A Review of Methods for Monitoring Streamflow for Sustainable Water Resource Management

A review of methods for monitoring streamflow for sustainable water resource management

Pariva Dobriyal, Ruchi Badola, Chongpi Tuboi and Syed Ainul Hussain*

Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehra Dun - 248001 Uttarakhand, India

*Corresponding author Syed Ainul Hussain* Wildlife Institute of India, Post Box # 18, Chandrabani, Dehradun – 248001 (Uttarakhand), India Tel: +91- 135- 2640112, Fax: +91- 135- 2640117 E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT

Monitoring of streamflow may help determine the optimum levels of its use for sustainable water management in the face of climate change. We reviewed available methods for monitoring streamflow on the basis of six criteria viz. their applicability across different terrains and size of the streams, operational ease, time effectiveness, accuracy, environmental impact that they may cause and cost involve in it. On the basis of the strengths and weaknesses of each of the methods reviewed, we conclude that the timed volume method is apt for hilly terrain having smaller streams due to its operational ease and accuracy of results. Although comparatively expensive, the weir and flume methods are suitable for long term studies of small hill streams, since once the structure is put in place, it yields accurate results. In flat terrain, the float method is best suited for smaller streams for its operational ease and cost effectiveness, whereas, for larger streams, the particle image velocimetry may be used for its accuracy. Our review suggests that the selection of a method for monitoring streamflow may be based on volume of the stream, accuracy of the method, accessibility of the terrain and financial and physical resources available.

Keywords: Ecosystem services; Water resource management; Streamflow monitoring; Fresh water; Climate change Table S1: Previous studies conducted on streamflow monitoring across different regions and terrains

Season of Sl no Study Method Terrain Results Maximum Results Minimum Region study Tracer or Dilution gauging 1 Gardner and Dunn (1964) - - 45 ft3/s 72 ft3/s USA method Ryckborst and Christie 2 Electromagnetic method Flat - 18000 m3/sec 5660 m3/sec Canada (1977) 3 Dye and Poulter (1995) Weir method Riparian zone - 305m3/ day - - 4 Cey et al. (1998) Timed volume method Mountain Summer ∼10 ml s−1 m−1 - Canada Salt and tracer Dilution Throughout 5 Tobias et al. (2001) Marsh Hilly 225 L m-2 d-1 06 L m-2 d-l Virginia gauging method year 6 Bajracharya et al. (2004) Float method Hilly Rainy 212m3/s 045 m3/s Himalayas Cylinder or Timed volume Throughout 7 Negi and Joshi (2004) Hilly 878 l/min 287 l/min Himalayas method year 8 Rutherford et al. (2004) Float method Hilly - 0276 m3/s 0084 m3/s - 9 Sharma and Rai (2004) Weir method Hilly Rainy 4143 l/s 4137 l/s Himalayas 10 Sharma and Rai (2004) Weir method Hilly Summer 850 l/s 840 l/s Himalayas Salt or Dilution gauging 11 Hudson and Fraser (2005) -- - 22 m3/s 24 m3/s - method Throughout West-central 12 Houser et al. (2006) Dilution gauging method Flat 2561 l/s 313 l/s year Georgia 13 Ramos et al. (2006) Flume method - - 13 l/min - UK 14 Jun et al. (2005) Weir method Hilly - 2533 m3 1098 m3 China Throughout Andean 15 Buytaert et al. (2007) Weir method Hilly 933 mm/year 175 mm/ yr year highlands 16 Kumar and Singh (2007) Weir method Hilly Rainy 654 mm/hr - Himalayas Throughout 17 Rehmel (2007) ADCP method Flat 124 m3/sec 002 m3/sec United States year Salt or Dilution gauging Throughout West-central 18 Roberts et al. (2007) Flat and Hilly 276 l/s 3 l/s method year Georgia Throughout 19 Sharma et al. (2007) Weir method Hilly 224 mm 18 mm Himalayas year 20 Xing et al. (2008) Current meter method Hilly - 23 × 107 m3/year - China 21 Zhang et al. (2008) Velocity area method Hilly - 1025 mm 091 mm China 22 Kim et al. (2008) Particle image velocimetry Mountain - 5.1 m3/sec Iowa 23 Soupir et al. (2009) Current meter - - 00114 m3/s - Virginia Throughout 24 Singh et al. (2010) Data of a hydrological station Hilly 20816 m3/s 701 m3/s Himalayas year 25 Hidayat et al. (2011) ADCP method Flat - 3250 m3/sec - Indonesia Aniene River - 2.05 Particle image velocimetry m/s 24 Tauro et al. (2014) Mountain - - Italy method Tiber River – 0.35 m/s 26 Shope et al. (2013) Timed volume method Mountain Rainy 0.002 m3 s-1 0.010 m3 s-1 South Korea 27 Yang et al. (2014) Current meter method Flat Rainy 0.231 m3/sec 0.0105 m3/sec China 28 Hu et al. (2014) Flume method - - 0.02 0.08 China Western 29 Poulsen et al. (2014) ADCP method lowland Rainy 0.23 m3/sec - Denmark Pasture – 3.98 Pasture – 0.00 mm/day mm/day Victoria, 30 Adelana et al. (2014) Weir method - - Forest – 1.21 Forest – 0.00 Australia mm/day mm/day Deutscher and Kupec 31 Non contact method Mountain Dry period 0.24 dm3 s−1 day−1 0.19 dm3 s−1 day−1 Czech Republic (2014) 32 Kralik et al. (2015) Salt Dilution method Mountain - 138 L/s 12 L/s Georgia 0.073 ± 0.014 33 Cingolani et al. (2015) Salt Dilution method Mountain - - Argentina mm/day Malota and Senzanje 34 Timed volume method Flat - 0.70 m day-1 0.17 m day-1 South Africa (2015) Table S2: Comparison of different methods used for streamflow estimation

