Research article

Factors influencing chronic semi-arid headwater stream impairments: a southern California case study

Running title: Significance of chronic headwater stream impairment
  • Received: 11 October 2021 Revised: 24 January 2022 Accepted: 26 January 2022 Published: 07 February 2022
  • Sources of stream impairments are well known; however, less attention has centered on characterizing the extent to which human-environmental factors influence headwater stream quality within semi-arid watersheds. This study quantified the extent to which seasonal weather patterns and landscape attributes contribute to the physicochemical characteristics of two perennial headwater tributaries and their confluence within the semi-arid mountainous region of the Santa Ana River Basin, California. In situ sampling of stream temperature (℃), stream flow rate (m/s), nitrate (NO3-), ammonium (NH4+), turbidity (NTU), dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, pH and lab assessments for. E. coli, total coliform (TC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) occurred during dry and wet season conditions. Across sampling locations, multiple parameters (i.e. NO3-, NH4+, TDS, TC) consistently exceeded regulatory standards simultaneously during both the dry and wet seasons, however, the level of concentrations varied between a tributary catchment landscape with high percentage of impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, buildings) and wastewater infrastructure (i.e septic, sewer) versus one characterized by agricultural activities (i.e. crop, livestock) and barren land. Findings illustrate the need for hydrologically comprehensive strategies (i.e. stream headwaters to river mouth) that are community to agency-driven and that support the expansion of monitoring and shared knowledge to mitigate impairments within headwater streams and downstream. Potential avenues for community collaborations that support sustainable water management strategies are highlighted.

    Citation: Jennifer B Alford, Jose A Mora. Factors influencing chronic semi-arid headwater stream impairments: a southern California case study[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(1): 98-126. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022007

    Related Papers:

    [1] Kazuhisa A. Chikita . Environmental factors controlling stream water temperature in a forest catchment. AIMS Geosciences, 2018, 4(4): 192-214. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2018.4.192
    [2] Adeeba Ayaz, Maddu Rajesh, Shailesh Kumar Singh, Shaik Rehana . Estimation of reference evapotranspiration using machine learning models with limited data. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 268-290. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021016
    [3] Kyle Whalley, Wei Luo . The Pressure of Society on Water Quality: A Land Use Impact Study of Lake Ripley in Oakland, Wisconsin. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(1): 14-36. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.1.14
    [4] Dek Vimean Pheakdey, Tran Dang Xuan, Tran Dang Khanh . Influence of Climate Factors on Rice Yields in Cambodia. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(4): 561-575. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.4.561
    [5] Dina Gubanova, Otto Chkhetiani, Anna Vinogradova, Andrey Skorokhod, Mikhail Iordanskii . Atmospheric transport of dust aerosol from arid zones to the Moscow region during fall 2020. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(2): 277-302. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022017
    [6] Gianni Petino, Donatella Privitera . Uncovering the local foodscapes. Exploring the Etna volcano case study, Italy. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(2): 392-408. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023021
    [7] Comfort CM, Smith KA, McManus MA, Neuheimer AB, Sevadjian JC, Ostrander CE . Observations of the Hawaiian Mesopelagic Boundary Community in Daytime and Nighttime Habitats Using Estimated Backscatter. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(3): 304-326. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.3.304
    [8] Sara E. Davila, Cesar Davila Hernandez, Martin Flores, Jungseok Ho . South Texas coastal area storm surge model development and improvement. AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(3): 271-290. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020016
    [9] John Greenway . Water resources management versus the world. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(4): 589-604. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021035
    [10] Serin Değerli Şimşek, Ömer Faruk Çapar, Evren Turhan . Assessment of Hydrological Drought Index change over long period (1990–2020): The case of İskenderun Gönençay Stream, Türkiye. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(3): 441-454. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023024
  • Sources of stream impairments are well known; however, less attention has centered on characterizing the extent to which human-environmental factors influence headwater stream quality within semi-arid watersheds. This study quantified the extent to which seasonal weather patterns and landscape attributes contribute to the physicochemical characteristics of two perennial headwater tributaries and their confluence within the semi-arid mountainous region of the Santa Ana River Basin, California. In situ sampling of stream temperature (℃), stream flow rate (m/s), nitrate (NO3-), ammonium (NH4+), turbidity (NTU), dissolved oxygen (DO), conductivity, pH and lab assessments for. E. coli, total coliform (TC) and total dissolved solids (TDS) occurred during dry and wet season conditions. Across sampling locations, multiple parameters (i.e. NO3-, NH4+, TDS, TC) consistently exceeded regulatory standards simultaneously during both the dry and wet seasons, however, the level of concentrations varied between a tributary catchment landscape with high percentage of impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, buildings) and wastewater infrastructure (i.e septic, sewer) versus one characterized by agricultural activities (i.e. crop, livestock) and barren land. Findings illustrate the need for hydrologically comprehensive strategies (i.e. stream headwaters to river mouth) that are community to agency-driven and that support the expansion of monitoring and shared knowledge to mitigate impairments within headwater streams and downstream. Potential avenues for community collaborations that support sustainable water management strategies are highlighted.



    Headwater stream impairments have primarily focused on urban, agricultural, and temperate forest landscapes while less attention has been placed on headwater streams (HWS) in semi-arid regions where water resources are limited [1,2,3,4,5]. Headwater streams serve as the beginning and collectively the largest percentage of stream miles across the hydrologic network (i.e. watershed or basin), providing numerous site and downstream human and environmental benefits [6,7,8,9,10]. Like other reaches of the hydrological network, HWS are adversely impacted by variable and spatially diverse human activities (e.g. deforestation, agriculture, development), natural activities (i.e. erosion) and hazards (e.g. droughts, fires, debris flows). Unlike other reaches of the hydrological network, when these activities occur in HWS they may create spatially diverse hydrologic impairments across the entire network as inputs move to downstream rivers, lakes and oceans. [11,12,13,14,15]. In semi-arid regions, water resources are becoming increasingly limited due to infrequent seasonal precipitation coupled with increasing drought conditions that significantly reduce the surface and groundwater resources needed to support human and environmental activities [16,17]. Despite the significance and recognition of HWS in influencing watershed and downstream water resources, the United States Clean Water Act (CWA) (Section 404) does not require monitoring of these streams creating knowledge gaps for public land (i.e. Forest and Park Services) and water agencies tasked with ensuring that water is available and safe for public and ecological uses [18,19,20]. Developing avenues to increase knowledge about the quality and quantity of HWS flows is essential to understanding the extent to which human and environmental activities can be sustained throughout the hydrological network (i.e. watersheds, river basins).

    Across the United States, HWS account for 53 percent of total stream miles, supplying water for more than one-third of the population (i.e. ~117 million), however, only 19 percent of streams have been assessed to date. Although a majority of HWS are intermittent (i.e. seasonal flow) or ephemeral (i.e. flow during precipitation), a smaller number of perennial (i.e. year-round flow) streams represent the interface between wet (i.e. precipitation fed) and dry season base flows (i.e. groundwater fed) that supply surface flows year round [21,22]. Headwaters also play a vital role in supporting biodiversity by providing water along wildlife corridors, riparian vegetation, wetlands, fisheries while simultaneously supporting numerous natural resource-based economies including industrial, agricultural and residential uses [6]. Within semi-arid landscapes of the southwestern United States, such as California and Arizona, headwater streams are often located within public lands traversing steep terrain including the Sierra Nevada, San Bernardino, San Gabriel mountains and the Colorado Plateau [23,24,25]. During wet seasons (i.e. winter, spring), short but intense precipitation events (i.e. atmospheric rivers) provide a majority of the annual rainfall. In contrast, dry seasons (i.e. summer, fall) are characterized by low humidity, high atmospheric temperatures and extreme wind conditions that reduce soil and vegetative moisture and stream base flows supporting conditions conducive for wildfires [26,27,28,29,30]. Additionally, the emergence of prolonged drought conditions means that perennial headwater streams are often the only flowing surface water feature across these landscapes, but drought conditions are increasingly threatening their presence [31,32].

