See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272482981

Environmental Flow Assessment – An Analysis

Article · December 2014

DOI: 10.4038/jepsl.v3i2.7842

CITATIONS READS
3 372

2 authors:

Devanmini Halwatura Najim M.M.M.

The University of Queensland South Eastern University of Sri Lanka
18 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS    118 PUBLICATIONS   269 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

7th International Symposium 2017 (IntSym2017)- SEUSL - 07th & 08th December 2017 View project

Supervisor of a Phd Student View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Devanmini Halwatura on 19 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Environmental Flow Assessment – An Analysis

D. Halwatura and M. M. M. Najim#

Environmental Conservation and Management Degree Program,

Faculty of Science, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka
#
Corresponding Author:
E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Natural flow of a river is recognized as vital to sustaining riverine ecosystems. The

biotic composition, structure and function of aquatic ecosystems depend largely on
the hydrologic regimes; however flows of the world’s rivers are increasingly being
modified through impoundments. Therefore calculation of the optimum flows for a
healthier river is essential but there is no simple figure that can be given for the
environmental flow requirements of rivers. Environmental flows refer to water for
ecosystems. Ecosystems, however, provide a wide range of valuable services to
people. Concept of the environmental flow was initiated not only to discover the
river health and to manipulate river flow regimes, but also to get the maximum
harvest from free flowing waters. Hence, providing for environmental flows is not
exclusively a matter of sustaining ecosystems but also a matter of supporting human
well being. As demand for freshwater continues to rise and ways are sought to
improve water productivity, decision-making bodies at local, basin and national
levels require accurate information on the role of river flows in sustaining a wide
range of environmental benefits. For that reason assessment of environmental flows
may contribute to setting management rules and monitoring their impact on river
health.

KEYWORDS: Environment flow assessment, Riverine ecosystems, Water

Introduction

Rivers have been dreadfully useful to human being in all parts of the earth and
provide water to slake the thirst, to fertilize lands and to provide a means of
communication, transport and besides destinations for recreation hence water has
been described as the single most important resource for human being. They support
large biological diversity, support the humans and their activities, and provide
several services that no other ecosystem can. Rivers have sustained whole
ecosystems supporting biodiversity ever since the world came to existence. There
are numerous organisms which are sustained by rivers and some are not only
supported by rivers but also are their only habitats. Increase of population density,
urbanization, industrialization and agricultural activities cause significant impacts
on rivers.

1
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Korsgaard (2006) stated that the flows of the world’s rivers are increasingly being
modified through impoundments such as dams and weirs; abstractions for
agriculture and urban water supply, drainage return flows, maintenance of flows for
navigation and structures for flood control. This does not only threaten the water
quantity requirements of rivers but also the quality of the rivers (Postel and Richter,
2003).

Therefore, it is important to find the optimum flow that has to be maintained within
a river in order to sustain the riverine ecosystem as well as to get the ceiling benefits
from a river. Concept of the environmental flow origins not only to discover the
river health and to manipulate river flow regimes, but also to get the maximum
harvest of free flowing waters. Dissanayake et al. (2010) stated that environmental
flows are a set of discharges of a particular magnitude, frequency and timing that
are necessary to ensure a certain range of benefits from a river which are essential to
sustain elements of natural aquatic ecosystem and maintain ecosystem (such as fish,
flood protection and wild life) is becoming an important trend in water resource
management.

Concept of Environmental Flows

Environmental flow has been given various names, including the environmental
flow (regime), instream flow, environmental allocation of ecological flow
requirement etc. These are distinct from terms such as compensation flows, which
have been set for other purposes such as downstream human use (e.g. irrigation,
hydropower) (Acreman and Dunbar, 2004). The natural flow paradigm where the
natural flow regime of a river is recognized as vital to sustaining ecosystems, has
now been widely accepted. This recognition of flow as a key driver of riverine
ecosystems has led to the development of the environmental flows concept (Haas,
2003). Recognition of the escalating hydrological alteration of rivers on a global
scale and the resultant environmental degradation has led to the gradual
establishment of a field of scientific research termed environmental flow assessment
(Arthington et al., 2007). Acreman and Dunbar (2004) stated that international
organizations, such as The World Conservation Union (IUCN) are now promoting
environmental flow as a key element of integrated water resource management.
However, it is increasingly recognized that all elements of flow regime, including
floods, medium and low flow are important (Junk et al., 1989; Poff et al., 1997).

