Chapter 4

River Hydrology, Flow Alteration,

and Environmental Flow

Bernhard Zeiringer, Carina Seliger, Franz Greimel, and Stefan Schmutz

“The water runs the river.” This chapter focuses on the river flow as the fundamental
process determining the size, shape, structure, and dynamics of riverine ecosystems.
We briefly introduce hydrological regimes as key characteristics of river flow.
Hydrological regimes are then linked to habitats and biotic communities. The effects
of flow regulation as a result of human activities such as water abstraction (irrigation
and hydropower), river channelization, land use, and climate change are demon-
strated. Finally, methods to assess the environmental flow, the flow that is needed to
maintain the ecological integrity, are described, and examples of successful flow
restoration presented.

4.1 The Water Cycle and Hydrological Regimes

In temperate zones water received via precipitation is either stored in ice and snow
during winter or infiltrates into the groundwater and is released into rivers during
summer. Water cycles through stages of evaporation, water storage in the atmo-
sphere, precipitation, (sub)surface runoff, and storage in the ocean. The water cycle
and climatic conditions form the boundary conditions for the hydrological regimes
that define distinct seasonal and daily flow patterns. High altitude rivers receive
water mainly from glacial melt during summer with distinct diurnal melting peaks
following air temperature warm-up (glacial regime) (Fig. 4.1). At lower elevations
snow melting in spring causes seasonal peaks (nival regime), while periods of high
flow and floods due to rainfall can occur at any time of the year (pluvial regime).

B. Zeiringer (*) · C. Seliger · F. Greimel · S. Schmutz

Institute of Hydrobiology and Aquatic Ecosystem Management, University of Natural
Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria
e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]

© The Author(s) 2018 67

S. Schmutz, J. Sendzimir (eds.), Riverine Ecosystem Management, Aquatic Ecology
Series 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73250-3_4
68 B. Zeiringer et al.

Fig. 4.1 Simple hydrological regimes (glacial, River Ötztaler Ache; nival, River Mur; pluvial,
River Stiefing; and tropical, River Niger). The monthly discharge coefficient (cm) is defined by the
ratio of the average monthly discharge and the mean discharge (hydrograph data over several years)

Tropical rivers are characterized by distinct flow cycles related to dry and wet
seasons. The tropical regime is similar to the pluvial regime, e.g., drought in the
dry season and abundant rainfall in the wet season. Depending on the local condi-
tions and position within the catchment, observed flow may represent a mixture of
hydrological regimes. Flow regimes are very important to understand the key
functions and processes of riverine ecosystems.
Catchments are hydrological units defined as the area collecting the water within
a given drainage divide or watershed (a drainage divide is the line that separates
neighboring drainage basins). All the catchments for all the tributaries of a river are
lumped together to form a river basin (e.g., Danube River Basin). The so-called
water balance of a given catchment or basin is calculated from water gains (precip-
itation) and losses (evapotranspiration and runoff) including storage phases (soil
water, groundwater, ice, snow). The observed discharge (m3/s) at distinct locations
within the catchment is determined based on meteorological and biogeophysical
factors (see Table 4.1).
The river flow determines the dynamics of the four-dimensional river system
(Ward 1989). Sediment and nutrient transport is closely linked to the longitudinal
dimension of flow. Floodplain dynamics depend on the lateral hydrological connec-
tivity and flood pulses (Junk et al. 1989). River groundwater interaction represents
the vertical dimension of flow dynamics and determines groundwater recharge and
groundwater contribution to river flow. The longitudinal, lateral, and vertical flow
pattern varies over time representing the fourth dimension of the four-dimensional
river system.
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 69

Table 4.1 Meteorological and biogeophysical factors determining river flow

Meteorological factors Biogeophysical factors
– Type of precipitation (rainfall, snow) – Drainage area
– Rainfall amount, intensity, duration, and – Elevation
distribution over the drainage basin – Topography, terrain slope
– Precipitation that occurred earlier and – Basin shape and drainage network patterns
resulting soil moisture – Soil type, land use, and vegetation
– Meteorological conditions that affect – Ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sinks, etc. in the basin,
evapotranspiration and infiltration which prevent or delay downstream runoff

4.2 Flow Determines Habitats and Biotic Communities

River flow determines processes that shape and organize the physical habitat and
associated biotic communities. Flow variability is a fundamental feature of river
systems and their ecological functioning (Poff et al. 1997). The natural flow of a
river varies on time scales of hours, days, seasons, years, and longer. Many years of
observation from a streamflow gauge are generally needed to describe the charac-
teristic pattern of a river’s flow quantity, timing, and variability (Poff et al. 1997).
River flow regimes show regional patterns that are determined largely by river size
and by geographic variation in climate, geology, topography, and vegetative cover.
The widely accepted natural flow paradigm (sensu Poff et al. 1997), where the
flow regime of a river, comprising the five key components of variability, i.e.,
magnitude, frequency, duration, 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). These components
can be used to characterize the entire range of flows and specific hydrologic
phenomena, such as floods or low flows, which are critical to the integrity of river
ecosystems.
The natural flow regime organizes and defines river ecosystems. In rivers, the
physical structure of the environment and, thus, of the habitat is defined largely by
physical processes, especially the movement of water and sediment within the
channel and between the channel and floodplain. The physical habitat of a river
includes sediment size and heterogeneity, channel and floodplain morphology, and
other geomorphic features. These features form as the available sediment, woody
debris, and other transportable materials are moved and deposited by flow. Thus,
habitat conditions associated with channels and floodplains vary among rivers in
accordance with both flow characteristics and the type and the availability of
transportable materials. Within a river, different habitat features are created and
maintained by a wide range of flows (Poff et al. 1997).
Generally, the shaping of hydro-morphological channel and floodplain features
(e.g., river bars and riffle-pool sequences) happens continuously. But the dominant,
shaping processes occur in episodes of bank-full discharges (see Chap. 3). It is
important that these flows are able to move bed or bank sediment and occur frequently
enough to continually modify the river channel (Wolman and Miller 1960).
70 B. Zeiringer et al.