    Adequate monitoring of headwater streams presents an opportunity for water resource and public land agencies and communities to identify water resource variability in relation to landscape characteristics, human activities and changes during climatic shifts (i.e. precipitations vs. drought events) [16]. Sources of pollution inputs may include nutrients, such as nitrogen, ammonium, phosphorus, bacteria (i.e. E. coli, coliforms), and dissolved solids that are conveyed to waterways and downstream during precipitation events, becoming increasingly concentrated during droughts when water levels are lowered [33,34,35]. Nutrients and bacterial inputs are of increasing concern because of their ability to support the growth of algal blooms that render waters toxic (i.e. harmful algal blooms) for wildlife and human contact or consumption. Potential sources of nutrients include wastewater (i.e. septic or sewer, livestock waste), fertilizers, and plant and animal decomposition [36,37,38,39,40]. High levels of conductivity and total dissolved solids (TDS) (i.e. inorganic dissolved solids) deriving from natural sources (i.e. rocks, soils erosion) and variable human activities include fertilizers, salt to melt ice and snow, and chemicals utilized in wastewater treatment infrastructure also contribute to the impairment of waterways [41,42]. A primary challenge in managing water resources is that inputs entering and residing in waterways often occur in tandem, creating longitudinal hydrologic impacts at the pollution source and downstream. Without sufficient monitoring of headwater streams, it will be increasingly difficult for resource agencies and communities to predict and mitigate impacts on water resources across the entire hydrologic network, especially in arid regions where water resources are becoming increasingly scarce [2,11,43,44,45].

    The state of California in the United States is one example of a region experiencing highly variable water resource management challenges. California has been at the epicenter of frequent and intense droughts that have reduced wet season snow and rainfall necessary for the recharge of surface and groundwater resources (Figure 1). However,by July 2021,100 percent of the state was in drought,with 89 percent of the state being categorized as extreme or exceptional drought conditions (Figure 2) [50,51]. Atmospheric rivers are long and narrow flowing columns of condensed water vapor that can transport large quantities of water in forms of rain and snow from the Pacific Ocean into the western United States [26,27,28,29]. Although beneficial, brief atmospheric rivers and precipitation events typically do little to mitigate reductions in the quality and quantity of water resources from years of drought forcing municipal, industrial, and agricultural sectors across the state to draw groundwater at rates that exceed recharge [52,53,54]. The lack of adequate monitoring of headwater streams coupled with California's frequent drought conditions further complicate implementing resilient water resource management strategies. A primary cause has been the knowledge gaps that link how upstream factors contribute to downstream challenges including groundwater retention, land subsidence, habitat loss, and reductions in the quality and quantity of water resources [55,56,57].

    Figure 1.  California Drought Trends 2014 to 2019.Source: USDM, 2021 [51].
    Figure 2.  California Drought Trends 2000 to 2021. Source: USDM, 2021 [51].

    In the Santa Ana River Basin, the largest and most populated river basin in Southern California, HWS are located in the forested landscape of the San Bernardino National Forests traversing through downstream urban and rural landscapes supporting surface and groundwater flows. Nutrients from urban and agricultural runoff entering water resources, coupled with rapid development, population growth and prolonged drought conditions have been well documented as primary factors reducing water quality and quantity along the mainstem; however, headwater stream monitoring remains limited [25,58,59]. Such conditions have resulted in the widespread presence of harmful algal blooms (HABs) within streams and reservoirs that serve as primary drinking, recreational and habitat across the state by lowering dissolved oxygen, reducing aquatic diversity and the quantity and quality of water available for human use [60,61,62]. To mitigate water shortages in this semi-arid environment, seasonal snowmelt from the Sierra-Nevada mountains in Northern California is transported to the south to sustain increasing demands. However, allocations of water resources to Southern California have been reduced because of the lack of precipitation in Northern California [58]. In an effort to mitigate these shortfalls, the California State Water Board (SWB) and Department of Water Resources (DWR) expanded efforts beyond the CWA, the state's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the California Water Quality Act to develop regional water resource management strategies beginning in 2002 with the Regional Water Management Planning Act (i.e. SB1672) and expanded in 2014 to include the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) (i.e. AB1739; SB1319; SB1168) [19,25]. Conditions regulated under this act include reduction in streamflow due to changes in groundwater/surface-water interaction and a directive for local water agencies to develop local-scale adaptive management strategies to ensure the efficient use of limited water resources. Nevertheless, headwater streams are rarely included in watershed monitoring and despite legislative efforts, regulatory hydrology and agencies continue to struggle with meeting highly variable water demands [63,64]. The lack of inclusion of headwaters in regulatory measures resulted in multiple California agencies and institutions, including the Association of California Water Agencies and the Public Policy Institute, to advocate for headwater protection and management. To date, the SWB has only issued suggestions for water managers to protect upstream flows with no issuance of a direct policy or mandate to monitor headwater streams [65,66,67,68].

    Barriers to implementing headwater monitoring programs in the Upper Santa Ana River Basin, include complexities within adequate funding and staffing, jurisdictional limitations, as well as the physical difficulty (i.e. steep slopes, remote areas) and permission to access sites (i.e. National Forests, Parks, Private Land) [69,70]. As a contribution to understand the human and environmental factors influencing headwater quality and to raise awareness on the value of including HWS in water resources management planning in semi-arid headwater streams, this study aims to provide a case study example to (1) determine the extent to which seasonal climatic patterns (i.e. dry vs. wet) coupled with prolonged drought conditions influence the physicochemical characteristics of headwater streams and (2) illustrate statistically significant relationships between physicochemical characteristics and to (3) identify seasonal trends in meeting regulatory standards as well as the extent to which parameter concentrations exceed regulatory thresholds. Findings may assist with identification of specific best management practices (i.e. land management, policy, education, collaborations) that could support resource agencies across southern California, and similar semi-arid regions, with understanding the benefits of frequent monitoring of headwater streams. This collective knowledge provides a framework where hydrologically comprehensive and resilient policies aimed at protecting water resources from the headwaters to downstream waterways may be recognized and resolved.

    Located within the San Bernardino National Forest, Waterman Canyon Creek (i.e. Waterman Creek) is a headwater stream of the Santa Ana River Basin, the largest and most populated river basin in Southern California (Figure 3). Catchment characteristics include forest and barren land, agricultural activities, commercial and residential buildings, impervious surfaces (i.e. roads, parking lots) and related infrastructure (i.e. septic and sanitary sewer systems, natural gas pipelines). Site geology is composed of young alluvial fan deposits, gneiss bedrock and landslide deposits consisting of a mixture of high and low permeability and low porosity [71]. Steep elevation gradients (i.e. 305 m to 1,433 m) created by tectonic activity (i.e. San Andreas fault) supports orographic lifting resulting in higher annual precipitation (i.e. 89 cm rain, 94 cm snow) when compared to the surrounding valley (i.e. 33 cm) landscape. The Mediterranean climate (i.e. semi-arid, arid, B-climates) means that precipitation typically occurs during the late fall, winter and early spring with October to April experiencing the highest precipitation during the hydrological year [58,72,73]. Downstream of the sampling locations, Waterman Creek supports numerous human and ecological activities including contributions to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District's groundwater percolation basin that provides water resources to communities in the cities of San Bernardino and Rialto [74]. Access to the HWS can be limited in this region due to steep terrains, partition boundaries (i.e. jurisdictional, private) and restoration efforts leaving a limited number of stream access points reliant on private landowner consent. Study monitoring sites represent two perennial headwater streams (i.e. Catchment 1, WC1, HUC 22554838, 4.66 km2; Catchment 2, WC2, HUC 22554836, 3.13 km2) and a downstream confluence creating the mainstem of waterman creek (i.e. Catchment 3, WC3, HUC 22555344, 7.28 km2). Catchment 3 represents both the collective drainage areas of the study site (i.e. catchments 1 and 2) and the closest available access point prior to surface and subsurface flows entering the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District's groundwater percolation basin (Figure 4). Downstream, Waterman Canyon primarily flows subsurface (i.e. groundwater), resurfacing in Riverside as a contribution to the surface flows of the Santa Ana River. This flow provides numerous recreational, ecological and drinking water resources before terminating at the Pacific Ocean near Huntington and Newport Beaches [75,76,77].

    Figure 3.  Santa Ana River Basin, Santa Ana River and Study Site.
    Figure 4.  Site Location Waterman Canyon.

    Catchment drainage area boundaries and hydrologic characteristics were determined using the EPA's WATERS KMZ geospatial layer imported into both ArcGIS 10.4 and Google Earth for analysis [74]. Land use types were identified by importing the 2016 Multiresolution National Land Cover Dataset (MRLC) 30m raster file into ArcGIS 10.4 [78]. This raster file was clipped to the catchment areas and Google Earth's satellite imagery were utilized to identify the percent of each land use types within a catchment. Precipitation data points were collected from Weather Underground using the Upper Waterman Canyon and Mountain weather stations, located upstream from the testing sites [79]. Rainfall accumulations (cm) were aggregated for 24 hours prior to a single sampling event. Additionally, septic and sewer (i.e. separate sanitary sewers) information was collected from the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and the Crestline Sanitation District [10,80,81].

