No abstract

Present guidelines for selecting a method to determine instream flow requirements and evaluating the validity of the results from a particular method are insufficient. This paper contributes to the efforts of researchers to develop a guide and critique for instream flow methods. A review of instreani flow methods and recommendations for their application is supplemented by a summary of a comparison of four independent analyses. The four analyses: the Physical Habitat Simulation System approach of the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Montana Method by Tennant, and two methods by Orsborn (Maximum Spawning Area Flow and Maximum Spawning Area) represent resource intensive and simplistic data collection and analysis methods. Each analysis was used to independently determine flows to support spawning by chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Willow Creek, Alaska. Results of these analyses indicate that each method can be used independently or collectively to generate instream flow recommendations, if calibrated to the site or area studied. Once adjusted to the species and basin of interest, methods similar to the Montana and two Orsborn methods should be used to determine flow recommendations for areas where competition for water is minimal. The Instream Flow Incremental Methodology or similar methods should be applied when competition for water is keen or when detailed evaluations of the responses of species/life phases to flow variations are required.

Human modifications of natural streams in the name of habitat improvement take various forms, and the impacts of those improvements, both positive and negative, vary by orders of magnitude from stream to stream. The positive impacts are achieved through careful and timely planning, design, installation and monitoring of projects. Negative impacts are the results of rush jobs dictated by available money, a lack of consideration for limiting factors, untrained and inexperienced personnel, force‐fitting structures instead of bending the flow, lack of a watershed plan, poor communication and cooperation among disciplines, not using the team approach, and single habitat solutions which neglect diversity and artificial constraints. These problems are discussed from various perspectives, but emphasis on an integrated, bioengineering approach is threaded throughout the discussion of the problems and benefits associated with stream improvements and fish response. A general systems approach is presented which uses common language as a focal point for interdisciplinary communication, which is one of the major problems in resource management. Various conceptual models are discussed to describe system complexities, and factors which constrain project evaluation in terms of biological, physical, economic and other components. Conclusions about why some projects are successful, while others are not, are followed by recommendations for concerted and diversified efforts to improve our success in stream stewardship.