Climate-Adaptive Water Year Typing for Instream Flow

Requirements in California’s Sierra Nevada

David E. Rheinheimer, A.M.ASCE 1; Sarah E. Null 2; and Joshua H. Viers 3

Abstract: Water year types (WYTs), whereby years are classified by river runoff quantity compared to historical runoff, are one tool to help
make major water management decisions. Increasingly, these decisions include instream flow requirements (IFRs) below dams for river
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ecosystem management. However, WYTs are typically based on assumptions of stationarity, and are thus rendered less meaningful with
climate change. Hydrologic alteration resulting from climate change means that a WYT-based IFR scheme using stationary historical ob-
servations might inadvertently result in long-term river management outcomes inconsistent with original water management goals. This study
assesses the management implications of assuming hydrologic nonstationarity in a WYT-based IFR scheme in California’s upper Yuba River
and demonstrates a rolling period of record as a climate adaptation strategy. The existing, nonadaptive water management scheme leads to
vastly different possible water allocation outcomes than originally planned for. Results indicate that water year types, if regularly updated, can
help maintain historical instream flow distributions. However, gains toward maintaining desired IFRs are obfuscated by future increases in
unmanaged reservoir spill. These findings indicate that hydroclimatic uncertainty can partially be accounted for with simple modifications to
existing operating rules for reservoirs, though other, risk-based management approaches are also likely needed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)WR
.1943-5452.0000693. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Climate change; Water resources management; Adaptation; Hydropower; Environmental flows.

Introduction
Nonstationary hydrology resulting from climate change means that
solely using the historical record for long-term water planning and
management is increasingly inadequate (e.g., Jiménez Cisneros
et al. 2014; Milly et al. 2008; Stakhiv 1998). To account for this,
researchers and practitioners are identifying climate risks and de-
veloping climate-adaptive water management rules. Management
practices that adapt to climatic changes can help maintain a more
predictable, more equitable, and more beneficial distribution of a
wide range of water system conditions compared to nonadaptive
practices (Georgakakos 2012). Although there are positive signs
that water management policy is moving toward broad scale inte-
gration of climate change adaptation, there remains a wide gap
in many instances between the scientific consensus and manage-
ment practice (Null and Viers 2013; Viers 2011). Not including
climate change in water planning might result in unintended con-
sequences, such as unmet management objectives.
While climate adaptation studies have traditionally focused on
human water uses, adaptation is equally needed for managing water
for ecosystems. Both human water development and climate
change are major threats to global freshwater biodiversity, the for-
mer from globally aggregated local effects and the latter from
alteration of the Earth’s hydrologic regimes (Heino et al. 2009;
1
Postdoctoral Researcher, School of Engineering, Univ. of
California, Merced, Merced, CA 95343 (corresponding author). E-mail:
drheinheimer@ucmerced.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Watershed Sciences, Utah State Univ.,
Logan, UT 84322. E-mail: sarah.null@usu.edu
3
Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Univ. of California,
Merced, Merced, CA 95343. E-mail: jviers@ucmerced.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 22, 2015; approved
on April 28, 2016; published online on July 12, 2016. Discussion period
open until December 12, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9496.
Poff et al. 2007; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010; Vörösmarty et al.
2010; Xenopoulos et al. 2005). These threats affect unregulated
and regulated rivers alike (Null et al. 2013a; Palmer et al. 2008;
Rheinheimer and Viers 2015; Xenopoulos et al. 2005). Efforts
to curtail environmentally harmful effects of water development
include provisioning environmental flows (e-flows) to help main-
tain downstream ecosystems (Petts 2009).
In contrast to climate change adaptation studies for traditional
water management for human use, an area that has been well-
studied, studies that assess climate change and e-flows jointly
are rare. Wilby et al. (2011) demonstrated that a smarter scheme
for streamflow abstractions for water supply, whereby instantane-
ous flow thresholds limit abstractions, can reduce the risk of not
meeting e-flow targets under drier conditions. However, Wilby et al.
(2011) focused solely on meeting low season flow targets, without
considering the flow regime as a whole. Fung et al. (2013) exam-
ined the implications of nonstationary hydrology with specific
e-flows rules, noting that “abstraction rules established today
may set the pattern for abstraction for several decades.” In address-
ing this, Fung et al. (2013) used ensemble climate projections to
assess the potential effect of climate change and flow augmentation
on e-flow targets in a regulated river with three different abstraction
schemes (natural flow, business-as-usual, and full abstractions) in
southern England. The rules considered in these e-flows case stud-
ies, while responsive to environmental conditions, do not account
for changing information about hydrologic and socioeconomic in-
formation through time, an important characteristic, among others,
of a truly adaptive water management scheme (Georgakakos 2012),
and hence are not truly adaptive.
Water year types (WYTs) are discretized indicators of water
availability and are often used for water allocation purposes, such
as water delivery or environmental flow allocations. WYTs are typ-
ically defined by comparing forecasted or observed total annual
runoff from a river basin against specified flow thresholds, with
thresholds defined based on the distribution of historical runoff ob-
servations. These comparisons are translated to descriptive WYTs

