Beyond Metrics? The Role of Hydrologic Baseline Archetypes in Environmental Water Management

Abstract

Balancing ecological and human water needs often requires characterizing key aspects of the natural flow regime and then predicting ecological response to flow alterations. Flow metrics are generally relied upon to characterize long-term average statistical properties of the natural flow regime (hydrologic baseline conditions). However, some key aspects of hydrologic baseline conditions may be better understood through more complete consideration of continuous patterns of daily, seasonal, and inter-annual variability than through summary metrics. Here we propose the additional use of high-resolution dimensionless archetypes of regional stream classes to improve understanding of baseline hydrologic conditions and inform regional environmental flows assessments. In an application to California, we describe the development and analysis of hydrologic baseline archetypes to characterize patterns of flow variability within and between stream classes. We then assess the utility of archetypes to provide context for common flow metrics and improve understanding of linkages between aquatic patterns and processes and their hydrologic controls. Results indicate that these archetypes may offer a distinct and complementary tool for researching mechanistic flow–ecology relationships, assessing regional patterns for streamflow management, or understanding impacts of changing climate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

References

  1. Archfield SA, Vogel RM, Brandt SL (2007) Estimation of flow-duration curves at ungaged sites in southern New England. In: World environmental and water resources congress 2007: restoring our natural habitat, 1–14, Tampa, Florida, May 15–19

  2. Arthington AH (2006) The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems Ecol Appl 16:1311–1318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asquith WH, Roussel MC, Vrabel J (2006) Statewide analysis of the drainage-area ratio method for 34 streamflow percentile ranges in Texas. US Geological Survey, Reston, VA

  4. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pess GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM, (2010) Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems BioScience 60:209–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bender DL, Roberson JA (1961) The use of a dimensionless unit hydrograph to derive unit hydrographs for some Pacific Northwest basins. J Geophys Res 66:521–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Blöschl G (2001) Scaling in hydrology. Hydrol Process 15:709–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blöschl G, Sivapalan M (1995) Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrol Process 9:251–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown RA, Pasternack GB, Lin T (2015) The topographic design of river channels for form-process linkages. Environ Manag 57:929–942

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown RA, Pasternack GB, Wallender WW (2014a) Synthetic river valleys: creating prescribed topography for form–process inquiry and river rehabilitation design. Geomorphology 214:40–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown SC, Lester RE, Versace VL, Fawcett J, Laurenson L (2014b) Hydrologic landscape regionalisation using deductive classification and random forests. PLoS ONE 9:e112856

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manag 30:492–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carlisle DM, Nelson SMark, May J (2016) Associations of stream health with altered flow and water temperature in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ecohydrology 9:930–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cullum C, Brierley Gary, Perry GLW, Witkowski ETF (2017) Landscape archetypes for ecological classification and mapping. Progr Phys Geogr Earth Environ 41:95–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Deutschman DH, Levin SA, Devine C, Buttel LA (1997) Scaling from trees to forests: analysis of a complex simulation model. Science 277:1684b–1684b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Durbin J, Watson G (1950) Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression-I. Biometrika 37:409–428

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eng K, Grantham TE, Carlisle DM, Wolock DM (2017) Predictability and selection of hydrologic metrics in riverine ecohydrology. Freshw Sci 0:000–000

    Google Scholar 

  17. Farmer WH, Vogel RM (2013) Performance-weighted methods for estimating monthly streamflow at ungauged sites. J Hydrol 477:240–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ficklin DL, Letsinger SL, Stewart IT, Maurer EP (2016) Assessing differences in snowmelt-dependent hydrologic projections using CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate forcing data for the western United States. Hydrol Res 47:483–500

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gasith A, Resh VH (1999) Streams in Mediterranean regions: abiotic influences and biotic responses to predictable seasonal event. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30:51–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guinn JM (1890) Exceptional years: a history of California floods and drought. Hist Soc Sou Cal LA (1890) 1:33–39

    Google Scholar 

  21. Haines AT, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (1988) A global classification of river regimes. Appl Geogr 8:255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. He Y, Bárdossy A, Zehe E (2011) A review of regionalisation for continuous streamflow simulation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:3539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (1992) Statistical methods in water resources. Techniques of water resources investigations. U.S Geological Survey, Reston, VA

  24. Kendall M (1975) Multivariate analysis. Charles Griffin, London

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ, Olden JD, Mackay SJ, Stein JL, Marsh N (2010) Classification of natural flow regimes in Australia to support environmental flow management. Freshw Biol 55:171–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Konrad CP, Brasher AMD, May JT (2008) Assessing streamflow characteristics as limiting factors on benthic invertebrate assemblages in streams across the western United States. Freshw Biol 53:1983–1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lane BA, Dahlke HE, Pasternack GB, Sandoval-Solis S (2017) Revealing the diversity of natural hydrologic regimes in california with relevance for environmental flows applications. JAWRA J Am Water Res Assoc 53:411–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lane BA, Pasternack GB, Sandoval-Solis S (2018) Integrated analysis of flow, form, and function for river management and design testing. Ecohydrology

