Environmental Management

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 62–74

A Watershed-Scale Model for Predicting Nonpoint Pollution Risk in North Carolina

  • Kevin M. Potter
  • Frederick W. Cubbage
  • Gary B. Blank
  • Rex H. Schaberg
Research
  • 253 Downloads

Abstract

The Southeastern United States is a global center of freshwater biotic diversity, but much of the region’s aquatic biodiversity is at risk from stream degradation. Nonpoint pollution sources are responsible for 70% of that degradation, and controlling nonpoint pollution from agriculture, urbanization, and silviculture is considered critical to maintaining water quality and aquatic biodiversity in the Southeast. We used an ecological risk assessment framework to develop vulnerability models that can help policymakers and natural resource managers understand the impact of land cover changes on water quality in North Carolina. Additionally, we determined which landscape characteristics are most closely associated with macroinvertebrate community tolerance of stream degradation, and therefore with lower-quality water. The results will allow managers and policymakers to weigh the risks of management and policy decisions to a given watershed or set of watersheds, including whether streamside buffer protection zones are ecologically effective in achieving water quality standards. Regression analyses revealed that landscape variables explained up to 56.3% of the variability in benthic macroinvertebrate index scores. The resulting vulnerability models indicate that North Carolina watersheds with less forest cover are at most risk for degraded water quality and steam habitat conditions. The importance of forest cover, at both the watershed and riparian zone scale, in predicting macrobenthic invertebrate community assemblage varies by geographic region of the state.

Nonpoint source pollution Ecological risk assessment Aquatic ecosystems Land use planning Water quality Forest cover 

References

  1. 1.
    Adams, T. O., Hook, D. D., Floyd, M. A. 1995Effectiveness monitoring of silvicultural best management practices in South CarolinaSouthern Journal of Applied Forestry19170176Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basnyat, P., Teeter, L. D., Flynn, K. M., Lockaby, B. G. 1999Relationships between landscape characteristics and nonpoint source pollution inputs to coastal estuariesEnvironmental Management23539549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boroush, M. 1998Understanding risk analysis: a short guide for health, safety and environmental policy makingAmerican Chemical Society, and Resources for the FutureWashington, D.C.39Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brooks, K. N., Ffolliott, P. F., Gregersen, H. M., DeBano, L. F. 1997Hydrology and the management of watershedsIowa State University PressAmes, Iowa502Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bryce, S. A., Larsen, D. P., Hughes, R. M., Kaufmann, P. R. 1999Assessing relative risks to aquatic ecosystems: a mid-Appalachian case studyJournal of the American Water Resources Association352336Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaplin, S. J., Gerrard, R. A., Watson, H. M., Master, L. L., Flack, S. R. 2000

    The geography of imperilment: targeting conservation toward critical biodiversity areas

    Stein, B. A.Kutner, L. S.Adams, J. S. eds. Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United StatesOxford University PressNew York159199
    Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, Y. D., S. C. McCutcheon, R. F. Carsel. (1994) Ecological perspectives on silvicultural nonpoint source pollution. Pages 229–235 in Watershed ‘93, proceedings of the national conference on watershed management, 21–24 March 1993. Alexandria, Virginia, Washington D.C., U.S. Bureau of Aclamation, pp. 229–235Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen, Y. D., McCutcheon, S. C., Rasmussen, T. C., Nutter, W. L., Carsel, R. F. 1993Integrating water quality modeling with ecological risk assessment for nonpoint source pollution control: a conceptual frameworkWater Science and Technology28431440Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Conner, R. C., Hartsell, A. J. 2002