© ASCE 04016049-1 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049

 (e.g., “dry” through “wet”), which are then used in allocation rules.
Water managers typically assume stationary hydrology when defin-
ing and applying WYTs by relying on fixed runoff thresholds.
However, distributions of WYT frequencies will necessarily
change as climate change alters runoff volume and timing if thresh-
olds remain static.
The use and misuse of WYTs, including exclusion of climate
change in their design and application, is exemplified in California,
where WYTs are used for major human and environmental water
management decisions. For example, the California State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (1999) Water Right Decision
1641 (Revised) (D-1641; SWRCB 1999) and the later U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (2008) Biological Opinion (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2008) both use WYTs for specifying
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
minimum flows for water quantity and/or quality objectives in the
Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, and both implicitly assume hydro-
logic stationarity. Many similar examples exist. In examining these
issues for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, Null and Viers
(2013) found that WYT distributions are expected to change with
warming and that environmental water uses are disproportionately
vulnerable to climate change if WYT definitions remain fixed by
static numerical runoff thresholds, potentially harming river eco-
systems. Adapting to climate change by regularly updating WYT
definitions to maintain historical WYT distributions can more
equitably allocate flows between water users. This paper extends
Null and Viers (2013) for environmental flow distributions and
high-elevation hydropower.
Climate change has also been categorically and explicitly omit-
ted from hydropower licenses in the United States, which usually
include instream flow requirements. This has implications beyond
the potential environmental consequences discussed above. Hydro-
power licenses in the United States are issued by the U.S. Federal
Regulatory Commission (FERC) for 30–50 years, after which they
must be renewed. Due to pressure from environmental interest
groups and government mandates, instream flow requirements have
become increasingly more ecologically beneficial, by design. How-
ever, the lack of climate change in licensing policy potentially
undermines both intended environmental flow improvements and
even the central purpose of a license, which is long-term opera-
tional certainty (Viers 2011).
The objectives of this study were to understand the implications
of assuming hydrologic stationarity in a WYT-based water alloca-
tion scheme for a high-elevation hydropower system in the Sierra
Nevada, California, and to better understand the potential for adapt-
ing management rules to account for hydrologic nonstationarity.
As stakeholder negotiations are the main mechanism for defining
water allocation schemes during the FERC relicensing process,
final allocation schemes reflect some trade-off between environ-
mental, economic, and other interests. In this context, several
assumptions are made. First, environmental stakeholders have in-
fluence over water allocations. Second, environmental stakeholders
consider hydrological characteristics, such as frequency of WYTs,
when developing environmental allocation rules, and implicitly or
explicitly assume hydrologic stationarity. Third, environmental al-
locations such as IFRs are legally prioritized over other uses when
implementing the FERC license. Finally, all stakeholders seek to
maintain or improve conditions that affect their respective manage-
ment domains, implying a long-term environmental goal of limiting
uncertain and potentially ecologically harmful hydrologic change.
Thus, historical IFRs were used, including the distribution of the
WYTs on which they depend, to represent desired future condi-
tions, even if these may not be ecologically ideal and could change
in future negotiations. Given these assumptions and implications,
this paper asks the following questions:
© ASCE 04016049-2
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049
• As WYT distributions change, are environmental and human
water allocation objectives maintained?
• More broadly, how does water allocation to different water uses
shift with changing conditions? and
• How might alternative WYT adaptation strategies explicitly
maintain allocations to different water uses under changing
conditions?
To answer these questions, a hydrology model forced with
representative downscaled climate data was developed. Then, a
monthly hydropower system optimization model was developed
and applied with different climate-adaptive management schemes
and hydroclimate scenarios. The study focused on California’s
Yuba River basin, where WYT classes and water allocations are
well-defined for upper basin operations. The case study is first de-
scribed, including modeling methods, climate change scenario data
and selection, and management schemes, including the current non-
adaptive scheme and two climate-adaptive schemes. Second, the
hydroclimatic effects on WYTs and IFR allocations in the upper
Yuba River are assessed, assuming the current, nonadaptive IFR
scheme is used. Incongruities in regional WYT schemes are also
described. Third, the two climate-adaptive schemes are applied
using the optimization model and water allocation outcomes are
described. Finally, implications of the findings are discussed and
future management and research needs are suggested.
Case Study: Yuba River, Sierra Nevada
California’s Yuba River basin (Fig. 1) has complex hydropower
operations and ongoing salmon recovery efforts, providing a useful
case study to explore WYTs, IFRs, and climate change adaptation.
This study focuses on the upper Yuba basin, where water is diverted
via a series of medium-sized reservoirs (storage:inflow ratios of
0.3–1.3) to the adjacent Bear River basin for hydropower genera-
tion and water supply (Rheinheimer et al. 2013). Historically, envi-
ronmental flows consisted of constant instream flow requirements
of 0.09–0.14 m3 =s, depending on location, below each reservoir.
Recent negotiations for better instream flow requirements in the
South Fork Yuba River below Spaulding Dam (SFY) (Fig. 1) have
resulted in an IFR scheme whereby minimum instream flows de-
pend on WYTs that are defined with static annual runoff thresholds,
based on an estimate of unimpaired runoff in the greater Yuba River
called the Yuba River Index (YRI) (U.S. Forest Service 2012)
(Fig. 2). The YRI is calculated from estimated unimpaired annual
runoff on the mainstem Yuba River about 80 river-km below the
SFY flow requirement location and below the confluence of all
major branches of the Yuba River. The YRI and, therefore, the
WYT, is updated on the 15th of each month. In October–February,
the YRI is based on the previous water year’s estimated unimpaired
runoff. In March–April, it is calculated from year-to-date
(October 1 through estimation date) plus forecasted year-to-go
(estimation date through September 30) unimpaired runoff. For
May–September, it is calculated from year-to-date plus year-to-
go unimpaired runoff as estimated in May. Because the WYT
can change through the year as the YRI is updated, IFR releases
can too.
Hydropower and Hydrology Modeling
The Bear River hydropower complex, which comprises 10 power-
plants, was represented as a single composite plant with a head
of 957 m and efficiency of 100% (Rheinheimer et al. 2013). Hydro-
power operations were represented with a monthly version of the
weekly time step, revenue-maximizing, mixed integer linear pro-
gramming (MILP) optimization model of the upper Yuba River
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Upper Yuba basin and its water diversion scheme (reprinted from Rheinheimer et al. 2013, Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

system described by Rheinheimer et al. (2013). The objective of the
MILP model was to maximize revenue from hydropower
generation. The MILP model was modified to run using a rolling
12-month period at the beginning of each month, allowing the pos-
sibility of conditional updating of operational rules and imperfect
foresight.
A deregulated, market-driven electricity system was assumed,
whereby the hydropower operator responds to wholesale electric-
ity prices to make release decisions, with greater releases when
electricity prices are higher. To maximize hydropower generation,
the MILP model used linearized electricity price nonexceedance
curves (Madani and Lund 2009; Olivares and Lund 2012;
Rheinheimer et al. 2013). Historical hourly day ahead market
prices for a single year from the California Independent System
Operator were used, with year 2007 selected for its relative stability
compared to other years with available price data (Rheinheimer
et al. 2013).
System infrastructure characteristics, such as reservoir and diver-
sion channel capacities, were from publicly available documents,
particularly FERC relicensing documents (Nevada Irrigation
District 2006; Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2007). The MILP
model was implemented using the General Algebraic Modeling
System (GAMS) and the CBC optimization solver.
To mimic imperfect foresight, in each 12-month optimization
period future inflows were estimated from modeled monthly snow
accumulation and runoff data. Snow accumulation and runoff were
from a hydrologic model developed for the western Sierra Nevada
with the Water Evaluation and Planning System (WEAP) (Yates
et al. 2005; Young et al. 2009), modified and recalibrated for the
daily time step with PEST (Doherty 2010) using reconstructed his-
torical flows from the system licensee (DTA Sacramento 2007).
Calibration was from 1984 to 1988 and validation was from
1989 to 1999, both of which included a range of year types. Cal-
ibration resulted in monthly Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (Nash and
Sutcliffe 1970) of 0.67 and percent bias (Moriasi et al. 2007) of
−4.7% for the Yuba River. From October through January, year-
to-go (through September) monthly inflows were from median
monthly runoff for the period-of-record (which may be updated,
depending on the updating scheme described later). From February
through June, year-to-go median monthly inflows were scaled