The diversity of instream and floodplain habitat types has stimulated the evolu-
tion of species that use the habitat mosaic created by hydrologic variability. For
many riverine species, completion of the life cycle requires an array of different
habitat types, whose availability over time is regulated by the flow regime
(Greenberg et al. 1996).
Aquatic organisms have evolved life history strategies primarily in direct response
to natural flow regimes (Bunn and Arthington 2002). The physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of rivers are primarily affected by flow variation as a “master
variable.” Changes in discharge are a form of disturbance, but a moderate level of
hydrological variability enhances biological diversity (sensu Connell 1978; Ward and
Stanford 1983; Bunn and Arthington 2002). River biota have evolved adaptive
mechanisms to cope with habitat changes that result from natural flow variation, and
indeed many species rely on regular or seasonal changes in river flows to complete
their life cycles (Poff et al. 1997). For detailed discussions of the ecological effects
(and knock-on social and economic implications) of hydrological alterations on
riverine ecosystems, with impacts ranging from genetic isolation through habitat
fragmentation to declines in biodiversity, floodplain fisheries, and ecosystem services,
see Ward (1982), Petts (1984), Lillehammer and Saltveit (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), World Commission on Dams (2000), Bergkamp et al. (2000),
and Bunn and Arthington (2002).
Bunn and Arthington (2002) propose that the relationship between biodiversity
and the physical nature of the aquatic habitat is likely to be driven primarily by large
events that influence channel form and shape (principle 1) (Fig. 4.2). However,
droughts and low-flow events are also likely to play a role by limiting overall habitat
availability. Native biota have evolved in response to the overall flow regime. Many
features of the flow regime influence life history patterns, especially the seasonality
and predictability of the overall pattern, but also the timing of particular flow events
(principle 2). Some flow events trigger longitudinal dispersal of migratory aquatic
organisms, and other large events allow access to otherwise disconnected floodplain
habitats (principle 3). Catchment land-use change and associated water resource
development inevitably lead to changes in one or more aspects of the flow regime
resulting in declines in aquatic biodiversity via these mechanisms. Invasions by
introduced or exotic species are more likely to succeed at the expense of native biota
if the former are adapted to the modified flow regime (principle 4).

4.3 Flow Regulation

The global increase in water demand has resulted in a conflict between using rivers
as water and energy sources and the need to conserve rivers as intact ecosystems
(Dynesius and Nilsson 1994; Abramovitz 1995; Postel 1995; McCully 1996; World
Commission on Dams (2000). This ongoing conflict has stimulated a growing field
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 71

Fig. 4.2 The natural flow regime of a river influences aquatic biodiversity via several interrelated
mechanisms that operate over different spatial and temporal scales. The relationship between
biodiversity and the physical nature of the aquatic habitat is likely to be driven primarily by large
events that influence channel form and shape (principle 1). However, droughts and low-flow events
are also likely to play a role by limiting overall habitat availability. Many features of the flow regime
influence life history patterns, especially the seasonality and predictability of the overall pattern, but
also the timing of particular flow events (principle 2). Some flow events trigger longitudinal
dispersal of migratory aquatic organisms, and other large events allow access to otherwise discon-
nected floodplain habitats (principle 3). The native biota have evolved in response to the overall
flow regime. Catchment land-use change and associated water resource development inevitably
lead to changes in one or more aspects of the flow regime resulting in declines in aquatic
biodiversity via these mechanisms. Invasions by introduced or exotic species are more likely to
succeed at the expense of native biota if the former are adapted to the modified flow regime
(principle 4) (Bunn and Arthington 2002) (© Environmental management, Basic principles and
ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity, 30, 2002, p. 493, Bunn
SE, Arthington AH. With permission of Springer.)

of research dedicated to assessing the requirements of rivers for their own water, to
enable satisfactory tradeoffs in water allocation among all users of the resource and
the resource base itself (the river) (Tharme 2003).
More than half of the world’s accessible surface water is already appropriated by
humans, and this is projected to increase to 70% by 2025 (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 for unprecedented impacts to riverine ecosystems, most of which result
72 B. Zeiringer et al.

from alterations to the natural hydrological regime (Rosenberg et al. 2000). Almost
all large river basins are already impacted by large dams (Nilsson et al. 2005).
About 60% of the world’s rivers are estimated to be fragmented by hydrologic
alteration, with 46% of the 106 primary watersheds modified by the presence of at least
one large dam (Revenga et al. 1998, 2000). Dynesius and Nilsson (1994) calculated that
77% of the total discharge of the 139 largest river systems in North America, Europe,
and the republics 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. EU member countries
regulate the flow of around 65% of the rivers in their territories, while in Asia, just under
50% of all rivers that are regulated have more than one dam (World Commission on
Dams 2000). Flow regulation through impoundment represents the most prevalent
form of hydrological alteration with over 45,000 large dams in over 140 countries
(World Commission on Dams 2000); a further 800,000 small dams are estimated to
exist worldwide (McCully 1996). The top five dam-building countries (China, United
States, India, Japan, Spain) account for close to 80% of all large dams worldwide, with
China alone possessing nearly half the world total (World Commission on Dams 2000,
cited in Tharme 2003). Dam development is expected to continue, with more than 3700
large hydropower dams alone currently planned or under construction worldwide (Zarfl
et al. 2014).

4.4 Human Alteration of Flow Regimes

Human alteration of flow regime changes the established pattern of natural hydro-
logic variation and habitat dynamics. Modification of natural hydrologic processes
disrupts the dynamic balance between the movement of water and the movement of
sediment that exists in free-flowing rivers (Dunne and Leopold 1978).
Typical sources of alteration of flow regimes are (after Poff et al. 1997):
• Dam
• Water diversion
• Urbanization, sealing, drainage
• Levees and channelization
• Groundwater pumping
Dams, which are the most obvious direct modifiers of river flow, capture both low
and high flows for flood control, electrical power generation (Fig. 4.3), irrigation and
municipal water needs, maintenance of recreational reservoir levels, and navigation.
Dams capture sediments moving down a river, with many severe downstream conse-
quences (e.g., erosion of fine sediment in the downstream section). The coarsening of
the streambed can, in turn, reduce habitat availability for aquatic species living in or
using interstitial spaces (Chien 1985). Beside flow regulation as a consequence of dam
construction, rivers get fragmented and loose its natural connectivity (see Chap. 6).
Dams also lead to reduction of the magnitude and frequency of high flows,
leading to deposition of fines and sealing in gravel and channel stabilization and
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 73

Fig. 4.3 Scheme of a diversion power plant and residual flow stretch (hydropower plant
Hohenstein at the River Krems, Austria). Main river (blue solid line), small tributaries (blue dashed
line), residual flow stretch (red solid line), and diversion channel (black dashed line)

narrowing. Sealing and land drainage increase the magnitude and frequency of high
flows, leading to bank and riverbed erosion and floodplain disconnection. Further-
more, reduced infiltration into soil reduces base flows. Levees and channelization
reduce overbank flows, leading to floodplain deposition and channel restriction,
causing downcutting and restraining channel migration and formation of secondary
channels. Groundwater pumping lowers water table levels and further reduces plant
growth. The loss of vegetation leads to streambank stability erosion and channel
downcutting.