    Water quality was monitored in situ from May 2018 to April 2019 for each site (i.e. WC1, WC2, WC3) for conductivity (μS/cm), dissolved oxygen (DO, mg/L), stream flow rate (m/s), pH, and stream temperature (℃) using Venier's sensors and probes and a Vernier Labquest 2 monitor similar to Abu-Baker et al. (2016) [82], Khatoon et al. (2013) [83], Vega et al. (1998) [84], and Varol et al. (2012) [85]. Ammonium (NH4+, mg/L), nitrate (NO3-, mg/L), and turbidity (NTU) were monitored similarly using Vernier's sensors and probes. Additional grab samples were collected, immediately placed on ice, and transported to California State University at San Bernardino to test for total Coliform (TC, cfu/100mL), Escherichia Coli (E. coli, cfu/100mL) and total dissolved solids (TDS, mg/L). Total Coliform and E. coli were analyzed using U.S. EPA approved IDEXX methods, Colilert, Colilert-18, Colisure, and Quanti-Tray/2000 and reported to the 95% confidence interval (Table 1). Using these methods, results are reported as the most probable number (MPN), which aligns with the EPA's colony forming units (CFU) units. Grab samples were collected in 1 (L) brown opaque HDPE plastic bottles that were acid washed using EPA protocols (Table 1) [86]. Sample events occurred at each site bi-weekly during the dry season (i.e. May to September 2018) and weekly during the wet season (i.e. October 2018 to April 2019) with increasing sampling with 24 hours of precipitation events to identify physicochemical and surface flow rate trends related to climatic and seasonal changes. Individual sampling events and seasonal trends were compared to federal, state, and regional water quality objectives and standards to determine the seasonal frequency in which samples met or exceeded these requirements (Table 2) as well as to determine the percent increase in sample concentrations over the highest regulatory thresholds.

    Table 1.  Water Quality Monitoring Methods, Units and Instruments.
    Parameter Unit Instrumentation
    pH None Vernier pH Sensor
    Turbidity NTU Vernier Turbidity Sensor
    Conductivity μS/cm Vernier Conductivity Probe
    Stream Temperature deg C Vernier Stainless Steel Temperature Probe
    Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Vernier Optical DO Probe
    Stream Flow Rate m/s Vernier Flow Rate Sensor
    Nitrate mg/L Vernier Nitrate Ion-Selective Electrode
    Ammonium mg/L Vernier Ammonium Ion-Selective Electrode
    Total Coliform MPN/100mL IDEXX Colilert
    E. coli MPN/100mL IDEXX Colilert
    TDS mg/L Gravimetry

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 2.  Water Quality Criteria/Standards include the EPA Recreational Criteria for E. coli, Lahontan Region Objectives for DO and pH, and Hooks Creek Objectives for NO3- and TDS.
    Water Quality Metric Standard Source
    Stream Temperature (℃) < 25 CA State Water Board
    Dissolved Oxygen (DO) (mg/L) > 4 CA State Water Board, Lahontan Region
    pH 6.5-8.5 CA State Water Board, Lahontan Region
    Turbidity NTU) < 100 CA State Water Board (Fact Sheet)
    Conductivity (μS/cm) 150–500 Range
    < 336 (Average)
    EPA (Range)
    CA State Water Board (Average)
    Nitrate (NO3-) (mg/L) 0.8–2.5 San Bernardino Mountains Hooks Creek Objectives
    Ammonium (NH4+) (mg/L) 0.02–0.4 EPA Aquatic Life Criteria
    Total Coliform (TC) (cfu/100mL) 1,000 CA State Water Board Objectives
    E. coli (cfu/100mL) < 126 EPA Recreational Standards
    Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) (mg/L) < 127 San Bernardino Mountains, Hooks Creek Objectives
    Note: Source: CWT, 2004 [87]; EPA, 2018 [88]; 2018 [89]; WB, 2002 [90]; WQCP, 2015 [91].

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Applying methods similar to Alford et al. (2016) [11], Khatoon (2013) [83], and Varol et al. (2012) [85], descriptive statistics for each water quality parameter were calculated for each sampling site. Parameters were tested for normality with SPSSv24 using Shapiro-Wilks tests, skewness, and kurtosis. Parameter data not following a normal distribution was transformed using a natural log transformation in Microsoft Excel as previously applied by Mallin et al. (2016) [92], USGS (2019) [93] and Yuncong and Migliaccio (2011) [94]. SPSSv24 was used to create Pearson's correlation matrix to understand the strength of statistically significant relationships between water quality parameters. Additionally, time series analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel to observe changes in the physicochemical characteristics of sampling sites during drought and precipitation conditions (i.e. rainfall, snowmelt, snow and fog).

    Previous studies highlight the need to understand watershed landscape features, climatic patterns and their associations with various water quality impairments [13,95,96]. In this study, barren land (i.e. 46%+) represented a majority of the land use types across all three catchments (Figure 5) with evergreen, impervious surfaces and mixed forest accounting for other land types. Across two tributary drainage areas, catchment 1 (i.e. WC1) represents a majority of barren land (i.e. 54%+), catchment 2 (i.e. WC2) represents the highest percentage of evergreen forests (i.e. 39%+), while catchment 3 (i.e. WC3), represents the collective landscape and downstream areas from catchments 1 and 2, having the highest percentage of impervious surfaces (i.e. 31%+; roads, houses). When considering the developed features of these tributaries, catchment 1 (i.e. WC1) had the highest number of dwelling units (i.e. 211), and related septic (i.e. 153) and sewer (i.e. 58) systems, while catchment 2 had the second highest number of these features with more agricultural features (i.e. crops, livestock) and less impervious surfaces (Figure 6).

    Figure 5.  Study site land use percentages by catchment.
    Figure 6.  Number of system or dwelling units per catchment in the study site.

    Observed precipitation trends (Figure 7) illustrate a pronounced distinction between dry (i.e. May to September 2018) and wet (i.e. October 2018 to March 2019) which included drip fog, rainfall and upper watershed snowmelt that collectively contributed to increases in stream flow conditions. The wet season includes multiple atmospheric rivers [97] with April signifying a transition back into the dry season. Dry conditions resulted in lower stream flows represented by groundwater fed surface base flows across all three sampling sites with WC3 having no surface flows from June 26 to November 28. The Mediterranean climate of the region coupled with multiple years of drought likely contributed to these conditions and are similar to those observed by Winter (2007) [98], Avanzi et al. [99] (2020) and others. Although smaller precipitation events (i.e. drip fog and rainfall) occurred in May (i.e. 0.02 cm) at the beginning of the study period, October represents the first significant rainfall event (i.e. 1.14cm), followed by increasing rainfall accumulations throughout January (i.e. ⅀5.27 cm) and February (⅀3.98 cm). Cumulative precipitation events contributed to the highest observed stream flows across all three sites with elevated flows present in the days and weeks after rainfall and upper elevation snowmelt. Similar to these study sites, landscapes void of vegetation (i.e. barren land, impervious surfaces, agricultural landscape) coupled with steep topography, extreme elevation changes, and intense but brief precipitation events have been observed to create variability between precipitation event occurrences and their influence on stream flows [43,44,100,101]. For example, in this study, it was observed that rainfall events occurring within 24 hours near sampling locations increased stream flows related to storm and overland flows. Additionally, due to the steep topography and extreme elevation changes from the upper to lower portions of the watershed, snowfall was often present in the upper watershed from January to early March. With warming temperatures occurring across the watershed in early February through March, snowmelt runoff increases stream flows as water drained from the upper watershed to the lower watershed where sampling sites are located.

    Figure 7.  Rainfall Accumulations 24 hours Prior to Sampling vs. site stream flow rates.

    Descriptive statistics highlight relevant physicochemical characteristics during the study period (Table 3) with seasonal regulatory exceedances across sampling events highlighted in figures 8 and 9. Observations include the high variability (i.e. variance) of total coliform (TC), E. coli, conductivity, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Parameter means for NO3- and TDS exceed regulatory standards across all sites, with TC means only exceeding for WC1 and WC2. Although beneficial, the means mask seasonal trends in exceedances observed during the study period. For example, trends for nutrients (NO3-, NH4+), TC and TDS reveal that these parameters consistently exceeded regulatory standards during both seasons with the dry season representing the highest exceedances for NH4+, TC and TDS (Figures 8 and 9). In contrast, the wet season represented the highest exceedances for NO3- across all sites, however, there was only a marginal increase in NO3- concentrations between seasons at WC1 and WC2. One stark contrast between seasons occurs at WC3, where there is a 75 percent increase in the number of samples exceeding regulatory standards between the dry (25%) and wet seasons (100%) with NH4+ concentrations ranging from 100 percent of samples exceeding during the dry seasons and 42 percent exceeding in the wet season. These trends are likely due to the absence of flows creating the inability to sample during the summer and early fall months. Other seasonal trends in impairments include TDS, which exceeded standards 100 percent of the sampling events during the dry season and 72 to 88 percent of sampling events in the wet season across all sites. Collectively, these trends illustrate that on average nutrients (NO3-; NH4+), TC and TDS are exceeding regulatory standards throughout the study period and across all sites. Consequently, these exceedances often occur simultaneously, suggesting potential short- and long-term impairments to water residing in the HWS that contribute to downstream water resources.

