4.3 Article

Hydrologically Based Environmental Flow Methods Applied to Rivers in the Maritime Provinces (Canada)

Journal

RIVER RESEARCH AND APPLICATIONS
Volume 31, Issue 6, Pages 651-662

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/rra.2772

Keywords

environmental flow; instream flow; low flow; flow duration; baseflow

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The demand for water withdrawal continues to increase worldwide. These water withdrawals from rivers can affect fish habitat and aquatic life. As such, environmental flow assessment methods are used in order to protect rivers against excessive water withdrawals. The concept of environmental flow relates to the quantity of water required in rivers to sustain an acceptable level of living conditions for aquatic biota at various phases of their development. For many agencies, environmental flow methods are essential in environmental impact assessments and in the protection of important fisheries resources. The present study deals with the evaluation of hydrologically based environmental flow methods within the Maritime Province of Canada. In total, six hydrologically based environmental flow methods were compared using data from 52 hydrometric stations across the region. Some methods provided adequate environmental flow protection (e.g. 25% mean annual flow and Q(50) flow duration method); however, other methods did not provide adequate flow protection (e.g. Q(90) flow duration method and 7Q10 and 7Q2 low-flow frequency). The 70% Q(50) method provided adequate flow protection only under good baseflow conditions and should be applied with extreme caution. The present study shows the importance of the hydrologic flow regime, particularly as it pertains to the baseflow component, as a significant determinant in the level of instream flow protection. (c) 2014 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. River Research and Applications (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available