Aptness to Aptness to Method Advantage Disadvantage stream size different terrain Human error may occur in measuring This method is inexpensive and non-polluting, velocity stage height and cross-sectional Direct Timed with limited equipments requirements (Weight and Small areas, which requires a numbers of trials to measurement volume Hilly Sonderegger 2001; Tiwari et al. 2014). streams minimize (Weight and Sonderegger 2001). method method Measurements can be taken without any special This method gives reliable results only for technical knowledge required. small streams with a water fall.

Velocity-area Results are less reliable as the discharge It is one of the simplest methods and can be used methods becomes greater because floats thrown on a where observers are not highly skilled (Grant and Float Small water surface sometimes do not follow the Flat Brian 1997; Hauer and Lamberti 2007). It is a non- method streams actual main flow due to a strong vortical polluting method and does not require any turbulent motion (Herschy 2008; Cheney complicated and expensive equipments. 2015).

Method is inexpensive and provides direct It is difficult to obtain complete mixing of evidence of water movement between stream and the tracer without losing any of it and Dilution Large/ aquifer (Woessner 2000; Comina et al. 2014). It is incomplete mixing may cause erroneous Gauging small Flat and Hilly an absolute method because the discharge is results as there is difference of velocity in method streams computed from volume and time only (Herschy upper and lower surfaces of the streams 2008). (Moore 2004; Herschy 2008).

Calculations for stream discharge are complicated. Can be applied only if discharge can be diverted through a pipe. Trajectory Small The trajectory method gives reasonably accurate Estimates of discharge made from Flat and Hilly method streams values of discharge (Gilfedder et al. 2014). measurements of the trajectory from sloping pipe and partly filled pipes are less reliable (Tubman 2013).

Current Small Flat This method is more accurate and requires time to Only a trained person can take the meters streams measure water flow and can be used commercially measurement. Current meters are costly and method because of high accuracy (USDA 2001). can be used only when stream is being monitored for a short period. Accuracy can be affected by debris and boulders (Hudson 1993; USDA 2001).

Acoustic Measures the stream discharge faster, yields Costly, need trained personnel and only Doppler Large Flat accurate results (Mueller and Wagner 2009) and is suitable for large streams and rivers in flat current streams a non-invasive method (Visbeck 2001). terrains (Visbeck 2001). profiler

Training is needed to use the probes. Gives Electromag Large This method gives accurate results (Mizunaga and reliable results only for the streams where netic Flat and Hilly streams Tanaka 2015). flow can be diverted into a pipe (Herschy method 2008).

