to other
aquatic ecosystems; amenable to simplification for more rapid assessments; well documented;
uses many successful features of other holistic EFMs; same conceptual basis as BBM &
Holistic Approach; exhibits parallels with benchmarking approaches; output is more suitable
for negotiation of tradeoffs than in BBM/other bottom-up approaches, as implications of not

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

meeting the EFR are readily accessible; links to external public participation process &
macro-economic assessment; generic lists provide clear parameters for inclusion in a
monitoring programme; approach provides limited consideration of synergistic interactions
among different flow events; limited inclusion of flow indices describing system variability;
applicable to regulated/unregulated rivers & for flow restoration
Adapted BBM- Developed in Simplified top-down, multidisciplinary team approach, for use in highly resource-limited Under early
DRIFT Methodology Zimbabwe by Mott (including data) situations & with direct dependencies by rural people on riverine ecosystems; development, single
(Steward et al., 2002) MacDonald Ltd. in combines pre-workshop data collection phase of BBM with DRIFT’s scenario-based documented
collaboration with workshop process; comprises 3 phases—(1) preparation for workshop as per BBM/DRIFT, application to date
Zimbabwe National but excluding certain components (e.g. habitat integrity & geomorphological reach analyses)

Water Authority (with & with limited field data collection, (2) workshop, with simplified DRIFT process linking the
input from South main geomorphological, ecological & social impacts with elements of the flow regime (based
Africa) through on assessments of impact & severity for component-specific generic lists), used to construct a
adaptation of key matrix, (3) use of matrix in evaluating development options, where the matrix indicates
elements of BBM & ecosystem aspects that are especially vulnerable/important to rural livelihoods, socially &
DRIFT, in response to ecologically critical elements of the flow regime & EF recommendations for mitigation; EFM
requirements in new incorporates more limited ecological & geomophological assessments than BBM/DRIFT;
Water Act for EFAs limited coverage of key specialist disciplines; no link to system for defining target river
condition; especially appropriate in developing countries context; requires further
development & validation; would benefit from inclusion of economic data
Flow Events Method Developed by Top-down method for regulated rivers; considers the maximum change in river hydrology Recent approach with
(FEM) Australian from natural for key ecologically relevant flow events, based on empirical data or expert few applications in
(Stewardson, 2001; Cooperative Research judgement; considered a method of integrating existing analytical techniques & expert Australia to date;
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Cottingham Centre for Catchment opinion to identify important aspects of the flow regime; EFM comprises 4 steps—(1) often linked to expert-
et al., 2001) Hydrology to provide identification of ecological processes (hydraulic, geomorphic & ecological) affected by flow panel approaches
state agencies with a variations at range of spatial & temporal scales, (2) characterisation of flow events (e.g.
standard approach for duration, magnitude) using hydraulic & hydrological analyses, (3) description of the sequence
EFAs of flow events for particular processes, using a frequency analysis to derive event recurrence
intervals for a range of event magnitudes, (4) setting of EF targets, by minimising changes in
event recurrence intervals from natural/reference or to satisfy some constraint (e.g. maximum
% permissable change in recurrence interval for any given event magnitude); EFM’s singular
development appears to be analysis of changes in event recurrence intervals with altered flow
regimes; draws greatly on established procedures of other complex EFMs (e.g. BBM,
FLOWRESM, & DRIFT); may be used to (1) assess the ecological impact of changes in flow
regimes, (2) specify EF management rules/targets, (3) optimise flow management rules to
maximise ecological benefits within constraints of existing WRD schemes; possibly places
undue emphasis on frequency compared with other event characteristics; no social
component; requires additional validation; incorporated within various expert-panel/other
assessment frameworks

Continues
439

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

440

Appendix II. Continued

Methodology Origins Main features, strengths and limitations Status

(key references)