4.5 Ecological Responses to Altered Flow Regime

In a comprehensive review, Poff and Zimmerman (2010) reported that almost all
published research found negative ecological changes in response to a variety of
flow alteration (Table 4.2). Only in few instances did values for ecological response
metrics increase, indicating shifts in ecological organization, such as increase in
non-native species or non-woody plant cover on dewatered floodplains. This also
confirms earlier summaries of ecological response to flow regime alterations (Poff
et al. 1997; Bunn and Arthington 2002; Lloyd et al. 2003).
74 B. Zeiringer et al.

Table 4.2 Alterations in flow components and common ecological response (modified after Poff
et al. 1997; Poff and Zimmerman 2010)
Flow component Alteration Ecological response
Magnitude Flow stabilization (a) Reduced diversity
(loss of extreme high Loss of sensitive species
and/or low flows) Altered assemblages and dominant taxa
Reduced abundance
Increase in non-natives
(r) Seedling desiccation
Ineffective seed dispersal
Terrestrialization of flora
Lower species richness
Encroachment of vegetation into channels
Increased riparian cover
Altered assemblages
Greater magnitude of (a) Life cycle disruption
extreme high and/or Reduced species richness
low flows Altered assemblages and relative abundance of
taxa
Loss of sensitive species
Frequency Decreased frequency (a) Aseasonal reproduction
of peak flows Reduced reproduction
Decreased abundance or extirpation of native
fishes
Decreased richness of endemic and sensitive
species
Reduced habitat for young fishes
(r) Shift in community composition
Reductions in species richness
Increase in wood production
Duration Decreased duration of (a) Decreased abundance of young fish
floodplain inundation Change in juvenile fish assemblage
Loss of floodplain specialists in mollusk
assemblage
(r) Reduced growth rate or mortality
Altered assemblages
Terrestrialization or desertification of species
composition
Reduced area of riparian plant or forest cover
Prolonged low flows (a) Concentration of organisms
Downstream loss of floating eggs
(r) Reduction or elimination of plant cover
Diminished plant species diversity
Desertification of species composition
Prolonged inundation (a) Loss of riffle habitat
(r) Change in vegetation functional type
Tree mortality
(continued)
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 75

Table 4.2 (continued)

Flow component Alteration Ecological response
Timing Shifts in seasonality of (a) Disruption of spawning cues
peak flows Decreased reproduction and recruitment
Change in assemblage structure
Increased (a) Change in diversity and assemblages structure
predictability Disruption of spawning cues
Decreased reproduction and recruitment
Loss of seasonal flow (a) Disruption of migration cues
peaks Loss of accessibility to wetlands and backwaters
Modification of food web structure
(r) Reduced riparian plant recruitment
Invasion of exotic riparian plant species
Reduced plant growth and increased mortality
Reduction in species richness and plant cover
Rate of change Rapid changes in river (a) Drift (washout) and stranding
stage
Accelerated flood (r) Failure of seedling establishment
recession
Taxonomic identity of organisms: aquatic (a) and riparian (r)

Taxonomic groups, e.g., fish, macroinvertebrates, and riparian vegetation, show

biota-specific responses (abundance, diversity, and demographic parameters) to flow
alteration depending on the flow components affected (magnitude, frequency, dura-
tion, timing, rate of change). Most of the studies on ecological changes report
responses to altered flow magnitude associated with flow stabilization due to water
abstraction or water withdrawals for irrigation. For the most part instream taxa react
negatively to alteration of flow magnitude. Alterations in flow frequency, referring
mainly to decreases in frequency of floods, resulted in negative ecological responses
by macroinvertebrates and fish. Riparian communities usually decline in response to
flow frequency alteration; but also some increases are indicated (e.g., wood produc-
tion). Alterations in flow duration, mostly in the form of changes in the duration of
floodplain inundation, are primarily associated with decreases in both instream and
riparian communities. Similarly, changes in the timing of flows due to loss of
seasonal flow peaks reduce both aquatic and riparian communities (Poff et al.
1997; Poff and Zimmerman 2010). The rate of change is an important component
of the natural flow regime, commonly altered by hydropeaking, which causes
detrimental effects on instream and riparian communities (see Chap. 5).
Fish respond negatively to changes in flow magnitude, whether the flows increase
or decrease. Fish metrics decrease sharply in response to reduced flows (see Figs. 4.4,
4.5 and 4.6). Diversity shows a clear decline, especially where changes in flow
magnitudes exceed 50%. Therefore, fish are sensitive indicators of flow alteration.
Compared to this, macroinvertebrates or riparian species are not such reliable indi-
cators, since they do not consistently respond to changes in flow magnitude. Riparian
76 B. Zeiringer et al.

Fig. 4.4 Percent change in fish abundance, demographic parameters, and species diversity (and/or
richness) with respect to percent alteration of flow magnitude. Percent change for both fishes and
flow magnitude represents alteration relative to a pre-impact or “reference” condition. Alteration in
flow magnitude includes changes in peak flow, total or mean discharge, baseflow, or hourly flow
(Poff and Zimmerman 2010) (source: Poff and Zimmerman (2010). Ecological responses to altered
flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows.
Freshwater Biology, 55(1), 194–205, reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
© 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Freshwater Biology, 55, 194–205)

Fig. 4.5 Length distribution of brown trout at River Unrechttraisen (a) full water section and (b)
residual flow section (adapted from Zeiringer 2008b)

Fig. 4.6 Biomass of brown trout in River Ybbs in full flow section (reference) and residual flow
sections, ordered along the river course (adapted from Zeiringer et al. 2010)
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 77

Fig. 4.7 Encroachment of vegetation into river channel, example residual flow stretch River
Gölsen

Fig. 4.8 Hydrological effects of water abstraction, (a) natural hydrograph, and (b) reduced and
moderated flow in the residual flow section at the HPP Reichenau/River Schwarza (adapted from
Zeiringer 2008a)

responses can be associated with decreases in flood peaks, leading to reduction or

elimination of overbank flooding (Poff and Zimmerman 2010) (Fig. 4.7).
Aquatic and riparian species respond to multiple hydrologic drivers, and overlap in
their occurrence and impacts often confounds analysis (Poff and Zimmerman 2010).
Changes in magnitude of high flows are often accompanied by changes in frequency,
and either or both of these may influence biological response (Fig. 4.8). Additionally,
other environmental characteristics, like water temperature (Fig. 4.9) or sediment
regime (Fig. 4.10), may affect biota independently or in association with flow
alteration.
78 B. Zeiringer et al.

