“R1-R4” AND “BOISED” SEDIMENT PREDICTION MODEL TESTS USING FOREST ROADS IN GRANITICS1

ABSTRACT: Erosion and sedimentation data from research watersheds in the Silver Creek Study Area in central Idaho were used to test the prediction of logging road erosion using the R1-R4 sediment yield model, and sediment delivery using the “BOISED” sediment yield prediction model. Three small watersheds were instrumented and monitored such that erosion from newly constructed roads and sediment delivery to the mouths of the watersheds could be measured for four years following road construction. The errors for annual surface erosion predictions for the two standard road tests ranged from +31.2 t/ha/yr (+15 percent) to -30.3 t/ha/yr (-63 percent) with an average of zero t/ha/yr and a standard deviation of the differences of 18.7 t/ha/yr. The annual prediction errors for the three watershed scale tests had a greater range from -40.8 t/ha/yr (-70 percent) to +65.3 t/ha/yr (+38 percent) with a mean of -1.9 t/ha/yr and a standard deviation of the differences of 25.2 t/ha/yr. Sediment yields predicted by BOISED (watershed scale tests) were consistently greater (average of 2.5 times) than measured sediment yields. Hillslope sediment delivery coefficients in BOISED appear to be overly conservative to account for average site conditions and road locations, and thus over-predict sediment delivery. Mass erosion predictions from BOISED appear to predict volume well (465 tonnes actual versus 710 tonnes predicted, or a 35 percent difference) over 15 to 20 years, however mass wasting is more episodic than the model predicts.     

THE CRITICAL ROLE OF “UNUSED” RESOURCES1

ABSTRACT: The uneven temporal and spatial distribution of water on the Earth suggests an important role for the portion of the resource that is not directly used by humans. By extension, an important underlying theory about world-wide resource distribution and function is inferred. Policies that control resource preservation and development need to take this theory into account. Some examples for the water resource are presented.     

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS?”1

ABSTRACT The term “institution” and several variants are used frequently in the literature on metropolitan water management. The state-of-the art investigation on which this paper is based revealed that 1) many uses of the term do not include careful definitions; 2) many users of the term seemed unaware of the general, theoretical literature on the subject of institutions; 3) there was little consistency among uses, either in the practical literature dealing with water or in the conceptual literature dealing with theories of institutions or institutionalization; 4) some usages were without significant meaning; 5) in many cases the term was used as a kind of “black box” to account for behavioral, societal, or managerial factors; 6) the term was often used as a synonym for “organization”. This latter use is frequently found in federal reports, including National Water Commission studies, and is most unfortunate because it tends to slight significant social-psychological factors. A suggested definition is: “An institution is the structured result or outcome of a process by which values are articulated, arranged, and communicated, having continuity over time, and influencing behavior of persons who did not necessarily participate in formulating those values (norms).”