Streamflow Naturalization Methods: a Review Morgane Terriera, Charles Perrina, Alban De Lavenneb, Vazken Andréassiana, Julien Leratc and Jai Vazed
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1839080 Streamflow naturalization methods: a review Morgane Terriera, Charles Perrina, Alban de Lavenneb, Vazken Andréassiana, Julien Leratc and Jai Vazed aUR HYCAR, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, Antony, France; bHydrology Department, SMHI, Norrköping, Sweden; cWater Resources Modelling Unit, Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, ACT, Australia; dBlack Mountain Laboratories, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Over the past few decades, several naturalization methods have been developed for removing Received 3 July 2019 anthropogenic influences from streamflow time series, to the point that naturalized flows are often Accepted 14 September 2020 considered true natural flows in many studies. However, such trust in a particular naturalization EDITOR method does not expose the assumptions underlying the method, nor does it quantifies the A. Castellarin associated uncertainty. This review provides an overview of streamflow naturalization approaches. The terminology associated with naturalization is discussed, and a classification of naturalization ASSOCIATE EDITOR methods according to their data requirements and main assumptions is proposed. A large set of P. van Oel studies developing or applying naturalization methods are reviewed, and the main challenges KEYWORDS associated with the methods applied are assessed. To give a more concrete example, a focus is naturalization methods; made on studies conducted in France over the last decade, which applied naturalization methods streamflow; human to estimate water extraction limits in rivers. influences; impacted catchments; uncertainty; hydrological modelling 1 Introduction Reference hydrologic networks (RHNs), using reference high-quality flow observation, can also be used. They have 1.1 Natural, influenced and naturalized flows been established in several countries (Burn et al. 2012, Humans have fundamentally affected the continental hydro Whitfield et al. 2012). The gauging stations are selected for logical cycle through the impoundment of rivers, land-use having stable land-use conditions in upstream catchment, no changes, water extractions and the long-term effects of cli significantregulation, enough record length, active data collec mate change (Dynesius and Nilsson 1994, Vörösmarty and tion, high data quality and adequate metadata (Whitfield et al. Sahagian 2000, Steffen et al. 2011, Vidal 2019). Since the 2012). They represent how catchments respond to climate 1950s, there has been phenomenal growth of human enter variability and serve as reference for hydrological trends prise, which resulted in an exponential increase in the num induced by climate-driven changes and in studies at the regio ber of large dams and water consumption (Steffenet al. 2015). nal scale. These human influencescontinue to have a significantimpact In this article, we will focus on the naturalization methods. on observed river flows, which will be qualified as “influ They use various sources of information depending on their enced” in the rest of this paper. As highlighted by the Panta availability, typically observed influenced flows, volumes Rhei decade launched by the International Association of linked to human influences, flows observed before or after Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) in 2013, knowledge of the the period of influence, or flows free from influence at the interactions between humans and water remains limited regional scale. Naturalization methods are all based on models, (Montanari et al. 2013). Therefore the natural and anthro some of which are very crude (typically a water balance equa pogenic parts of the observed flows need to be distinguished tion) while others are more complex and comprehensive. (Littlewood and Marsh 1996). Anthropogenic is understood Hydrological models, representing the rainfall–runoffrelation here as relating to or resulting from the influence of human ship at the catchment scale, or routing models, representing beings on nature (Merriam-Webster, 2020). the upstream-downstream flow propagation, are commonly In the case of existing human influences upstream of used in naturalization methods. In cases of data on influences a gauging station, observed flowsare generated both by natural that are insufficient or too coarse, models may also be needed processes and human activities. Therefore natural flowscannot to generate information on these human-induced influences. be directly measured and must be estimated. They can be estimated thanks to naturalization methods. In cases where 1.2 Why do we need natural flows? there are human influences, dedicated methods have to be applied to retrieve the natural flow regime from influenced As noted by the Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (MPO flow in a target basin. The natural flow estimates are then 2013), the flow of a river is the main variable that connects called naturalized flows. ecosystem components along a river corridor via hydrological, biological, geomorphological and water quality processes. As CONTACT Charles Perrin [email protected] © 2020 INRAE 2 M. TERRIER ET AL. a result, natural flow can typically be used as a reference to agencies to protect, restore or rehabilitate rivers can be linked estimate hydrological response to climate regime, to evaluate to components of the natural flow regime (Poff et al. 1997). the ecological state of a river (Poff et al. 1997) and to estimate Two of the main approaches to obtain an environmental flow the quantity of water available. Here we detail three domains regime are linked to the natural flow regime (Acreman and for which natural flowsare needed and naturalization methods Dunbar 2004): the look-up tables approach is based on the can therefore be helpful. statistical properties of the natural flowregime and the desktop analysis approach is based on the natural seasonality and 1.2.1 Ecological impact assessment variability of flows. These methods, failing to have access to Naturalization methods contribute to the evaluation of anthro observed natural flow, use a naturalized flow regime. pogenic impacts on ecosystems. Comparing naturalized In a regulation context, management of water resources is streamflows against influenced streamflows provides a way to essential to satisfy the supply of drinking water, preserve the assess the anthropogenic impact on the natural environment ecological status of the aquatic environment, limit the negative (Poff et al. 1997, Rahman and Bowling 2018). The degree of consequences of floods and droughts, and provide water for alteration corresponds to the difference between naturalized different economic needs such as industry, agriculture, fishing and observed streamflows (Jacobson and Galat 2008), or the and electricity (European Commission 1997). From this per difference between indicators computed on these streamflows spective, naturalized flow can be used to simulate different (Richter et al. 1996). These indicators include the magnitude of water management scenarios and the impact of these scenarios monthly flows, magnitude and duration of annual extreme on the quantity of available water (Desconnets et al. 1998, floods, timing of annual extreme floods, frequency and dura Dunn and Ferrier 1999, Wurbs 2006, Maurel et al. 2008, Kim tion of high and low pulses, and rate and frequency of flow and Wurbs 2011). changes (Fernández et al. 2012, Birkel et al. 2014, Laizé et al. Naturalization methods also constitute one of the funda 2014, De Girolamo et al. 2015, Fantin-Cruz et al. 2015, Ryo mental elements supporting water management policies. For et al. 2015). example, the Water Framework Directive typically appeals to The classical approach to quantify the degree of alteration natural conditions to define the natural status of a river consists in using the observed natural flow from a pre- (Bouleau and Pont 2015). In France, naturalization methods influence period. However, if these observations are not avail are used to estimate maximum water extractions sustaining able or of a too short duration to give a robust estimates of environmental flows (Fabre et al. 2016). In the UK, the hydrological indicators (Fantin-Cruz et al. 2015), naturaliza Environmental Agency developed guidelines to provide nat tion methods can provide an estimation of natural flow based uralized low-flow statistics to enable regulators to make licen on data from the influenced period only. Moreover, observed sing decisions (Bullock et al. 1991, Holmes et al. 2002, Young natural flows over the pre-influence period may not be repre et al. 2003). These results make it possible, in particular, to sentative of the climate and physical conditions of the influ define the maximum possible withdrawals to maintain good enced period due to natural evolution and variability. ecological status (Acreman et al. 2008). Consequently, they may not be exploitable for human impact studies. Naturalization methods also make it possible to sepa 1.2.3 Climate impact issue rate the impact due to anthropogenic pressures (local or regio In a context of climate change, many studies prefer to focus nal) and the impact caused by climate change, and to quantify on projections of “natural streamflow,” even in heavily influ them. The anthropogenic impact corresponds to the difference enced rivers, because it would be too complex to address the between the naturalized and observed streamflow during issues of climate change and water-use changes at the same the