Flow Restoration Developed in a Primarily bottom-up, field & desktop approach appropriate for comprehensive (or intermediate) EFAs; Most
Methodology study of the designed for use in intensively regulated rivers; emphasis is on identification of the essential features that comprehensive
(FLOWRESM) Brisbane River, need to be built back into the hydrological regime to shift the regulated river system towards the pre- EFM for flow-
(Arthington, Queensland, regulation state; EFM uses an 11-step process in 2 stages, in which the following are achieved—(1) review related river
1998a; Arthington Australia, for of changes to the river hydrological regime (focusing on unregulated, present day & future demand restoration;
et al., 2000) specifically scenarios), (2) series of steps within scenario-based workshop, using extensive multidisciplinary specialist probably only a
addressing EFRs input: determination of flow-related environmental effects, rationale & potential for restoration of various single application

in river systems flow components so as to restore ecological functions, & establishment of EFRS based on identification of in Australia to
exhibiting a long critical flow thresholds/flow bands that meet specified ecological/other objectives, (3) assess implications date
history of flow of multiple scenarios for system yield, (4) outline remedial actions not related to flow regulation, (5)
regulation & outline monitoring strategy to assess benefits of EFRs; EFM includes well developed hydrological &
requiring ecological modelling tools; represents a hybrid of the Holistic Approach & BBM; more rigorous than
restoration expert-panel methods (e.g. SPAM); some risk of inadvertent omission of critical flow events; includes
flexible top-down process for assessing ecological implications of alternative modified flow regimes;
potential for adoption of full benchmarking process to rank outcomes of not restoring critical flows;
requires documentation of the generic procedure for wider application
River Babingley First developed Bottom-up field & desktop approach; EAFR (EF regime) defined in 4 stages—(1) ecological assessment Relatively limited
(Wissey) Method for application in of river & specification of an ecological objective comprising specific targets (for river components & application to
R. E. THARME

(Petts et al., 1999 groundwater- biota), (2) determination of 4 general & 2 flood benchmark flows to meet the specified targets, (3) use of date; general
& cited dominated rivers, flows to construct ‘ecologically acceptable hydrographs’, which may include provision for wet years & approach appears
references: Petts, Anglian Region of drought conditions, (4) assignment of acceptable flow frequencies & durations to the hydrographs, & their to have been
1996; Petts & England synthesis into a flow duration curve, the EAFR; EFM uses hydro-ecological models, habitat & extended to other
Bickerton, 1994) hydrological simulation tools to assist in identification of benchmark flows & overall EAFR; allows for EFA studies in the
flexible examination of alternative EF scenarios; loosely structured approach, with limited explanation of UK
procedures for integration of multidisciplinary input; risk of omission of critical flow events from EAFR;
specific to baseflow-dominated rivers & requires further research for use in flashy catchments
Habitat Analysis Developed by Relatively rapid, inexpensive, basin-wide reconnaissance method for determining preliminary EFRs at Precursor of
Method former multiple points in catchment (rather than at a few critical sites); superior to simple hydrological EFMs, but Benchmarking
(Walter et al., Queensland inadequate for comprehensive EFAs; field data limited/absent; bottom-up process of 4 stages using TAP— Methodology
1994; Burgess & Department of (1) identification of generic aquatic habitat types existing within the catchment, (2) determination of flow- within WAMP
Vanderbyl, 1996; Primary related ecological requirements of each habitat (as surrogate for EFRs for aquatic biota), using small group initiatives; several
Burgess & Thoms, Industries, Water of key flow statistics, plus select ‘biological trigger’ flows & floods for maintenance of ecological/ applications
1997, cited in Resources (now geomorphological processes, (3) development of bypass flow strategies to meet EFRs, (4) development of within Australia
Arthington 1998a; DNR), Australia, EFR monitoring strategy; EFM represents an extension of expert panel approaches (EPAM, SPAM), with
Burgess & Thoms, as part of WAMP conceptual basis & assumptions adapted from Holistic Approach; little consideration of specific flow
1998; Arthington, initiative needs of individual ecosystem components; requires standardization of process, refinement of flow bands
1998a) linked to habitats & addition of flow events

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Environmental Developed in Simplified bottom-up approach, applicable in highly regulated & managed systems with considerable Limited to 3
Flow South Africa by operational limitations; considered for use within South Africa Reserve determination process only where applications; only
Management the Institute for BBM or equivalent approach cannot be followed; workshop-based, multidisciplinary assessment used in South
Plan Method Water Research, including ecologists & system operators; 3-step process—(1) definition of operable reaches for study river Africa to date;
(FMP) for use for & site selection, establishment of current operating rules, (2) determination of current ecological status & uncertain status
(Muller, unpubl. intensively desired future state, (3) identification of EFRs using similar procedures to BBM; EFM has poorly within the
report, 1996, regulated river established post-workshop scenario phase; limited scope for application; EFM structure & procedures for national Reserve
1997; DWAF, systems application are not formalised or well documented; no evaluation undertaken; considerably more limited framework
1999d) approach than FLOWRESM
Expert Panel First Bottom-up, reconnaissance-level approach for initial assessment of proposed WRDs; rapid & inexpensive, Applied only in
Assessment multidisciplinary with limited field data collection; site-specific focus; applicable primarily for sites where dam releases are Australia; several
Method (EPAM) panel based EFM possible; relies on field-based ecological interpretation, by a panel of experts, of different multiple trial applications, both