    Table 3.  Descriptive Statistics Water Quality Parameter Concentrations from 2018–2019. Parameter means exceeding regulatory standards and extreme (high) variances are noted in bold.
    Catchment Water Quality Parameters Descriptive Statistics
    Parameter Statistics WC1 WC2 WC3
    Stream Flow Rate (m/s) Variance 0.12 0.10 0.25
    Standard Deviation 0.34 0.32 0.50
    Mean 0.48 0.49 0.87
    Range 0.04–1.1 0.06–1.2 0.29–2.2
    # of samples 38 41 26
    DO (mg/L) Variance 3.5 3.2 1.9
    Standard Deviation 1.9 1.8 1.4
    Mean 9.4 9.3 10.7
    Range 6–13 5–13 8–13
    # of samples 37 40 24
    Stream Temperature (℃) Variance 11 8.3 4.8
    Standard Deviation 3.2 2.9 2.2
    Mean 15 14 14
    Range 9.9–21 10–20 9.4–19
    # of samples 38 40 26
    Conductivity (μS/cm) Variance 5791 6710 17151
    Standard Deviation 76 82 130
    Mean 291 297 340
    Range 159–485 97–547 239–644
    # of samples 38 41 26
    NO3- (mg/L) Variance 70 40 63
    Standard Deviation 8.4 6.3 7.9
    Mean 9.8 8.4 11
    Range 2.0–40 1.7–23 0.5–28
    # of samples 35 39 23
    NH4+ (mg/L) Variance 3.5 3.1 4.7
    Standard Deviation 1.9 1.7 2.2
    Mean 0.81 1.1 1.1
    Range 0–11 0–7.9 0–10
    # of samples 34 37 22
    Turbidity (NTU) Variance 66 101 68
    Standard Deviation 8 10 8
    Mean 10 12 11
    Range 0–31 0.5–53 1.0–30
    # of samples 37 39 26
    pH Variance 0.27 0.12 0.29
    Standard Deviation 0.5 0.35 0.54
    Mean 7.2 7.2 7.6
    Range 5.8–8.2 6.2–7.8 6.6–8.4
    # of samples 38 38 26
    Total Coliform (cfu/100mL) Variance 687421 606180 703530
    Standard Deviation 829 778 838
    Mean 1388 1068 966
    Range 82–2419 66–2419 76–2419
    # of samples 37 37 25
    E. coli (cfu/100mL) Variance 4967 34075 1979
    Standard Deviation 70 184 44.4
    Mean 41 68 23
    Range 2.0–410 1–1119 0–2.9
    # of samples 37 37 25
    TDS (mg/L) Variance 2586 4158 6500
    Standard Deviation 52 64 80
    Mean 192 187 228
    Range 88–284 52–304 94–372
    # of samples 31 32 25

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 8.  Percent of sampling events exceeding regulatory standards during the wet season.
    Figure 9.  Percent of sampling events exceeding regulatory standards during the dry season.

    Variability in precipitation patterns also resulted in dynamic fluctuations in parameter concentrations throughout the study period. For instance, when dry weather persisted in September, base flow conditions at WC1 resulted in NO3- samples that were 16 to 72 percent higher than the regulatory standard, with WC2 concentrations ranging from 36 to 40 percent higher than regulatory standards. Sampling for NH4+ met the regulatory standards at WC1 for both sampling periods with WC2 only meeting this requirement during the second sampling event. Total coliform (TC) concentration trends for September revealed that while WC1 maintained high concentrations of TC (142%) for sampling events, WC2 was 20 percent higher during the first sampling event, meeting regulatory standards in the second sampling period. Additionally, trends for TDS illustrate an increase in concentrations across both WC1 (25%, 43%) and WC2 (38%, 40%) revealing that multiple parameters are excessively higher than regulatory thresholds simultaneously.

    During the wet season, January represented the highest accumulation of precipitation events (⅀5.27 cm) with the most significant increase in NO3- concentrations occurring in the second half of the month (i.e. WC1 1,504%, WC2 700%, and WC3 644%). In contrast, the highest observed NH4+ concentrations occurred during the first half of the month prior to significant rainfall, ranging from 1,875% (WC2) to 2,575% (WC1) above regulatory standards. With increasing rain accumulations NH4+ concentrations decreased, with all sites meeting regulatory standards by the end of the month, at a time when NO3- concentrations were increasing suggesting that both natural (i.e. nitrification) and anthropogenic (i.e. landscape features) process may be attributing to nutrient concentration shifts. Trends in TC concentrations revealed that during early sampling events all sites met regulatory standards, yet during the second half of the month, TC concentrations ranged from 55% to 142% above standards across all sites, with all sites meeting regulatory standards indicating a possible dilution of TC concentrations with increasing flows. Furthermore, TDS concentrations were 22 percent to 188 percent above the regulatory standards with the highest concentrations occurring at WC1 during the third sampling period (104%), WC2 during the first sampling period (74%), and WC3 during the second sampling period (181%). Although these examples are a snapshot of the overall observations, they help to reveal dynamic processes across the study area even in short periods of time. Understanding this rapid flux in parameter concentrations supports the implementation of management strategies that target specific catchment water quality characteristics across wet and dry seasons. The extreme shifts in parameter concentrations and variability across diverse tributary catchment landscapes observed during this study are similar to those found in numerous studies where both seasonality and sources of pollution inputs can be highly variable leading to rapid variability of pollution inputs associated with both stormwater flows and dry seasonal stream characteristics [102,103,104].

    Physiochemical correlations were calculated to understand the strength of relationships among observed parameters. Several trends emerged across all sites including inverse relationships between stream temperature and DO, TDS and DO and TDS and stream flows. (Tables 4 and 5). The relationships between DO and stream temperatures are expected because the level of DO concentrations are directly associated with stream temperature, with increasing temperatures reducing DO levels and cooler temperatures increasing DO levels [105]. In contrast, stream temperature was positively correlated with TDS, while TDS was negatively correlated with stream flow across all three sites. These relationships illustrate that in warmer months when stream flows were lower and stream temperatures were warmer, there were higher concentrations of TDS. TDS can be elevated by both natural and human sources including geological erosion and effluent from wastewater and agricultural production, all of which are present throughout the study area. When observing trends in nutrients (i.e. NO3- and NH4+) and bacteria (i.e. TC, E. coli), higher concentrations of NO3- were positively associated with stream flow and DO, however, the parameter was negatively associated with stream temperature and conductivity at WC1 and WC2. Other nutrient observations include NH4+ positive associated with conductivity at WC1 and WC2, while NO3- was positively associated with DO across all three sites. Additionally, (TC) was positively associated with stream temperature and conductivity at WC1 and WC3, however it was negatively associated with stream flow, DO and NO3- only at site WC1. Both WC1 and WC2 illustrated positive associations between E. coli, stream temperature and conductivity. One significant difference in E. coli relationships with other parameters was its negative association with stream flow and DO, which only occurred at WC1. Overall observations in nutrient and bacterial concentrations indicate that during higher stream flows, NO3- may be more present in the water column as it is moved from the landscape to surface water features, and it has the potential for nitrification in streams. As flows decrease and increasing water temperatures persist, pollution inputs present in the water column may become more concentrated and decomposition activities may increase NH4+, illustrating potential human-environmentally driven nutrient processes present during both dry and wet seasons [106]. Similar trends observed in the correlation matrix are reflected in seasonal trends of parameter exceedances (Figures 8 and 9).

