Nadeau Tracie-Lynn, Leibowitz Scott G, Wigington Parker J, Ebersole Joseph L, Fritz Ken M, Coulombe Robert A, Comeleo Randy L, Blocksom Karen A
U.S. EPA, Region 10, 805 SW Broadway, Suite 500, Portland, OR, 97205, USA,
Environ Manage. 2015 Jul;56(1):34-53. doi: 10.1007/s00267-015-0466-4. Epub 2015 May 1.
United States Supreme Court rulings have created uncertainty regarding U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) authority over certain waters, and established new data and analytical requirements for determining CWA jurisdiction. Thus, rapid assessment methods are needed that can differentiate between ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams. We report on the validation of several methods. The first (Interim Method) was developed through best professional judgment (BPJ); an alternative (Revised Method) resulted from statistical analysis. We tested the Interim Method on 178 study reaches in Oregon, and constructed the Revised Method based on statistical analysis of the Oregon data. Next, we evaluated the regional applicability of the methods on 86 study reaches across a variety of hydrologic landscapes in Washington and Idaho. During the second phase, we also compared the Revised Method with a similar approach (Combined Method) based on combined field data from Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. We further compared field-based methods with a GIS-based approach (GIS Method) that used the National Hydrography Dataset and a synthetic stream network. Evaluations of all methods compared results with actual streamflow duration classes. The Revised Method correctly determined known streamflow duration 83.9% of the time, versus 62.3% accuracy of the Interim Method and 43.6% accuracy for the GIS-based approach. The Combined Method did not significantly outperform the Revised Method. Analysis showed biological indicators most accurately discriminate streamflow duration classes. While BPJ established a testable hypothesis, this study illustrates the importance of quantitative field testing of rapid assessment methods. Results support a consistent method applicable across the Pacific Northwest.
美国最高法院的裁决给美国《清洁水法》(CWA)对某些水域的管辖权带来了不确定性,并为确定CWA管辖权制定了新的数据和分析要求。因此,需要快速评估方法来区分临时性、间歇性和常年性溪流。我们报告了几种方法的验证情况。第一种方法(临时方法)是通过最佳专业判断(BPJ)制定的;另一种方法(修订方法)则源于统计分析。我们在俄勒冈州的178个研究河段对临时方法进行了测试,并基于对俄勒冈州数据的统计分析构建了修订方法。接下来,我们在华盛顿州和爱达荷州不同水文景观的86个研究河段评估了这些方法的区域适用性。在第二阶段,我们还将修订方法与基于俄勒冈州、华盛顿州和爱达荷州综合实地数据的类似方法(综合方法)进行了比较。我们还将基于实地的方法与使用国家水文数据集和合成河网的基于地理信息系统的方法(GIS方法)进行了比较。所有方法的评估都将结果与实际径流持续时间类别进行了比较。修订方法正确确定已知径流持续时间的时间占比为83.9%,而临时方法的准确率为62.3%,基于地理信息系统的方法准确率为43.6%。综合方法并未显著优于修订方法。分析表明,生物指标能最准确地区分径流持续时间类别。虽然BPJ建立了一个可检验的假设,但本研究说明了对快速评估方法进行定量实地测试的重要性。结果支持了一种适用于太平洋西北地区的一致方法。