Geology topics

Stephanie K. Kampf

Publications and source records attributed to Stephanie K. Kampf.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2024

Streamflow timing and magnitude during snow drought depend on snow drought type and regional hydroclimate

Communities around the world rely on snowmelt to meet water demands, and periods of lower than normal snow accumulation, snow droughts, can decrease water supplies. Leveraging 172 minimally disturbed and seasonally snow-covered watersheds, we developed an approach to examine the effects of cool & dry, warm & dry, and warm & wet snow droughts on streamflow timing and magnitude by hydrologic region. Our results showed all types of snow droughts in all regions correlate with lower annual streamflow, lower maximum and minimum flows, and lower runoff ratios, with more numerous low flow days and earlier streamflow timing. However, departures from non-snow drought conditions differed substantially between drought types and regions. Consecutive snow droughts further reduced runoff ratios and increased low flow days, likely due to additional subsurface storage depletion. With warm snow drought occurrence expected to increase, we discuss impacts for water management systems whose design specifications may not reflect the changing hydroclimate.

Hydrological Sciences Journal↗

USGS2023

High resolution SnowModel simulations reveal future elevation-dependent snow loss and earlier, flashier surface water input for the Upper Colorado River Basin

Continued climate warming is reducing seasonal snowpacks in the western United States, where >50% of historical water supplies were snowmelt-derived. In the Upper Colorado River Basin, declining snow water equivalent (SWE) and altered surface water input (SWI, rainfall and snowmelt available to enter the soil) timing and magnitude affect streamflow generation and water availability. To adapt effectively to future conditions, we need to understand current spatiotemporal distributions of SWE and SWI and how they may change in future decades. We developed 100-m SnowModel simulations for water years 2001–2013 and two scenarios: control (CTL) and pseudo-global-warming (PGW). The PGW fraction of precipitation falling as snow was lower relative to CTL, except for November–April at high elevations. PGW peak SWE was lower for low (−45%) and mid elevations (−14%), while the date of peak SWE was uniformly earlier in the year for all elevations (17–23 days). Currently unmonitored high elevation snow represented a greater fraction of total PGW SWE. PGW peak daily SWI was higher for all elevations (30%–42%), while the dates of SWI peaks and centroids were earlier in the year for all elevations under PGW. PGW displayed elevated winter SWI, lower summer SWI, and changes in spring SWI timing were elevation-dependent. Although PGW peak SWI was elevated and earlier compared to CTL, SWI was more evenly distributed throughout the year for PGW. These simulated shifts in the timing and magnitude of SWE and SWI have broad implications for water management in dry, snow-dominated regions.

Colorado↗

USGS2022

Urbanization of grasslands in the Denver area affects streamflow responses to rainfall events

A thorough understanding of how urbanization affects stream hydrology is crucial for effective and sustainable water management, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regions. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of changes in streamflow response to rainfall events across a rural to urban gradient in the semi-arid area of Denver, Colorado. We used 8 years of April to October instantaneous streamflow data in 21 watersheds ranging in size from 0.8 to 90 km 2 and with impervious areas ranging from 1% to 47%. With these data, we applied a semi-automated method to identify a total of 2877 streamflow responses, which were analysed for event-based metrics of peak flow, runoff depth, runoff to rainfall ratio, time to peak, duration and number of streamflow responses to rainfall events. We also determined whether streamflow responses could be predicted by a precipitation threshold. Watersheds with >10% impervious cover had a precipitation threshold of 1–2 mm/hr needed to produce a streamflow response, compared to thresholds of 4–36 mm/hr for watersheds with less than 10% impervious surface cover. This lower precipitation threshold in more impervious watersheds led to more frequent streamflow responses. On average, streamflow responses had shorter duration and higher peak flows in watersheds with more impervious surface cover. In contrast to other regions, runoff depth, runoff to rainfall ratio and time to peak either gave mixed results or did not vary significantly with imperviousness. These alterations in streamflow response to rainfall events indicate the specific ways that urban development changes how streams respond to rain events in a semi-arid setting. This work points to the need for local adaptation of stormwater management to mitigate the effects of streamflow changes with urbanization.

