A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning

Overview

Journal Environ Manage

Specialties Environmental Health
Toxicology

Date 2009 May 20

PMID 19452204

Citations 10

Authors

Douglas J Norton

James D Wickham

Timothy G Wade

Kelly Kunert

John V Thomas

Paul Zeph

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Common decision support tools and a growing body of knowledge about ecological recovery can help inform and guide large state and federal restoration programs affecting thousands of impaired waters. Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), waters not meeting state Water Quality Standards due to impairment by pollutants are placed on the CWA Section 303(d) list, scheduled for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, and ultimately restored. Tens of thousands of 303(d)-listed waters, many with completed TMDLs, represent a restoration workload of many years. State TMDL scheduling and implementation decisions influence the choice of waters and the sequence of restoration. Strategies that compare these waters' recovery potential could optimize the gain of ecological resources by restoring promising sites earlier. We explored ways for states to use recovery potential in restoration priority setting with landscape analysis methods, geographic data, and impaired waters monitoring data. From the literature and practice we identified measurable, recovery-relevant ecological, stressor, and social context metrics and developed a restorability screening approach adaptable to widely different environments and program goals. In this paper we describe the indicators, the methodology, and three statewide, recovery-based targeting and prioritization projects. We also call for refining the scientific basis for estimating recovery potential.

Citing Articles

A Geospatial Assessment of Flood Vulnerability Reduction by Freshwater Wetlands-A Benefit Indicators Approach.

Bousquin J, Hychka K Front Environ Sci. 2021; 7:1-54.

PMID: 34316489 PMC: 8312689. DOI: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00054.

Consideration of spatial and temporal scales in stream restorations and biotic monitoring to assess restoration outcomes: A literature review, Part 2.

Griffith M, McManus M River Res Appl. 2020; 36(8):1398-1415.

PMID: 33363446 PMC: 7754979. DOI: 10.1002/rra.3694.

Assessing Dungeness River Functionality and Effectiveness of Best Management Practices (BMPs) Using an Ecological Functional Approach.

Hall E, Hall R, Swanson S, Yee W, Kozlowski D, Philbin M Am J Environ Engineer. 2020; 9(2):36-54.

PMID: 32704436 PMC: 7377254.

An Ecological Function Approach to Managing Harmful Cyanobacteria in Three Oregon Lakes: Beyond Water Quality Advisories and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs).

Hall E, Hall R, Aron J, Swanson S, Philbin M, Schafer R Water (Basel). 2019; 11(6):1-1125.

PMID: 31275623 PMC: 6605104. DOI: 10.3390/w11061125.

Water quality modeling of a prairie river-lake system.

Hosseini N, Akomeah E, Davis J, Baulch H, Lindenschmidt K Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2018; 25(31):31190-31204.

PMID: 30191525 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-3055-2.

References

Bernhardt E, Palmer M, Allan J, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S . Ecology. Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science. 2005; 308(5722):636-7. DOI: 10.1126/science.1109769. View

Radwell A, Kwak T . Assessing ecological integrity of Ozark rivers to determine suitability for protective status. Environ Manage. 2005; 35(6):799-810. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0136-4. View

Davies S, Jackson S . The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecol Appl. 2006; 16(4):1251-66. DOI: 10.1890/1051-0761(2006)016[1251:tbcgad]2.0.co;2. View

Miller G . The magical number seven plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1956; 63(2):81-97. View

Harding J, Benfield E, Bolstad P, Helfman G, Jones 3rd E . Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998; 95(25):14843-7. PMC: 24537. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843. View

Novotny V, Bartosova A, OReilly N, Ehlinger T . Unlocking the relationship of biotic integrity of impaired waters to anthropogenic stresses. Water Res. 2004; 39(1):184-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2004.09.002. View

Peterson B, Wollheim W, Mulholland P, Webster J, Meyer J, Tank J . Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science. 2001; 292(5514):86-90. DOI: 10.1126/science.1056874. View

Power , Dietrich , Finlay . Dams and Downstream Aquatic Biodiversity: Potential Food Web Consequences of Hydrologic and Geomorphic Change. Environ Manage. 1996; 20(6):887-95. DOI: 10.1007/BF01205969. View

Wang X . Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. J Environ Manage. 2001; 61(1):25-36. DOI: 10.1006/jema.2000.0395. View

10.

Potter K, Cubbage F, Blank G, Schaberg R . A watershed-scale model for predicting nonpoint pollution risk in North Carolina. Environ Manage. 2004; 34(1):62-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-004-0117-7. View

11.

Karr J . Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management. Ecol Appl. 1991; 1(1):66-84. DOI: 10.2307/1941848. View

12.

Diamond J, Serveiss V . Identifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment framework. Environ Sci Technol. 2002; 35(24):4711-8. DOI: 10.1021/es0015803. View

13.

Ducros C, Joyce C . Field-based evaluation tool for riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ Manage. 2004; 32(2):252-67. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-003-2913-x. View

14.

Weber T . Landscape ecological assessment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environ Monit Assess. 2004; 94(1-3):39-53. DOI: 10.1023/b:emas.0000016878.15260.52. View

15.

Alexander , Smith , SCHWARZ . Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature. 2000; 403(6771):758-61. DOI: 10.1038/35001562. View

16.

Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M . Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. Ambio. 2003; 32(6):389-96. DOI: 10.1579/0044-7447-32.6.389. View

17.

Freeman M, Marcinek P . Fish assemblage responses to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environ Manage. 2006; 38(3):435-50. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-005-0169-3. View

18.

Wickham J, Wade T, Riitters K . Detecting temporal change in watershed nutrient yields. Environ Manage. 2008; 42(2):223-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00267-008-9120-8. View