    Table 4.  Pearsons Correlation Covariance Matrix, WC1.
    Stream Flow DO Temp. Cond. NO3- NH4+ Turb. pH TC E. coli TDS
    Stream Flow 1
    DO 0.74** 1
    Temp. −0.70** −0.88** 1
    Cond. −0.38* −0.31 0.37* 1
    NO3- 0.52** 0.63** −0.57** −0.39* 1
    NH4+ 0.06 0.07 −0.08 0.47** −0.14 1
    Turb. −0.22 −0.13 0.11 −0.05 −0.15 −0.20 1
    pH −0.25 −0.45** 0.45** 0.15 −0.06 −0.004 −0.09 1
    TC −0.41* −0.50** 0.53** 0.35* −0.41* 0.05 0.24 0.16 1
    E. coli −0.44** −0.35* 0.38* 0.61** −0.28 0.26 −0.03 0.06 0.46** 1
    TDS −0.49** −0.65** 0.56** 0.21 −0.55** 0.12 0.06 0.43* 0.36* 0.36* 1
    Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 5.  Pearsons Correlation Covariance Matrix, WC2.
    Stream Flow DO Temp. Cond. NO3- NH4+ Turb. pH TC E. coli TDS
    Stream Flow 1
    DO 0.58** 1
    Temp. −0.31 −0.59** 1
    Cond. −0.14 −0.20 0.18 1
    NO3- 0.54** 0.79** −0.64** −0.45** 1
    NH4+ −0.08 −0.12 −0.01 0.41* −0.19 1
    Turb. −0.20 −0.27 0.29 −0.01 −0.22 −0.08 1
    pH −0.28 −0.28 0.21 0.31 −0.22 0.20 0.02 1
    TC 0.10 −0.06 0.23 0.30 −0.19 −0.00 −0.04 0.08 1
    E. coli 0.13 −0.19 0.13 0.41* −0.22 0.11 −0.17 −0.03 0.66** 1
    TDS −0.40* −0.55** 0.57** 0.17 −0.62** 0.04 0.39* 0.28 0.02 0.09 1
    Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  Pearsons Correlation Covariance Matrix, WC3.
    Stream Flow DO Temp. Cond. NO3- NH4+ Turb. pH TC E. coli TDS
    Stream Flow 1
    DO 0.30 1
    Temp. −0.41* −0.41* 1
    Cond. −0.37 −0.33 0.61** 1
    NO3- 0.23 0.66** −0.29 −0.45 1
    NH4+ −0.24 −0.26 0.05 0.05 −0.39 1
    Turb. 0.09 0.18 −0.12 −0.24 0.16 −0.23 1
    pH −0.30 −0.21 0.27 −0.07 −0.39 0.50* −0.10 1
    TC −0.12 −0.02 0.45* 0.46* 0.11 −0.24 −0.05 −0.14 1
    E. coli −0.05 0.03 0.28 0.16 0.31 −0.21 0.05 −0.11 0.47* 1
    TDS −0.66** −0.51* 0.47* 0.39 −0.43* 0.24 −0.13 0.31 0.02 −0.24 1
    Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Nutrients, bacteria, and TDS are of concern across the study site and are of increasing concern in surface and groundwater resources globally. Potential anthropogenic point and nonpoint sources that contribute to excessive parameter concentrations in surface waters include animal waste and plant and animal decomposition, as well as effluent from wastewater systems and the application of fertilizer on the landscape as observed by Barakat et al. (2016) [36], Carpenter (1998) [107], Tong and Chen (2002) [5] and others. Although it was beyond the scope of this study to directly trace pollution input sources, it was observed that in relation to the two tributary catchments (i.e. WC1 and WC2) WC1 has the highest number of dwelling units with septic and sewer infrastructure coupled with high percentages of impervious surface and barren land types. These catchment characteristics are conducive to transporting pollution inputs to nearby streams during rain and snowmelt events as well as having a higher potential occurrence of septic and sewer system failures (i.e. leaks) that may be contributing to consistently elevated nutrients, TC, and TDS within the tributary catchment and downstream year round. Also observed was the excessive presence of these parameters in WC2. In contrast to WC1, this tributary catchment landscape represents less impervious surfaces, however, with the inclusion of agricultural food and livestock activities, this landscape illustrates more potential sources of parameter inputs entering the tributary stream.

    Excessive nutrients in the water column cause reductions in dissolved oxygen levels (i.e. hypoxic conditions) that threaten aquatic species and human health [37,39,40]. In rural areas, excessive nitrates have been observed in wells that are generally linked to agricultural activities, leading to cancer and drastic reductions in hemoglobin, reducing oxygen levels in adults and infants (i.e. blue baby syndrome) [38,108]. These findings support other studies such as Mosely (2015) [109], who synthesized over a decade of drought-related water quality studies across variable hydrologic features (i.e. lakes, rivers, streams) observing that drought conditions characterized by high atmospheric temperatures and low flows often increased salinity, turbidity, nutrients and algal production. Across various geographical scales, driving factors of these conditions were linked to the reduced amount of water that dilutes pollution inputs associated with human-environmental sources such as failing septic and sewer systems and impervious surfaces. Collectively, excess of all observed parameters can reduce aquatic biodiversity and human health, which is of special concern during drought conditions when water resources are in high demand [36,41,42]. Contributing to this growing knowledge, this study also highlights the role of brief atmospheric rivers and wet seasonality characterizing semi-arid landscapes in transporting pollution inputs to surface water resources indicating a need for frequent, year-round monitoring to determine flux conditions of specific inputs as well as how multiple parameters exceed regulatory standards simultaneously.

    This approach to illustrating relationships may further assist resource agencies with identifying appropriate management strategies, such as stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to explore how targeting one parameter may lead to the reduction of other correlated parameters as suggested by Barret (2005) [110], Commings et al. (2000) [111], Khatoon et al. (2013) [83], Mallin et al. (2016) [92], Roy et al. (2014) [112] and others. Headwater streams provide an opportunity to spatially isolate these relationships within the hydrologic network so that BMPs can target impairments specific to each catchment to further minimize downstream impacts. It should also be noted that although there are inverse relationships among many of the parameters, it does not dismiss previous findings that even in these cases, many of these parameters are exceeding regulatory standards. These statistically significant relationships support findings reported by Ice and Sugden (2003) [113], Van Vliet and Zwolsman (2008) [114] and others when observing stream quality during similar climatic patterns.

    Despite being omitted from a majority of watershed and resource planning, this study magnifies the value of including headwater streams (HWS) in such processes to ensure hydrological inclusiveness and management across the entire network (i.e. basin, watershed). This is increasingly necessary in semi-arid regions characterized by limited water resources and increasing human populations that continue to experience climatic shifts related to prolonged drought and overall decreases in precipitation during the wet seasons. This study observed highly variable concentrations of nutrients, bacteria, conductivity, and TDS that were higher than regulatory standards throughout the study period. Although often exceeding regulatory thresholds, across all sites, lower values of NO3- were observed during drier periods, when NH4+, TC and TDS were at their highest values during the study period. As previously noted, NO3- increased after rain events, while NH4+, TC, and TDS decreased. The fluctuation in parameter concentrations observed during the wet and dry seasons, suggests that both climatic and watershed landscape factors are contributing to increased pollution inputs in waterways, similar to trends also observed by Barakat et al. (2016) [36], Corsi et al. (2010) [41], Kaushal et al. (2005) [42], Tong and Chen (2002) [5], and others. Since these impairments are occurring simultaneously, it creates a complex array of water quality and quantity issues that require resource managers to tackle pollution input reductions across multiple parameters and sources. Furthermore, results suggest that the exclusion of HWS in watershed and water resource planning initiatives is a critical gap in effectively identifying and mitigating surface water impairments across a hydrological network.

    To reduce pollution inputs throughout the hydrological network, resource managers should consider an array of mitigation strategies including the monitoring of watershed infrastructure (i.e. septic, sewer, impervious surfaces) and streams, the implementation of best management strategies, community-agency collaborations, and education and outreach programs that support a comprehensive approach using both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches [115]. One example of a multi-tiered field monitoring and BMP approach is the United States Forest Service's (USFS) attempt to understand the extent to which watershed features (i.e. undisturbed vs. disturbed) across a forested landscape are influenced by sediment loads in streams. The strategy incorporates sediment fences, bank pins, turbidity measurements to identify sources of sediment loads in streams and the extent to which loads are influenced by both precipitation events and the types of pollution inputs entering stream systems through sediment transportation. This multi-tiered approach has enabled the USFS to target specific stream segments within the watershed as well as mitigating multiple pollution inputs (i.e. bacteria, nutrients) through a single BMP structure. This approach further enables the USFS to focus limited resources on resolving issues unique to that specific watershed versus applying the more traditional "one size fits all" BMP approach [116].

    Also central to a multi-tiered monitoring approach to watershed management is identifying and managing the diverse human and environmental activities across the entire hydrological network through a collaborative planning and management framework. Emerging research suggests common pool resource (CPR) and adaptive management approaches are more inclusive strategies aimed at achieving water resiliency in uncertain conditions, especially across the surface-groundwater interface [115,117,118]. For example, Kiparsky et al. (2017) [63] suggest that although much legislation, including the California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, provides an "ideal" if idealistic framework whereby local agencies are required to self-organize to resolve water resource issues, such an approach presents numerous challenges for a single agency to tackle. To bridge agency needs through community engagement, Kiparsky et al. (2017) [63] present an approach that includes establishing a framework (i.e. identification of stakeholders, resources, etc.) through two overarching criteria: Efficacy Criteria which includes (1) scale (i.e. extent of regulatory oversight and spatiality of resources), (2) human capacity (i.e. knowledge of institutions and community; monitoring), (3) funding, (4) authority (i.e. cross jurisdictional boundaries), (5) independence and the Fairness Criteria (1) participation (i.e. institutional and community), (2) bottom up representation starting with stakeholders to inform decision makers, (3) accountability that includes agency responsibility for decisions, and (4) transparency across all stakeholders and agencies.