    Forest area and conditions

    Wear a, D. N.Greis, J. G. eds. Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research StationAsheville, North Carolina357402
    Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cooper, J. R., Gilliam, J. W., Daniels, R. B., Robarge, W. P. 1987Riparian areas as filters for agricultural sedimentSoil Science Society of America Journal51416420Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Detenbeck, N.E., Batterman, S.L., Brady, V.J., Brazner, J.C., Snarski, V.M., Taylor, D.L., Thompson, J.A., Arthur, J.W. (2000) “A test of watershed classification systems for ecological risk assessment” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19(4): 1174–1181Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diamond, J. M., Serveiss, V. B. 2001Identifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment frameworkEnvironmental Science and Technology3547114718CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Draper, N. R., Smith, H. 1998Applied regression analysisJohn Wiley & Sons, IncNew York706Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ESRI1999ArcView 3.2Environmental Systems Research Institute IncRedlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    ESRI2001ArcGIS 8.1Environmental Systems Research Institute IncRedlands, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Genito, D., Gburek, W. J., Sharpley, A. N. 2002Response of stream macroinvertebrates to agricultural land cover in a small watershedJournal of Freshwater Ecology17109119Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gentile, J. H., Slimak, M. W. 1992

    Endpoints and indicators in ecological risk assessments

    McKenzie, D. H.Hyatt, D. E.McDonald, V. J. eds. Ecological indicators, proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, 16–18 October 1990, Ft. Lauderdale, FloridaElsevier Applied ScienceLondon13851397
    Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graham, R. L., Hunsaker, C. T., O’Neill, R. V., Jackson, B. L. 1991Ecological risk assessment at the regional scaleEcological Applications1196206Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ha, S.R., Bae, M.S. (2001) “Effects of land use and municipal wastewater treatment changes on stream water quality” Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 70: 135–151Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harding, J. S., Benfield, E. F., Bolstad, P. V., Helfman, G. S., Jones III, E. B. D. 1998Stream biodiversity: The ghost of land use pastProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences951484314847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herlihy, A. T., Stoddard, J. L., Johnson, C. B. 1998The relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover data in the mid-Atlantic region, U.SWater, Air, and Soil Pollution105377386Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herrig, J., Shute, P. 2002

    Aquatic animals and their habitats

    Wear, D. N.Greis, J. G. eds. Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceSouthern Research StationAsheville, North Carolina537580
    Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hilsenhoff, W. L. 1987An improved biotic index of organic stream pollutionGreat Lakes Entomologist203136Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hunsaker, C. T., Lecine, D. A., Timmins, S. P., Jackson, B. L., O’Neill, R. V. 1992

    Landscape characterization for assessing regional water quality

    McKenzie, D. H.Hyatt, D. E.McDonald, V. J. eds. Ecological indicators, proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, 16–18 October 1990, Ft. Lauderdale, FloridaElsevier Applied ScienceLondon9971006
    Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jones, K. B., Neale, A. C., Nash, M. S., Van Remortel, R. D., Wickham, J. D., Riitters, K. H., O’Neill, R. V. 2001Predicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic RegionLandscape Ecology16301312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Karr, J. R. 1999Defining and measuring river healthFreshwater Biology41221234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lenat, D. R. 1993A biotic index for the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratingsJournal of the North American Benthological Society12279290Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lenat, D. R., Crawford, J. K. 1994Effects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina piedmont streamsHydrobiologia294185199Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lowrance, R., Leonard, R., Sheridan, J. 1985Managing riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollutionJournal of Soil and Water Conservation408791Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Metcalfe-Smith, J. L. 1994

    Biological water-quality assessment of rivers: Use of macroinvertebrate communities