Fig. 4.9 Change of water quality due to water abstraction (a) water temperature increase River Mur
during summer (adapted from Zeiringer et al. 2008) and (b) algae bloom River Lassing

Fig. 4.10 Morphological effects of water abstraction, e.g., reduction of flow velocity and shear
stress, change of flow and substrate patterns, silting up of interstitial (clogging), reduced water
depth, and reduced wetted width (a) River Aschbach and (b) and (c) River Mur

Poff and Zimmerman (2010) mentioned that there are no studies reported that
focus primarily on ecosystem functional responses (e.g., riparian production, nutri-
ent retention), even though many ecological processes are clearly flow dependent
(Hart and Finelli 1999; Doyle et al. 2005, cited in Poff and Zimmerman 2010). They
emphasized that this absence points to an obvious research gap in the environmental
flows research.

4.6 Environmental Flow

Environmental flow (EF) is the quantity or volume of water required over time to
maintain river health in a particular state, where the state has to be predetermined or
agreed upon based on a trade-off with other considerations (Acreman and Dunbar 2004).
Such quanta are captured by a variety of terms, including the environmental flow
(regime), instream flow, environmental allocation, or ecological flow requirement, to
distinguish these from compensation flows (Gustard et al. 1987, cited in Acreman and
Dunbar 2004). The latter have been set for other purposes, such as downstream human
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 79

uses (e.g., irrigation, hydropower), pollutant dilution, or navigation. The first approaches
to quantifying EFs only focused on minimum flow, based on the idea that all river health
problems are associated with low flows.
Although there is no generally agreed definition or term (IWMI 2005), it is widely
accepted (e.g., Poff et al. 1997; Karr 1991; Bunn and Arthington 2002; Postel and
Richter 2003; Annear et al. 2004) that not only the quantity of discharge is decisive
but that also the timing and discharge dynamics are key factors for sustaining and
conserving native species diversity and ecological integrity of rivers.

4.6.1 The Concept and Definitions of Environmental Flow

The concept of EF historically was developed as a response to the degradation of

aquatic ecosystems caused by overuse of water. In this context EF may be defined as
the amount of water that is left in an aquatic ecosystem, or released into it, for the
specific purpose of managing the condition of that ecosystem (Arthington et al.
2006; Brown and King 2003). Despite the fact that the concept of EF has existed for
over 40 years (including other terminology, such as instream flows), there is still no
unified definition for it (Moore 2004). This lack of uniform agreement for a
definition of EF can be illustrated by looking at a sample of the ways in which it
has been defined in the literature by researchers and organizations involved in
assessing and implementing the concept all around the world over the last decades.
In these definitions of environmental flows, there are always two key aspects of the
concept included: the flow regime that should be considered and the level of
conservation for the ecosystem that is intended.
Selected definitions of EF:
• Arthington and Pusey (2003) define the objective of environmental flows as
maintaining or partially restoring important characteristics of the natural flow
regime (i.e., the quantity, frequency, timing, and duration of flow events, rates of
change, and predictability/variability) required to maintain or restore the biophys-
ical components and ecological processes of instream and groundwater systems,
floodplains, and downstream receiving waters.
• Brown and King (2003) state that environmental flows is a comprehensive term
that encompasses all components of the river, is dynamic over time, takes
cognizance of the need for natural flow variability, and addresses social and
economic issues as well as biophysical ones.
• Dyson et al. (2003) in the IUCN guide on environmental flows define the concept
as the water regime provided within a river, wetland, or coastal zone to maintain
ecosystems and their benefits where there are competing water uses and where
flows are regulated.
• Tharme (2003) defines an environmental flow assessment (EFA) as an assessment
of how much of the original flow regime of a river should continue to flow down
80 B. Zeiringer et al.

it and onto its floodplains in order to maintain specified, valued features of the
ecosystem.
• Gupta (2008) defines EFs as discharges of a particular magnitude, frequency, and
timing, which are necessary to ensure that a river system remains environmen-
tally, economically, and socially healthy.
• Environmental flows can be described as “the quality, quantity, and timing of
water flows required to maintain the components, functions, processes, and
resilience of aquatic ecosystems which provide goods and services to people”
(Hirji and Davis 2009).
EF is a management concept, and thus it should vary in response to actions or
processes that are used and understood by management. Generally, certain human
activities create a water demand that requires the development of infrastructure
(diversion weirs, dams, etc.). The presence and operation of this infrastructure
produces modifications of the natural flow regimes that affects the biophysical
conditions of ecosystems. Environmental flows can help to restrict water use, to
define the maximum limits of hydrological alteration to maintain a certain biological
condition and may appear as a basic tool for the recovery of certain species affected
by the modification of aquatic habitats (Navarro and Schmidt 2012). A combination
of Arthington and Pusey and Tharme definitions (2003) might consider the most
basic and relevant aspects of the concept of environmental flows: environmental
flow is the proportion of original flow maintaining or restoring biophysical compo-
nents, ecological processes, and services of instream and groundwater systems,
floodplains, and downstream receiving waters.

