{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020012911555842477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003873466752743706, 'mean_word_length': 5.458333333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluating Uncertainty in Physical Habitat Modelling in a High‐Gradient Mountain Stream

Predictions of habitat‐based assessment methods that are used to determine instream flow requirements for aquatic biota are uncertain, but instream flow practitioners and managers often ignore those uncertainties. Two commonly recognized uncertainties arise from (i) estimating the way in which physical habitat within a river changes with discharge and (ii) the suitability of certain types of physical habitat for organisms. We explored how these sources of uncertainty affect confidence in the results of the British Columbia Instream Flow Methodology (BCIFM), which is a commonly used transect‐based habitat assessment tool for small‐scale water diversions. We calculated the chance of different magnitudes of habitat loss resulting from water diversion using a high‐gradient reach of the North Alouette River, BC, as a case study. We found that uncertainty in habitat suitability indices for juvenile rainbow trout generally dominated uncertainty in the results of the BCIFM when large (>15) numbers of transects were used. In contrast, with small numbers of transects, variation in physical habitat among sampled transects was the major source of uncertainty in the results of the BCIFM. Presentations of results of the BCIFM in terms of probabilities of different amounts of habitat loss for a given flow can help managers prescribe instream flow requirements based on their risk tolerance for fish habitat loss. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.