Colorado↗

USGS2021

Pervasive changes in stream intermittency across the United States

Non-perennial streams are widespread, critical to ecosystems and society, and the subject of ongoing policy debate. Prior large-scale research on stream intermittency has been based on long-term averages, generally using annually aggregated data to characterize a highly variable process. As a result, it is not well understood if, how, or why the hydrology of non-perennial streams is changing. Here, we investigate trends and drivers of three intermittency signatures that describe the duration, timing, and dry-down period of stream intermittency across the continental United States (CONUS). Half of gages exhibited a significant trend through time in at least one of the three intermittency signatures, and changes in no-flow duration were most pervasive (41% of gages). Changes in intermittency were substantial for many streams, and 7% of gages exhibited changes in annual no-flow duration exceeding 100 days during the study period. Distinct regional patterns of change were evident, with widespread drying in southern CONUS and wetting in northern CONUS. These patterns are correlated with changes in aridity, though drivers of spatiotemporal variability were diverse across the three intermittency signatures. While the no-flow timing and duration were strongly related to climate, dry-down period was most strongly related to watershed land use and physiography. Our results indicate that non-perennial conditions are increasing in prevalence over much of CONUS and binary classifications of 'perennial' and 'non-perennial' are not an accurate reflection of this change. Water management and policy should reflect the changing nature and diverse drivers of changing intermittency both today and in the future.

Environmental Research Letters↗

USGS2021

Beyond streamflow: Call for a national data repository of streamflow presence for streams and rivers in the United States

Observations of the presence or absence of surface water in streams are useful for characterizing streamflow permanence, which includes the frequency, duration, and spatial extent of surface flow in streams and rivers. Such data are particularly valuable for headwater streams, which comprise the vast majority of channel length in stream networks, are often non-perennial, and are frequently the most data deficient. Datasets of surface water presence exist across multiple data collection groups in the United States but are not well aligned for easy integration. Given the value of these data, a unified approach for organizing information on surface water presence and absence collected by diverse surveys would facilitate more effective and broad application of these data and address the gap in streamflow data in headwaters. In this paper, we highlight the numerous existing datasets on surface water presence in headwater streams, including recently developed crowdsourcing approaches. We identify the challenges of integrating multiple surface water presence/absence datasets that include differences in the definitions and categories of streamflow status, data collection method, spatial and temporal resolution, and accuracy of geographic location. Finally, we provide a list of critical and useful components that could be used to integrate different streamflow permanence datasets.

Water↗

USGS2021

Spatial patterns and drivers of nonperennial flow regimes in the contiguous United States

Over half of global rivers and streams lack perennial flow, and understanding the distribution and drivers of their flow regimes is critical for understanding their hydrologic, biogeochemical, and ecological functions. We analyzed nonperennial flow regimes using 540 U.S. Geological Survey watersheds across the contiguous United States from 1979 to 2018. Multivariate analyses revealed regional differences in no-flow fraction, date of first no flow, and duration of the dry-down period, with further divergence between natural and human-altered watersheds. Aridity was a primary driver of no-flow metrics at the continental scale, while unique combinations of climatic, physiographic and anthropogenic drivers emerged at regional scales. Dry-down duration showed stronger associations with nonclimate drivers compared to no-flow fraction and timing. Although the sparse distribution of nonperennial gages limits our understanding of such streams, the watersheds examined here suggest the important role of aridity and land cover change in modulating future stream drying.

contiguous United States↗

USGS2021

Managing nonperennial headwater streams in temperate forests of the United States

Forest management guidelines are designed to protect water quality from unintended effects of land use changes such as timber harvest, mining, or forest road construction. Although streams that periodically cease to flow (nonperennial) drain the majority of forested areas, these streams are not consistently included in forest management guidelines. This paper reviews management guidelines for nonperennial (intermittent and ephemeral) streams draining temperate forests in the continental U.S., evaluates potential impacts of land use activities on ecosystem services provided by these streams, and identifies information needed to incorporate nonperennial streams into water quality protection practices. For federally administered lands, national management guidance is deliberately nonprescriptive, deferring to regional and forest-level recommendations for both perennial and nonperennial streams. Most state guidelines recommend riparian management zone (RMZ) protection for perennial streams (48/50 states) and intermittent streams (45/50 states), but only Alaska and West Virginia require RMZs around ephemeral streams. Based on the National Hydrography Dataset, an average of 58% of forested land area in the U.S. drains to nonperennial headwater streams, making these stream types the most common connectors between forested lands and the aquatic system. Land uses that modify flow regimes in these streams can affect sediment and organic matter transport and distribution, stream temperature dynamics, and biogeochemical processing. Nonperennial streams also provide material subsidies to downstream waters and serve as temporary habitats for some aquatic species. However, limited research has examined how forest land uses affect ecosystem services and biota in these streams. Therefore we highlight a set of key questions about nonperennial streams in forests, not the least of which is simply understanding where headwater stream channels are located and associated patterns of flow duration. Although many questions remain, we also note where recent advances in data collection, modeling and process-level research provide opportunities to resolve uncertainties around nonperennial streams in forested landscapes of the continental U.S.

Forest Ecology and Management↗

USGS2020

Sub-annual streamflow responses to rainfall and snowmelt inputs in snow-dominated watersheds of the western U.S.

Streamflow generation in mountain watersheds is strongly influenced by snow accumulation and melt, and multiple studies have found that snow loss leads to earlier snowmelt timing and declines in annual streamflow. However, hydrologic responses to snow loss are heterogeneous, and not all areas experience streamflow declines. This research examines whether streamflow generation is different for rainfall versus snowmelt inputs. We compiled a sample of 57 small U.S. Geological Survey watersheds in the western United States containing a Natural Resource Conservation Service Snow Telemetry site and having ratios of mean annual peak snow water equivalent to precipitation ratios >0.25. Daily streamflow was separated into quickflow and baseflow using a digital filter, and quickflow was then divided into quickflow response intervals using thresholds in quickflow slope. Each quickflow response interval was categorized by its fraction of input from snowmelt. Most sites exhibited two streamflow generation peaks each year, with one peak in the winter when runoff efficiency is greatest, and the second in the spring during peak snowmelt input. On average, study watersheds were dominated by snowmelt inputs (70%), and snowmelt and mixed inputs usually generated greater streamflow than rainfall because of higher inputs and longer durations. However, rainfall produced high streamflow generation in winter, when watersheds have their highest runoff efficiency (81%) across all input types. We demonstrate that while snowmelt is important for streamflow generation due to high input over long periods, increases in rain and mixed input during wet winter periods can countervail tendencies for reduced streamflow with declining snowpacks.

Water Resources Research↗

USGS2020

Zero or not? Causes and consequences of zero-flow stream gage readings

Streamflow observations can be used to understand, predict, and contextualize hydrologic, ecological, and biogeochemical processes and conditions in streams. Stream gages are point measurements along rivers where streamflow is measured, and are often used to infer upstream watershed‐scale processes. When stream gages read zero, this may indicate that the stream has dried at this location; however, zero‐flow readings can also be caused by a wide range of other factors. Our ability to identify whether or not a zero‐flow gage reading indicates a dry fluvial system has far reaching environmental implications. Incorrect identification and interpretation by the data user can lead to inaccurate hydrologic, ecological, and/or biogeochemical predictions from models and analyses. Here, we describe several causes of zero‐flow gage readings: frozen surface water, flow reversals, instrument error, and natural or human‐driven upstream source losses or bypass flow. For these examples, we discuss the implications of zero‐flow interpretations. We also highlight additional methods for determining flow presence, including direct observations, statistical methods, and hydrologic models, which can be applied to interpret causes of zero‐flow gage readings and implications for reach‐ and watershed‐scale dynamics. Such efforts are necessary to improve our ability to understand and predict surface flow activation, cessation, and connectivity across river networks. Developing this integrated understanding of the wide range of possible meanings of zero‐flows will only attain greater importance in a more variable and changing hydrologic climate.

WIREs Water↗