  29. Lane BA, Sandoval-Solis S, Porse EC (2014) Environmental flows in a human-dominated system: integrated water management strategies for the Rio Grande/Bravo Basin. River Res Appl 31:1053–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leibowitz SG, Comeleo RL, Wigington PJ, Weber MH, Sproles EA, Sawicz KA (2016) Hydrologic landscape characterization for the Pacific Northwest, USA. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 52:473–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lundquist JD, Cayan DR (2002) Seasonal and spatial patterns in diurnal cycles in streamflow in the western United States. J Hydrometeorol 3:591–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lytle DA, Poff NL (2004) Adaptation to natural flow regimes. Trends Ecol Evol 19:94–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. McCuen RH (1989) Hydrologic analysis and design. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  34. McManamay RA, Orth DJ, Dolloff CA, Frimpong EA (2012) Regional frameworks applied to hydrology: can landscape‐based frameworks capture the hydrologic variability?. River Res Appl 28:1325–1339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mierau DW, Trush WJ, Rossi GJ, Carah JK, Clifford MO, Howard JK (2017) Managing diversions in unregulated streams using a modified percent-of-flow approach. Freshw Biol 12985

  36. Moyle PB (2002) Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  37. Naiman RJ, Latterell JJ, Pettit NE, Olden JD (2008) Flow variability and the biophysical vitality of river systems. Comptes Rendus Geosci 340:629–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Null SE, Viers JH, Mount JF (2010) Hydrologic response and watershed sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Nevada. PLoS ONE 5:e9932

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Olden JD, Kennard MJ, Pusey BJ (2012) A framework for hydrologic classification with a review of methodologies and applications in ecohydrology. Ecohydrology 5:503–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Olden JD, Poff NL (2003) Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res Appl 19:101–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Parajka J, Viglione A, Rogger M, Salinas JL, Sivapalan M, Blöschl G (2013) Comparative assessment of predictions in ungauged basins – Part 1: Runoff-hydrograph studies. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:1783–1795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Parasiewicz P, Nestler J, Poff NL, Goodwin RA (2008) Virtual reference river: a model for scientific discovery and reconciliation. In: Alonso MS, Rubio IM (eds) Ecological management: new research. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York, p 189–198

  43. Pasternack GB, Hinnov LA (2003) Hydrometeorological controls on water level in a vegetated Chesapeake Bay tidal freshwater delta. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 58:367–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Poff NL, Allan JD(1995) Functional organization of stream fish assemblages in relation to hydrologic varibiability Ecology 76:606–627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 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, Warner A (2010) The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): a new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshw Biol 55:147–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: a literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. Freshw Biol 55:194–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Postel S, Richter BD (2012). Rivers for life: managing water for people and nature. Island Press, Washington DC

  49. Pyne M, Carlisle DM, Konrad CP, Stein E (2017) Classification of California streams using combined deductive and inductive approaches: setting the foundation for analysis of hydrologic alteration. Ecohydrology 10:e1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Reidy Liermann CA, Olden JD, Beechie Tim, Kennard MJ, Skidmore PB, Konrad CP, Imaki H (2012) Hydrogeomorphic classification of washington state rivers to support emerging environmental flow management strategies. River Res Appl 28:1340–1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Richter BD (1996) A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems Conserv Biol 10:1163–1174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Salas JD (1993) Models for data generation in hydrology: multivariate techniques. In: Marco JB, Harboe R, Salas JD (eds) Stochastic hydrology and its use in water resources systems simulation and optimization. Springer, Dordrecht, p 75–95.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Sanborn SC, Bledsoe BP (2006) Predicting streamflow regime metrics for ungauged streams in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon. J Hydrol 325:241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sawicz K, Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch PA, Carrillo G (2011) Catchment classification: empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment function in the eastern USA. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:2895–2911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sivapalan M (2003) Prediction in ungauged basins: a grand challenge for theoretical hydrology. Hydrol Process 17:3163–3170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith LC, Turcotte DL, Isacks BL (1998) Stream flow characterization and feature detection using a discrete wavelet transform. Hydrol Process 12:233–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Stella JC, Battles JJ, Orr BK, McBride JR (2006) Synchrony of seed dispersal, hydrology and local climate in a semi-arid river reach in California. Ecosystems 9:1200–1214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Stewart-Koster B, Olden JD, Gido KB (2014) Quantifying flow–ecology relationships with functional linear models. Hydrol Sci J 59:629–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Wagener T, Sivapalan M, Troch P, Woods R (2007) Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity Geogr Compass 1:901–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Webb JA, Miller KA, King EL, de Little SC, Stewardson MJ, Zimmerman JKH, Poff NL (2013) Squeezing the most out of existing literature: a systematic re-analysis of published evidence on ecological responses to altered flows. Freshw Biol 58:2439–2451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1:80–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wolock DM, Winter TC, McMahon G (2004) Delineation and evaluation of hydrologic-landscape regions in the United States using geographic information system tools and multivariate statistical analyses. Environ Manag 34:S71–S88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Yang H-C, Suen J-P, Chou S-K (2016) Estimating the ungauged natural flow regimes for environmental flow management. Water Resour Manag 30:4571–4584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yarnell SM, Petts GE, Schmidt JC, Whipple AA, Beller EE, Dahm CN, Goodwin P, Viers JH (2015) Functional flows in modified riverscapes: hydrographs, habitats and opportunities. BioScience 65:963–972

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Yarnell SM, Viers JH, Mount JF (2010) Ecology and management of the spring snowmelt recession. BioScience 60:114–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Belize A. Lane.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lane, B.A., Sandoval-Solis, S., Stein, E.D. et al. Beyond Metrics? The Role of Hydrologic Baseline Archetypes in Environmental Water Management. Environmental Management 62, 678–693 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1077-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Baseline Hydrology
  • Stream Classes
  • Flow-ecology Relationships
  • Environmental Flow Assessment
  • Reference Gauge