© ASCE 04016049-3 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049

 Instream flow requirement (m 3/s) 7000

Upper threshold (mcm)

3.0
6000 >3997
2.5 3997
2.0 5000
4000 2701
1.5
1.0 3000 1801
1110
0.5 2000 759
0.0 1000
0
ECD CD D BN AN W
(a) E ECD CD D BN AN W (b) Water Year Type

Fig. 2. Current (a) water year type-based instream flow requirements in the South Fork Yuba River; (b) upper annual runoff thresholds (million cubic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

meters, mcm) used to define water year types; water year types (WYTs) include emergency (E), extreme critically dry (ECD), critically dry (CD), dry
(D), below normal (BN), above normal (AN), and wet (W); emergency conditions are based on more than WYT, so are omitted from panel (b)

based on a regression between modeled snow accumulation and distribution of WYTs. Representative observed historical distribu-
modeled year-to-go inflow. In August and September, perfect tions were from the hydrology model forced with the meteorologi-
year-to-go foresight was assumed. In all cases, median monthly cal dataset from Livneh et al. (2015) to span a longer period of
runoff was used for the following water year (i.e., after September). record (1950–2009) than the dataset used in calibration.

Management Schemes
Three WYT-based IFR schemes were considered. The first scheme
entailed no adaptation. The second two adaptively redefined the
WYT definition thresholds to maintain the historical WYT distri-
bution to satisfy environmental objectives, as discussed earlier,
based on changing hydroclimatic knowledge. The schemes were
as follows:
1. Base-case scheme (BCS): This consisted of the existing WYT
scheme, calibrated to ensure equal WYT distributions across hy-
drologic datasets during the historical period (1950–2010).
WYT definitions are never updated;
2. Adaptive, with historical WYT distribution (AHD): In this
scheme, WYT thresholds are updated every 5 years with a roll-
ing, retrospective 50-year period of record to maintain the his-
torical distribution of WYTs. This scheme thereby incorporates
the latest available hydrologic information into the IFR scheme
by regularly re-defining a retrospective new normal; and
3. Adaptive, with historical WYT distribution and future hydrol-
ogy (AHDF): This scheme is the same as AHD, yet with the
50-year rolling period of record spanning both past (30 years)
and future (20 years) periods to better represent current climate
conditions. The latter time frame is suggested by Wilby et al.
(2009) for both the greater certainty in climatic trends and
the length of typical planning horizons.
Because the hydrologic time series for each climate scenario
is unique, even during the historical period, the historical
WYT thresholds were adjusted to match the observed historical
Climate Projections and Time Periods
The hydrology model was forced with meteorological data (air
temperature, precipitation, and relative humidity) downscaled
from general circulation models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) (Knutti and Sedláček
2013; Taylor et al. 2012). Downscaled meteorological data based
on these GCMs was obtained from the CMIP5 hydroclimate a
rchive (Brekke et al. 2013), and prepared using bias-corrected con-
structed analogues (Maurer et al. 2010). Four GCMs forced with
representative concentration pathways of þ8.5 W=m2 (RCP8.5)
were selected for representation of regional meteorology and range
of conditions (Table 1). All GCMs except the drier-future (MIROC-
ESM) were selected specifically for El Niño-Southern Oscillation
(ENSO) representation (Rupp et al. 2013), a dominant hydrocli-
matic driver in California. Climate change projections through
2099 anticipate a steady increase in regional temperatures, yet
reveal great uncertainty about future precipitation; projected
2050–2099 mean temperatures and precipitation are about þ2 to
3°C and −8.5 to þ35.5%, respectively, compared to the projected
historical (1950–2009) means (Table 1).
Four multidecadal time periods are considered for analysis:
historical (1950–2009), near term (2010–2039), medium term
(2040–2069), and far term (2070–2099). As the most optimistic
adaptation management scheme relies on future data, the last
time period (far term) is omitted from analyses of management
schemes.

Table 1. World Climate Research Programme (CMIP5) Projections Used in This Study with Mean 2050–2099 Change in Yuba River Basin Precipitation and
Temperature, Compared to 1950–2009
WCRP CMIP5 climate 2050–2099 temperature 2050–2099 precipitation
model (GCM) identifier CMIP5 projection change (°C) change (%)
MIROC-ESM.1 MIROC-ESM.1.RCP85 þ2.0 −8.6 (drier)
MIROC5.1 MIROC5.1.RCP85 þ2.8 −1.1 (slightly drier)
CCSM4.1 CCSM4.1.RCP85 þ2.8 þ3.4 (slightly wetter)
CNRM-CM5.1 CNRM-CM5.1.RCP85 þ3.0 þ35.8 (much wetter)
Note: GCM version numbers are omitted in this study; WCRP stands for World Climate Research Program.