(Swales et al., used in Australia, flow releases (ranked in terms of scored ecological suitability) from dams, at one/few sites, to determine in original &
1994; Swales & developed jointly EFR (typically as flow percentiles); low resource intensity; limited resolution of EF output; aims to variously
Harris, 1995) by the New South address river ecosystem health (using fish communities as indicators), rather than to assess multiple modified forms
Wales ecosystem components; based on same concepts as Holistic Approach & BBM; strongly reliant on
departments of professional judgement; limited subset of expertise represented by panel (e.g. fish, invertebrates,
Fisheries & Water geomorphology); simplistic in terms of the range of ecological criteria & components assessed (but scope
Resources for inclusion of additional ones) & the focus on fish; no explicit guidelines for application; poor
congruence in opinion of different panel members (e.g. due to subjective scoring approach, individual
bias); requires further validation; led to development of more advanced, but similar SPAM, Snowy Inquiry
Methodology & other expert panel approaches
Scientific Panel Developed during Bottom-up field (multiple sites) & desktop approach appropriate for provision of interim or intermediate Appears limited
Assessment an EFA for the level EFAs; evolved from EPAM as more sophisticated & transparent expert-panel approach; aims to to a single
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES

Method (SPAM) Barwon-Darling determine a modified flow regime that will maintain ecosystem health; differs from EPAM in that key application in
(Thoms et al., River System, features of the ecosystem & hydrological regime & their interactions at multiple sites are used as basis for Australia in
1996) Australia EFA; EFR process includes—(1) identification of management performance criteria by panel of experts original form;
for 5 main ecosystem components: fish, trees, macrophytes, invertebrates & geomorphology, (2) general approach
application of the criteria for three elements (& associated descriptors) identified as exerting an influence variously
on the ecosystem components (viz. flow regime, hydrograph & physical structure at 3 spatial scales), (3) modified for other
workshop-based cross-tabulation approach to identify & document generalised responses/impacts for each expert panel EFAs
ecosystem components to each specific descriptor (for each element), so as to relate flow regime attributes
to ecosystem responses & EFRs; incorporates system hydrological variability & elements of ecosystem
functioning; includes stakeholder-panel member workshop for EFR refinement; many conceptual features
& methodological procedures in common with the Holistic Approach & BBM; well defined EFA
objectives; some potential for inclusion of other ecosystem components; led to the evolution of other
expert-panel approaches; limited use of field data; poor definition of output format for EFR; moderately
rapid, flexible & resource-intensive; simpler, less quantitative supporting evidence, & less rigorous than
FLOWRESM, BBM & DRIFT; no recent developments documented
441

