Comparison of Stream Invertebrate Response Models for Bioassessment Metrics1

Waite, Ian R., Jonathan G. Kennen, Jason T. May, Larry R. Brown, Thomas F. Cuffney, Kimberly A. Jones, and James L. Orlando, 2012. Comparison of Stream Invertebrate Response Models for Bioassessment Metrics. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(3): 570-583. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00632.x Abstract: We aggregated invertebrate data from various sources to assemble data for modeling in two ecoregions in Oregon and one in California. Our goal was to compare the performance of models developed using multiple linear regression (MLR) techniques with models developed using three relatively new techniques: classification and regression trees (CART), random forest (RF), and boosted regression trees (BRT). We used tolerance of taxa based on richness (RICHTOL) and ratio of observed to expected taxa (O/E) as response variables and land use/land cover as explanatory variables. Responses were generally linear; therefore, there was little improvement to the MLR models when compared to models using CART and RF. In general, the four modeling techniques (MLR, CART, RF, and BRT) consistently selected the same primary explanatory variables for each region. However, results from the BRT models showed significant improvement over the MLR models for each region; increases in R² from 0.09 to 0.20. The O/E metric that was derived from models specifically calibrated for Oregon consistently had lower R² values than RICHTOL for the two regions tested. Modeled O/E R² values were between 0.06 and 0.10 lower for each of the four modeling methods applied in the Willamette Valley and were between 0.19 and 0.36 points lower for the Blue Mountains. As a result, BRT models may indeed represent a good alternative to MLR for modeling species distribution relative to environmental variables.     

Is Urban Stream Restoration Worth It?1

Kenney, Melissa A., Peter R. Wilcock, Benjamin F. Hobbs, Nicholas E. Flores, and Daniela C. Martínez, 2012. Is Urban Stream Restoration Worth It? Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 48(3): 603-615. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00635.x Abstract: Public investment in urban stream restoration is growing, yet little has been done to quantify whether its benefits outweigh its cost. The most common drivers of urban stream projects are water quality improvement and infrastructure protection, although recreational and aesthetic benefits are often important community goals. We use standard economic methods to show that these contributions of restoration can be quantified and compared to costs. The approach is demonstrated with a case study in Baltimore, Maryland, a city with a legal mandate to reduce its pollutant load. Typical urban stream restoration costs of US$500-1,200 per foot are larger than the cost of the least expensive alternatives for management of nitrogen loads from stormwater (here, detention ponds, equivalent to $30-120 per foot of restored stream) and for protecting infrastructure (rip-rap armoring of streambanks, at $0-120 per foot). However, the higher costs of stream restoration can in some cases be justified by its aesthetic and recreational benefits, valued using a contingent valuation survey at $560-1,100 per foot. We do not intend to provide a definitive answer regarding the worth of stream restoration, but demonstrate that questions of worth can be asked and answered. Broader application of economic analysis would provide a defensible basis for understanding restoration benefits and for making restoration decisions.     

Reclaimed Mineland Curve Number Response to Temporal Distribution of Rainfall1

Warner, Richard C., Carmen T. Agouridis, Page T. Vingralek, and Alex W. Fogle, 2010. Reclaimed Mineland Curve Number Response to Temporal Distribution of Rainfall. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(4): 724-732. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00444.x Abstract: The curve number (CN) method is a common technique to estimate runoff volume, and it is widely used in coal mining operations such as those in the Appalachian region of Kentucky. However, very little CN data are available for watersheds disturbed by surface mining and then reclaimed using traditional techniques. Furthermore, as the CN method does not readily account for variations in infiltration rates due to varying rainfall distributions, the selection of a single CN value to encompass all temporal rainfall distributions could lead engineers to substantially under- or over-size water detention structures used in mining operations or other land uses such as development. Using rainfall and runoff data from a surface coal mine located in the Cumberland Plateau of eastern Kentucky, CNs were computed for conventionally reclaimed lands. The effects of temporal rainfall distributions on CNs was also examined by classifying storms as intense, steady, multi-interval intense, or multi-interval steady. Results indicate that CNs for such reclaimed lands ranged from 62 to 94 with a mean value of 85. Temporal rainfall distributions were also shown to significantly affect CN values with intense storms having significantly higher CNs than multi-interval storms. These results indicate that a period of recovery is present between rainfall bursts of a multi-interval storm that allows depressional storage and infiltration rates to rebound.     