© ASCE 04016049-4 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049

 60%

1950−
40

2009
ΔRunoff (%) 45% 20
0

Percent of years (%)

30% WYT

2010−
40

2039
ECD
15% 20
CD
0 D
0% BN

2040−
40

2069
AN
-15% 20
(a) W
MIROC-ESM MIROC5 CCSM4 CNRM-CM5 0

2070−
40

2099
20% 20
15% 0
MIROC−ESM MIROC5 CCSM4 CNRM−CM5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10% GCM
ΔIFR (%)

5% Fig. 4. Distribution of water year types (ECD = extreme critically

0% dry; CD = critical dry; D = dry; BN = below normal; AN = above
normal; W = wet) under the environmental flow allocation scheme
-5% by the U.S. Forest Service for different periods and climate
-10% scenarios; dashed lines represent the observed historical period
(b) MIROC-ESM MIROC5 CCSM4 CNRM-CM5 (1950–2009)

2.0
not account for changes in actual instream flows, which includes
1.0 spill (potentially undesirable).
ΔIFR / ΔRunoff

Climate also affects the distribution of WYTs, shown in Fig. 4

0.0
-1.0
-2.0
-3.0
(c) MIROC-ESM MIROC5 CCSM4 CNRM-CM5
Fig. 3. (a) Relative change in Yuba River runoff; (b) relative change in
annual IFR in the SF Yuba River; (c) relative change in annual IFR per
change in runoff compared to historical (1950–2009) for selected
GCMs; y-axis scale changes between figures
Hydroclimate Effects on WYT and Base-Case
IFR Scheme
The range of climate projections selected (Table 1) result in
uncertain and variable multidecadal changes in Yuba River
runoff [Fig. 3(a)]. End-of-century runoff changes range from
about −11 to þ50% compared to 1950–2009 averages within
individual projections, revealing future runoff uncertainty consis-
tent with precipitation uncertainty between the selected climate
scenarios.
Changes in Yuba River runoff result in somewhat commensurate
changes to average annual dedicated IFR allocations in the SFY
[Fig. 3(b)]. Changes to IFRs are a function of the IFR values
and WYT thresholds (Fig. 2). As WYT distributions change (dis-
cussed later), environmental allocations do not change proportion-
ally. This is reflected in Fig. 3(c), which shows the change in Yuba
River runoff (modeled unimpaired flow) per change in dedicated
IFR allocation. Changes in dedicated IFR allocations are always
less than one, indicating that the current IFR scheme provides some
buffer against climate change on a mean annual basis. However, the
interest in this study was the statistical distribution of IFR alloca-
tions, not simply mean annual allocations. Furthermore, this does
for different time periods and climate scenarios along with an ob-
served historical dataset. The historical period shows WYT fre-
quency distributions that are generally consistent between
GCMs and the observed historical dataset. In contrast, future peri-
ods show WYT frequency distributions that are much different
from historical. Any major changes in WYT frequency distribution
will alter annual IFRs (Fig. 5), with potential cascading ecological
effects downstream. Thus, static WYT definitions may have eco-
logical consequences inconsistent with the original intent of the
IFR scheme if used with a nonstationary hydroclimate. Further-
more, future periods show significant differences between GCMs
compared to the historical period, indicating great uncertainty of
future IFR distributions. The combination of greater potential
for ecologically harmful outcomes and greater uncertainty implies
a need to assess whether current management regimes lead to po-
tential changes that are within ecologically acceptable limits, assess
how the potential burden of climate change is shared with compet-
ing water users, and identify potential adaptation mechanisms if the
changing exposure to ecological and economic risk is found to be
unacceptable. The following section focuses on burden-sharing and
the potential of adaptation.
WYT-based schemes in the region are also spatially nonadap-
tive, despite interdependence with other water management oper-
ations. The current WYT scheme in the Yuba River is defined
independently from the downstream four-river Sacramento Valley
Index (SVI), a key water allocation tool for water deliveries through
the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta that incorporates estimated
monthly unimpaired Yuba River outflows, resulting in discontinu-
ities in key management indicators (anticipated annual runoff) de-
spite the hydraulic upstream/downstream relationship between the
Yuba River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. This is shown
in Fig. 6, which maps historical (1906–2013) WYTs between YRI
and SVI and shows that designations between water year types are
incongruent if not arbitrary. This categorical mismatch will likely
change as the regional hydroclimate changes. As with hydrologic
changes within the Yuba River itself, this type of incongruous
WYT formulation and designation also implies a need to assess

