Implementing an Operational Framework to Develop a Streamflow Duration Assessment Method: A Case Study from the Arid West United States

Abstract

Streamflow duration information underpins many management decisions. However, hydrologic data are rarely available where needed. Rapid streamflow duration assessment methods (SDAMs) classify reaches based on indicators that are measured in a single brief visit. We evaluated a proposed framework for developing SDAMs to develop an SDAM for the Arid West United States that can classify reaches as perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral. We identified 41 candidate biological, geomorphological, and hydrological indicators of streamflow duration in a literature review, evaluated them for a number of desirable criteria (e.g., defensibility and consistency), and measured 21 of them at 89 reaches with known flow durations. We selected metrics for the SDAM based on their ability to discriminate among flow duration classes in analyses of variance, as well as their importance in a random forest model to predict streamflow duration. This approach resulted in a “beta” SDAM that uses five biological indicators. It could discriminate between ephemeral and non-ephemeral reaches with 81% accuracy, but only 56% accuracy when distinguishing 3 classes. A final method will be developed following expanded data collection. This Arid West study demonstrates the effectiveness of our approach and paves the way for more efficient development of scientifically informed SDAMs.

Detecting Streamflow in Dryland Rivers Using CubeSats

“…In recent years, there is a growing attention toward better understanding of streamflow permanence in the scientific and management communities (Jaeger et al, 2019(Jaeger et al, , 2021Mazor et al, 2021). The CubeSat detection approach presented here can be used as a novel source of data to evaluate and complement other efforts.…”

Perennial and Non‐Perennial Streamflow Regime Shifts Across California, USA

“…Stream classification methods have long been used to characterize natural variability in flow regimes (Leathwick et al., 2011; McManamay et al., 2018; Olden et al., 2020) and assess hydrologic alteration and its associated ecological consequences (Lane et al., 2017; Mazor et al., 2022; Poff & Zimmerman, 2010). Despite the proliferation of flow regime classifications at regional (Auerbach et al., 2016; Beaufort et al., 2019; Begou et al., 2015) and national (e.g., Archfield et al., 2014; Merritt et al., 2021) scales, non‐perennial streams are often not explicitly classified.…”

“…Non‐perennial streams support a high diversity of aquatic and terrestrial communities that have adapted to the natural seasonal loss of streamflow connectivity (Lytle et al., 2008). However, shifts from perennial to non‐perennial conditions can be highly disruptive to biodiversity and ecosystem functions (e.g., Aspin et al., 2019; Datry et al., 2014; Mazor et al., 2022). Furthermore, classification of streamflow regimes influences water resource management, as non‐perennial streams generally receive less protection under water quality regulations than perennial streams (Borg Galea et al., 2019; Fovet et al., 2021; Levick et al., 2008).…”