A contextual framework for understanding good practice in integrated catchment management

Principles of good practice for collaborative resource management were derived from the literature and their use studied in a range of integrated catchment management processes. Desk-based reviews and interviews with participants allowed the principles to be refined and described within a framework that illustrates the interrelationships between core principles, enabling principles, precursors to a project and the influence of external factors on such collaborative processes. The findings illustrate the importance of these relationships in understanding how success is defined and under what conditions successful outcomes can be achieved. Understanding how these procedural aspects influence outcomes contributes to the wider literature on collaborative resource management that often treats processes separately from their context.     

An Aquifer Classification System and Geographical Information System-Based Analysis Tool for Watershed Managers in the Western U.S.1

Payne, Scott M. and William W. Woessner, 2010. An Aquifer Classification System and Geographical Information System-Based Analysis Tool for Watershed Managers in the Western U.S. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(5):1003-1023. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00472.x Abstract: Aquifers and groundwater systems can be classified using a variety of independent methods to characterize geologic and hydraulic properties, the degree of connection with surface water, and geochemical conditions. In light of a growing global demand for water, an approach for classifying groundwater systems at the watershed scale is needed. A comprehensive classification system is proposed that combines recognized methods and new approaches. The purpose of classification is to provide groundwater professionals, policy makers, and watershed managers with a widely applicable and repeatable system that reduces sometimes cumbersome complex databases and analyzes to straightforward terminology and graphical representations. The proposed classification system uses basin geology, aquifer productivity, water quality, and the degree of groundwater/surface water connection as classification criteria. The approach is based on literature values, reference databases, and fundamental hydrologic and hydrogeologic principles. The proposed classification system treats dataset completeness as a variable and includes a tiered assessment protocol that depends on the quality and quantity of data. In addition, it assembles and catalogs groundwater information using a consistent set of nomenclature. It is designed to analyze and display results using Geographical Information System mapping tools.     

国外流域管理的成功经验对雅砻江流域管理的启示

世界各国对流域管理的不断探索，大大丰富了流域管理的理论和实践，流域管理已成为国家和地区水资源管理的一种行之有效的模式。我国的流域管理尚处于最初的探索阶段，如何借鉴国外流域管理的成功经验，形成有效的流域管理模式已成为我国水资源管理的主要任务之一。为了给国内流域管理实践提供一些有益的借鉴，分析总结了具有代表性的美国田纳西河流域管理模式、澳大利亚墨累 达令河流域管理模式和英国泰晤士河流域管理模式的成功经验和存在的问题。以雅砻江流域水电开发为实例，在对该流域的实际情况进行全面分析的基础上，将该流域与上述三条流域进行比较，充分借鉴三条流域管理模式成功经验，提出了雅砻江流域管理的相关对策和建议。     

Development of a Quantitative Pasture Phosphorus Management Tool Using the SWAT Model1

Abstract: Assessment tools to evaluate phosphorus loss from agricultural lands allow conservation planners to evaluate the impact of management decisions on water quality. Available tools to predict phosphorus loss from agricultural fields are either: (1) qualitative indices with limited applicability to address offsite water quality standards, or (2) models which are prohibitively complex for application by most conservation planners. The purpose of this research was to develop a simple interface for a comprehensive hydrologic/water quality model to allow its usage by farmers and conservation planners. The Pasture Phosphorus Management (PPM) Calculator was developed to predict average annual phosphorus (P) losses from pastures under a variety of field conditions and management options. PPM Calculator is a vastly simplified interface for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model that requires no knowledge of SWAT by the user. PPM Calculator was validated using 33 months of data on four pasture fields in northwestern Arkansas. This tool has been extensively applied in the Lake Eucha/Spavinaw Basin in northeastern Oklahoma and northwestern Arkansas. PPM Calculator allows conservation planners to take advantage of the predictive capacity of a comprehensive hydrologic water quality model typically reserved for use by hydrologists and engineers. This research demonstrates the applicability of existing water quality models in the development of user friendly P management tools.     