© ASCE 04016049-5 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049

 1950−2009
1.00
Non−exceedance
probability
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50
Fig. 5. Nonexceedance probability for annual IFRs in the South Fork Yuba River for different periods and GCMs; dashed line represents the mean of
the historical period (1950–2009)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
W
YRI Water Year Type
AN
BN
D D
CD
Fig. 6. Sankey plot mapping historical occurrences of Sacramento
Valley Index (SVI) and Yuba River Index (YRI) water year types
(CD = critical dry; D = dry; BN = below normal; AN = above normal;
and W = wet); extreme critical dry YRI water year types have been
reclassified as critical dry years to match SVI water year types
whether or not static approaches to water management, either lo-
cally or regionally, are ecologically and economically acceptable
and, if not, to identify adaptation measures that take into account
regional hydrologic connectivity.
Water Allocations with Adaptive Management
Schemes
To quantify water allocations, the difference between controlled
and uncontrolled instream flow is noted. Prior to the 21st Century,
any flow in the river was considered environmentally beneficial.
More recently however, instream flow targets have been designed
for a particular flow regime, mimicking the timing, duration,
magnitude, frequency and rate of change of flows observed in
unregulated hydrology. In the Sierra Nevada, uncontrolled, high
magnitude flows (i.e., spill) can be detrimental to ecosystems
(Yarnell et al. 2010), even if more water overall is available to
the ecosystem. This is accounted for by examining both managed
IFRs and actual instream flows (AIFs), where the latter includes
spill, such that IFRs are often much less than AIFs. A “functional
flow” regime would account for this discrepancy and include a
range of beneficial flow types, including large magnitude peak
flows (Yarnell et al. 2015).
Adaptive Management and Environmental Water
Distributions
The allocation of water to different users is sensitive to changing
climate-driven hydrology and adaptation of water management
frameworks. For different combinations of climate scenarios and
management schemes, Fig. 7 shows the differences in percentage
© ASCE
2010−2039 2040−2069 2070−2099
GCM
MIROC-ESM
MIROC5
CCSM4
CNRM−CM5
1950−2009 mean
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
IFR (mcm/year)
distributions of WYTs, whereas Fig. 8 shows the nonexceedance
distributions of actual instream releases. The base-case, nonadap-
SVI Water Year Type
W
tive scheme (BCS) shows distinct differences in both WYT changes
and the distributions of actual releases between GCMs in future
AN
periods. Better adaptation (AHDF) shows a substantial decrease
BN in difference in specific WYT occurrence from the historical,
base-case WYT distributions. Under the less-adaptive scheme
(AHD), this difference in WYT distribution is not readily discern-
CD ible. Effects of adaptation are more apparent with actual
instream flows. As the IFR scheme becomes more adaptive
(AHD and AHDF), the difference between GCMs becomes less
pronounced in future periods. However, by end-of-century (2079–
2099), adaptation can only partially accommodate hydroclimatic
change, as indicated by the larger distribution differences between
GCMs.
The greater similarity between GCMs for future time periods
with greater adaptation (Fig. 8) is more pronounced in low-flow
years and less wet GCMs. This is due to algorithmic operating rules
that ensure minimum flows are met under any instream flow re-
quirement scheme in drier years. This IFR allocation is particularly
apparent during the driest years in the medium-term period, when
both modest and aggressive adaptation (AHD and AHDF, respec-
tively) nearly eliminate differences in flows for the same nonexcee-
dance probabilities. In contrast, infrastructure and limited seasonal
foresight can limit the ability to reduce high-flow releases in wetter
years, resulting in greater spill and potentially ecologically unde-
sirable changes to annual environmental allocations. This spill is
apparent with CNRM-CM5, the wettest of the GCMs, in most fu-
ture periods. Adjustments in WYT definitions by the most adaptive
management scheme (AHDF) can accommodate some, but not all,
of the higher annual flows expected. The limitations of adaptation,
at least under existing infrastructure constraints (medium-size res-
ervoir with no flood control capacity), is generally apparent in all of
the highest-flow years, where even the most anticipatory manage-
ment scheme can do little to maintain a historical distribution of
environmental allocations. However, it also indicates that improved
foresight can provide for better overall management of water for
multiple, and often competing, water demands.
Water Allocations between Competing Water Users
Relative changes in IFR allocations in the SFY and hydropower
releases to the Bear River basin compared to the historical time
period are shown in Fig. 9. With the base-case management scheme
(BCS), mean annual IFR allocations are more sensitive than hydro-
power releases to climate change over time. Thus, with a drier cli-
mate (MIROC-ESM), relative reductions in IFR allocations in the
future are greater than for hydropower allocations. Conversely, with
a wetter climate (CNRM-CM5), relative IFR allocation increases
04016049-6 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049
 BCS AHD AHDF
30
20

1950−
2009
10
Change in percent of years (magnitude %) 0
−10
−20
30
20

2010−
2039
10
0
WYT
−10 ECD
−20 CD
30 D
20 BN

2040−
AN

2069
10
0 W
−10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

−20
30
20

2070−
2099
10
0
−10
−20
4

5
SM

SM

SM

5
SM

SM

SM

M
C

C
O

O
−C

−C

−C
−E

−E

−E
IR

IR

IR

C
M

M
C

C
C

C
M

M
O

O
R

R
N
IR

IR

IR

N
C

C
M

M
GCM
Fig. 7. Change in distribution of water year types (ECD = extreme critical dry; CD = critical dry; D = dry; BN = below normal; AN = above normal;
and W = wet) for different periods, climate scenarios, and adaptation schemes compared to historical, base-case management (BCS); results are
insufficient for the 2070–2099 period under the AHDF scheme

1950−2009 2010−2039 2040−2069 2070−2099

1.00
0.75
0.50 BCS
Non−exceedance probability

0.25
0.00
GCM
1.00
MIROC-ESM
0.75
MIROC5
AHD

0.50
0.25 CCSM4
0.00
CNRM−CM5
1.00
1950−2009 mean
0.75
AHDF

0.50
0.25
0.00
20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80 20 40 60 80

Fig. 8. Annual nonexceedance probabilities (empirical cumulative distributions) of actual instream flow in the South Fork Yuba River for different
periods, adaptive schemes, and GCMs; results are insufficient for the 2070–2099 period under the AHDF scheme; dashed line represents the mean of
the historical period (1950–2009) for base-case management (BCS), assumed more ecologically desirable

are mostly greater than for hydropower. In between, IFR allocations counterintuitive. These differences can be explained by the chang-
tend to increase and change is greater than for hydropower, with ing flow regime with each of these climate scenarios. Although run-
powerhouse releases generally decreasing compared to the histori- off volumes change over time, so does the timing of runoff, to
cal period. Actual instream flows, which include IFRs and spill, are which both IFRs and powerhouse flows are also sensitive. Climate
more sensitive to climate than IFRs alone (data not shown). warming reduces snowpack and causes earlier runoff, which, in
The increase in IFR allocations for the slightly drier GCM turn, results in higher spill (data not shown) and suboptimal hydro-
(MIROC5) and decrease in hydropower allocations in the slightly power generation. This phenomenon is opposite from a previous
wetter GCM (CCSM4) with base-case operations are somewhat study of the same system (Rheinheimer et al. 2013), which showed

© ASCE 04016049-7 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.

