The Wetland Book pp 1813-1823 | Cite as

Environmental Flows: Overview

Reference work entry

Abstract

The term environmental flows relates to the trade-off between keeping water in a wetland system to meet ecosystem requirements and services to dependent people (such as food, recreation, and cultural identity) versus realizing the direct benefits of removing the water for drinking, growing food, and supporting industry. It describes the quantity, quality, and timing of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems. Environmental flows is a fundamental part of water management.

Keywords

Water management Water allocation Environmental water need Environmental benefits 

References

  1. Acreman MC. Principles of water management for people and the environment. In: de Shirbinin A, Dompka V, editors. Water and population dynamics. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 1998. p. 321.Google Scholar
  2. Acreman MC. Case studies of managed flood releases. Environmental flow assessment part III, World Bank water resources and environmental management best practice brief, vol. 8. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2003.Google Scholar
  3. Acreman MC, Dunbar MJ. Methods for defining environmental river flow requirements – a review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2004;8(5):861–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Acreman MC, Elliott CRN. Evaluation of the river Wey restoration project using the Physical HABitat SIMuation (PHABSIM) model. Proceedings of the MAFF Conference of River and Coastal Engineers, Keele, 3–5 July 1996.Google Scholar
  5. Acreman MC, Ferguson A. Environmental flows and European Water Framework Directive. Freshw Biol. 2010;55:32–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Acreman MC, King J, Hirji R, Sarunday W, Mutayoba W. 2006 capacity building to undertake environmental flow assessments in Tanzania. Proceedings of the International Conference on River Basin Management, Morogorro, Tanzania, Mar 2005. Morogorro: Sokoine University; 2006.Google Scholar
  7. Acreman MC, Dunbar MJ, Hannaford J, Wood PJ, Holmes NJ, Cowx I, Noble R, Mountford JO, King J, Black A, Extence C, Crookall D, Aldrick J. Developing environmental standards for abstractions from UK rivers to implement the Water Framework Directive. Hydrol Sci J. 2008;53(6):1105–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Acreman MC, Aldrick J, Binnie C, Black AR, Cowx I, Dawson FH, Dunbar MJ, Extence C, Hannaford J, Harby A, Holmes NT, Jarrett N, Old G, Peirson G, Webb J, Wood PJ. Environmental flows from dams: the Water Framework Directive. Eng Sustain. 2009;162:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Acreman MC, Liu Z, Peng R, Luo Y, Gong FJ, Chen MR, Lin X, Rameshwaran P. Use of hydraulic rating to set environmental flows in the Zhangxi River, China. International Symposium on the Role of Hydrology in Managing Consequences of a Changing Global Environment. Newcastle: British Hydrological Society; 2010.Google Scholar
  10. Acreman MC, Overton I, King J, Wood P, Cowx I, Dunbar MJ, Kendy E, Young W. The changing role of science in environmental flows. Hydrol Sci J. 2014a;59(3-4):433–50.Google Scholar
  11. Acreman MC, Arthington AH, Colloff MJ, Couch C, Crossman N, Dyer F, Overton I, Pollino C, Stewardson M, Young W. Environmental flows for natural, hybrid and novel riverine ecosystems in a changing world. Front Ecol Environ. 2014b;12(8):466–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Alfredson K, Harby A, Linnansaari T, Ugedal O. Development of an inflow-controlled environmental flow regime for a Norwegian river. River Res Appl. 2012;28:731–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Arthington AH. Comparative evaluation of environmental flow assessment techniques: review of holistic methodologies. LWRRDC occasional paper 26/98. Canberra: LWRRDC; 1998. ACT. isbn:0 642 267456.Google Scholar
  14. Arthington AH. Environmental flows: saving rivers in the third millenium. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Arthington AH, Pusey BJ. Flow restoration and protection in Australian rivers. River Res Appl. 2003;19:377–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff NL, Naiman RJ. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 2006;16:1311–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Australian Government. Murray-Darling Basin plan. Canberra: Commonwealth Government of Australia; 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Bice CM, Zampatti BP. Engineered water level management facilitates recruitment of non-native common carp, Cyprinus carpio, in a regulated lowland river. Ecol Eng. 2011;37:1901–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bond N, Costelloe J, King A, Warfe D, Reich P, Balcombe S. Ecological risks and opportunities from engineered artificial flooding as a means of achieving environmental flow objectives. Front Ecol Environ. 2014;12(7):386–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Booker DJ, Acreman MC. Generalisation of physical habitat-discharge relationships. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. 2007;11(1):141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Booker DJ, Dunbar MJ, Shamseldin A, Durr CS, Acreman MC. Physical habitat assessment in urban rivers under future flow scenarios. J Chart Inst Water Environ Manag. 2003;17(4):251–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Booker DJ, Dunbar MJ, Acreman MC, Akande K, Declerck C. Habitat assessment at the catchment scale: application to the River Itchen, UK. In: Webb B, Acreman M, Maksimovic C, Smithers H, Kirby C, editors. Hydrology: science and practice for the 21st century, volume II. Proceedings of the British Hydrological Society International Conference; 2004a.Google Scholar
  23. Booker DJ, Dunbar MJ, Ibbotson A. Predicting juvenile salmonid drift-feeding habitat quality using a three-dimensional hydraulic-bioenergtic model. Ecol Model. 2004b;177:157–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bovee KD. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the IFIM. Report FWS/OBS-82/26. US Fish and Wildlife Service: Fort Collins; 1982.Google Scholar