This method can be used only by a trained Weirs are one of the most accurate methods of person (Peterson and Cromwell 1993). It is measuring water flow (Peterson and Cromwell frequently necessary to construct a pool or Flat and Hilly (but 1993). Weirs improve low flow conditions by Large/ stilling area above the weir so the water loses Weirs gives better keeping water depths greater than they otherwise small its velocity. Unless the water appears method results for hilly would be, and provide opportunities for water streams practically still, discharge readings will be streams) meadows and landscaping and form an important inaccurate (Wessels and Rooseboom 2009). component of a Water Level Management Plan Siltation affects the reliability of the results (Rickard et al. 2003). (Hudson 2004).

Accuracy of flume method is affected by Flat and Hilly (but Flumes give more accurate results (Yoder 1999). Formed Large/ approach velocity of liquid and siltation Flume gives better Flumes do not need calibration and rating can be constriction small (Hudson 2004). This method is not suitable method results for hilly taken from the published tables (Dinsmore et al. methods streams for liquids with debris, sediment or solids streams) 2013). (Wessels and Rooseboom 2009).

Non contact Remote sensing is an expensive method and cannot directly estimate the stream discharge Remote Method could provide coverage to larger and and, therefore, requires ground Large sensing Flat and Hilly inaccessible areas (Koblinsky et al. 1993; Xu et al. measurements (Costa et al. 2000). Larger stream method 2004). errors occur in flooded forests, because trees are highly reflective in the visible and near- infrared range (Legleiter 2013).

Particle Large Flat PIV method provides high resolution flow velocity It is an expensive method and requires image stream information of a flat surface at one time unlike specialized training (Adrian and Westerweel velocimetr other methods that provide point based readings 2011). Direct measurements of the flow y method (Stamhuis 2006; Dramais et al. 2011). cannot be taken; therefore, validation of estimates is needed (Hauet et al. 2008). References

Adelana SM, Dresel PE, Hekmeijer P, Zydor H, Webb JA, Reynolds M, Ryan M (2014) A comparison of

streamflow, salt and water balances in adjacent farmland and forest catchments in south‐western Victoria,

Australia. Hydrol Process. doi: 10.1002/hyp.10281

Adrian RJ, Westerweel J (2011) Particle image velocimetry (Vol. 30). Cambridge University Press.

Bajracharya RM, Sharma S, Clemente R (2004) Discharge and sediment loads of two streams in the mid-hills of central Nepal. Himalay J of Sc 2(3):51-54

Buytaert W, Iniguez V, De Bievre B (2007) The effects of afforestation and cultivation on water yield in the Andean paramo. Forest Ecol Manag 251:22–30.

Cey EE, Rudolph DL, Parkin GW, Aravena R (1998) Quantifying groundwater discharge to a small perennial stream in southern Ontario, Canada. Journal of Hydrology 210(1):21-37

Cheney MS (2015) Comparison and Resolution of Differences in Stream Velocity Values at NWIS Sites in the Upper Little Miami River Basin, Ohio. (April 1, 2015) The Research and Scholarship Symposium.

Cingolani AM, Poca M, Giorgis MA, Vaieretti MV, Gurvich DE, Whitworth-Hulse JI, Renison D (2015) Water provisioning services in a seasonally dry subtropical mountain: Identifying priority landscapes for conservation. J of Hydrol 525:178-187

Comina C, Lasagna M, De Luca DA, Sambuelli L (2014) Geophysical methods to support correct water sampling locations for salt dilution gauging. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 18(8):3195-3203

Costa JE, Spicer KR, Cheng RT, Haeni PF, Melcher NB, Thurman EM, Plant WJ, Keller WC (2000) Measuring stream discharge by noncontact methods: a proof-of-concept experiment. Geophys Res Lett 27:553–556

Deutscher J, Kupec P (2014) Monitoring and validating the temporal dynamics of interday streamflow from two upland head micro-watersheds with different vegetative conditions during dry periods of the growing season in the Bohemian Massif, Czech Republic. Environ Monit Assess 186(6):3837-3846

Dinsmore PW, Serediak MS, Putz G, Prepas EE, Smith DW (2013) Use of Stabilized Stream-Monitoring Sections to Monitor Annual Streamflow on the Alberta Boreal Plain. J Cold Reg Eng 27(3):168-182

Dramais G, Le Coz J, Camenen B, Hauet A (2011) Advantages of a mobile LSPIV method for measuring flood discharges and improving stage–discharge curves. J Hydro-Env Res 5(4):301-312

Dye P, Poulter A (1995) Field demonstrations of the effect on streamflow of clearing invasive pine and wattle trees from a riparian zone. South Afr For J 173:27-30 Gardner RP, Dunn JW (1964) A single-sample radiotracer technique for determining streamflow rates. The Inter J App Rad Isot 15(6):339-344

Gilfedder M, Podger G, Rassam DW, Pagendam D, Robinson CJ (2014) Trajectory river modelling–a decision- support tool to help manage multiple risks associated with planning around variable water resources. Mar Freshwater Res 65(12):1072-1081

Grant DM, Brian DD (1997) Isco open channel flow measurement handbook, 5th edn. Isco Inc, Lincoln NE.

Hauer FR, Lamberti GA (2007) Methods in stream ecology, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego CA.

Hauet A, Creutin JD, Belleudy P (2008) Sensitivity study of large-scale particle image velocimetry measurement of river discharge using numerical simulation. J Hydrol 349(1):178-190

Herschy RW (2008). Streamflow measurement, 3rd edn. Taylor and Francis, USA & Canada.

Hidayat H, Vermeulen B, Sassi MG, Torfs PJJF, Hoitink AJF (2011) Discharge estimation in a backwater affected meandering river. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc 15(8):2717-2728

Houser JN, Mulholland PJ, Maloney KO (2006) Upland disturbance affects headwater stream nutrients and suspended sediments during base flow and storm flow. J Env Qual 35:352–365

Hu H, Huang J, Qian Z, Huai W, Yu G (2014) Hydraulic analysis of parabolic flume for flow measurement. J Flow Meas Instrum 37:54-64

Hudson JA (2004). The impact of sediment on open channel flow measurement in selected UK experimental basins.

J Flow Meas Instrum 15(1):49-58

Hudson NW (1993) Field measurement of soil erosion. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Hudson R, Fraser J (2005). Introduction to salt dilution gauging for streamflow measurement part IV: The mass balance (or dry injection) method. Streamline Watershed Manag Bull 9(1):6-12

Jun W, Bojie F, Yang Q, Liding C, Chen C, Baodong H (2005). The effect on landuse on runoff and soil nutrient losses in a gully catchment of the hilly areas: implications for erosion control. J Geogra Sc 15(4):396-404

Kim Y, Muste M, Hauet A, Krajewski WF, Kruger A, Bradley A (2008) Stream discharge using mobile large‐scale

particle image velocimetry: A proof of concept. Water Resour Res 44(9):1-6. doi:10.1029/2006WR005441

Koblinsky CJ, Clarke RT, Brenner AC, Frey H (1993) Measurement of river level variations with satellite altimetry. Water Resour Res 29(6):1839-1848 Kralik M, Pavuza R, Melikadze G (2015) Hydrogeological and Speleometeorological Dynamics of the Prometheus and Sataplia Show-Caves, Imereti, Georgia. J Georgian Geophys Soc 17(A):76-101

Kumar S, Singh R (2007). Erodibility studies under different land uses in north-west Himalayas. Jour Agric Physics 7:31-37

Legleiter CJ (2013) Mapping river depth from publicly available aerial images. River Res Appl 29(6):760-780

Mizunaga H, Tanaka T (2015). Three-Dimensional Inversion of Fluid Flow Electromagnetic Method to Visualize Geothermal Fluid Flow. Proceedings World Geothermal Congress. Melbourne, Australia, 19-25 April 2015.

Moore RD (2004) Introduction to salt dilution gauging for streamflow measurement: Part I Streamline Watershed Manag Bull 7(4):20-23

Mueller DS, Wagner CR (2009) Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat:

US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods.

Negi GCS, Joshi V (2004) Rainfall and spring discharge patterns in two small drainage catchments in the western Himalayan Indian. Environmentalist 24(1):19-28

Peterson M, Cromwell CF (1993) Measuring irrigation water in a ditch stream or reservoir. University of Missouri Extension.

Poulsen JB, Sebok E, Duque C, Tetzlaff D, Engesgaard PK (2014) Detecting groundwater discharge dynamics from point to catchment scale in a lowland stream: combining hydraulic and tracer methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sc Discus 11(12):13101-13143

Ramos MC, Quinton JN, Tyrrel SF (2006). Effects of cattle manure on erosion rates and runoff water pollution by faecal coliforms. J Environ Manage 78(1):97-101

Rehmel M (2007) Application of acoustic doppler velocimeters for streamflow measurements. J Hydraul Eng 133:1433–1438

Rickard C, Day R, Purseglove J (2003) River weirs – Good Practice Guide. R&D Publication, Bristol UK.

Roberts BJ, Mulholland PJ, Houser JN (2007) Effects of upland disturbance and in-stream restoration on hydrodynamics and ammonium uptake in headwater streams. J N Am Benthol Soc 26(1):38–53

Rutherford A, Leroux G, Senecal C, Boutin A, Madramootoo C (2004) Using quantitative methods to gather small streamflow data for habitat characterization. Rapport interne. Brace Center for Water Resources, McDonald College, Université McGill, Montréal.

Ryckborst H, Christie RO (1977) Feasibility of electromagnetic streamflow measurements using the earth's field.

Hydrol Sc J 22(2):241-255 Sharma E, Bhuchar S, Xing M, Kothyari BP (2007) Land use change and its impact on hydro-ecological linkages in Himalayan watersheds. Trop Ecol 48(2):151-161

Sharma P, Rai SC (2004) Streamflow sediment and carbon transport from a Himalayan watershed. J Hydrol 289:190-203

Singh P, Kumar A, Kumar N, Kishore N (2010) Hydro-meteorological correlations and relationships for estimating streamflow for Gangotri Glacier basin in Western Himalayas. Int J Water Res Environ Eng 2(3):60-69

Soupir ML, Mostaghimi S, Mitchem CE (2009) A comparative study of stream-gaging techniques for low-flow measurements in two Virginia tributaries. J Am Water Resour As 45(1):110-122

Stamhuis EJ (2006) Basics and principles of particle image velocimetry (PIV) for mapping biogenic and biologically relevant flows. Aquat Ecol 40(4):463-479

Tauro F, Porfiri M, Grimaldi S (2014) Orienting the camera and firing lasers to enhance large scale particle image velocimetry for streamflow monitoring. Water Resour Res 50(9):7470-7483

Tiwari T, Laudon H, Beven K, Ågren AM (2014) Downstream changes in DOC: Inferring contributions in the face of model uncertainties. Water Resour Res 50(1):514-525

Tobias CR, Harvey JW, Anderson IC (2001) Quantifying groundwater discharge through fringing wetlands to estuaries: seasonal variability methods comparison and implications for wetland-estuary exchange. Limnol Oceanogr 46(3):604-615

Tubman SC (2013) Spring Discharge Monitoring In Low-Resource Settings: A Case Study of Concepción Chiquirichapa, Guatemala. Thesis Submitted To Michigan Technological University.

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) (2001) Water measurement manual: a water resources technical publication. United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation.

Visbeck M (2001). Deep velocity profiling using lowered acoustic doppler current profilers: bottom track and

inverse solutions. J Atmos Ocean Tech 19:794-807

Weight WD, Sonderegger JL (2001) Manual of applied field hydrology. McGraw Hill Publishing Co, New York.

Wessels P, Rooseboom A (2009) Flow-gauging structures in South African rivers part 2: calibration. Water SA, 35(1):11-19

Woessner W (2000) Stream and fluvial groundwater interactions: rescaling hydrogeological thought. Ground Water 38(3):423-429

Xing M, Jianchu X, Jie Q (2008) Water resource management in a middle mountain watershed. Mt Res Dev 28(3/4):286–291 Xu K, Zhang J, Watanabe M, Sun C (2004) Estimating river discharge from very high-resolution satellite data: a case study in the Yangtze River China. Hydrol Process 18:1927–1939

Yang Z, Zhou Y, Wenninger J, Uhlenbrook S (2014) A multi-method approach to quantify groundwater/surface water-interactions in the semi-arid Hailiutu River basin, northwest China. Hydrogeol J 22(3):527-541

Yoder J (1999) Plumbing the depths of open-channel flow measurement. Control (Chicago, Ill) 12(7):61-65

Zhang Z, Zhang G, Zuo C, Pi X (2008) Hillslope soil erosion and runoff model for natural rainfall events. Acta Mech Sin 24:277–283