4.6.2 Assessing and Implementing Environmental Flows

In many countries a variety of approaches for assessing EF were developed with

varying complexity, e.g., look-up tables (preliminary assessment level), desktop
analyses and functional analyses (intermediate assessment level), and finally hydrau-
lic habitat modeling (comprehensive assessment level), which we describe in more
detail below (see also Table 4.3). Some address just parts or the river system, while
others are more holistic (Tharme 2003; Acreman and Dunbar 2004). Currently, there
exist at least 200 environmental flow methods classifiable in four major categories
according to focus, complexity, and cost and time effectiveness: (1) hydrological
methods, (2) hydraulic rating, (3) habitat simulation models, and (4) holistic meth-
odologies (Dyson et al. 2003; Tharme 2003; Arthington et al. 2004; Richter et al.
2006; King et al. 2008).
Hydrological Analyses (also called desktop analyses) are mostly based on simple
minimum flow thresholds derived from hydrographs (e.g., mean annual flows,
monthly flows, high/low flows, and Q95%) (Barker and Kirmond 1998). For
example, the Tennant or Montana method (Tennant 1976) defines EF values as
percentage of the average daily discharge or mean annual flow (MQ) with 10% MQ
Table 4.3 Different methods and characteristics of setting environmental flows and choice of method (modified after Acreman and Dunbar 2004; European
Commission 2015; Theodoropoulos and Skoulikidis 2014)
Method Assessment
type Application range Pros and cons level
Look-up Scoping Basin- Rapid, cheap, not site specific Preliminary
table study, scale
regional planning
planning
Desktop Impact Site specific, limited new data collection, Intermediate
assessment long time series required, use existing eco-
(multi-site) logical data
Functional Impact assessment (single-site); Flexible, robust, more focused on whole
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow

analysis River restauration (multi- and ecosystem, expensive to collect all relevant
single-site) data and wide range of experts
Habitat Replicable, predictive, expensive to collect Comprehensive
modeling hydraulic and ecological data
81
82 B. Zeiringer et al.

considered as minimum flow and 60–00% MQ considered the flow range necessary
to provide optimal habitat conditions. More complex hydrological indices are the
indicators of hydrologic alteration (IHA) (Richter et al. 1996), the range of variabil-
ity approach (RVA) (Richter et al. 1997), and the indicators of hydrologic alteration
in rivers (IAHRIS) (Martinez and Fernandez 2010). RVA, for example, uses
32 hydrological parameters (their range and variation) as indicators of hydrological
alteration (IHA; Richter et al. 1996) to characterize ecologically relevant attributes of
the local flow regime and to translate them into defined flow-based management
targets. The method suggests a natural flow paradigm including the full range of
natural intra- and interannual variation of hydrological regimes and associated
characteristics of timing, duration, frequency, and rate of change as critical factors
to sustain the integrity of the riverine ecosystem (Richter et al. 1997). Hydrological
methods rely primarily on historical hydrological data, requiring flow measurements
over long time periods. Although hydrological data collection is resource demand-
ing, the application of such methods itself is time- and cost-effective and simple.
Although such methods consider flow dynamics, they only indirectly address
requirements of aquatic biota. Therefore, they are not considered appropriate as
stand-alone methods, but often are used as initial desktop analyses to assist more
complex environmental flow methodologies (Theodoropoulos and Skoulikidis
2014). In fact, these methods lack ecological relevance and sensitivity to individual
rivers and are considered as inadequate to provide the data needed to sustain
ecological integrity.
Hydraulic Rating methods use simple hydraulic variables and propose EF through
the quantifiable relationship between water discharge and instream habitats (Trihey
and Stalnaker 1985). Hydraulic rating methods try to incorporate channel-discharge
relationships. The generic wetted perimeter method (Reiser et al. 1989, cited in
Tharme 2003) is the most applied hydraulic rating approach worldwide. River
integrity is directly related to the quantity of wetted perimeter. The modeled rela-
tionship between wetted perimeter and discharge is used to determine minimum or
preservation flows. The flow events method (FEM; Stewardson and Gippel 2003)
evaluates the frequency of hydraulically relevant flow indices (selected by experts)
under alternate flow regimes (Acreman and Dunbar 2004). It consists of five steps:
After preparing a list of ecological factors affected by flow variation, different flow
events and their distribution in time are analyzed. Then hydraulic parameters (e.g.,
wetted perimeter) at these different flow events are modeled. A comparison and
evaluation of different flow management scenarios with regard to ecological conse-
quences leads to the specification of certain flow rules (Stewardson and Gippel
2003). However, these methods have been currently replaced by more sophisticated
hydraulic/habitat simulation methods (described below).
Habitat Simulation methods combine flows with habitat availability for selected
indicator species and life stages. Waters (1976) invented the concept of weighted
usable area (WUA), which was used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service to develop
the computer model PHABSIM (Physical Habitat Simulation model, Bovee 1982).
Available habitat is weighted by its suitability for certain species under different flow
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 83

scenarios (Acreman and Dunbar 2004). PHABSIM is embedded into the Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM; Bovee and Milhous 1978; Reiser et al. 1989)
providing a tool for calculating suitable EF. Physical habitat (flow velocity, water
depth, substrate) is monitored in the field and/or modeled using mainly 1-D or 2-D
hydraulic models or habitat modeling software, such as TELEMAC (Galland 1991),
PHABSIM (USGS 2001), CASiMiR (Schneider et al. 2010), and RIVER 2D
(Steffler and Blackburn 2002). Habitat preferences for target organisms are retrieved
from field observations or literature, and habitat availability is then calculated
through the modeling software for different discharges (for more details, see
Chap. 7).
Holistic Methodologies require multidisciplinary input and expertise (Tharme 1996,
2000; King et al. 2008; Arthington 1998), address flow requirements of multiple
ecosystem components (fish, benthic fauna, macrophytes, riparian vegetation) at
various spatial temporal scales, and target a flow regime going beyond simple
minimum flow definitions. Examples are the building block methodology (BBM)
(Tharme and King 1998; King et al. 2008), the downstream response to imposed flow
transformations (DRIFT) (King and Brown 2006), and the ecological limits of
hydrologic alteration (ELOHA) (Poff et al. 2010). Field data on a monthly basis are
required to construct a flow regime from scratch (bottom-up approaches, BBM, and
ELOHA). In contrast, top-down approaches (e.g., DRIFT) are generally scenario
based, defining environmental flows as acceptable degrees of divergence from the
natural/reference flow regime, being less susceptible to any omission of critical flow
characteristics or processes than their bottom-up counterparts (Bunn 1998). More
detailed, the building block methodology states that aquatic organisms rely on basic
elements (i.e., building blocks) of the flow regime (e.g., low flows, medium flows,
and floods). In this method EF is assessed by an expert-based combination of building
blocks. The expert panel assessment method (Swales and Harris 1995), the scientific
panel approach (Thoms et al. 1996), or the benchmarking methodology (Brizga et al.
2002) tries to evaluate how much a flow regime can be altered before the integrity of
the aquatic ecosystem is altered or seriously affected. Also ELOHA is based on the
premise that increasing degrees of flow alteration enforce increasing ecological
change. The evaluation of the relationship relies on the testing of plausible hypoth-
eses stated by experts. Ecological response variables are most suitable if they react to
flow alterations, allow validation using monitoring data, and are esteemed by society
(e.g., for fishery) (Poff et al. 2010).
Several modified approaches have also been proposed and implemented, e.g.,
trying to shift the assessment scale from the micro- to meso-habitat (e.g., Parasiewicz
2007), but their general concept is based on one of the four principles mentioned
above. Although progress in environmental flow methodologies is fast and becoming
very sophisticated, there still remains a critical need for greater understanding of flow-
ecological response relationships and enhanced modeling capacity to support river
flow management and ecosystem conservation (Arthington et al. 2010).
While (1) current EF determinations are often prescriptive and not negotiable
(i.e., consequences of noncompliance are not discussed) and (2) socioeconomic
84 B. Zeiringer et al.