    Calow, P.Petts, G. E. eds. The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles, vol. 2Blackwell Scientific PublicationsOxford, United Kingdom401418
    Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morley, S. A., Karr, J. R. 2002Assessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basinConservation Biology1614981509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morse, C. C., Huryn, A. D., Cronan, C. 2003Impervious surface area as a predictor of the effects of urbanization on stream insect communities in Maine, USAEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment8995127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Multi-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium2000National land cover data: North CarolinaU.S. Geological SurveySioux Falls, South DakotaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2002aBenthic macroinvertebrates. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina87Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2002bBasinwide assessment report: Chowan River and Pasquotank River basins. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina132Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2001aStandard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina44Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2001bBasinwide assessment report: Broad River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina87Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2001cBasinwide assessment report: Neuse River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina278Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2000aBasinwide assessment report: Hiwassee River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina45Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2000bBasinwide assessment report: Little Tennessee River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina85Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2000cBasinwide assessment report: Roanoke River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina152Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2000dBasinwide assessment report: Savannah River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina29Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2000eBasinwide assessment report: Watauga River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina46Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality2000fBasinwide assessment report: White Oak River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina98Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    North Carolina Division of Water Quality1999Basinwide assessment report: Cape Fear River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality SectionEnvironmental Sciences BranchRaleigh, North Carolina344Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Peterjohn, W. T., Correll, D. L. 1984Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forestEcology6514661475Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Plafkin, J. L., Barbour, M. T., Porter, K. D., Gross, S. K., Hughes, R. M. 1989Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/440/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyAssessment and Watershed Protection DivisionWashington, D.C.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Richards, C., Johnson, L. B., Host, G. E. 1996Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biotaCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences53295311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Roy, A. H., Rosemond, A. D., Paul, M. J., Leigh, D. S., Wallace, J. B. 2003Stream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.)Freshwater Biology48329346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    SAS Institute Inc2000The SAS System for Windows, Version 8.1CaryNorth CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schwarz, G. E., and Alexander, R. B. 1995. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Data Base for the Conterminous United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Reston, Virginia. [http://water.usgs.gov/lookup/getspatial?ussoils]Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sponseller, R. A., Benfield, E. F., Valett, H. M. 2001Relationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communitiesFreshwater Biology4614091424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stewart, J. S., Wang, L. Z., Lyons, J., Horwatich, J. A., Bannerman, R. 2001Influences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watershedsJournal of the American Water Resources Association3714751487Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Suter II, G. W. 1993Ecological risk assessmentLewis PublishersBoca Raton, Florida538Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999. U.S. monthly precipitation for cooperative and National Weather Service sites. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina. [http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/coop-precip.html]Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency1998aGuidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002FU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, D.C.188Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998b. Reach file 1 (RF1) for the conterminous United States in BASINS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/metadata/rf1.htm]Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1998c. USGS 300 meter resolution, 1-degree digital elevation models (DEM) for CONUS, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C. [http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/basins/metadata/dem.htm]Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    United States Environmental Protection Agency1990Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters. EPA/440/5-90-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of WaterRegulations and StandardsWashington, D.C.57Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., Cushing, C. E. 1980The river continuum conceptCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences37130137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Volstad, J. H., Roth, N. E., Mercurio, G., Southerland, M. T., Strebel, D. E. 2003Using environmental stressor information to predict the ecological status of Maryland non-tidal streams as measured by biological indicatorsEnvironmental Monitoring and Assessment84219242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wang, L., Kanehl, P. 2003Influences of watershed urbanization and instream habitat on macroinvertebrates in cold water streamsJournal of the American Water Resources Association3911811196Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Ward, A. D. 1995

    Surface runoff and subsurface drainage

    Ward, A. D.Elliot, W. J. eds. Environmental hydrologyCRC Press LLCBoca Raton, Florida133175
    Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wear, D. N. 2002

    Land use

    Wear, D. N.Greis, J. G. eds. Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceSouthern Research StationAsheville, North Carolina153173
    Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Weigel, B. M., Lyons, J., Paine, L. K., Dodson, S. I., Undersander, D. J. 2000Using stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern WisconsinJournal of Freshwater Ecology1593106Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Weigel, B. M., Wang, L., Rasmussen, P. W., Butcher, J. T., Stewart, P. M., Simon, T. P., Wiley, M. J. 2003Relative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion, USAFreshwater Biology4814401461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    West, B. 2002

    Water quality in the South

    Wear, D. N.Greis, J. G. eds. Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest ServiceSouthern Research StationAsheville, North Carolina455477
    Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Zandbergen, P. A. 1998Urban watershed ecological risk assessment using GIS: a case study of the Brunette River watershed in British Columbia, CanadaJournal of Hazardous Materials61163173CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin M. Potter
    • 1
  • Frederick W. Cubbage
    • 1
  • Gary B. Blank
    • 1
  • Rex H. Schaberg
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ForestryNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations