Nonstationarity of low flows and their timing in the eastern United States

Sadri, S.; Kam, J.; Sheffield, J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-633-2016

Articles | Volume 20, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-633-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-633-2016

© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 20, issue 2

Research article

|

08 Feb 2016

Research article |

| 08 Feb 2016

Nonstationarity of low flows and their timing in the eastern United States

S. Sadri, J. Kam, and J. Sheffield

Download

Final revised paper (published on 08 Feb 2016)
Preprint (discussion started on 05 Mar 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC C421: 'Some remarks on "Nonstationarity of low flows and their timing in the eastern United States"', Francesco Serinaldi, 05 Mar 2015
- AC C3629: 'Response to F. Serinaldi', Justin Sheffield, 12 Sep 2015
RC C1082: 'Anonymous referee review', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Apr 2015
- AC C2650: 'Response to referee comments', Justin Sheffield, 20 Jul 2015
RC C1175: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Apr 2015
- AC C2639: 'Response to referee comments', Justin Sheffield, 20 Jul 2015
RC C1227: 'Review of "Nonstationarity of low flows and their timing in the eastern United States" by Sadri et al.', Anonymous Referee #3, 23 Apr 2015
- AC C2628: 'Response to referee comments', Justin Sheffield, 20 Jul 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (01 Aug 2015) by Kerstin Stahl

AR by Justin Sheffield on behalf of the Authors (12 Sep 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 Sep 2015) by Kerstin Stahl

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Oct 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I have reviewed the changes that the authors made, based on my original comments. I believe that the changes to the methodology and the explanation of the methodology are well done. There are improvements to the description of data and metadata used in the study, but I still have a major problem with how some of the data/metadata are used.

I have extensive personal experience with USGS data collection techniques and don’t believe the authors have a good understanding of the way USGS collects and reports data and metadata, based on the use and interpretation of some of the metadata in their study.

-1- Change of base discharge and change of gauge datum do not indicate any change in flows or in measurement techniques. As I mentioned in my original review, “the ‘base discharge’ is a level set to allow 3-4 peaks per year on average to exceed this level. Instantaneous peaks above this level are then recorded. A ‘change of base discharge’ does not indicate any change in actual flows recorded or any anthropogenic change in watersheds above a gauge. “ This may have been unclear though, so I’ll add some more information. The base discharge level doesn’t affect USGS computation of flows, it only affects what gets reported as a peak above base discharge at a streamflow gauge. These peaks are sometimes used in peak-over-threshold studies (rather than using annual peaks). Change in base discharge should not be used in this study. It doesn’t indicate anything of use for the study and takes away from the other metadata, such as indicated regulation, that do mean something.

-2- Change in gauge datum also does not indicate any change in flows or change in measurement techniques. As I mentioned in my original review “The ‘change of gauge datum’ also does not indicate any change in flows or anthropogenic influence. It indicates only that the arbitrary zero gauge height for the rating curve has been changed, normally because of changes in the gauge control point on a river (the riffle or channel section that controls the relation between river height and flow at a gauge).”

To add more information, change in gauge datum does not represent a discontinuity in measurement techniques or flows. Just the opposite, it means that USGS is continually making flow measurements to verify the rating curve at a gauge. USGS has done this throughout its long history. Many control sections for gauges change because the riffle or channel controlling the relation between river height and flow can change over time. This is due primarily to channel/riffle changes, often caused by high flows. Sand channels are much less stable than bedrock channels. When a gauge datum is changed, it’s because the channel at the gauge (not necessarily other channel sections nearby) changed enough to bring the gauge height below the arbitrary zero point that was established when the gauge was created. The arbitrary zero point is then changed so there won’t be negative gauge heights, necessitating a change in the rating curve. There is no discontinuity of flow magnitudes on either side of this change. There is a discontinuity in the arbitrary height of flow that corresponds to the flows. This is not relevant change for your study. It would be relevant if trends over time in river heights were being studied.

There is a new statement in the report (p. 8, line 19) “Changes in the rating curve used to estimate streamflow from measured water levels are not recorded in the USGS notes but may be a significant source of variation in low flow values that is not accounted for”. This statement is not true. Changes in the rating curve are made to reflect the current relation between stream height and flow. As explained above, USGS regularly checks the rating curve to make sure the current relation is accurate. If the rating curve has changed based on coincident measurements of streamflow and river height, the rating curve is changed. Again this does not represent a discontinuity in the flow data. There would be a discontinuity in the flow data if this was not done regularly.

Change in gauge datum should not be used to classify trends. It is not a meaningful code for the purposes of the current study. I looked at the percentage of gauges noted as having change in datum, for the different categories in Table 1. Most of the categories (no trend, decreasing trend, increasing trend, etc.) have about 13% to 18% of gauges that had changed datums. In other words, all these groups have about the same percentage of gauges with changed datum. The exception is the “Step Change” category with only about 5% of gauges with a change in datum. This is likely explained by the fact that a lot of the change-of-datum gauges are in the mid-Atlantic region where there are a lot of sand channels (Figure 1), but there aren’t many step changes in this area (Figure 2).

This paper would be strengthened by using the metadata in the interpretation of results that has meaning (such as indicators of regulation) and removing ones with no meaning (change in base discharge and change in gauge datum) in all locations in the article. All text, tables, and figures that reference these two metadata codes should be changed to remove them from the study.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (26 Oct 2015)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (02 Nov 2015) by Kerstin Stahl

AR by Justin Sheffield on behalf of the Authors (26 Nov 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (16 Jan 2016) by Kerstin Stahl

AR by Justin Sheffield on behalf of the Authors (18 Jan 2016) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

Low flows are a critical part of the river flow regime but little is known about how they are changing in response to human influences and climate. We analyzed low flow records across the eastern US and identified sites that were minimally influenced by human activities. We found a general increasing trend in low flows across the northeast and decreasing trend across the southeast that are likely driven by changes in climate. The results have implications for how we manage our water resources.