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

EFlow Prelims
No ratings yet
EFlow Prelims
10 pages
Keeping Rivers Alive PDF
No ratings yet
Keeping Rivers Alive PDF
40 pages
Environmental Flows
No ratings yet
Environmental Flows
260 pages
Protecting Indigenous Values in Water Management A Challenge To Conventional Environmental Flow Assessments
No ratings yet
Protecting Indigenous Values in Water Management A Challenge To Conventional Environmental Flow Assessments
18 pages
Environmental Flows for River Conservation
No ratings yet
Environmental Flows for River Conservation
4 pages
Seeing It in Flow-Motion
No ratings yet
Seeing It in Flow-Motion
16 pages
The Changing Hydrology of A Dammed Amazon: Researcharticle
No ratings yet
The Changing Hydrology of A Dammed Amazon: Researcharticle
14 pages
E Flow ch6
No ratings yet
E Flow ch6
54 pages
Envi PDF
No ratings yet
Envi PDF
12 pages
2003 Flow PDF
No ratings yet
2003 Flow PDF
136 pages
6 - Implication of Environmental Flows in Ri - 2008 - Physics and Chemistry of The E
No ratings yet
6 - Implication of Environmental Flows in Ri - 2008 - Physics and Chemistry of The E
6 pages
Stream Modules Spreadsheet Tools For River Evaluat
No ratings yet
Stream Modules Spreadsheet Tools For River Evaluat
14 pages
Ijgi 09 00305 PDF
No ratings yet
Ijgi 09 00305 PDF
27 pages
Environmental Flows An Introduction For Water Resources Managers
No ratings yet
Environmental Flows An Introduction For Water Resources Managers
10 pages
River Health Survey by Prof. Dutta
No ratings yet
River Health Survey by Prof. Dutta
16 pages
Assessment and Monitoring of Aquatic Resources
No ratings yet
Assessment and Monitoring of Aquatic Resources
23 pages
Hydrology Based Assessment of Environmental Flows An Example From Nepal
No ratings yet
Hydrology Based Assessment of Environmental Flows An Example From Nepal
17 pages
Asian River Basins
No ratings yet
Asian River Basins
124 pages
Gleick 2003
No ratings yet
Gleick 2003
6 pages
Arthingtonetal2006EcoAppsChallengese Flows
No ratings yet
Arthingtonetal2006EcoAppsChallengese Flows
9 pages
Environmental Flow Assessment (EFA) of Tawi River Discharge at The Jammu Location Using The Global Environmental Flow Calculator (GEFC)
No ratings yet
Environmental Flow Assessment (EFA) of Tawi River Discharge at The Jammu Location Using The Global Environmental Flow Calculator (GEFC)
10 pages
Lecture 2 HE2023
No ratings yet
Lecture 2 HE2023
30 pages
A Hierarchical Modelling Framework For Assessing Physical Andbiochemical Characteristics of A Regulated River
No ratings yet
A Hierarchical Modelling Framework For Assessing Physical Andbiochemical Characteristics of A Regulated River
16 pages
Nilsson Science2005 PDF
No ratings yet
Nilsson Science2005 PDF
30 pages
Gurnell Et Al. - 2016 - A Multi-Scale Hierarchical Framework For Developing Understanding of River Behaviour To Support River Management
No ratings yet
Gurnell Et Al. - 2016 - A Multi-Scale Hierarchical Framework For Developing Understanding of River Behaviour To Support River Management
24 pages
Grantham
No ratings yet
Grantham
13 pages
v4 n3 1 Gestion de Cuencas Hidrograficas
No ratings yet
v4 n3 1 Gestion de Cuencas Hidrograficas
13 pages
River Basin Development and Management S
No ratings yet
River Basin Development and Management S
18 pages
Impacts of Implementation of Colombian Environmental Flow
No ratings yet
Impacts of Implementation of Colombian Environmental Flow
18 pages
Global Non-Perennial Rivers Study
No ratings yet
Global Non-Perennial Rivers Study
27 pages
Pahl-Wostl Etal 2013
No ratings yet
Pahl-Wostl Etal 2013
11 pages
Environmental Flows: State-of-the-Art With Special Reference To Rivers in The Ganga River Basi
No ratings yet
Environmental Flows: State-of-the-Art With Special Reference To Rivers in The Ganga River Basi
33 pages
Notes On Environmental Flow
No ratings yet
Notes On Environmental Flow
3 pages
Research Proposal PHD
100% (2)
Research Proposal PHD
19 pages
A Scenario-Based Holistic Approach To Environmenta
No ratings yet
A Scenario-Based Holistic Approach To Environmenta
22 pages
PLAG A COMPARATIVE PHYSIOCHEMICAL ANAALYSIS OF RIVER WATER DONE FILE Done
No ratings yet
PLAG A COMPARATIVE PHYSIOCHEMICAL ANAALYSIS OF RIVER WATER DONE FILE Done
49 pages
Wor121 PDF
No ratings yet
Wor121 PDF
21 pages
Water and Sustainability
No ratings yet
Water and Sustainability
15 pages
Water Managemen
No ratings yet
Water Managemen
27 pages
A Quick Lesson On Environmental Flows: Limits
100% (1)
A Quick Lesson On Environmental Flows: Limits
4 pages
Guidelines River Morphological Reports March09
No ratings yet
Guidelines River Morphological Reports March09
29 pages
NWP0 REPL1 Concepts 0 and 0 Methods
No ratings yet
NWP0 REPL1 Concepts 0 and 0 Methods
27 pages
60
No ratings yet
60
341 pages
Env Dev and Sus-2
No ratings yet
Env Dev and Sus-2
38 pages
Poff 1997
No ratings yet
Poff 1997
17 pages
Art:10.1007/s00267 011 9661 0
No ratings yet
Art:10.1007/s00267 011 9661 0
13 pages
Riverecology Eng Bt13dec
No ratings yet
Riverecology Eng Bt13dec
36 pages
Drinking Water Quality Literature Review
100% (2)
Drinking Water Quality Literature Review
5 pages
Oki and Kanae - 2006 - Lectura - Tarea 1
No ratings yet
Oki and Kanae - 2006 - Lectura - Tarea 1
6 pages
LIVRO LOUCKS INTRODUÇÃO E CASOS Water Resource Systems Planning and Management
No ratings yet
LIVRO LOUCKS INTRODUÇÃO E CASOS Water Resource Systems Planning and Management
3 pages
Global Alteration of Freshwaters: Influences On Human and Environmental Well-Being Naiman & Dudgeon 2011
No ratings yet
Global Alteration of Freshwaters: Influences On Human and Environmental Well-Being Naiman & Dudgeon 2011
10 pages
Eco-Hydrological Impact of Damming
No ratings yet
Eco-Hydrological Impact of Damming
43 pages
Flood Prevention and Mitigation at Large Rivers
No ratings yet
Flood Prevention and Mitigation at Large Rivers
3 pages
Vörösmarty Et Al. 2010
No ratings yet
Vörösmarty Et Al. 2010
31 pages
Soco Hydrogical Model
No ratings yet
Soco Hydrogical Model
14 pages
Tipos de Cavitación en Francis
No ratings yet
Tipos de Cavitación en Francis
5 pages
2014 Publishing in Asce Journals
No ratings yet
2014 Publishing in Asce Journals
71 pages
Charysh HPP - Propuesta de Mejora Del Servomotor en Base A Zhigulevskaya HPP - Ruso
No ratings yet
Charysh HPP - Propuesta de Mejora Del Servomotor en Base A Zhigulevskaya HPP - Ruso
131 pages
Measurement of Loads Acting On A Hydropower Unit During Stationary and Transient Operations
No ratings yet
Measurement of Loads Acting On A Hydropower Unit During Stationary and Transient Operations
11 pages
Crack Propagation and Estimation of Remaining Lifetime of Damaged Runner Blades
No ratings yet
Crack Propagation and Estimation of Remaining Lifetime of Damaged Runner Blades
9 pages
(Science China Technological Sciences Vol. 51 Iss. 8) ShuHong Liu - Jie Shao - ShangFeng Wu - YuLin Wu - Numerical Simulation of
No ratings yet
(Science China Technological Sciences Vol. 51 Iss. 8) ShuHong Liu - Jie Shao - ShangFeng Wu - YuLin Wu - Numerical Simulation of
12 pages
Fluid-Structure Dynamics Analysis
No ratings yet
Fluid-Structure Dynamics Analysis
16 pages
Vibration Testing and Analysis of Head Cover in Hydraulic Turbine
No ratings yet
Vibration Testing and Analysis of Head Cover in Hydraulic Turbine
6 pages
TSB04 - Medicion de Presiones Fluctuantes en Prototipo
No ratings yet
TSB04 - Medicion de Presiones Fluctuantes en Prototipo
8 pages
Latin IAHR Trabajo Completo Ingles Journal
No ratings yet
Latin IAHR Trabajo Completo Ingles Journal
12 pages
FM-Experiment 3 - Rectangular Notch
No ratings yet
FM-Experiment 3 - Rectangular Notch
4 pages
Understanding Runoff and Drought Dynamics
No ratings yet
Understanding Runoff and Drought Dynamics
26 pages
Propose Drainage
No ratings yet
Propose Drainage
19 pages
Civil Engineering: Cross Drainage
100% (1)
Civil Engineering: Cross Drainage
43 pages
Exercises Mechanics of Fluids
No ratings yet
Exercises Mechanics of Fluids
3 pages
Selection and Optimization of Mine Pumping Systems
No ratings yet
Selection and Optimization of Mine Pumping Systems
20 pages
Flood Forecasting Lecture Notes
No ratings yet
Flood Forecasting Lecture Notes
45 pages
RCC Dam Break Analysis
No ratings yet
RCC Dam Break Analysis
12 pages
Hydrology Analysis Calculation For Bridge As Per IRC 5 and 78 - 2014
100% (2)
Hydrology Analysis Calculation For Bridge As Per IRC 5 and 78 - 2014
9 pages
Hydropower Flow Analysis Guide
100% (1)
Hydropower Flow Analysis Guide
31 pages
Oil-Water Separator Design Guide
No ratings yet
Oil-Water Separator Design Guide
6 pages
Discharge Coefficients in Orifice Flow
No ratings yet
Discharge Coefficients in Orifice Flow
13 pages
Urban Hydrology Student Report
No ratings yet
Urban Hydrology Student Report
6 pages
Water Pollution Permit Application
No ratings yet
Water Pollution Permit Application
14 pages
Peak Discharge vs. Runoff Volume
100% (1)
Peak Discharge vs. Runoff Volume
7 pages
WAR 3202 Groundwater Development and MG'T (4CU) - Lecture Notes-2nd-Sem.22-23
No ratings yet
WAR 3202 Groundwater Development and MG'T (4CU) - Lecture Notes-2nd-Sem.22-23
91 pages
Hydrology & Site Selection of Hydro Power Plant
No ratings yet
Hydrology & Site Selection of Hydro Power Plant
25 pages
Pipe Network Flow Analysis Techniques
No ratings yet
Pipe Network Flow Analysis Techniques
29 pages
Flood Simulation Arcgis Pro
No ratings yet
Flood Simulation Arcgis Pro
20 pages
Bridge 317 Waterway Calculation
No ratings yet
Bridge 317 Waterway Calculation
7 pages
Water Supply and Sewerage System Design
No ratings yet
Water Supply and Sewerage System Design
6 pages
Weir and Barrages
82% (11)
Weir and Barrages
227 pages
Urban Waterbody Rejuvenation
No ratings yet
Urban Waterbody Rejuvenation
116 pages
Claudius Peters1
No ratings yet
Claudius Peters1
24 pages
Calculus Single and Multivariable 6th Edition Hughes-Hallett Solutions Manualinstant Download
100% (17)
Calculus Single and Multivariable 6th Edition Hughes-Hallett Solutions Manualinstant Download
42 pages
2 Hydrologic Measurement
No ratings yet
2 Hydrologic Measurement
9 pages
Reservoir Sedimentation Management With Bypass Tun
No ratings yet
Reservoir Sedimentation Management With Bypass Tun
9 pages
Andrews Effective Discharge
No ratings yet
Andrews Effective Discharge
14 pages
Experiment No 1 - Flow Through Notch Weirs
No ratings yet
Experiment No 1 - Flow Through Notch Weirs
8 pages
Dam Break Analysis For Aparan Reservoir, Armenia: Per Ludvig Bjerke
No ratings yet
Dam Break Analysis For Aparan Reservoir, Armenia: Per Ludvig Bjerke
27 pages

Tharme-2003-River Research and Applications

Uploaded by

Tharme-2003-River Research and Applications

Uploaded by

RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE ON ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW ASSESSMENT:

Received 8 March 2002

River regulation as a global phenomenon

Table I. The top 20 countries worldwide by number of large dams (adapted

Country ICOLD World Register Other Percent of

1 *China 1855 22 000 46.2

Evolution of the science of environmental flow assessment

Types of environmental flow methodologies

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Global trends in types of environmental flow methodologies

Hydraulic rating methodologies

Habitat simulation methodologies

Combined methodologies and other approaches

Trends in methodology types among world regions

USA 77 (37%) 5 20 (33%) 19 (83%) 29 (50%) — 8 (23%) 1 (7%)

Developed versus developing countries

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Newcombe’s Methodology; 140WSP Hydraulic Model (with PJ)

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

5) 177HEP-based framework (ecotope classification of aquatic systems,

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Physical Biotopes/Flow Types approach

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*106Linked statistical hydraulic & multivariate habitat use models

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Country Environmental flow methodologies References for case studies

5) 170Hill, Platts & Beschta Methodology; 165Experimental Flood

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Methodology Origins Main features, strengths and limitations Status

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Methodology Origins Main features, strengths and limitations Status

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

development to facilitate scenario-based assessment of alternative flow regimes

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Appendix II. Continued

Methodology Origins Main features, strengths and limitations Status

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

River Res. Applic. 19: 397–441 (2003)

You might also like