impacts are not adequately considered (cost-benefit of water resource develop-

ments), the DRIFT method (King et al. 2003) tries to incorporate all aspects of the
river ecosystem as well as socioeconomic aspects on the basis of scenario assess-
ments. It consists of four modules:
• The biophysical module evaluates changes of the ecosystem (e.g., hydrology,
hydraulics, geomorphology, water quality, riparian vegetation, aquatic plants,
organisms, etc.) in response to altered flow.
• The socioeconomic module covers all relevant river resources.
• The scenario-building module optimizes flow.
• The economic module considers compensation costs of each scenario.
DRIFT is usually used to build scenarios, but can also be used to set flows for
achieving specific objective (e.g., optimizing ecological condition through combi-
nations of dam releases; different timings, magnitudes, and durations; Acreman and
Dunbar 2004).
Although many different methodologies exist, it is still a challenge to translate the
knowledge of hydrologic-ecological principles into specific management rules (Poff
et al. 2003). The selection of the appropriate methodology depends on matching the
available resources (e.g., time, money, and data) to the question of concern. Envi-
ronmental flow assessments should be incorporated into the planning phase of any
proposed use of river resources that changes flows, especially hydropower plants.
Finally, it has to be kept in mind that each EF assessment, whether calculated by a
simple rule of thumb or by a holistic method, has to be evaluated with regard to its
biological relevance and effectiveness for the specific river to be assessed. Therefore,
the selected EF has to be monitored and, if necessary, adapted accordingly.
Recently, environmental flow assessments have been shifted toward more holistic
approaches (Arthington and Pusey 2003; Tharme 2003; King et al. 2008), demand-
ing assessment of the requirements of all ecosystem components through judgment
from multidisciplinary teams of scientific experts. Furthermore, at the same time
habitat modeling techniques have significantly advanced, offering a greater basis to
incorporate data-driven approaches, in the holistic perspective. As a result, habitat
modeling applications can now be used to assess the flow requirements of various
ecosystem components. This concept is also adopted and incorporated in a three-
level (preliminary/intermediate/comprehensive) approach proposed in the EFs
Guidance Document of the European Commission (2015), highlighting the need
for data-driven holistic environmental flow assessments and using habitat modeling
for optimum visualization of the information to stakeholders and water managers
(see Table 4.3).
Even though there is no simple choice for which method is the most suitable to
assess environmental flow, Acreman and Dunbar (2004) suggest that the main
driving force for choice of method is the type of issue to be addressed (i.e., scoping,
basin planning, impact assessment, and river restoration). Scoping includes large-
scale assessment and national auditing, where the focus encompasses many river
basins. Therefore, a rapid method, such as a look-up table, would be most relevant.
Basin planning involves the assessment of EFs throughout an entire river basin. Such
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 85

assessment can be started using look-up tables, but increasing the level of detail
assessed requires following up with a desktop approach. Environmental flow assess-
ment often involves impact assessment and mitigation of flow modifications (e.g.,
dams, abstractions). Where the impact is spread over several sites within a river
basin, it may be useful to make initial assessments of the impact around the basin
using a desktop method before more specific functional analysis or hydraulic habitat
modeling is undertaken as part of a holistic approach (Acreman and Dunbar 2004).
The holistic approaches allow assessment of the benefits of any restoration activities
(e.g., reduced abstractions, release from reservoirs, structural measures, and mor-
phological river restoration). Some pros and cons useful in selecting different
approaches are summarized in Table 4.3.

4.7 Conclusions

Nowadays, hydrological processes forming riverine ecosystems are well understood,

and the importance of flow for maintaining the ecological integrity is well perceived.
Human uses have altered the hydrological regime of running waters and degraded
riverine ecosystems. A number of environmental flow assessment methods have
been developed ranging from simple hydrological methods over habitat flow models
to more comprehensive methodologies including socioeconomic aspects. While
much effort has been dedicated to the development of those methods, the biological
effectiveness of environmental flow regulations has been evaluated only in few
cases. Further research is necessary to better understand the response of biota and
riverine ecosystems to flow restoration by holistic assessments including interactions
with river morphology, sediment transport, groundwater, and floodplain dynamics.

References

Abramovitz JN (1995) Freshwater failures: the crises on five continents. World Watch 8:27–35
Acreman MC, Dunbar MJ (2004) Defining environmental river flow requirements? A review.
Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 8:861–876
Annear T, Chisholm I, Beecher H (2004) Instream flows for riverine resource stewardship (revised
edn). Instream Flow Council, Cheyenne
Armitage PD (1995) Faunal community change in response to flow manipulation. In: Harper DM,
Ferguson AJD (eds) The ecological basis for river management. Wiley, Chichester, pp 59–78
Arthington AH, Pusey BJ (2003) Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Res
Appl 19:377–395
Arthington AH, Brizga SO, Kennard MJ (1998) Comparative evaluation of environmental flow
assessment techniques: best practice framework. Occasional paper No. 25/98. Land and Water
Resources Research and Development Corporation. Canberra
Arthington AH, Tharme R, Brizga SO, Pusey BJ, Kennard MJ (2004) Environmental flow assess-
ment with emphasis on holistic methodologies. In: Welcomme R, Petr T (eds) Proceedings of the
second international symposium on the management of large rivers for fisheries, vol II. RAP
Publication 2004/17, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, pp 37–65
86 B. Zeiringer et al.

Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ (2006) The challenge of providing environmental
flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl 16:1311–1318
Arthington AH, Naiman RJ, McClain ME, Nilsson C (2010) Preserving the biodiversity and
ecological services of rivers: new challenges and research opportunities. Freshw Biol 55(1):1–16
Barker I, Kirmond A (1998) Managing surface water abstraction. In: Wheater H, Kirby C (eds)
Hydrology in a changing environment, vol 1. British Hydrological Society, London, pp
249–258
Bergkamp G, McCartney M, Dugan P, McNeely J, Acreman M (2000) Dams, ecosystem functions
and environmental restoration. WCD thematic review—environmental issues II.1. Final report
to the world commission on dams. Secretariat of the World Commission on Dams. Cape Town
Boon PJ, Calow P, Petts GE (eds) (1992) River conservation and management. Wiley, Chichester
Boon PJ, Davies BR, Petts GE (eds) (2000) Global perspectives on river conservation: science,
policy and practice. Wiley, Chichester
Bovee KD (1982) A guide to stream habitat analysis using the IFIM. US Fish and Wildlife Service
Report FWSIOBS-82I 26. Fort Collins
Bovee KD, Milhous R (1978) Hydraulic simulation in instream flow studies: theory and techniques.
Instream flow information paper: No. 5. FWS/OBS-78/33. Fish and Wildlife Service, 156p
Brizga SO, Arthington AH, Choy SC, Kennard MJ, Mackay SJ, Pusey BJ, Werren GL (2002)
Benchmarking, a ‘top-down’ methodology for assessing environmental flows in Australian
rivers. In: Proceedings of the international conference on environmental flows for river systems,
Southern Waters, University of Cape Town, Cape Town
Brown C, King J (2003) Environmental flows: concepts and methods. In: Davis R, Hirji R (eds)
Water resources and environment technical note C.1. The World Bank, Washington
Bunn SE (1998) Recent approaches to assessing and providing environmental flows: concluding
comments. In: Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds) Water for the environment: recent approaches
to assessing and providing environmental flows, Proceedings of AWWA forum. Brisbane,
Australia, pp 123–129
Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow
regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507
Calow P, Petts GE (eds) (1992) The rivers handbook. vol. 1: hydrological and ecological principles.
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford
Chien N (1985) Changes in river regime after the construction of upstream reservoirs. Earth Surf
Process Landf 10:143–159
Connell JH (1978) Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199(4335):1302–1310
Craig JF, Kemper JB (eds) (1987) Regulated streams: advances in ecology. Plenum Press,
New York
Cushman RM (1985) Review of ecological effects of rapidly varying flows downstream of
hydroelectric facilities. N Am J Fish Manag 5:330–339
Doyle MW, Stanley EH, Strayer DL, Jacobson RB, Schmidt JC (2005) Effective discharge analysis
of ecological processes in streams. Water Resour Res 41, W11411, https://doi.org/10.1029/
2005WR004222
Dunne T, Leopold LB (1978) Water in environmental planning. W. H. Freeman and Co., San
Francisco
Dynesius M, Nilsson C (1994) Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern
third of the world. Science 266:753–762
Dyson M, Bergkamp M, Scanlon J (2003) Flow: the essentials of environmental flows. IUCN,
Switzerland
European Commission (2015) Ecological flows in the implementation of the water framework
directive. WFD CIS Guidance Document No. 31
Galland J (1991) TELEMAC: a new numerical model for solving shallow water equations. Adv
Water Resour 14:138–148
Gore JA, Petts GE (eds) (1989) Alternatives in regulated river management. CRC Press, Florida
Greenberg L, Svendsen P, Harby A (1996) Availability of microhabitats and their use by brown
trout (Salmo trutta) and grayling (Thymallus thymallus) in the river Vojman, Sweden. Regul
Rivers Res Manag 12:287–303
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 87

Gupta AD (2008) Implication of environmental flows in river basin management. Phys Chem Earth
33:298–303
Gustard A, Cole G, Marshall D, Bayliss A (1987) A study of compensation flows in the
UK. Institute of Hydrology report 99, Wallingfort
Hart DD, Finelli CM (1999) Physical-biological coupling in streams: the pervasive effects of flow
on benthic organisms. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:363–395
Hirji R, Davis R (2009) Environmental flows in water resources policies, plans, and projects:
findings and recommendations. The World Bank. Environment and Development series
International Water Management Institute (IWMI) (2005) Environmental flows. Planning for
environmental water allocation. Water Policy briefing, 15, pp 1–6
Junk WJ, Bayley PB, Sparks RE (1989) The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. Can
Spec Publ Fish Aquat Sci 106:110–127
Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity: a long neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecol
Appl 1:66–84
King J, Brown C (2006) Environmental flows: striking the balance between development and
resource protection. Ecol Soc 11:26
King J, Brown C, Sabet H (2003) A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow
assessments for rivers. River Res Appl 19(5–6):619–639
King JM, Tharme RE, De Villiers MS (2008) Environmental flow assessments for rivers: manual
for the building block methodology. WRC report no TT 354/08, Cape Town, 364p
Lillehammer A, Saltveit SJ (eds) (1984) Regulated rivers. Universitetsforlaget As, Oslo
Lloyd N, Quinn G, Thoms M, Arthington A, Gawne B, Humphries P, Walker K (2003) Does flow
modification cause geomorphological and ecological response in rivers? A literature review
from an Australian perspective. Technical report 1 / 2004, CRC for freshwater ecology, ISBN
0-9751642-02
Martinez SMC, Fernández Yuste JA (2010) IAHRIS 2.2. Indicators of hydrologic alteration in
rivers. Methodological reference manual & user’s manual. http://www.ecogesfor.org/IAHRIS_
es.html
McCully P (1996) Silenced rivers: the ecology and politics of large dams. ZED books, London
Moore M (2004) Perceptions and interpretations of environmental flows and implications for future
water resource management: a survey study. Masters Thesis, Department of Water and Envi-
ronmental Studies, Linköping University, Linköping
Navarro SR, Schmidt G (2012) Environmental flows as a tool to achieve the WFD objectives.
Discussion paper (in the framework of Service contract for the support to the follow-up of the
Communication on Water scarcity and Droughts). Version: Draft 2.0, 11 June 2012
Nilsson C, Reidy CA, Dynesius M, Revenga C (2005) Fragmentation and flow regulation of the
world’s river systems. Science 308:405–408
Parasiewicz P (2007) The Mesohabsim model revisited. River Res Appl 27:893–903
Petts GE (ed) (1984) Impounded rivers: perspectives for ecological management. Wiley, Chichester
Poff NL, Ward JV (1989) Implications of streamflow variability and predictability for lotic
community structure: a regional analysis of streamflow patterns. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
46:1805–1818
Poff NL, Zimmerman JK (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to
inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol 55(1):194–205
Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC
(1997) The natural flow regime. Bioscience 47(11):769–784
Poff NL, Allan JD, Palmer MA, Hart DD, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Rogers KH, Meyer JL,
Stanford JA (2003) River flows and water wars: emerging science for environmental decision
making. Front Ecol Environ 1:298–306
Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Naiman RJ, Kendy E, Acreman M, Apse C,
Bledsoe BP, Freeman MC, Henriksen J, Jacobson RB, Kennen JG, Merritt DM, O’Keeffe JH,
Olden JD, Rogers K, Tharme RE, Warner A (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic
alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards.
Freshw Biol 55(1):147–170
88 B. Zeiringer et al.