  25. Bunn SE, Arthington AH. Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag. 2002;30(4):492–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunbar MJ, Pedersen ML, Cadman D, Extence C, Waddingham J, Chadd R, Larsen SE. River discharge and local scale physical habitat influence macroinvertebrate LIFE scores. Freshw Biol. 2010;55:226–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dyson M, Bergkamp G, Scanlon J, editors. Flow. The essentials of environmental flows. Gland: IUCN; 2003. p. 118.Google Scholar
  28. Environment Agency. Managing water abstraction: the catchment abstraction management strategy process. Environment Agency: Bristol; 2001.Google Scholar
  29. Falkenmark M. Water management and ecosystems: living with change. Global water partnership technical committee paper no 9. Stockholm: GWP; 2003.Google Scholar
  30. Hirji R, Davis R. Environmental flows in water resources policies, plans, and projects. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. James CS, King JM. Ecohydraulics for South African rivers: a review and guide. Water Research Commission report TT4563/10. Pretoria: Water Research Commission; 2010.Google Scholar
  32. Jiménez Ramón JA, Calvo J, Pizarro F, González E, Jiménez Hernández A. Conceptualization of environmental flow in Costa Rica: preliminary determination for the Tempisque River. San Jose: IUCN; 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Kildea P, Williams G. The Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Public Law Rev. 2011;22:9.Google Scholar
  34. King JM, Louw MD. Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the building block methodology. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag. 1998;1:109–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. King J, Pienaar H, editors. Sustainable use of South Africa’s inland waters: a situation assessment of resource directed measures 12 years after the 1998 National Water Act. Water Research Commission report no. TT 491/11. Pretoria: Water Research Commission; 2011. p. 259. isbn:978-1-4312-0129-7.Google Scholar
  36. Laizé C, Acreman MC, Schneider C, Dunbar MJ, Hougton-Carr H, Flörke M, Hannah D. Projected flow alteration and ecological risk for pan-European rivers. River Res Appl. 2014;30(3):299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamouroux N, Jowett IG. Generalised instream habitat models. Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2005;62:7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Le Quesne T, Kendy E, Weston D. The implementation challenge: taking stock of government policies to protect and restore environmental flows. WWF and The Nature Conservancy; 2010. http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/eloha/documents/wwf-tnc-e-flow-policies-report
  39. Lytle DA, Poff NL. Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends Ecol Evol. 2004;19(2):94–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Maddock I, Kemp P, Harby A, editors. Ecohydraulics: an integrated approach. New York: Wiley; 2013.Google Scholar
  41. Maltby E, Holdgate M, Acreman MC, Weir A, editors. Ecosystem management: questions for science and society. Sibthorp Trust; 1999.Google Scholar
  42. MDBA. The living Murray story – one of Australia’s largest river restoration projects. Canberra: Murray–Darling Basin Authority; 2011.Google Scholar
  43. Olden JD, Poff NL. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res Appl. 2003;19:101–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ormerod SJ, Dobson M, Hildrew AG, Townsend CR. Multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems. Freshw Biol. 2010;55(1):1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Parasiewicz P, Dunbar MJ. Physical habitat modelling for fish: a developing approach. Arch Hydrobiol Suppl. 2001;135(2–4):1–30.Google Scholar
  46. Pittock J, Finlayson CM, Howitt J. Beguiling and risky: ‘environmental works and measures’ for wetland conservation under a changing climate. Hydrobiologia. 2013;708:111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poff NL, Allan DJ, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience. 1997;47:769–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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, Warne A. The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol. 2010;55:147–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol. 1996;10:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Richter BD, Davis M, Apse C, Konrad CP. A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Res Appl. 2011;28(8):1312–21.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rowlston WS, Palmer CG. Processes in the development of resource protection provisions on South African Water Law. Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Flows for River Systems, Cape Town; 2002.Google Scholar
  52. Shenton W, Bond NR, Yen JDL, MacNally R. Putting the “ecology” into environmental flows: ecological dynamics and demographic modelling. Environ Manag. 2010;50:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tharme RE. A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl. 2003;19:397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thompson JR, Laize C, Acreman MC. Climate change uncertainty in environmental flows for the Mekong River. Hydrol Sci J. 2014;59:935–54.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.842074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Turner M, Stewardson M. Hydrologic indicators of hydraulic conditions that drive flow-biota relationships. Hydrol Sci J. 2014;59:659–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.896997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. UKTAG. River flow for good ecological potential. Final recommendations UK Technical Advisory Group to WFD; 2013. Available at: http://www.wfduk.org/
  57. Waddle TJ, editor. PHABSIM for Windows user’s manual and exercises, Open-file report 2001–340. Geological Survey: Fort Collins; 2012. p. 288.Google Scholar
  58. Waters BF. A methodology for evaluating the effects of different stream flows on salmonid habitat. In: Orsborn JF, Allman CH, editors. Instream flow needs. Bethesda: American Fisheries Society; 1976. p. 254–66.Google Scholar
  59. Wathern P. Environmental impact assessment: theory and practice. New York: Routledge; 1998. p. 402.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Ecology and HydrologyWallingfordUK
  2. 2.Australian Rivers Institute, Faculty of Environmental ScienceGriffith UniversityNathanAustralia

Personalised recommendations