Evaluation of a Watershed Model for Estimating Daily Flow Using Limited Flow Measurements1

Abstract: The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model was evaluated for estimation of continuous daily flow based on limited flow measurements in the Upper Oyster Creek (UOC) watershed. SWAT was calibrated against limited measured flow data and then validated. The Nash‐Sutcliffe model Efficiency (NSE) and mean relative error values of daily flow estimations were 0.66 and 15% for calibration, and 0.56 and 4% for validation, respectively. Also, further evaluation of the model’s estimation of flow at multiple locations was conducted with parametric paired t‐test and nonparametric sign test at a 95% confidence level. Among the five main stem stations, four stations were statistically shown to have good agreement between predicted and measured flows. SWAT underestimated the flow of the fifth main stem station possibly because of the existence of complex flood control measures near to the station. SWAT estimated the daily flow at one tributary station well, but with relatively large errors for the other two tributaries. The spatial pattern of predicted flows matched the measured ones well. Overall, it was concluded from the graphical comparisons and statistical analyses of the model results that SWAT was capable of reproducing continuous daily flows based on limited flow data as is the case in the UOC watershed.     

Development and Use of a Sedimentation Risk Index for Unpaved Road‐Stream Crossings in the Choctawhatchee Watershed1

Abstract: Unpaved road‐stream crossings increase sediment yields in streams and alter channel morphology and stability. Before restoration and sedimentation reduction strategies can be implemented, a priority listing of unpaved road‐stream crossings must be created. The objectives of this study were to develop a sedimentation risk index (SRI) for unpaved road‐stream crossings and to prioritize 125 sites in the Choctawhatchee watershed (southeastern Alabama) using this model. Field surveys involved qualitative and quantitative observations of 73 metrics related to waterway conditions, crossing structures, road approaches, and roadside soil erosion. The road‐stream crossing risk analyses involved elimination of candidate metrics based on redundancy, skewness, lack of data, professional judgment, lack of nonzero values, unbalanced box plots, and limited ranges of values. A final selection of 12 metrics formed the SRI and weighed factors involving soil erodibility, road sedimentation abatement features, and stream morphology alteration. The SRI was organized into narrative categories (excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor) based on the distribution of scores. No excellent sites (scores ≥55) were found in this study, 17 (20.7%) were good (low sedimentation risk), 37 (45.1%) were fair (moderate sedimentation risk), 26 (31.7%) were poor (high sedimentation risk), and two (2.5%) were very poor (high sedimentation risk). There was no significant difference in SRI scores among crossing structure type (round culverts, box culverts, and bridges) (H = 4.31, df = 2, p = 0.058). A future study of the Choctawhatchee watershed involving the same study sites could assess the success of restoration plans and activities based on site score improvement or decline.     

Constraints to Watershed Planning: Group Structure and Process1

Floress, Kristin, Jean C. Mangun, Mae A. Davenport, and Karl W.J. Williard, 2009. Constraints to Watershed Planning: Group Structure and Process. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 45(6):1352‐1360. Abstract: The roles that agencies and other partners play in collaborative watershed management are not always clearly identified. Key factors contributing to group‐level outcomes in watershed groups include both structural and procedural elements. Structural elements include membership systems, project partners, and funding, while procedural elements include leadership, shared vision, and mission development. The current research reports on a case study conducted with a Midwestern watershed group that received Clean Water Act Section 319 funds to undertake a watershed planning process. Data come from focus groups, interviews, public comments, and meeting observation, and were analyzed using grounded theory. Findings of this study indicate that homogenous skill set, discord over group and partner roles, and failed problem identification contributed to the organizational inertia experienced by the watershed group. Implications of this research for groups receiving 319 funds are provided.