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, Richter B (2003) Rivers for life: managing water for people and nature. Island Press,
Washington, DC
Pringle CM (2000) River conservation in tropical versus temperate latitudes. In: Boon PJ, Davies
BR, Petts GE (eds) Global perspectives on river conservation: science, policy and practice.
Wiley, Chichester, pp 371–384
Rapport DJ, Costanza R, McMichael AJ (1998) Assessing ecosystem health. Trends Ecol Evol
13:397–402
Reiser DW, Wesche TA, Estes C (1989) Status of instream flow legislation and practices in North
America. Fisheries 14:22–29
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 ecosys-
tems: freshwater ecosystems. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP (1996) A method for assessing hydrological
alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10:1163–1174
Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Wigington R, Braun DP (1997) How much water does a river need?
Freshw Biol 37:231–249
Richter BD, Braun DP, Mendelson MA, Master LL (1998) Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna.
Conserv Biol 11:1081–1093
Richter BD, Warner AT, Meyer JL, Lutz K (2006) A collaborative and adaptive process for
developing environmental flow recommendations. River Res Appl 22:297–318
Rosenberg DM, McCully P, Pringle CM (2000) Global-scale environmental effects of hydrological
alterations: introduction. Bioscience 50(9):746–751
Schneider M, Noack M, Gebler T, Kopecki I (2010) Handbook for the habitat simulation model
CASiMiR, Module CASiMiR-Fish, Base Version. 52 pp. Translated by Tuhtan, J. Available
from: http://casimir-software.de/ (accessed 21 September 2015)
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
Steffler P, Blackburn J (2002) River 2D: two-dimensional depth averaged model of river hydrody-
namics and fish habitat. Introduction to depth averaged modelling and user’s manual. University
of Alberta, Canada
Stewardson MJ, Gippel CJ (2003) Incorporating flow variability into environmental flow regimes
using the flow events method. River Res Appl 19:459–472
Swales S, Harris JH (1995) The expert panel assessment method (EPAM): a new tool for deter-
mining environmental flows in regulated rivers. In: Harper DM, Ferguson AJD (eds) The
ecological basis for river management. Wiley, Chichester
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, Cape Town
Tharme RE (2000) An overview of environmental flow methodologies, with particular reference to
South Africa. In: King JM, Tharme RE, De Villiers MS (eds) Environmental flow assessments
for rivers: manual for the building block methodology. Water Research Commission Technol-
ogy Transfer report no. TT131/00. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, pp 15–40
Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the
development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl
19(5–6):397–441
4 River Hydrology, Flow Alteration, and Environmental Flow 89

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, 452p
Theodoropoulos C, Skoulikidis N (2014) Environmental flows: the european approach through the
water framework directive 2000/60/EC. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the
Hellenic Geographical Society (in press)
Thoms MC, Sheldon F, Roberts J, Harris J, Hillman T (1996) Scientific panel assessment of
environmental flows for the Barwon-Darling river. New South Wales Department of Land
and Water Conservation, Sydney
Trihey EW, Stalnaker CB (1985) Evolution and application of instream flow methodologies to
small hydropower developments: an overview of the issues. In: Olson FW, White RG, Hamre
RH (eds) Proceedings of the symposium on small hydropower and fisheries. Aurora, CO
USGS (2001) PHABSIM for Windows. User’s manual and exercises. Open file report 01-340,
U.S. Geological Survey.
Ward JA (1982) Ecological aspects of stream regulation: responses in downstream lotic reaches.
Water Pollut Manage Rev (New Delhi) 2:1–26
Ward J (1989) The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. J N Am Benthol Soc 8:2–8
Ward J, Stanford JA (1983) The intermediate-disturbance hypothesis: an explanation for biotic
diversity patterns in lotic ecosystems. In: Fontaine F (ed) Dynamics of lotic ecosystems. Ann
Arbor Press, Ann Arbor, pp 347–355
Waters BF (1976) A methodology for evaluating the effects of different stream flows on salmonid
habitat. In: Orsborn JF, Allman CH (eds) Instream flow needs. American Fisheries Society,
Bethseda, pp 254–266
Wolman MG, Miller JP (1960) Magnitude and frequency of forces in geomorphic processes.
J Hydrol 69:54–74
World Commission on Dams (WCD) (2000) Dams and development. A new framework for
decision-making. The report of the World Commission on dams. Earthscan Publications,
London
Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K (2014) A global boom in hydropower
dam construction. Aquat Sci 77(1):161–170
Zeiringer B (2008a) Minimum flow study at the river Schwarza/Reichenau. evn naturkraft, p 49
Zeiringer B (2008b) Minimum flow study at the river Unrechttraisen/Mauthof. evn naturkraft, p 54
Zeiringer B, Unfer G, Jungwirth M (2008) Environmental flow study at the river Mur/Pernegg.
VERBUND-Austrian Hydro Power AG (AHP), p 146
Zeiringer B, Hinterhofer M, Unfer G (2010) Environmental flow study at the river Ybbs/Opponitz.
WIENERGIE, p 162

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.