J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049

 MIROC−ESM
Difference from historical (%)
10
0
−10
1950− 2010− 2040− 2070−
2009 2039 2069 2099
Fig. 9. Change in powerhouse release (PH) and instream flow requirement (IFR) under different management scenarios compared to the historical
period (1950–2009)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a general benefit for hydropower generation to changing runoff
timing. However, that study assumed perfect hydrologic foresight,
which was not the case here; other studies with imperfect foresight
have shown decreases in hydropower generation with warming
and little change in precipitation in the Yuba River region generally,
including this system (Mehta et al. 2011; Rheinheimer et al.
2014).
Updating WYT definitions with a rolling period of record
diminished the sensitivity of IFR allocation changes to climate
change and increased the sensitivity of powerhouse releases, also
shown in Fig. 9. Both adaptive management schemes (AHD and
AHDF) result in increasing future IFR releases with the dry GCM
and decreasing releases with the wet GCM compared to base-case
management. For example, mean IFR allocations with a wetter
climate (CNRM-CM5) are nearly the same in 2040–2069 as in
1950–2009 with the most anticipatory management scheme
(AHDF). This is by design, and, along with Fig. 8, demonstrates
that the adaptive approach has the desired effect of reducing—
though not eliminating—IFR variability from climate change.
Discussion
With the historical approach to environmental water management,
it would appear that instream flows disproportionately benefit
from warming compared to hydropower. However, this is not nec-
essarily the case, due to the changed flow regime and higher spill
with warming, as noted earlier, which has been a recurring theme in
climate change and environmental flows research in the Sierra
Nevada (Rheinheimer and Viers 2015). With most climate scenar-
ios, this is a lose–lose outcome from climate change, as hydro-
power releases are reduced considerably, but aquatic ecosystems
are increasingly impacted by changing flows, despite increased
allocated IFRs and actual streamflow, because they are less likely
to mimic the historical hydrology for which local biota are adapted
(Fig. 8). Other studies have shown that these volumetric impacts to
aquatic ecosystems are exacerbated by increasing stream temper-
atures in both regulated and unregulated systems (Null et al.
2013a, b).
This paper shows that adapting WYT frameworks for future hy-
droclimates maintains instream flow targets better than nonadaptive
frameworks. The approach in this study, conducted with GCMs that
represent the anticipated range of future conditions, was developed
to highlight uncertainty—making for more complex results, but
also mirroring real-world uncertainty. The above analyses highlight
the need to explicitly account for potential and uncertain changes
in regional hydroclimates when designing long-term water
© ASCE
MIROC5 CCSM4 CNRM−CM5
Period of record
BCS
AHD
AHDF
Release type
PH
IFR
1950− 2010− 2040− 2070− 1950− 2010− 2040− 2070− 1950− 2010− 2040− 2070−
2009 2039 2069 2099 2009 2039 2069 2099 2009 2039 2069 2099
Period
management schemes. In particular, if maintenance of historical
distributions of annual allocations are desired, water year types
used to achieve this can, at the least, be regularly updated with retro-
spective information (AHD management scheme) to account for
changing distributions of the inflow hydrology that define the water
year types. This is already being considered in some instances. For
example, in the western United States, outside of California, the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has recently started using a 30-year
moving period of record, updated every 10 years, to compare
water year types, using percentiles, and there are even concerns that
variability is increasing to the point of rendering 30 years too
long a period (B. McInerney, National Weather Service/Colorado
River Forecasting Center, personal communication, 2013). Further
IFR management benefits arise from better characterizing future
meteorological conditions and integrating that knowledge into
decision-making (AHDF). This might include not only the 20-year
outlook considered in this study and suggested by Wilby et al.
(2009), but also probabilistic seasonal weather predictions (Towler
et al. 2013). However, adaptive approaches to flow release sched-
ules are at regulatory odds with the long-term licensing procedures
practiced by FERC (Viers 2011), which issues licenses based
on static WYT and IFR definitions. Thus, any adoption will likely
require policy changes as well.
Although the adaptation mechanism used here—a rolling
N-year period of record—is useful, other, complementary ap-
proaches are needed to better understand the risks to environmental
and human water management associated with climate change and
possible adaptation options. In particular, quantitative, risk-based
decision-making frameworks are needed for improving long-term
aquatic ecosystem management (Borgomeo et al. 2014; Johnson
and Weaver 2008). Although climate impact assessments have been
mostly top-down, whereby climate projections are downscaled and
used in impact studies, proposed risk-based decision frameworks
tend to be bottom-up, so that local vulnerability thresholds are
mapped to climate projection ranges (Brown et al. 2012; Singh et al.
2014; Wilby and Dessai 2010). This enables uncertainty to be built
into decision-making as robust decision frameworks (Weaver et al.
2013). Bottom-up approaches recognize that climate models are
collectively incapable of predicting far-term future climates, but in-
stead can provide ranges of future climates (Stainforth et al. 2007).
Such risk-based analyses can help identify if/when hydroclimatic
changes might overwhelm capacity—infrastructural or otherwise—
to absorb change, enabling planners to develop appropriate correc-
tive measures. In the context of the present study, a risk-based
approach could help identify how aggressively a WYT-based
IFR scheme needs to be improved to reduce long-term risk to
high-priority water users.
04016049-8 J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049
 The WYT-based approach might also be modified further as
needed to ensure adequate environmental protections and minimal
economic disruptions with climate change. Advances in climate
forecasting and real-time management decision frameworks might
enable moving from monthly to daily instream flow decision mak-
ing, as is already done for hydropower and other human uses. This
could enable, for example, semiopportunistic releases of short-term
flood pulses coordinated with electricity demand forecasts to
minimize hydropower revenue losses. Water managers might also
consider using a statistics-based method for discretizing water
availability for index-based allocations to reduce the ambiguity that
may arise from regularly changing human-centric classifications.
Terms such as wet and dry become less meaningful if water year
type thresholds are regularly changed as hydrologic conditions
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
change. Instead, water years might be classified as flow percentiles
(e.g., quintiles) for greater semantic objectivity and transparency.
Finally, while a river’s flow regime is a master variable control-
ling other river characteristics like water quality, biogeochemical
