DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WATERSHEDS AND ECOREGIONS1

ABSTRACT: In an effort to adopt more holistic ecosystem approaches to resource assessment and management, many state and federal agencies have begun using watershed or ecoregion frameworks. Although few would question the need to make this move from dealing with problems and issues on a case by case or point-type basis to broader regional contexts, misunderstanding of each of the frameworks has resulted in inconsistency in their use and ultimate effectiveness. The focus of this paper is on the clarification of both frameworks. We stress that the issue is not whether to use watersheds (or basins or hydrologic units) or ecoregions for needs such as developing ecosystem management and non-point source pollution strategies or structuring water quality regulatory programs, but how to correctly use the frameworks together. Definitions, uses, and misuses of each of the frameworks are discussed as well as ways watersheds and ecoregions can be and have been used together effectively to meet resource management needs.     

SCALE PROBLEMS IN INTERDISCIPLINARY WATER RESOURCES INVESTIGATION1

ABSTRACT The problems encountered in estimating scale parameters in interdisciplinary watershed research are discussed. Meteorology, hydrology, geology and water quality are discussed with respect to their individual strengths and weaknesses when applied to different scale problems. Areas where incompatibilities exist are pointed out and suggestions are made for effecting compromise. A watershed scale of roughly a hundred acres may be the scale at which all disciplines can effect optimum interaction.     

Oregon Hydrologic Landscapes: A Classification Framework1

Wigington, Parker J., Jr., Scott G. Leibowitz, Randy L. Comeleo, and Joseph L. Ebersole, 2012. Oregon Hydrologic Landscapes: A Classification Framework. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1‐20. DOI: 10.1111/jawr.12009 Abstract: There is a growing need for hydrologic classification systems that can provide a basis for broad‐scale assessments of the hydrologic functions of landscapes and watersheds and their responses to stressors such as climate change. We developed a hydrologic landscape (HL) classification approach that describes factors of climate‐watershed systems that control the hydrologic characteristics of watersheds. Our assessment units are incremental watersheds (i.e., headwater watersheds or areas draining directly into stream reaches). Major components of the classification include indices of annual climate, climate seasonality, aquifer permeability, terrain, and soil permeability. To evaluate the usefulness of our approach, we identified 30 rivers with long‐term streamflow‐gauging records and without major diversions and impoundments. We used statistical clustering to group the streams based on the shapes of their annual hydrographs. Comparison of the streamflow clusters and HL distributions within river basin clusters shows that the Oregon HL approach has the ability to provide insights about the expected hydrologic behavior of HLs and larger river basins. The Oregon HL approach has potential to be a useful framework for comparing hydrologic attributes of streams and rivers in the Pacific Northwest.     

MODEL PREDICTIONS OF WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC COMPONENTS: COMPARISON AND VERIFICATIION1

ABSTRACT: Model predictions of the relatively simple soil compartment model SESOIL are compared with those of the more data-intensive terrestrial ecosystem hydrology model AGTEHM. Comparisons were performed using data from a deciduous forest stand watershed, a grassland watershed, and two agricultural field plots. Good agreement was obtained between model predictions for annual values of infiltration, evapotranspiration, surface runoff, and groundwater runoff. SESOIL model predictions also compare well with empirical measurements at the forest stand and the grassland watersheds.     

Is Denser Greener? An Evaluation of Higher Density Development as an Urban Stormwater‐Quality Best Management Practice1

Abstract: A simple spreadsheet model was used to evaluate potential water quality benefits of high‐density development. The question was whether the reduced land consumed by higher density development (vs. standard suburban developments) would offset the worse water quality generated by a greater amount of impervious surface in the smaller area. Total runoff volume and per acre loadings of total phosphorous, total nitrogen, and total suspended solids increased with density as expected, but per capita loadings and runoff decreased markedly with density. For a constant or given population, then, higher density can result in dramatically lower total loadings than more diffuse suburban densities. The model showed that a simple doubling of standard suburban densities [to 8 dwelling units per acre (DUA) from about 3 to 5 DUA] in most cases could do more to reduce contaminant loadings associated with urban growth than many traditional stormwater best management practices (BMPs), and that higher densities such as those associated with transit‐oriented development could outperform almost all traditional BMPs, in terms of reduced loadings per a constant population. Because higher density is associated with vibrant urban life, building a better city may be the best BMP to mitigate the water quality damage that will accompany the massive urban growth expected for the next several decades.     

Does Wetland Location Matter When Managing Wetlands for Watershed‐Scale Flood and Drought Resilience?

Wetland protection and restoration strategies that are designed to promote hydrologic resilience do not incorporate the location of wetlands relative to the main stream network. This is primarily attributed to the lack of knowledge on the effects of wetland location on wetland hydrologic function (e.g., flood and drought mitigation). Here, we combined a watershed‐scale, surface–subsurface, fully distributed, physically based hydrologic model with historical, existing, and lost (drained) wetland maps in the Nose Creek watershed in the Prairie Pothole Region of North America to (1) estimate the hydrologic functions of lost wetlands and (2) estimate the hydrologic functions of wetlands located at different distances from the main stream network. Modeling results showed wetland loss altered streamflow, decreasing baseflow and increasing stream peakflow during the period of the precipitation events that led to major flooding in the watershed and downstream cities. In addition, we found that wetlands closer to the main stream network played a disproportionately important role in attenuating peakflow, while wetland location was not important for regulating baseflow. The findings of this study provide information for watershed managers that can help to prioritize wetland restoration efforts for flood or drought risk mitigation.     

Effects of Rainfall and Ground‐Water Pumping on Streamflow in Mākaha,O’ahu,Hawai’i1

Abstract: Land‐use/land‐cover changes in Mākaha valley have included the development of agriculture, residential dwellings, golf courses, potable water supply facilities, and the introduction of alien species. The impact of these changes on surface water and ground water resources in the valley is of concern. In this study, streamflow, rainfall, and ground‐water pumping data for the upper part of the Mākaha valley watershed were evaluated to identify corresponding trends and relationships. The results of this study indicate that streamflow declined during the ground‐water pumping period. Mean and median annual streamflow have declined by 42% (135 mm) and 56% (175 mm), respectively, and the mean number of dry stream days per year has increased from 8 to 125. Rainfall across the study area appears to have also declined though it is not clear whether the reduction in rainfall is responsible for all or part of the observed streamflow decline. Mean annual rainfall at one location in the study area declined by 14% (179 mm) and increased by 2% (48 mm) at a second location. Further study is needed to assess the effect of ground‐water pumping and to characterize the hydrologic cycle with respect to rainfall, infiltration, ground‐water recharge and flow in the study area, and stream base flow and storm flow.