    When applying this framework to this study site, there are numerous opportunities to develop a process by which decision makers are informed by stakeholders through frequent field monitoring and communication that prioritizes data centric assessments of water resources, and landowner knowledge to develop a more targeted and specific multi-tiered approach to managing water resources across the human-environment interface. For example, the study site traverses multiple jurisdictional boundaries including USFS, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) and private landowners, serving as a resource for commercial, residential, and industrial activities, while providing essential and often limited water resources for ecological habitat and numerous endangered species in situ and downstream. Expanding monitoring efforts to include HWS and participation by landowners is one available strategy, but to fully realize a more resilient management approach, HWS data can bridge knowledge gaps about the type, source and frequency of pollution inputs entering these waterways. This allows specific BMPs to be developed and strategically placed within the watershed to mitigate significant influxes of multiple pollution inputs to streams occurring simultaneously. Slough et al. (2021) [119] suggesting that community-based monitoring enables community members to both gain and share knowledge creating opportunities that support a more comprehensive bottom-up decision making model, instead of traditional top-down structure. Additionally, it helps to reduce human resource strains within agencies, while also helping agencies to become more transparent and engaged with the communities they serve. Such approaches would be beneficial, especially in semi-arid regions that experience increasingly diverse challenges in maintaining and protecting HWS flows. As a result, utilizing HWS knowledge can inform stakeholders in situ and downstream to develop more comprehensive policies that are inclusive of factors contributing to water quality and quantity throughout the entire hydrological network, enabling communities to become more resilient for current and future generations.

    Documenting the climatic impacts on the physicochemical characteristics of surface water quality in headwater streams is necessary to effectively determine the extent to which headwater streams may be influencing water resources throughout the entire hydrologic network. This study illustrated dynamic variability in physicochemical concentrations within headwater streams related to landscape features and climatic conditions. This is of concern because, like many other semi-arid regions, this basin is used to provide water resources to multiple communities located in an arid region experiencing chronic droughts coupled with increasing water resource needs to meet both human and environmental activities. As such, findings emphasize the importance and need for frequent, year-round water quality testing in perennial headwater streams since, collectively, these stream types cover the highest percentage of stream length across a given hydrological unit. It is recognized that monitoring alone cannot adequately support effective watershed management and the adoption of multi-tiered strategies (i.e. monitoring, BMP implementation, collaborations, education, landowner cooperation) because a long term process is ultimately needed to fully address the ever-changing barriers to ensuring water resources are adequate and protected.

    Omission of headwater streams in watershed planning and water resource management limits knowledge about how upstream factors are spatially contributing to stream impairments that threaten water quality and quantity downstream and across the hydrological network. This potentially introduces enormous barriers to meeting regulatory standards and uncertainty related to financial costs to resource agencies charged with ensuring that water resources are available during drought conditions for current and future generations. Monitoring and assessment strategies implemented in this study can be applied globally to further expand knowledge and to underscore the importance of including headwater streams in assessments. Such inclusion supports sustainable resource management strategies that are hydrologically comprehensive. In doing so resource agencies and communities will be able to meet the ever-changing socio-economic needs and increasingly unpredictable and more volatile weather patterns that affect water quality and quantity.

    The authors declare no conflict of interest.