processes, and sediment transport (Poff et al. 1997), the flow re-
gime itself accounts for only a portion of freshwater ecosystem
variability, with other key variables that include temperature, geo-
morphology, etc. (Worrall et al. 2014). Bulk water allocation tools
such as water year types potentially miss other key water variables,
necessitating the development a broader suite of tools to adapt
river management to nonstationary environmental conditions, such
as the screening tool approach advocated by Grantham et al. (2014)
to evaluate dams for improved environmental flow releases.
Conclusions
This research acknowledges two broad challenges confronting
river ecosystem managers as transition is made to nonstationary
hydrologic regimes with long-term uncertainty: whether or not
to adapt management practices as hydroclimatic changes are slowly
realized, and whether current management practices such as WYT-
based instream flow requirements are sufficient given management
objectives, or whether new approaches are needed. Specifically,
this study examined the implications of assuming a stationary hy-
droclimate in a WYT-based IFR scheme and assessed the utility of
using a rolling period of hydrologic record to regularly redefine
water year types.
In the case of the upper Yuba River hydropower system in the
Sierra Nevada, where climate change will greatly affect hydrology,
the utility of water year types for key water management decisions
is diminished by long-term hydroclimatic change. If long-term
management objectives are to maintain historical and predictable
operations for both environmental and human water uses, it is
apparent from this study and others that these objectives are not
maintained. The utility of historically-defined WYTs is further
weakened by the uncoordinated definition and use of WYTs re-
gionally, which confounds water management at local and regional
scales. Spatially variable hydrologic and management changes
would possibly exacerbate those incongruities between and across
basins.
With historical, nonadaptive rules, changes in mean runoff were
mostly equitably shared between hydropower and environmental
releases on a mean annual basis, though hydropower benefited
more from increased runoff. However, this outcome is not neces-
sarily desirable, as ecological conditions are maintained by the
entire flow regime, not annual runoff magnitude.
To maintain historical instream flow requirements using the his-
torical WYT-based IFR scheme, this study and Null and Viers
(2013) clearly demonstrate the efficacy of regularly updating WYT
© ASCE 04016049-9
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049
definitions, which is a relatively easy/straightforward adaptation
strategy. However, this approach needs to be complemented with
more research to better quantify the real risks of climate change on
river ecosystems to identify how aggressive adaptation should be.
Water management frameworks should be both adaptive and
anticipatory, as well as regionally concordant. Given current ana-
lytic capabilities, water planning and management can be discussed
with awareness of at least some of the long-term implications of a
given management scheme, even with uncertainty about future hy-
droclimatic conditions and ecosystem responses. This necessitates
quantifying known uncertainties, yet also allowing for flexibility to
accommodate unknown uncertainty.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Guido Franco and the
California Energy Commission for funding portions of this re-
search (CEC# 500-10-030), as well as the University of California
Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of
Society (CITRIS).
References
Borgomeo, E., Hall, J. W., Fung, F., Watts, G., Colquhoun, K., and
Lambert, C. (2014). “Risk-based water resources planning: Incorporat-
ing probabilistic nonstationary climate uncertainties.” Water Resour.
Res., 50(8), 6850–6873.
Brekke, L., Thrasher, B. L., Maurer, E. P., and Pruitt, T. (2013). “Down-
scaled CMIP3 and CMIP5 climate and hydrology projections: Release
of downscaled CMIP5 climate projections, comparison with preceding
information, and summary of user needs.” U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Services Center, Denver.
Brown, C., Ghile, Y., Laverty, M., and Li, K. (2012). “Decision scaling:
Linking bottom-up vulnerability analysis with climate projections in
the water sector.” Water Resour. Res., 48(9), W09537.
CBC v2.8 [Computer software]. COIN-OR Foundation, Towson, MD.
Doherty, J. (2010). “PEST: Model-independent parameter estimation user
manual.” Watermark Numerical Computing, Brisbane, Australia.
DTA Sacramento. (2007). “Modeling and evaluation report: Synthesis
of unimpaired hydrology [preliminary draft].” Devine Tarbell &
Associates, Sacramento, CA.
Fung, F., Watts, G., Lopez, A., Orr, H. G., New, M., and Extence, C. (2013).
“Using large climate ensembles to plan for the hydrological impact
of climate change in the freshwater environment.” Water Resour.
Manage., 27(4), 1063–1084.
GAMS v24.0 [Computer software]. GAMS Development Corporation,
Washington, DC.
Georgakakos, A. P. (2012). “Value of adaptive water resources management
in Northern California under climatic variability and change: Reservoir
management.” J. Hydrol., 412–413, 34–46.
Grantham, T. E., Viers, J. H., and Moyle, P. B. (2014). “Systematic screen-
ing of dams for environmental flow assessment and implementation.”
BioScience, 64(11), 1006–1018.
Heino, J., Virkkala, R., and Toivonen, H. (2009). “Climate change and
freshwater biodiversity: Detected patterns, future trends and adaptations
in northern regions.” Biol. Rev., 84(1), 39–54.
Jiménez Cisneros, B. E., et al. (2014). “Freshwater resources.” Climate
Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global
and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the 5th As-
sessment Rep. of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, C. B.
Field, et al., eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.,
229–269.
Johnson, T. E., and Weaver, C. P. (2008). “A framework for assessing
climate change impacts on water and watershed systems.” Environ.
Manage., 43(1), 118–134.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.
 Knutti, R., and Sedláček, J. (2013). “Robustness and uncertainties in
the new CMIP5 climate model projections.” Nat. Clim. Change, 3(4),
369–373.
Livneh, B., et al. (2015). “A spatially comprehensive, hydrometeorological
data set for Mexico, the U.S., and southern Canada 1950–2013.” Sci.
Data, 2, in press.
Madani, K., and Lund, J. R. (2009). “Modeling California’s high-elevation
hydropower systems in energy units.” Water Resour. Res., 45(9),
W09413.
Maurer, E. P., Hidalgo, H. G., Das, T., Dettinger, M. D., and Cayan, D. R.
(2010). “The utility of daily large-scale climate data in the assessment of
climate change impacts on daily streamflow in California.” Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., 14(6), 1125–1138.
Mehta, V. K., et al. (2011). “Potential impacts on hydrology and hydro-
power production under climate warming of the Sierra Nevada.” J.
Water Clim. Change, 2(1), 29–43.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by David Rheinheimer on 07/12/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Milly, P. C. D., et al. (2008). “Stationarity is dead: Whither water manage-
ment?” Science, 319(5863), 573–574.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel,
R. D., and Veith, T. L. (2007). “Model evaluation guidelines for
systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.” Trans.
ASABE, 50(3), 885–900.
Nash, J. E., and Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). “River flow forecasting through
conceptual models: Part I—A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol.,
10(3), 282–290.
Nevada Irrigation District. (2006). “Yuba-Bear hydroelectric project.”
FERC Project No. 2266: Annotated Existing License, Marysville, CA.
Null, S. E., Ligare, S. T., and Viers, J. H. (2013a). “A method to consider
whether dams mitigate climate change effects on stream temperatures.”
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 49(6), 1456–1472.
Null, S. E., and Viers, J. H. (2013). “In bad waters: Water year classification
in nonstationary climates.” Water Resour. Res., 49(2), 1137–1148.
Null, S. E., Viers, J. H., Deas, M. L., Tanaka, S. K., and Mount, J. F.
(2013b). “Stream temperature sensitivity to climate warming in
California’s Sierra Nevada: Impacts to coldwater habitat.” Clim.
Change, 116(1), 149–170.
Olivares, M., and Lund, J. (2012). “Representing energy price variability in
long- and medium-term hydropower optimization.” J. Water Resour.
Plann. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000214, 606–613.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (2007). “Drum-spaulding project.”
FERC Project No. 2310: FERC License as of May 11, 2007,
San Francisco.
Palmer, M. A., et al. (2008). “Climate change and the world’s river basins:
Anticipating management options.” Front. Ecol. Environ., 6(2), 81–89.
PEST v12.3 [Computer software]. Watermark Numerical Computing,
Brisbane, Australia.
Petts, G. E. (2009). “Instream flow science for sustainable river manage-
ment.” J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 45(5), 1071–1086.
Poff, N. L., et al. (1997). “The natural flow regime.” BioScience, 47(11),
769–784.
Poff, N. L., Olden, J. D., Merritt, D. M., and Pepin, D. M. (2007). “Homog-
enization of regional river dynamics by dams and global biodiversity
implications.” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104(14), 5732–5737.
Rheinheimer, D., Viers, J., Sieber, J., Kiparsky, M., Mehta, V., and Ligare,
S. (2014). “Simulating high-elevation hydropower with regional climate
warming in the west slope, Sierra Nevada.” J. Water Resour. Plann.
Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000373, 714–723.
Rheinheimer, D. E., and Viers, J. H. (2015). “Combined effects of reservoir
operations and climate warming on the flow regime of hydropower by-
pass reaches of California’s Sierra Nevada.” River Res. Appl., 31(3),
269–279.
Rheinheimer, D. E., Yarnell, S. M., and Viers, J. H. (2013). “Hydropower
costs of environmental flows and climate warming in California’s upper
Yuba River watershed.” River Res. Appl., 29(10), 1291–1305.
Rupp, D. E., Abatzoglou, J. T., Hegewisch, K. C., and Mote, P. W. (2013).
“Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific
Northwest U.S.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 118(19), 10884–10906.
Singh, R., Wagener, T., Crane, R., Mann, M. E., and Ning, L. (2014). “A
vulnerability driven approach to identify adverse climate and land use
© ASCE 04016049-10
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage., 04016049
change combinations for critical hydrologic indicator thresholds:
Application to a watershed in Pennsylvania, U.S.” Water Resour.
Res., 50(4), 3409–3427.
Stainforth, D. A., Downing, T. E., Washington, R., Lopez, A., and New, M.
(2007). “Issues in the interpretation of climate model ensembles to in-
form decisions.” Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A: Math. Phys. Eng.
Sci., 365(1857), 2163–2177.
Stakhiv, E. Z. (1998). “Policy implications of climate change impacts on
water resources management.” Water Policy, 1(2), 159–175.
Strayer, D. L., and Dudgeon, D. (2010). “Freshwater biodiversity conser-
vation: Recent progress and future challenges.” J. North Am. Benthol.
Soc., 29(1), 344–358.
SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board). (1999).
“Water right decision 1641 (revised).” 〈http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/
waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/decisions/d1600_d1649/
wrd1641_1999dec29.pdf〉.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A. (2012). “An overview of
CMIP5 and the experiment design.” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93(4),
485–498.
Towler, E., Roberts, M., Rajagopalan, B., and Sojda, R. S. (2013). “Incor-
porating probabilistic seasonal climate forecasts into river management
using a risk-based framework.” Water Resour. Res., 49(8), 4997–5008.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2008). “Formal endangered species act
consultation on the proposed coordinated operations of the central
valley project (CVP) and state water project (SWP).” Rep. No.
81420-2008-F-1481-5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento,
CA.
U.S. Forest Service. (2012). “Revised FS preliminary conditions and rec-
ommendations provided under 18 CFR § 4.34 (b)(1) in connection with
the application for relicensing for the Drum-Spaulding hydroelectric
project (FERC No. 2310).” Washington, DC.
Viers, J. H. (2011). “Hydropower relicensing and climate change.” J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., 47(4), 655–661.
Vörösmarty, C. J., et al. (2010). “Global threats to human water security
and river biodiversity.” Nature, 467(7315), 555–561.
WEAP v3.4 [Computer software]. Stockholm Environment Institute U.S.
Center, Somerville, MA.
Weaver, C. P., Lempert, R. J., Brown, C., Hall, J. A., Revell, D., and
Sarewitz, D. (2013). “Improving the contribution of climate model
information to decision making: The value and demands of robust
decision frameworks.” Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change, 4(1),
39–60.
Wilby, R. L., et al. (2009). “A review of climate risk information for adap-
tation and development planning.” Int. J. Climatol., 29(9), 1193–1215.
Wilby, R. L., and Dessai, S. (2010). “Robust adaptation to climate change.”
Weather, 65(7), 180–185.
Wilby, R. L., Fenn, C. R., Wood, P. J., Timlett, R., and LeQuesne, T. (2011).
“Smart licensing and environmental flows: Modeling framework and
sensitivity testing.” Water Resour. Res., 47(12), W12524.
Worrall, T. P., Dunbar, M. J., Extence, C. A., Laizé, C. L. R., Monk, W. A.,
and Wood, P. J. (2014). “The identification of hydrological indices for
the characterization of macroinvertebrate community response to flow
regime variability.” Hydrol. Sci. J., 59(3–4), 645–658.
Xenopoulos, M. A., Lodge, D. M., Alcamo, J., Märker, M., Schulze, K.,
and Van Vuuren, D. P. (2005). “Scenarios of freshwater fish extinctions
from climate change and water withdrawal.” Global Change Biol.,
11(10), 1557–1564.
Yarnell, S. M., et al. (2015). “Functional flows in modified riverscapes:
hydrographs, habitats and opportunities.” BioScience, 65(10), 963–972.
Yarnell, S. M., Viers, J. H., and Mount, J. F. (2010). “Ecology and
management of the spring snowmelt recession.” BioScience, 60(2),
114–127.
Yates, D., Sieber, J., Purkey, D., and Huber-Lee, A. (2005). “WEAP21 - A
demand-, priority-, and preference-driven water planning model:
Part 1—Model characteristics.” Water Int., 30(4), 487–500.
Young, C. A., et al. (2009). “Modeling the hydrology of climate change in
California’s Sierra Nevada for subwatershed scale adaptation.” J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc., 45(6), 1409–1423.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage.