Comparison of the Performance of Different Bioassessment Methods: Similar Evaluations of Biotic Integrity from Separate Programs and Procedures

Journal of the North American Benthological Society (University of Chicago Press) | January 16th, 2006

Regional bioassessment programs of states, various federal agencies, and other governmental and private groups often use different methods to collect and analyz

Regional bioassessment programs of states, various federal agencies, and other governmental and private groups often use different methods to collect and analyze stream invertebrate samples. This lack of uniformity has created concern and confusion over the comparability of disparate sources of data, but few studies have attempted to evaluate differences in performance between methods or to reconcile the results produced from different methods. We conducted concurrent sampling at 40 sites in the eastern Sierra Nevada of California using 3 bioassessment methods to obtain directly comparable data sets. The riffle-based methods (University of California Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory [UC-SNARL, Lahontan Water Board], California Stream Bioassessment Protocol, and US Forest Service Region 5) differed at each stage from field sample collection to laboratory processing and data analysis. We used a performance-based methods system to compare precision, uniformity, discrimination, accuracy, and correlations among multimetric Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores and multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS)-type observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Reference and test sites were identified using local and upstream-watershed disturbance criteria, and invertebrate community measures and models were then developed to discriminate between reference and test sites. The more- intensive UC-SNARL method showed slightly, but consistently, greater sensitivity for discriminating impairment than the other 2 methods. The UC-SNARL method produced greater differences between reference- and test-site means relative to lower reference-site standard deviations than the other 2 methods. However, assessment scores were highly correlated among methods and distinguished reference from test sites with similar accuracy among methods despite the slight differences in performance. Our results show that differing bioassessment methods can yield very similar, effective discrimination of impaired biological condition even though they have multiple differences in field and laboratory protocols (mesh size, replication, area sampled, taxonomic resolution, total counts). Moreover, this conclusion did not depend on the approach taken to data analysis because both multimetric IBIs and multivariate RIVPACS-type O/Es were in close agreement. Methodological uniformity is important when coordinating monitoring programs, but our results suggest that data from multiple sources could potentially be used interchangeably and for cross-validation of assessments of stream biological integrity.

Comparison of U.S. Geological Survey and Bureau of Reclamation Water-Use Reporting in the Colorado River Basin

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) | September 2nd, 2019

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State,

The use of water in the United States is arguably one of the most important factors determining water availability at any specific place and time. Numerous local, State, and Federal entities develop, compile, and report water-use data, which can lead to confusing or conflicting information. This report was authored jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to compare and contrast the two agencies’ water-use information programs in the Colorado River Basin. The report also describes the legal drivers for each program, clarifies confusing terminol- ogy, compares the methods used, and contrasts the information reported by each agency. This detailed comparison demon- strates that these two Federal agencies have different missions, different programmatic drivers, and different user communi- ties, all of which lead to different approaches to water-use data collection, analysis, and reporting. This report highlights those differences and explains why the USGS and Reclamation programs exist and how the data serve different user communities. Even though the two water-use programs are different by design and purpose, the program comparison presented in this report has identified opportunities for closer coordination and sharing of information between the USGS and Reclamation, as well as program components where agency collaboration can improve water-use estimate methodologies. This comparison effort emphasizes that it is incumbent upon each agency to clearly define the meaning of the terms used and the appropri- ate application of the reported information to avoid confusion or the accidental misuse of the information. An additional benefit of this comparison effort is the formation of a joint USGS/ Reclamation water-use team that will continue to investigate opportunities to expand and coordinate future water-use data compilation and reporting.

Comparisons of Targeted-riffle and Reach-wide Benthic Macroinvertebrate Samples: Implications for Data Sharing in Stream-condition Assessments

Journal of the North American Benthological Society (University of Chicago Press) | January 1st, 2007

Recent comparisons of benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) sampling protocols have shown that samples collected from different habitat types generally produce consis

Recent comparisons of benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) sampling protocols have shown that samples collected from different habitat types generally produce consistent stream classifications and assessments. However, these comparisons usually have not included biological endpoints used by monitoring agencies, such as multimetric indices (e.g., benthic index of biotic integrity [B-IBI]) or observed- to-expected (O/E) indices of taxonomic completeness, as target variables, and estimates of method precision are rarely provided. Targeted-riffle (TR) and reach-wide (RW) benthic samples have been collected at thousands of sites across the western USA, but little guidance is available for understanding 1) the extent to which raw data sets can be combined in regional or large-scale analyses, 2) the degree of precision afforded by each method, or 3) the efficacy of cross-application of biological indicators derived from one sample type to the other. To address these issues, we used data from 193 sites in California where the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) collected the 2 samples side by side. We also conducted a separate study wherein 3 replicates of each sample type were collected from 15 streams to estimate minimum detectable difference (MDD) as a measure of each method’s precision. Metrics calculated from TR and RW samples showed similar dose–response relationships to stressors gradients and similar raw scoring ranges. Biological indices (B-IBI, O/E0, and O/E50) derived from RW samples were more precise than those derived from TR samples, but precision differences were not substantial. On average, pairwise differences in any index between TR and RW sample types were much less than the MDD associated with either sampling method. We observed a weak but consistent bias toward higher O/E50 scores from TR samples than from RW samples at the highest elevations and in the largest watersheds. Broad-scale condition assessments were nearly identical when B-IBI and O/E0 were used as endpoints, and assessments based on O/E50 were only slightly less similar. Our analyses indicate that raw data sets and biological indicators derived from TR and RW samples may be generally interchangeable when used in ambient biomonitoring programs.

Competition for water induced by transnational land acquisitions for agriculture

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | January 26th, 2022

The ongoing agrarian transition from smallholder farming to large-scale commercial agriculture promoted by transnational large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) often aims

The ongoing agrarian transition from smallholder farming to large-scale commercial agriculture promoted by transnational large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) often aims to increase crop yields through the expansion of irrigation. LSLAs are playing an increasingly prominent role in this transition. Yet it remains unknown whether foreign LSLAs by agribusinesses target areas based on specific hydrological conditions and whether these investments compete with the water needs of existing local users. Here we combine process-based crop and hydrological modelling, agricultural statistics, and georeferenced information on individual transnational LSLAs to evaluate emergence of water scarcity associated with LSLAs. While conditions of blue water scarcity already existed prior to land acquisitions, these deals substantially exacerbate blue water scarcity through both the adoption of water-intensive crops and the expansion of irrigated cultivation. These effects lead to new rival water uses in 105 of the 160 studied LSLAs (67% of the acquired land). Combined with our findings that investors target land with preferential access to surface and groundwater resources to support irrigation, this suggests that LSLAs often appropriate water resources to the detriment of local users.

Compilation of 2018 Delta Levee Five-Year Plan Data

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 14th, 2024

Information provided in the Plans of the participating 74 Levee Maintaining Agencies (LMAs) include the level of protection of the LMAS' levee system at the time of the c

Information provided in the Plans of the participating 74 Levee Maintaining Agencies (LMAs) include the level of protection of the LMAS' levee system at the time of the creation of the Plans, the proposed work within the next five years to bring the LMAS' levee system to their desired level of protection, and a summary of the cost related to the proposed work. Proposed work includes multi-benefit projects, levee projects to meet a desired level of protection, studies, emergency planning, habitat enhancement projects, and additional protection. Also in this report is a summary of the LMAs’ 2009 five-Year plans, which were submitted to DWR in accordance with the Delta Levees Special Flood Control Projects Program 2009 Five-Year Plan Solicitation.

Complete Report on Construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct

City of Los Angeles | January 15th, 1916

Complexity of Coupled Human and Natural Systems

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) | September 14th, 2007

Integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems reveal new and complex patterns and processes not evident when studied by social or natural scientists s

Integrated studies of coupled human and natural systems reveal new and complex patterns and processes not evident when studied by social or natural scientists separately. Synthesis of six case studies from around the world shows that couplings between human and natural systems vary across space, time, and organizational units. They also exhibit nonlinear dynamics with thresholds, reciprocal feedback loops, time lags, resilience, heterogeneity, and surprises. Furthermore, past couplings have legacy effects on present conditions and future possibilities.

Compliance with D-1641 San Joaquin River October Flow Requirements

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | October 9th, 2023

Components of a Biological Opinion

Publisher not available | January 29th, 2015

A biological opinion is the document prepared by NOAA Fisheries or USFWS (referred to commonly as the Services) as part of the formal consultation process, to be issued a

A biological opinion is the document prepared by NOAA Fisheries or USFWS (referred to commonly as the Services) as part of the formal consultation process, to be issued at the culmination of this consultation process. This chapter provides a brief overview of the components of a biological opinion. In general, a biological opinion is required when an action (e.g., construction activity) is estimated to adversely affect an ESA-listed plant or animal species. Depending upon the species in question, NOAA Fisheries or USFWS issues a biological opinion on the effects of the proposed action on the affected ESA-listed species. If the agency concludes that the species will be unaffected, the proposed action receives a no-jeopardy biological opinion and continues as planned. If the proposed action is found to jeopardize a species, the federal government may propose alternatives, require additional mitigation measures or deny the project. If the proponent can modify the project to align with proposed alternatives and/or satisfy the recommended mitigation requirements, the proposed action can proceed.

Compounding effects of climate change and WUI expansion quadruple the likelihood of extreme-impact wildfires in California

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 21st, 2025

Previous research has examined individual factors contributing to wildfire risk, but the compounding effects of these factors remain underexplored. Here, we introduce the

Previous research has examined individual factors contributing to wildfire risk, but the compounding effects of these factors remain underexplored. Here, we introduce the “Integrated Human-centric Wildfire Risk Index (IHWRI)” to quantify the compounding effects of fire-weather intensification and anthropogenic factors—including ignitions and human settlement into wildland—on wildfire risk. While climatic trends increased the frequency of high-risk fire-weather by 2.5-fold, the combination of this trend with wildland-urban interface expansion led to a 4.1-fold increase in the frequency of conditions conducive to extreme-impact wildfires from 1990 to 2022 across California. More than three-quarters of extreme-impact wildfires—defined as the top 20 largest, most destructive, or deadliest events on record—originated within 1 km from the wildland-urban interface. The deadliest and most destructive wildfires—90% of which were human-caused—primarily occurred in the fall, while the largest wildfires—56% of which were human-caused—mostly took place in the summer. By integrating human activity and climate change impacts, we provide a holistic understanding of human-centric wildfire risk, crucial for policy development.