    [1] Hosen JD, McDonough OT, Febria CM, et al. (2014) Dissolved Organic Matter Quality and Bioavailability Changes Across an Urbanization Gradient in Headwater Streams. Envirn Sci Technol 48: 7817–7824. https://doi.org/10.1021/es501422z doi: 10.1021/es501422z
    [2] Mallin MA, Johnson VL, Ensign SH (2009) Comparative Impacts of Stormwater Runoff on Water Quality of an Urban, a Suburban, and a Rural Stream. Environ Monit Assess 159: 475–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0644-4 doi: 10.1007/s10661-008-0644-4
    [3] Moore AA, Palmer M (2005) Invertebrate Biodiversity in Agricultural and Urban Headwater Streams: Implications for Conservation and Management. Ecol App 15: 1160–1177. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1484 doi: 10.1890/04-1484
    [4] Siziba N, Mwedzi T, Muisa N (2021) Assessment of nutrient enrichment and heavy metal pollution of headwater streams of Bulawayo, Zimbabwe. Phys Chem Earth 122: 102912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2020.102912 doi: 10.1016/j.pce.2020.102912
    [5] Tong STY, Chen W (2002) Modeling the Relationship Between Land Use and Surface Water Quality. J Environ Manag 66: 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2002.0593 doi: 10.1006/jema.2002.0593
    [6] Colvin SAR, Sullivan SMP, Shirey PD, et al. (2019) Headwater Streams and Wetlands are Critical for Sustaining Fish, Fisheries, and Ecosystem Services. Am Fish Soc 44: 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsh.10229 doi: 10.1002/fsh.10229
    [7] Edwards PJ, Williard KWJ, Schoonover JE (2015) Fundamentals of Watershed Hydrology. J Contemp Water Res Educ 154: 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1936-704X.2015.03185.x doi: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2015.03185.x
    [8] University of New Hampshire (UNH). Headwater Streams, 2018. Available from: https://extension.unh.edu/resource/headwater-streams
    [9] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Headwater streams - what are they and what do they do? 2011. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-07/documents/headwater_streams_-_what_are_they_and_what_do_they_do.pdf
    [10] United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021. Municipal Wastewater Retrieved, 2021. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/municipal-wastewater
    [11] Alford JB, Debbage KG, Mallin MA, et al. (2016) Surface Water Quality and Landscape Gradients in the North Carolina Cape Fear River Basin, The Key Role of Fecal Coliform. Southest Geogr 56: 428–453. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2016.0045 doi: 10.1353/sgo.2016.0045
    [12] Burkholder J (2007) Impact of waste from concentrated animal feeding operations on water quality. Environ Health Perspect 115: 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.8839 doi: 10.1289/ehp.8839
    [13] Booth DB, Jackson CR (2007) Urbanization of Aquatic Systems: Degradation Thresholds, Stormwater Detection, and the Limits of Mitigation. J Am Water Resour Assoc 33 1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04126.x
    [14] Priskin J (2003) Tourist Perceptions of Degradation Caused by Coastal Nature-Based Recreation. Environ Manag 32: 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-002-2916-z doi: 10.1007/s00267-002-2916-z
    [15] Yates MV (2007) Classical Indicators in the 21st Century—Far and Beyond the Coliform. Water Environ Res 79: 279–286. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143006X123085 doi: 10.2175/106143006X123085
    [16] Fritz KM, Johnson BR, Walters DM (2008) Physical indicators of hydrologic permanence in forested headwater streams. J North Am Benthological Soc 27: 690–704. https://doi.org/10.1899/07-117.1 doi: 10.1899/07-117.1
    [17] Wohl E (2017) The significance of small streams. Front Earth Sci 11: 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-017-0647-y doi: 10.1007/s11707-017-0647-y
    [18] American Fisheries Society. AFS Paper on loss of Clean Water Act Protections for headwater streams and wetlands, 2020. Available from: https://fisheries.org/2019/02/afs-paper-on-loss-of-clean-water-act-protections-for-headwater-streams-and-wetlands/
    [19] California Environmental Water Quality Act (CAWQA) Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/nps/encyclopedia/0a_laws_policy.html
    [20] US EPA. Streams under CWA Section 404, 2021. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/streams-under-cwa-section-404
    [21] US EPA. Water: Rivers & Streams, 2019. Available from: https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/streams.html
    [22] Wallace JB, Eggert SL (2015) Terrestrial and Longitudinal Linkages of Headwater Streams. Southeast Nat 14: 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1656/058.014.sp709 doi: 10.1656/058.014.sp709
    [23] Pate AA, Segura C, Bladon KD (2020) Streamflow permanence in headwater streams across four geomorphic provinces in Northern California. Hydrol Process 34: 4487–4504. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13889 doi: 10.1002/hyp.13889
    [24] California State Water Board (SWB) Extent of California's perennial and non-perennial stream, 2011. Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/reports/mgmt_memo2extent.pdf
    [25] California State Water Board (SWB). Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, 2021. Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf
    [26] Dettinger MD (2013) Atmospheric Rivers as Drought Busters in the U.S. West Coast. J Hydrometeoologyr 14: 1721–1732. https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-02.1
    [27] Dettinger MD, Ralph FM, Das T, et al. (2011) Atmospheric Rivers, Floods and the Water Resources of California. Water 3: 445–478. https://doi.org/10.3390/w3020445 doi: 10.3390/w3020445
    [28] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). What are Atmospheric Rivers? 2019. Available from: https://www.noaa.gov/stories/what-are-atmospheric-rivers
    [29] Ralph FM, Neiman PJ, Wick GA, et al. (2006) Flooding in California's Russian River: Role of Atmospheric Rivers. Geophys Res Lett 33. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL026689
    [30] Sheppard PR, Comrie AC, Packin GD, et al. (2002) The climate of the US Southwest. Clim Res 21: 219–238. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr021219 doi: 10.3354/cr021219
    [31] AghaKouchak A, Sorooshian S, Hsu K, et al. (2013) The Potential of Precipitation Remote Sensing for Water Resources Vulnerability Assessment in Arid Southwestern United States. Clim Vulnerability 5: 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384703-4.00512-8 doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384703-4.00512-8
    [32] Bogan MT, Boersma KS, Lytle DA (2014) Resistance and resilience of invertebrate communities to seasonal and supraseasonal drought in arid-land headwater streams. Freshwater Biol 60: 2547–2558. https://doi.org/10.1111/FWB.12522 doi: 10.1111/FWB.12522
    [33] Lisboa MS, Schneider RL, Sullivan PJ, et al. (2020) Drought and post-drought rain effect on stream phosphorus and other nutrient losses in the Northeastern USA. J Hydrol 28: 100672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100672 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2020.100672
    [34] Mosley LM (2015) Drought impacts on the water quality of freshwater systems; review and integration. Earth-Sci Rev 140: 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.11.010 doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.11.010
    [35] Signor R, Roser D, Ball J, et al. (2005) Quantifying the impact of runoff events on microbiological contaminant concentrations entering surface drinking source waters. J Water Health 3: 453–468. https://doi.org/10.2166/WH.2005.052 doi: 10.2166/WH.2005.052
    [36] Barakat A, Baghdadia M E, Raisa J, et al. (2016) Assessment of Spatial and Seasonal Water Quality Variation of Oum Er Rbia River (Morocco) Using Multivariate Statistical Techniques. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 4: 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2016.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.iswcr.2016.11.002
    [37] Fink DF, Mitsch WJ (2004) Seasonal and Storm Event Nutrient Removal by a Created Wetland in an Agricultural Watershed. Ecol Eng 23: 313–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.11.004 doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2004.11.004
    [38] Gosselin DC, Headrick J, Tremblay R, et al. (2009) Domestic Well Water Quality in Rural Nebraska: Focus on Nitrate-Nitrogen, Pesticides, and Coliform Bacteria. Groundwater Monit Rem 17: 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.1997.tb01280.x doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.1997.tb01280.x
    [39] Mallin MA, Cahoon LB (2003) Industrialized Animal Production—A Major Source of Nutrient and Microbial Pollution to Aquatic Ecosystems. Popul Environ 24: 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023690824045 doi: 10.1023/A:1023690824045
    [40] Smith AP, Western AW, Hannah MC (2013) Linking Water Quality Trend with Land Use Intensification in Dairy Farming Catchments. J Hydrol 476: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.057 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.057
    [41] Corsi SR, Gracyzyk DJ, Geis SW, et al. (2010) A Fresh Look at Road Salt: Aquatic Toxicity and Water-Quality Impacts on Local, Regional, and National Scales. Environ Sci Technol 44: 7376–7382. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101333u doi: 10.1021/es101333u
    [42] Kaushal SS, Groffman PM, Likens GE, et al. (2005) Increased Salinization of Fresh Water in the Northeastern United States. PNAS 102: 13517–13520. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506414102 doi: 10.1073/pnas.0506414102
    [43] Arnold CL, Gibbons CJ (1996) Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmental Indicator. J Am Plann Assoc 62: 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369608975688 doi: 10.1080/01944369608975688
    [44] Schueler TR (1994) The importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protect Tech 1: 100–111.
    [45] Shaw SB, Marrs J, Bhattarai N, et al. (2014) Longitudinal Study of the Impacts of Land Cover Change on Hydrologic Response in Four Mesoscale Watersheds in New York State, USA. J Hydrol 519: 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.06.055 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.06.055
    [46] Center for American Progress (CAP), California's Disappearing Rivers, 2018. Available from: https://disappearingwest.org/rivers/factsheets/DisappearingRivers-CA-factsheet.pdf
    [47] Lake PS (2003) Ecological effects of perturbation by drought in flowing waters. Freshwater Biol 48: 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01086.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01086.x
    [48] Proctor CR, Lee J, Yu D, et al. (2020) Wildfire caused widespread drinking water distribution network contamination. Am Water Works Assoc 2: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1183 doi: 10.1002/aws2.1183
    [49] Tat-Shing Chow A, Karanfil T, Dalhgren RA, Wildfires are Threatening Municipal Water Supplies, 2021. Available from: https://eos.org/science-updates/wildfires-are-threatening-municipal-water-supplies
    [50] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Atmospheric River Soaks California, 2019. Available from: https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/atmospheric-river-soaks-california
    [51] United States Drought Monitor (USDM) 2014 to 2019 California Drought Trends, 2019. Available from: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Maps/MapArchive.aspx
    [52] Diffenbaugh NS, Swain DL, Touma D (2015) Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California. PNAS 112: 3931–3936. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1422385112 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422385112
    [53] Mirchi A, Madani K, Roos M, et al. (2013) Climate change impacts on California's Water Resources. Drought Arid Semi-arid Reg 301–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6636-5_17
    [54] Thomas BF, Famiglietti JS, Landerer FW, et al. (2017) GRACE Groundwater Drought Index: Evaluation of California Central Valley groundwater drought. Remote Sens Environ 198: 384–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.026 doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.026
    [55] Faunt CC, Sneed M, Traum J, et al. (2016) Water Availability and Land Subsidence in the Central Valley, California, USA. Hydrogeol J 24: 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1339-x doi: 10.1007/s10040-015-1339-x
    [56] Langridge R, Daniels B (2017) Accounting for Climate Change and Drought in Implementing Sustainable Groundwater Management. Water Resour Manage 31: 3287–3298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1607-8 doi: 10.1007/s11269-017-1607-8
    [57] Xiao M, Koppa A, Mekonnen Z, et al. (2017) How much groundwater did California's Central Valley lose during the 2012–2016 drought? Geophys Res Letters 44: 4872–4879. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073333
    [58] Upper Santa Ana River Watershed: Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, 2015. Available from: https://www.sbvwcd.org/docman-projects/upper-santa-ana-integrated-regional-water-management-plan/3802-usarw-irwmp-2015-ch1-9-final/file
    [59] Brown AE, Zhang L, McMahon TA, et al. (2005) A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J Hydrol 310: 28–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.12.010 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.12.010
    [60] Anderson DM, Gilbert PM, Burkholder JM (2002) Harmful algal blooms and eutrophication: Nutrient sources, composition, and consequences. Estuaries 25: 704–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02804901 doi: 10.1007/BF02804901
