The stakeholder-derived flood mitigation strategy consists of placing new hydraulic infrastructure in addition to the current flood controls in the basin. This is done by simulating three scenarios: (1) evaluate the impact of the current structure, (2) implementing a large dam similar to the Rompepicos dam and (3) the inclusion of three small detention dams. These mitigation strategies are assessed in the context of a major flood event caused by the landfall of Hurricane Alex in July 2010 through a consistent application of the two modeling tools. To do so, spatial information on topography, soil, land cover and meteorological forcing were assembled, quality-controlled and input into each model. Calibration was performed for each model based on streamflow observations and maximum observed reservoir levels from the National Water Commission in Mexico.
Simulation analyses focuses on the differential capability of the two models in capturing the spatial variability in rainfall, topographic conditions, soil hydraulic properties and its effect on the flood response in the presence of the different flood mitigation structures. The implementation of new hydraulic infrastructure is shown to have a positive impact on mitigating the flood peak with a more favorable reduction in the peak at the outlet from the larger dam (16.5% in tRIBS and 23% in HEC-HMS) than the collective effect from the small structures (12% in tRIBS and 10% in HEC-HMS). Furthermore, flood peak mitigation depends strongly on the number and locations of the new dam sites in relation to the spatial distribution of rainfall and flood generation. Comparison of the two modeling approaches complements the analysis of available observations for the flood event and provides a framework within which to derive a multi-model approach for stakeholder-driven solutions.
The status of Earth’s diversity is deteriorating quickly which will continue to impact humans’ way of life, as well as every other living creature, in all regions of the world. However, there are organizations taking action to protect biodiversity on our planet. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of those organizations and includes 196 signatories from around the world who are committed to strategies to preserve their biodiversity (Secretariat). Indeed, 98% of the parties which have participated in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have created national biodiversity strategies (NBS) and action plans (NBSAPs) (Secretariat). Yet, there are still countries that have yet to partake in these efforts. America continues to hold out against ratifying the CBD and remains the only developed country without a National Biodiversity Strategy. As an NBS for the U.S. is under consideration, my goal is to understand what works from previous plans. In particular, I focus on stakeholder engagement in Conservation Biodiversity Action Plans. Stakeholder engagement is important because, without it, there may be insufficient levels of integration of the action plans, which can lead to the failure of the CBDs conservation efforts. To address this question, I analyze the 193 strategies created for countries across the globe. My review describes the ways that stakeholders are engaged in National Biodiversity Strategies for CBD member countries. All plans mention some form of engagement. The most common types mentioned are ‘Education’, ‘Communication’, and ‘Training’. Examining the plans further reveals that most forms of engagement often are just mentioned and not completed. Close to 58% of the engagement forms are only completed about 50% of the time. Exceptions are surveys, interviews, and workshops, which are each completed in over 70% of plans that mention them. I then use this information to provide practical recommendations for creating an effective NBSAP for the United States.