Dyson (2003) stated that an environmental flow as the water regime provided
within a river, wetland or coastal zone to maintain ecosystems and their benefits
where there is competing water uses and where flows are regulated. A distinction
may be made between the amount of water needed to maintain an ecosystem in
close-to-pristine condition, and that which might eventually be allocated to it,
following a process of environmental, social and economic assessment. The latter is
referred to as the ‘environmental flow’, and it will be a flow that maintains the
ecosystem in a less than pristine condition.

2
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Current Status of Environmental Flow Assessment

Dyson (2003) stated that many ecologists believe that some small portion of flow
could be removed without measurable degradation of the ecosystem. How much
could be removed in this way is more difficult to assess, with estimates ranging
between about 65% and 95% of natural flow having to remain, retaining the natural
pattern of flow. Once flow manipulations move past this, then river ecologists can
advise on patterns and volumes of flows that will result in a range of different river
conditions. This information can then be used to choose a condition that allows an
acceptable balance between a desired ecosystem condition and other social and
economic needs for water. The flows allocated to achieve the chosen condition are
the environmental flow.

As demand for freshwater continues to rise and ways are sought to improve water
productivity, decision-making bodies at local, basin and national levels require
accurate information on the role of river flows in sustaining a wide range of
environmental benefits (Acreman and Dunbar, 2004). Smakhtin and Shilpakar
(2005) noted that insufficient water was being left in rivers in many parts of the
world and urged policy makers to consider the allocation of environmental flows a
top priority. The ability of some rivers to provide goods and services has been
drastically reduced by the diversion and storage of water and the disposal of
pollutants (Mazvimavi et al., 2007). With global problems like climate change,
which has resulted in frequent droughts and other climatic anomalies, there is a
need to assess the ecosystem (or environmental) and economic water requirements
on a river basin scale (Bates et al., 2008).

The protection of the aquatic environment is high on the world water resources
agenda but most developing countries, however, still lack the technical and
institutional capacity to establish environmental water allocation practices and
policies. The existing methods of assessment of environmental water allocations are
either complex and resource-intensive (comprehensive holistic approaches) or not
tailor made for the specific conditions of a particular country, region or basin.
Detailed quantification of natural and present-day hydrology for such assessments
in river basins in developing countries is also lacking (Smakhtin and Shilpakar,
2005).

Environmental Flow Assessment in Sri Lanka

Smakhtin and Weragala (2005) stated that assessment and maintenance of

environmental flow requirements of rivers and wetlands have become the accepted
concept in several countries in the world and are slowly emerging as such in Sri
Lanka. Such assessment methods primarily use daily flow data. Dissanayake et al.
(2010) evaluated the environmental flow in Walawe River and it is the only river
out of the 103 major rivers in Sri Lanka in which the environmental flow is assessed
using range of variability approach (RVA) suggested by Richter et al. (1996).

3
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Required hydrological information can be generated for the locations where

environmental flow assessment is intended, which is the typical case in most of Sri
Lanka due to data shortage. Simulating the daily stream flow hydrology of river
basins is particularly difficult (compared with monthly modeling, for example), due
to the complexity of hydrological processes at this scale and increased data
requirements associated with it. The development of environmental flow programs
and requirements of other water resources projects will place more focus on detailed
daily flow data.

The situation regarding the availability of this type of data is particularly bad in
developing countries, including Sri Lanka. On the other hand, countries like Sri
Lanka provide an ideal opportunity for establishing a nationwide program of daily
data assessment. There are only 52 stations to measure flow in Sri Lanka at present
but in the past, there were 142 stations measuring flow (Smakhtin and Weragala,
2005). This is an awful situation in the context of estimation of environmental flows
in major rivers of Sri Lanka.

A simple approach to assess environmental flow was suggested by Najim and

Mowjood (2009). This approach was based on flow duration curves developed for a
diversion site with the help of simulated flows. Based on the flow duration curve
developed, the 100% probable minimum daily flow is considered as the
environmental flow that has to be allowed below the intervention point to ensure
minimum damage to the biodiversity. As the 100% probable minimum flow is very
small, the minimum flow to be allowed below the intervention point is considered
as the 90%minimum probable flow (Mowjood and Najim, 2011). This approach is
used by the Central Environmental Authority of Sri Lanka in providing
Environmental Protection Licenses for mini hydropower projects.

Environmental Flow Assessment

The environmental flow assessment method discussed in this paper is based on

Range of Variability Approach (RVA) developed by Richter et al. (1997). In order
to calculate RVA targets, Richter et al. (1996) proposed a method that results in the
computation of representative, multi-parameter suite of hydrologic characteristics or
indicators for assessing hydrologic alteration. This method is referred as the
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) method. They proposed 32 hydrological
parameters (Table 1), which are defined as a series of biologically relevant
hydrologic attributes. These attributes characterize intra-annual variations in water
conditions.

An analysis of the intra-annual variations in these attributes are the foundation for
comparing hydrologic regimes before versus after a system has been altered by
various human activities (drinking water extractions and irrigation diversions)
(Smakhtin and Weragala, 2005 and Halwatura, 2011: Unpublished undergraduate
theses). As an improvement to this method, in addition to the 32 hydrological

4
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

parameters, four new parameters that reflect the monsoonal patterns of Sri Lanka
were included raising the hydrological parameters to 36 (Halwatura, 2011:
Unpublished undergraduate theses).

Thirty six ecologically relevant hydrologic parameters (Table 1) for each year in
each data series (prior to and after extractions) should be calculated as a set of
values for flow of river before irrigation diversions and water extractions and the
other set of values for after irrigation diversions and water extractions. Measures of
central tendency (means) and dispersion (low and high range limits and standard
deviation] are calculated from the annual series for each of the thirty six parameters,
which produced 72 inter-annual statistics for each data series (36 measures of
central tendency and 36 measures of dispersion) and used to characterize inter-
annual variations. For the future scenarios, 36 IHA values were calculated
separately for three sets (flow for minimum rainfall of selected past years, flow for
maximum rainfall of selected past years and flow for mean rainfall for selected past
years) of calculated flows.

Richter et al. (1997) stated that the fundamental concept of a river management
should be in such a way that the annual value of each IHA parameter falls within
the range of natural variation for that parameter, as defined by the inter-annual
measure of dispersion. Thus the management targets for any given parameter are
expressed as a range of acceptable values. The targets may have both upper and
lower bounds. The RVA method suggests that, when considering a modified or
altered flow regime, all the calculated IHA parameters (36) should be maintained
within the natural variability. Richter et al. (1997) recommended that the ±1
Standard deviation (SD) value be the default for setting initial RVA targets.

Values at ±1 SD from the mean were [(mean – SD) < RVA < (mean + SD)] selected
as the RVA targets for each of thirty six IHA parameters. For thirty six after
extraction IHA parameters, rate of non-attainment (values that fall below the lower
limit and above the upper limit of calculated RVA targets) were also calculated. For
the future scenarios, rate of non-attainment was calculated by determining whether
the calculated three sets (flow for minimum rainfall of past fifty years, flow for
maximum rainfall of past fifty years and flow for mean rainfall for past fifty years)
of 36 IHA values meet the RVA targets. Group averages for the five IHA groups
were calculated for the three sets of IHA values separately.

Richter et al. (1996) stated that thirty two hydrologic characteristics could be used
to aid in detection of physical habitat alterations in a lotic system. Sixteen of the
hydrologic characteristics focus on the magnitude, duration, timing and frequency
of extreme events because of the pervasive influence of extreme forces in
ecosystem and geomorphology. The other sixteen parameters measure the central
tendency of either the magnitude or rate of change of water condition.

5
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Table 1: Summary of hydrologic parameters used in the IHAs and their

characteristics
IHA Statistic Group Regime Hydrologic Parameters
Characteristics

Group 1:
Magnitude of monthly Magnitude Mean value for each calendar month
water conditions Timing

Group 2:
Magnitude and duration Magnitude Annual minima 1-day means
of annual extreme water Duration Annual maxima 1-day means
conditions Annual minima 3-day means
Annual maxima 3-day means
Annual minima 7-day means
Annual maxima 7-day means
Annual minima 30-day means
Annual maxima 30-day means
Annual minima 90-day means
Annual maxima 90-day means
Annual mean of 1st inter monsoon*
Annual mean of South West monsoon*
Annual mean of 2nd inter monsoon*
Annual mean of North East monsoon*

Group 3:
Timing of annual Timing Julian date of each annual 1 day maximum
extreme water Julian date of each annual 1 day minimum
conditions

Group 4:
Frequency and duration Frequency No. of high pulses each year
of high and low pulses Duration No. of low pulses each year
Mean duration of high pulses within each year (day)
Mean duration of low pulses within each year (day)

Group 5:
Rate and frequency of Frequency Means of all positive differences between consecutive
water condition changes Rate of Change daily values
Means of all negative differences between
consecutive daily values
No. of rises
No. of falls
* Newly added parameters that reflect the monsoonal patterns of Sri Lanka

Source: Halwatura (2011): Environmental flow assessment in Attanagalu Oya,

unpublished undergraduate thesis.

6
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

To date, not many quantitative studies have addressed the problem of compromises
between human water demand and in-stream flow requirements. The major
difficulty involved appears from the quantitative assessment of the impacts of water
diversions on natural hydrologic regimes. The Range of Variability Approach
(RVA) offers a useful approach to quantitatively evaluating the hydrologic impacts
in terms of 32 Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHAs) Richter et al. (1996) and
Shiau and Wu (2006).

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 (Tharme, 2003). The RVA is design to bridge a
gap between applied river management and current theories of aquatic ecology.
Virtually all methods currently in widespread use for determining in-stream flow
needs will possibly lead to inadequate protection of ecologically important flow
variability, and ultimately to the loss of native riverine biodiversity and ecosystem
integrity (Richter et al., 1996).

Colwell (1974) and Richter et al. (1996) stated that the magnitude of the water
condition at any given time is a measure of the availability or suitability of habitat
and defines such habitat attributes as wetted area or habitat volume, or the position
of a water table relative to wetland or riparian plant rooting zones. The timing of
occurrence of particular water conditions can determine whether certain life cycle
requirements are met or can influence the degree of stress or mortality associated
with extreme water conditions such as flood or droughts. The duration of time over
which a specific water condition exists may determine whether a particular life
cycle phase can be completed or the degree to which stressful effects such as
inundation or desiccation can accumulate.

To date, not many quantitative studies have addressed the problem of compromises
between human water demand and in-stream flow requirements. Due to alterations
of flow regimes in the riverine ecosystems, it might have caused stresses, but are
not recorded in the Attanagalu Oya basin (Halwatura, 2011: unpublished
undergraduate thesis). The use of the water from rivers for human activities
produces alterations in these ecosystems that in many cases are not recognized and
have not been evaluated in their true value.

There is growing recognition that functionally intact and biologically complex

aquatic ecosystems provide many economically valuable services and long-term
benefits to the society (Yount and Niemi, 1990). Impacts of hydrologic alterations
on aquatic biota are well documented in the literature (Shiau and Wu, 2006) and
could be used in environmental flow management.

While IHA approach is originated from the United States, this approach does not
consider the monsoonal patterns that play vital role in tropical hydrology. Bates et
al. (2008) stated that monsoonal areas are more likely to be affected by more

7
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

intense rainfall events over shorter rainy seasons, exacerbating flooding and erosion
in catchments and the wetlands themselves. In monsoonal regions, prolonged dry
periods promote terrestrialization of wetlands. Intense rain occurring over fewer
days, which implies increased frequency of floods during the monsoon, may also
result in reduced groundwater recharge potential.

Expansion of areas under severe water stress will be one of the most pressing
environmental problems in South and South-East Asia in the foreseeable future.
Indian economy is often called the ‘monsoon economy’ (Balasubramanian, 2009). It
reflects the critical role of the monsoon in tropical agricultural economy.
Amarasinghe (2010) stated that monsoonal weather patterns have a major influence
on the spatial and temporal variation of water availability within Sri Lanka.

Similarly, other hydrology-based desktop methods developed elsewhere need to be

re-calibrated or tested in a different physiographic environment (like the monsoon-
driven flow regimes of Sri Lanka) before they can be reliably applied. There is,
therefore, a need to further develop or modify and test existing methods in specific
river basins (Smakhtin and Weragala, 2005). Imbulana et al. (2006) stated that
situated close to the equator, the tropical climate of Sri Lanka is characterized by
temperatures and monsoonal winds which give rise to rainfall pattern with spatial
and temporal variations.

Uneven distribution of the monsoonal precipitation is governed by the total volumes

of rain during the monsoons along with the orographic influence of the central
mountain region. Some rains occur as a result of convection effects from
depressions and local thunderstorms during the transition period between the
monsoons. Therefore, in addition to thirty two IHA parameters (Richter et al.,
1996), four new IHA parameters that reflect the hydrological alterations due to
monsoonal patterns are proposed by Halwatura (2011: unpublished undergraduate
thesis).

Smakhtin and Weragala (2005) assessed environmental flow in Walawe River in Sri
Lanka. The number of RVA parameters in the modified method used by them is
equal to 16, as opposed to the original 32. However, this number was reduced, for
all practical purposes; to cover the entire range of flows for the construction of the
flow duration curve. In their study only 6 parameters have been used. Others have
either not been used or not estimated as superfluous.

It is, however, possible to suggest that given the extensive water diversions from
Udawalawa, very little water is flowing at environmental flow site 2 (downstream
of Udawalawa reservoir) at all times. Therefore, it is unlikely that the RVA low-
limit target is ever met. Halwatura (2011: Unpublished undergraduate theses) stated
that mean rate of non-attainment of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)
groups after water withdrawals vary in between 12% to 80% in Attanagalu Oya. If
the rainfall pattern of the next thirty years shows the maximum rainfall of past fifty
years, the mean rate of non-attainment would be 45%.

8
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

The RVA was developed to provide explicit adaptive management guidelines that
are responsive to the short term demands of most water management negotiations.
The RVA means to enable river managers to define and adopt readily interim
management targets before conclusive, long term ecosystem research results are
available. The RVA is the response to an urgent need to act in the face of
considerable uncertainty. Setting management targets based on a natural range of
variation in the thirty two hydrological parameters does not depend upon extensive
ecological information, although such information certainly will help select and
refine the targets.

An adaptive decision-making process, based upon carefully formulated scientific

research and monitoring, holds greatest promise for resolving complex resource
management conflicts (Richter et al., 1997). The developed thirty six RVA targets
for a particular river can be used as river management targets by the government
authorities responsible for irrigation and Water Supply for the future water
extractions and diversions in order to get the maximum yield of flowing water in
rivers before entering to the Ocean.

Conclusion

In this paper we have outlined the analysis of environmental flow and illustrated the
importance of assessment of environmental flow. Furthermore this provides
evidence proving that river flows have been altered and still altering exclusive of
maintaining the environmental flows. Hydrology-based methods of environmental
flow assessment can provide basic estimates of environmental water requirements at
different scales. Implementation of these methods are important as initial steps
towards environmental flow assessment in order to acquire the maximum yield of
flowing water in rivers while maintaining healthier riverine ecosystem.

References

Acreman, M. and M. J. Dunbar (2004). “Defining environmental river flow requirements – a

review”. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 8(5): 861-876.

Amarasinghe, U. A. (2010). “Spatial variation of water supply and demand in Sri Lanka”. In
Jinapala, K., S. de Silva and M. M. M. Aheeyar (Eds.). Proceedings of the National
Conference on Water, Food Security and Climate Change, 3: 19-35.

Arthington, A. H., E. Baran, C. A. Brown, P. Dugan, A. S. Halls, M. J. King, C. V. Minte-

Vera, R. E. Tharme and R. L. Welcomme (2007). “Water requirements of floodplain
rivers and fisheries: existing decision support tools and pathways for development”.
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture Research Report, 1
- 68.

Balasubramanian, T. N. (2009). “Adaptation strategies to sustain food security in India

against climate change impact”. Proceedings of National Conference on Climate

9
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Change. JJ College of Engineering and Technology, Trichirapalii, India, August

2008.

Bates, B. C., Z. W. Kundzewicz, S. Wu and J. P. Palutikof (2008). “Climate change and

water”. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva.

Colwell, R. K. (1974). “Predictability, constancy, and contingency of periodic phenomena”.

Ecology, 55: 1148-1153.

Dissanayake, P., N. Weragala and V. Smakin (2010). “Environmental flow assessment:

recent examples from Sri Lanka”. In Evans, A. and K. Jinapala (Eds.). National
Conference on Water, Food Security and Climate Change in Sri Lanka, 2: 23-37.

Dyson, M. (2003). “Getting started in environmental flow assessment”. In Dyson, M., G.

Bergkamp and J. Scanlon (Eds.). Flow: The essentials of the environmental flow,
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 15-20.

Haas, L. (2003). “Modifying water infrastructure”. In Dyson, M., G. Bergkamp and J.

Scanlon (Eds.). Flow: The essentials of the environmental flow, IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, 45-55.

Halwatura, D. (2011). “Environmental flow assessment in Attanagalu oya”. Unpublished

undergraduate thesis, Department of Zoology, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri
Lanka.

Imbulana, K. A. U. S., N. T. S. Wijesekara and B. R. Neupane (2006). “Sri Lanka National

Water Development Report”. MAI and MD, UN-WWAP, UNESCO and University
of Moratuwa, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Mahaweli Development Sri
Lanka, Paris and New Delhi, 50-84.

Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley and R. E. Sparks (1989). “The flood pulse concept in river
floodplain systems”. In Dodge, D. P. (Eds.). Proceedings of the International Large
River Symposium, Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences,
Ottawa, Canada, 110-127.

Korsgaard, L. (2006). “Environmental flows in integrated water resources management:

linking flows, services and values”. Institute of Environment and Resources,
Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet, Lyngby, 5-8.

Mazvimavi, D., E. Madamombe and H. Makurira (2007). “Assessment of environmental

flow requirements for river basin planning in Zimbabwe”. Physics and Chemistry of
the Earth, 32: 995-1006.

Mowjood, M. I. M. and M. M. M. Najim (2011). “Report on Hydrological study of proposed

Mini-hydropower project – Angarakanda”, a report submitted to Angarakanda Mini
Hydro (Pvt) Ltd. 112/1 High level Road, Pannipitiya.

Najim, M. M. M. and M. I. M. Mowjood (2009). “Hydrological modeling approach to

protect biodiversity allowing environmental flows below weirs”. Proceedings of the

10
 Journal of Environmental Professionals Sri Lanka: 2014 – Vol. 3 – No. 2

Fifteenth Sessions of the Sri Lanka Association for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,
Sri Lanka Association for Fisheries and Aquatic Resources, Sri Lanka.

Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, D. R. Brian, E. S. Richard

and J. C. Stromberg (1997). “The natural flow regime”. Bio Science, 47(11): 769-784.

Postel, S. and B. Richter (2003). “Rivers for life. Managing water for people and nature”.
Island Press, Washington DC, USA.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, J. Powell and D. P. Braun (1996). “A method for

assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems”. Conservation Biology, 10(4):
1163-1174.

Richter, B. D., J. V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington and D. P. Braun (1997). “How much water
does a river need?”. Freshwater Biology, 37: 231-249.

Shiau, J. and Fu-Chun. Wu (2006). “Compromise programming methodology for

determining instream flow under multi-objective water allocation criteria”. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association, 42(5): 1179-1191.

Smakhtin, V. U. and N. Weragala (2005). “An assessment of hydrology and environmental

flows in the Walawe river basin, Sri Lanka”. Working Paper 103. International Water
Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Smakhtin, V. U. and R. L. Shilpakar (2005). “Planning for environmental water allocations

an example of hydrology-based assessment in the East Rapti River Nepal”. Research
Report 89. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Tharme, R. E. (2003). “A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging

trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for
rivers”. River research and applications, 19: 397-441.

Yount, J. D. and G. J. Niemi (1990). “Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystem from
disturbance - a review of case studies”. “Environmental Management”, 14: 547-569.

11

View publication stats