    [61] California Water Quality Monitoring Council (CAWQ). Harmful Algal Bloom Incident Reports Map, 2020. Available from: https://mywaterquality.ca.gov/habs/where/freshwater_events.html
    [62] California Water News Daily (WND). Blue-Green Algae Blooming Throughout California, 2019. Available from: http://californiawaternewsdaily.com/drought/blue-green-algae-blooming-throughout-california/
    [63] Kiparsky M, Milman A, Owen D, et al. (2017) The Importance of Institutional Design for Distributed Local-level Governance of Groundwater: The Case of California's Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Water 9: 755–772. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100755 doi: 10.3390/w9100755
    [64] Thomas BF (2018) Sustainability indices to evaluate groundwater adaptive management: a case study in California (USA) for the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. Hydrogeol J 27: 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1863-6 doi: 10.1007/s10040-018-1863-6
    [65] Association of California Water Agencies (ACAWA), 2021. Available from: https://www.acwa.com/our-work/protecting-water-at-its-source/
    [66] California Public Policy Institute (CAPPI) Protecting Headwaters, 2021. Available from: https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1016JM4R.pdf
    [67] California Water Education Foundation (CWEF) Headwaters, 2021. Available from: https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia-background/headwaters
    [68] State Water Board (SWB) A Primer on stream and river protection for the regulator and program manager, 2003. Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/stream_wetland/streamprotectioncircular.pdf
    [69] Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) California's Water, 2016. Available from: https://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_1016WPCBKR.pdf
    [70] Alexander RB, Boyer EW, Smith RA, et al. (2007) The Role of Headwater Streams in Downstream Water Quality. J Amer Water Resor Assoc 43: 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00005.x doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00005.x
    [71] United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Map of the San Bernardino North 7.5' quadrangle, San Bernardino County, California, 2001. Available from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/ofr01131
    [72] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate types, 2021. Available from: https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/climates
    [73] United States Climate Data (USCD), 2019. Available from: https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/san-bernardino/california/united-states/usca0978
    [74] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Viewing WATERS Data using Google Earth, 2017. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/waterdata/viewing-waters-data-using-google-earth
    [75] State Water Board (SWB) Santa Ana River Water Right Applications For Supplemental Water Supply Draft Environmental Impact Report, 2004. Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/santa_ana_river/docs/deir_appendixa.pdf
    [76] California Water Education Foundation (CWEF) Headwaters, 2021. Available from: https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia/santa-ana-river
    [77] Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority One Water One Watershed 2.0 Plan, 2021. Available from: https://sawpa.org/owow/owow-irwm-plans/owow-2-0-plan/
    [78] Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC). Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium National Land Cover Dataset, 2019. Available from: https://www.mrlc.gov
    [79] Weather Underground Upper Waterman Canyon. Available from: https://www.wunderground.com/?ID=KCASANBE93
    [80] San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) 2019. Available from: https://www.sbvmwd.com
    [81] Crestline Sanitation District (CSD). 2019. Available from: http://www.crestlinesanitation.com
    [82] Abu-Baker S, Frazier C, Frazier N, et al. (2016) Engaging Freshman Undergraduate Students in Faculty Environmental Science Research: Testing the Local Surface Waters for Nitrate, Phosphate, and Ammonium Ions Using Two Affordable Methods as an Example. Green Sustain Chem 6. https://doi.org/10.4236/gsc.2016.63014
    [83] Khatoon N, Khan AH, Rehman M, et al. (2013) Correlation Study For the Assessment of Water Quality and Its Parameters of Ganga River, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India. J Applied Chem 5: 80–90. https://doi.org/10.9790/5736-0538090 doi: 10.9790/5736-0538090
    [84] Vega M, Pardo R, Barrado E, et al. (1998) Assessment of Seasonal and Polluting Effects on the Quality of River Water by Exploratory Data Analysis. Water Res 32: 3581–3592. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00138-9 doi: 10.1016/S0043-1354(98)00138-9
    [85] Varol M, Gö kot B, Bekleyen A, et al. (2012) Spatial and Temporal Variations in Surface Water Quality of the Dam Reservoirs in the Tigris River Basin, Turkey. Catena 92: 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2011.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2011.11.013
    [86] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants; Analytical Methods for Biological Pollutants in Ambient Water; Final Rule, 2003. Available from: https://123.idexx.com/resource-library/water/water-reg-article5AP-v2.pdf
    [87] Clean Water Team, Division of Water Quality, California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2004 Turbidity Fact Sheet, 2004. Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/cwt/guidance/3150en.pdf
    [88] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) E. Coli and Enterococci, 2018. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/eColi.pdf
    [89] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Cost Analysis for Drinking Water Regulations, 2018. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/national-cost-analysis-drinking-water-regulations
    [90] California State Water Board, Stream Temperature Indices, Thresholds, and Standards Used to Protect Coho Salmon Habitat: A Rivew, 2002. Available from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/records/region_1/2006/ref33.pdf
    [91] Water Quality Control Plan (WQCP) Lahontan Region North and South Basins, State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region, 2015. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/ca6-north-south.pdf
    [92] Mallin MA, Turner MIH, McIver MR, et al. (2016) Significant Reduction of Fecal Bacteria and Suspended Solids Loading by Coastal Best Management Practices. J Coastal Res 32: 923–931. https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00195.1 doi: 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-15-00195.1
    [93] United States Geological Survey (USGS), Methods for Computing Water Quality Using Regression Analysis, 2019. Available from: http://nrtwq.usgs.gov/md/methods/
    [94] Yuncong L, Migliaccio K (2011) Water Quality Concepts, Sampling, & Analysis. Boca Raton, FL. Taylor Group.
    [95] Ding S, Zhang Y, Liu B, et al. (2013) Effects of riparian land use on water quality and fish communities in the headwater stream of the Taizi River in China. Front Environ Sci Eng 7: 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-013-0528-x doi: 10.1007/s11783-013-0528-x
    [96] Mallin MA, Kathleen EW, Esham EC, et al. (2000) Effect of Human Development on Bacteriological Water Quality in Coastal Watersheds. Ecol Appl 10: 1047–1056. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1047:EOHDOB]2.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2000)010[1047:EOHDOB]2.0.CO;2
    [97] United States Geological Survey (USGS) California Drought, 2019. Available from: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/california-drought/index.html
    [98] Winter TC (2017) The Role of Ground Water Streamflow in Headwater Areas and in Maintaining Base Flow. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43: 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00003.x doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00003.x
    [99] Avanzi F, Rungee J, Maurer T, et al. (2020) Climate elasticity of evapotranspiration shifts the water balance of Mediterranean climate during multi-year drought. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 24: 4317–4337. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4317-2020 doi: 10.5194/hess-24-4317-2020
    [100] Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, et al. (2005) The Urban Stream Syndrome: Current Knowledge and the Search for a Cure. J North Amer Benthological Soc 24: 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1 doi: 10.1899/04-028.1
    [101] Wear DN, Turner MG, Naiman RJ (1998) Land Cover Along an Urban-Rural Gradient: Implications for Water Quality. Ecol Appl 8: 619–630. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0619:LCAAUR]2.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0619:LCAAUR]2.0.CO;2
    [102] Pratt B, Chang H (2012). Effects of land cover, topography, and built structure on seasonal water quality at multiple spatial scales. J Hazard Mater 209–210: 48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.12.068 doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.12.068
    [103] Gasith A, Resh VH (1999) Streams in Mediterranean Climate Regions: Abiotic Influences and Biotic Responses to Predictable Seasonal Events. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 30: 51–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.51 doi: 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.30.1.51
    [104] Weber G, Honecker U, Jochen K (2020) Nitrate dynamics in springs and headwater streams with agricultural catchments in southwestern Germany. Sci Total Environ 722: 137858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137858 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137858
    [105] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The effects of climate change on water resources and programs, 2021. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?parent_object_id=2456&object_id=2459#:~:text=The%20Effect%20on%20Water%20Resources,temperatures%20to%20increase%20as%20well.&text=Lower%20levels%20of%20dissolved%20oxygen,increases%2C%20dissolved%20oxygen%20levels%20decrease
    [106] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Introduction to watershed ecology, 2021. Available from: https://cfpub.epa.gov/watertrain/moduleFrame.cfm?parent_object_id=593
    [107] Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, et al. (1998) Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen. Ecol Appl 8: 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0559:NPOSWW]2.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(1998)008[0559:NPOSWW]2.0.CO;2
    [108] De Roos AJ, Zahm SH, Cantor KP, et al. (2003) Integrative assessment of multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among men. Occup Environ Med 60: e11. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.60.9.e11 doi: 10.1136/oem.60.9.e11
    [109] Mosley LM (2015) Drought impacts on the water quality of freshwater systems; review and integration. Earth-Sci Rev 140: 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.11.010 doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.11.010
    [110] Barrett ME (2005) Performance Comparison of Structural Stormwater Best Management Practices. Water Environ Res 77: 78–86. https://doi.org/10.2175/106143005X41654 doi: 10.2175/106143005X41654
    [111] Commings KJ, Booth DB, Horner RR (2000) Storm Water Pollutant Removal by Two Wet Ponds in Bellevue, Washington. J Environ 126: 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2000)126:4(321) doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2000)126:4(321)
    [112] Roy, AH, Rhea LK, Mayer AL, et al. (2014) St. Amand, A. How Much Is Enough? Minimal Resources of Water Quality and Stream Biota to Partial Retrofit Stormwater Management in a Suburban Neighborhood. PLoS ONE 9: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085011 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085011
    [113] Ice G, Sugden B (2003) Summer dissolved oxygen concentrations in forested streams of Northern Louisiana. South J Appl For 27: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/sjaf/27.2.92 doi: 10.1093/sjaf/27.2.92
    [114] Van Vliet MTH, Zwolsman JJG (2008) Impact of Summer Droughts on the Water Quality of the Meuse River. J Hydrol 353: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.01.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.01.001
    [115] Liu BW, Wang MH, Chen TL, et al. (2020) Establishment and implementation of green infrastructure practice for healthy watershed management: Challenges and perspectives. Water Energy Nexus 3: 186–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.wen.2020.05.003
    [116] United States Forest Service (USFS), Sediment loads and erosion in forest headwater streams of the Sierra Nevada, California, 2012. Available from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/41235
    [117] Fischer ME, Irlenbusch B, Sadrieh A (2004) An intergenerational pool resource experiment J Environ Econ Mange 48: 811–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2003.12.002
    [118] Ostrom E (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
    [119] Slough T, Rubenson D, Levy R, et al. (2021) Adoption of community monitoring improves common pool resource management across contexts. PNAS 118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015367118
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2782) PDF downloads(77) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(9)  /  Tables(6)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog