Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 548–570 | Cite as

What are the Conditions of Riparian Ecosystems? Identifying Impaired Floodplain Ecosystems across the Western U.S. Using the Riparian Condition Assessment (RCA) Tool

  • William W. Macfarlane
  • Jordan T. Gilbert
  • Joshua D. Gilbert
  • William C. Saunders
  • Nate Hough-Snee
  • Chalese Hafen
  • Joseph M. Wheaton
  • Stephen N. Bennett
Article

Abstract

Environmental stressors associated with human land and water-use activities have degraded many riparian ecosystems across the western United States. These stressors include (i) the widespread expansion of invasive plant species that displace native vegetation and exacerbate streamflow and sediment regime alteration; (ii) agricultural and urban development in valley bottoms that decouple streams and rivers from their floodplains and reduce instream wood recruitment and retention; and (iii) flow modification that reduces water quantity and quality, degrading aquatic habitats. Here we apply a novel drainage network model to assess the impacts of multiple stressors on reach-scale riparian condition across two large U.S. regions. In this application, we performed a riparian condition assessment evaluating three dominant stressors: (1) riparian vegetation departure from historical condition; (2) land-use intensity within valley bottoms; and (3) floodplain fragmentation caused by infrastructure within valley bottoms, combining these stressors in a fuzzy inference system. We used freely available, geospatial data to estimate reach-scale (500 m) riparian condition for 52,800 km of perennial streams and rivers, 25,600 km in Utah, and 27,200 km in 12 watersheds of the interior Columbia River Basin (CRB). Model outputs showed that riparian condition has been at least moderately impaired across ≈70% of the streams and rivers in Utah and ≈49% in the CRB. We found 84% agreement (Cohen’s ĸ = 0.79) between modeled reaches and field plots, indicating that modeled riparian condition reasonably approximates on-the-ground conditions. Our approach to assessing riparian condition can be used to prioritize watershed-scale floodplain conservation and restoration by providing network-scale data on the extent and severity of riparian degradation. The approach that we applied here is flexible and can be expanded to run with additional riparian stressor data and/or finer resolution input data.

Keywords

Conservation planning Riparian restoration Watershed condition assessment Riparian degradation Floodplain ecology Columbia River Basin Utah 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management (USU Award No. 151010), Utah Department of Natural Resources’ Endangered Species Mitigation Fund (USU Award No. 140600), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources’ Pittman and Robertson Fund (USU Award No. 150736), Snake River Salmon Recovery Board through Eco Logical Research (USU Award No. 200239) and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA project numbers: CHaMP 2011-006 and ISEMP 2013-017), as part of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (http://champmonitoring.org) through a sub-award from Eco Logical Research (USU Award No. 150737). We are grateful to Justin Jimenez (BLM) who had the vision to undertake a riparian assessment across the Colorado Plateau, and built the partnerships for successful implementation. Model development benefitted greatly from insights and conversations with Jeremy Jarnecke (BLM), Russell Norvell (UDWR), Jimi Gragg (UDWR), Chris Keleher (UDNR), Frank Howe (USU), Justin Shannon (UDWR), Gary O’Brien (USU), Phaedra Budy (USGS/USU), Konrad Hafen (USU), Nick Bouwes (USU), Chris Jordan (NOAA), and the Weber River Watershed Partnership (UT). Adan Banda, Micael Albonico, Shane Hill, Martha Jensen, Matt Meier, and Chris Smith provided GIS support. Reid Camp, Andrew Hill, and Scott Shahverdian provided field-validation support. We thank two anonymous reviewers and Angus Webb for their review comments that significantly improved this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

267_2018_1061_MOESM1_ESM.docx (7 mb)
Supplementary Information

References

  1. Adriaenssens V, Baets BD, Goethals PLM, Pauw ND (2003) Fuzzy rule-based models for decision support in ecosystem management. Sci Total Environ 319:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron JS et al. (2003) Sustaining healthy freshwater ecosystems. Issues Ecol 10:1–16Google Scholar
  4. Beechie T et al. (2013) Restoring salmon habitat for a changing climate. River Res Appl 29:939–960Google Scholar
  5. Beschta RL, Taylor RL (1988) Stream temperature increases and land use in a forested Oregon watershed JAWRA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 24:19–25.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1988.tb00875.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair RB (1996) Land use and avian species diversity along an urban gradient. Ecol Appl 6:506–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blanton P, Marcus WA (2013) Transportation infrastructure, river confinement, and impacts on floodplain and channel habitat, Yakima and Chehalis rivers, Washington, USA. Geomorphology 189:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bloodworth BR, Shafroth PB, Sher AA, Manners RB, Bean DW, Johnson MJ, Hinojosa-Huerta O (2016) Tamarisk beetle (Diorhabda spp.) in the Colorado River basin: synthesis of an expert panel forum. Scientific and Technical Report, Grand Junction, COGoogle Scholar
  9. Booth DB, Jackson CR (1997) Urbanization of aquatic systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and the limits of mitigation JAWRA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 33:1077–1090.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04126.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bouwes N et al. (2011) Scientific protocol for salmonid habitat surveys within the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program. Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program, Wauconda, WAGoogle Scholar
  11. Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN, Smith VH (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;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castellarin A, Di Baldassarre G, Brath A (2011) Floodplain management strategies for flood attenuation in the river Po. River Res Appl 27:1037–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Comer P et al. (2003) Ecological systems of the United States: a working classification of US terrestrial systems. NatureServe, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  14. Congalton RG (1991) A review of assessing the accuracy of classifications of remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 37:35–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/0034-4257(91)90048-BCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Congalton RG, Birch K, Jones R, Schriever J (2002) Evaluating remotely sensed techniques for mapping riparian vegetation. Comput Electron Agric 37:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corsair H, Ruch JB, Zheng PQ, Hobbs BF, Koonce JF (2009) Multicriteria decision analysis of stream restoration: potential and examples. Group Decis Negot 18:387–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Costanza R et al. (2016) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital (1997). The Globalization and Environment Reader 117Google Scholar
  18. Dean DJ, Schmidt JC (2011) The role of feedback mechanisms in historic channel changes of the lower Rio Grande in the Big Bend region. Geomorphology 126:333–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Decker KL, Pocewicz A, Harju S, Holloran M, Fink MM, Toombs TP, Johnston DB (2017) Landscape disturbance models consistently explain variation in ecological integrity across large landscapes. Ecosphere 8:e01775-n/a.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land‐use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeLaney TA (1995) Benefits to downstream flood attenuation and water quality as a result of constructed wetlands in agricultural landscapes. J Soil Water Conserv 50:620–626Google Scholar
  22. Donnelly JP, Naugle DE, Hagen CA, Maestas JD (2016) Public lands and private waters: scarce mesic resources structure land tenure and sage-grouse distributions. Ecosphere 7:e01208–e01208.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.1208 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Driese KL, Reiners WA, Lovett GM, Simkin SM (2004) A vegetation map for the Catskill Park, NY, derived from multi-temporal Landsat imagery and GIS data. Northeast Nat 11:421–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dudgeon D et al. (2006) Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biol Rev 81:163–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Esri (2016a) ArcGIS. Redlands, CAGoogle Scholar
  26. Esri (2016b) GIS dictionary: Thiessen polyons. Esri. http://support.esri.com/en/knowledgebase/GISDictionary/term/Thiessen%20polygons (Accessed March 2016)
  27. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ficetola GF, Padoa-Schioppa E, De Bernardi F (2009) Influence of landscape elements in riparian buffers on the conservation of semiaquatic amphibians. Conserv Biol 23:114–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foley JA et al. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Forman R et al. (2002) Road ecology. Science and solutions. Island Press, Washington. DCGoogle Scholar
  31. Fryirs KA, Brierley GJ (2013) Geomorphic analysis of river systems: an approach to reading the landscape. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Fryirs KA, Wheaton JM, Brierley GJ (2016) An approach for measuring confinement and assessing the influence of valley setting on river forms and processes. Earth Surf Process Landf 41:701–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gallant JC, Dowling TI (2003) A multiresolution index of valley bottom flatness for mapping depositional areas. Water Resour Res 39.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001426
  34. Galloway JN et al. (2004) Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and future. Biogeochemistry 70:153–226.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-0370-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gesch D, Evans G, Mauck J, Hutchinson J, Carswell Jr WJ (2009) The national map—elevation US Geological Survey. National Geospatial Technical Operations CenterGoogle Scholar
  36. Gilbert JT, Macfarlane WW, Wheaton JM (2016) V-BET: a GIS tool for delineating valley bottoms across entire drainage networks. Comput Geosci 97:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goetz SJ (2006) Remote sensing of riparian buffers: past progress and future prospects JAWRA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42:133–143.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb03829.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Golet GH et al. (2008) Wildlife response to riparian restoration on the Sacramento River. San Francisco Estuary Watershed Sci 2:1–26Google Scholar
  39. Gren M, Groth K-H, Sylvén M (1995) Economic values of Danube floodplains. J Environ Manag 45:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Grossman D et al. (1998) International classification of ecological communities: terrestrial vegetation of the United States. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VAGoogle Scholar
  41. Gurnell AM, Gregory KJ, Petts GE (1995) The role of coarse woody debris in forest aquatic habitats: implications for management aquatic conservation: marine and freshwater. Ecosystems 5:143–166.  https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3270050206 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hall JE, Holzer DM, Beechie TJ (2007) Predicting river floodplain and lateral channel migration for salmon habitat conservation JAWRA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 43:786–797.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00063.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harris R, Olson C (1997) Two-stage system for prioritizing riparian restoration at the stream reach and community scales. Restor Ecol 5:34–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hennings LA, Edge WD (2003) Riparian bird community structure in Portland, Oregon: habitat, urbanization, and spatial scale patterns. Condor 105:288–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hooper DU et al. (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hough-Snee N, Roper BB, Wheaton JM, Budy P, Lokteff RL (2013) Riparian vegetation communities change rapidly following passive restoration at a northern Utah stream. Ecol Eng 58:371–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.07.042 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Isaak D et al. (2016) NorWeST modeled summer stream temperature scenarios for the western US. US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Research Data Archive.https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2016-0033
  48. Jeffres CA, Opperman JJ, Moyle PB (2008) Ephemeral floodplain habitats provide best growth conditions for juvenile Chinook salmon in a California river. Environ Biol Fish 83:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Johansen K, Arroyo LA, Armston J, Phinn S, Witte C (2010) Mapping riparian condition indicators in a sub-tropical savanna environment from discrete return LiDAR data using object-based image analysis. Ecol Indic 10:796–807.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Johansen K, Phinn S (2006) Linking riparian vegetation spatial structure in Australian tropical savannas to ecosystem health indicators: semi-variogram analysis of high spatial resolution satellite imagery Canadian. J Remote Sens 32:228–243.  https://doi.org/10.5589/m06-020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kasprak A et al. (2016) The blurred line between form and process: a comparison of stream channel classification frameworks. PLoS ONE 11:e0150293.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Otting N, Lytjen D (1997) An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United States. Fisheries 22:12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kauffman JB, Krueger WC (1984) Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management implications... a review. J Range Manag 37:430–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kaufmann PR, Hughes RM (2006) Geomorphic and anthropogenic influences on fish and amphibians in Pacific Northwest coastal streams. In: American Fisheries Society Symposium, vol 429. Bethesda, MD, p 55Google Scholar
  55. Kennedy TA, Finlay JC, Hobbie SE (2005) Eradication of invasive Tamarix ramosissima along a desert stream increases native fish density. Ecol Appl 15:2072–2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Klemas V (2014) Remote sensing of riparian and wetland buffers: an overview. J Coast Res 30:869–880.  https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-14-00013.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Klir GJ, Yuan B (1995) Fuzzy sets and Fuzzy logic: theory and applications. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  58. Kus BE (1998) Use of restored riparian habitat by the endangered Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Restor Ecol 6:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. LANDFIRE (2016a) Biophysical Settting (BPS) layer Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools project. http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions20.php (accessed March 2016)
  60. LANDFIRE (2016b) Existing Vegetation Type (EVT) layer Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools project. http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions21.php (accessed April 2016)
  61. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lane BA, Dahlke HE, Pasternack GB, Sandoval‐Solis S (2017) Revealing the diversity of natural hydrologic regimes in California with relevance for environmental flows applications JAWRA. J Am Water Resour Assoc 53:411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Leonard S, Elsbernd V, Borman MM, Swanson S, Kinch G (1997) Grazing management for riparian-wetland areas. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource Sciences Center, Denver, COGoogle Scholar
  64. Liess M, Schulz R (1999) Linking insecticide contamination and population response in an agricultural stream. Environ Toxicol Chem 18:1948–1955.  https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620180913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lisenby PE, Fryirs KA (2017) ‘Out with the Old?’ Why coarse spatial datasets are still useful for catchment-scale investigations of sediment (dis) connectivity. Earth Surf Process Landf 40(10):1588–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lowrance R (1998) Riparian forest ecosystems as filters for nonpoint-source pollution. In: Pace ML et al (eds) Successes, limitations, and frontiers in ecosystem science, Springer, New York, p 113–141Google Scholar
  67. Lowrance R et al. (1997) Water quality functions of riparian forest buffers in Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Environ Manag 21:687–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Macfarlane WW, Gilbert JT, Jensen ML, Gilbert JD, Hough-Snee N, McHugh PA, Wheaton JM (2016a) Riparian vegetation as an indicator of riparian condition: detecting departures from historic condition across the North American West. J Environ Manag 202:447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Macfarlane WW, McGinty CM, Laub BG, Gifford SJ (2016b) High-resolution riparian vegetation mapping to prioritize conservation and restoration in an impaired desert river. Restor Ecol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12425
  70. Mander Ü, Hayakawa Y, Kuusemets V (2005) Purification processes, ecological functions, planning and design of riparian buffer zones in agricultural watersheds. Ecol Eng 24:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Manners RB, Schmidt JC, Scott ML (2014) Mechanisms of vegetation-induced channel narrowing of an unregulated canyon river: results from a natural field-scale experiment. Geomorphology 211:100–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Martin TG, McIntyre S (2007) Impacts of livestock grazing and tree clearing on birds of woodland and riparian habitats. Conserv Biol 21:504–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mathworks (2017) Defuzzification methods: centroid. Mathworks. https://www.mathworks.com/help/fuzzy/examples/defuzzification-methods.html?requestedDomain=www.mathworks.com#zmw57dd0e2454. (Accessed 2/27/17 2017)
  74. May CW, Horner RR, Karr JR, Mar BW, Welch EB (1999) Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound ecoregion. Watershed Prot Tech 2:79Google Scholar
  75. McNamara JP, Ziegler AD, Wood SH, Vogler JB (2006) Channel head locations with respect to geomorphologic thresholds derived from a digital elevation model: a case study in northern Thailand. For Ecol Manag 224:147–156.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McNyset KM, Volk CJ, Jordan CE (2015) Developing an effective model for predicting spatially and temporally continuous stream temperatures from remotely sensed land surface temperatures. Water 7:6827–6846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Miller JR, Wiens JA, Hobbs NT, Theobald DM (2003) Effects of human settlement on bird communities in lowland riparian areas of Colorado (USA). Ecol Appl 13:1041–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Montgomery DR (2001) Slope distributions, threshold hillslopes, and steady-state topography. Am J Sci 301:432–454.  https://doi.org/10.2475/ajs.301.4-5.432 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Montgomery DR,(2002) Valley formation by fluvial and glacial erosion Geology 30:1047–1050. https://doi.org/10.1130/0091-7613(2002)030<1047:VFBFAG>2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Muller E (1997) Mapping riparian vegetation along rivers: old concepts and new methods. Aquat Bot 58:411–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Nagler PL, Glenn EP, Jarnevich CS, Shafroth PB (2011) Distribution and abundance of saltcedar and Russian olive in the western United States. Crit Rev Plant Sci 30:508–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Naiman RJ, Decamps H (1997) The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 28:621–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Naiman RJ, Bilby RE, Bisson PA (2000) Riparian ecology and management in the Pacific coastal rain forest. Bioscience 50:996–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Nardi F, Vivoni ER, Grimaldi S (2006) Investigating a floodplain scaling relation using a hydrogeomorphic delineation method Water Resour Res 42.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004155
  85. O'Brien G et al. (in revision) A rapid and reliable method for modelling valley confinement and differentiating valley setting across entire drainage networks. Earth Surf Process LandfGoogle Scholar
  86. O’Brien GR, Wheaton J, Fryirs K, McHugh P, Bouwes N, Brierley G, Jordan C (2017) A geomorphic assessment to inform strategic stream restoration planning in the Middle Fork John Day Watershed, Oregon, USA. J Maps 13:369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Openshaw S (1996) Fuzzy logic as a new scientific paradigm for doing geography. Environ Plan A 28:761–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Opperman JJ, Galloway GE, Fargione J, Mount JF, Richter BD, Secchi S (2009) Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers. Science 326:1487–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Ormerod SJ, Dobson M, Hildrew AG, Townsend CR (2010) Multiple stressors in freshwater ecosystems. Freshw Biol 55:1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.02395.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Pimentel D, Lach L, Zuniga R, Morrison D (2000) Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. Bioscience 50:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Poff N, Brinson MM, Day J (2002) Aquatic ecosystems and global climate change. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA, 44Google Scholar
  92. Rieman BE, Lee DC, Thurow RF (1997) Distribution, status, and likely future trends of bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North Am J Fish Man 17:1111–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rollins MG (2009) LANDFIRE: a nationally consistent vegetation, wildland fire, and fuel assessment. Int J Wildland Fire 18:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rolls RJ, Arthington AH (2014) How do low magnitudes of hydrologic alteration impact riverine fish populations and assemblage characteristics? Ecol Indic 39:179–188.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.12.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Roon DA, Wipfli MS, Wurtz TL (2014) Effects of invasive European bird cherry (Prunus padus) on leaf litter processing by aquatic invertebrate shredder communities in urban Alaskan streams. Hydrobiologia 736:17–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Roon DA, Wipfli MS, Wurtz TL, Blanchard AL (2016) Invasive European bird cherry (Prunus padus) reduces terrestrial prey subsidies to urban Alaskan salmon streams. Can J Fish Aquat Sci 73:1679–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Royan A, Prudhomme C, Hannah DM, Reynolds SJ, Noble DG, Sadler JP (2015) Climate-induced changes in river flow regimes will alter future bird distributions. Ecosphere 6:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1890/ES14-00245.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Salo JA, Theobald DM, Brown TC (2016) Evaluation of methods for delineating riparian zones in a semi-arid montane watershed. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 52:632–647.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Schoonover JE, Lockaby BG, Pan S (2005) Changes in chemical and physical properties of stream water across an urban-rural gradient in western Georgia Urban. Ecosystems 8:107–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-005-1422-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Schorghofer N, Rothman DH (2002) Acausal relations between topographic slope and drainage area. Geophys Res Lett 29.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015144
  101. Shafroth PB, Stromberg JC, Patten DT (2002) Riparian vegetation response to altered disturbance and stress regimes. Ecol Appl 12:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Stella J, Rodríguez-González P, Dufour S, Bendix J (2013) Riparian vegetation research in Mediterranean-climate regions: common patterns, ecological processes, and considerations for management. Hydrobiologia 719:291–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-012-1304-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stohlgren TJ, Bull KA, Otsuki Y, Villa CA, Lee M (1998) Riparian zones as havens for exotic plant species in the central grasslands. Plant Ecol 138:113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Stromberg JC et al. (2007) Altered stream‐flow regimes and invasive plant species: the tamarix case. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 16:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Tabacchi E, Lambs L, Guilloy H, Planty-Tabacchi AM, Muller E, Decamps H (2000) Impacts of riparian vegetation on hydrological processes. Hydrol Process 14:2959–2976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Taniguchi KT, Biggs TW (2015) Regional impacts of urbanization on stream channel geometry: a case study in semiarid southern California. Geomorphology 248:228–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Tockner K, Stanford JA (2002) Riverine flood plains: present state and future trends. Environ Conserv 29:308–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Tucker GE, Bras RL (1998) Hillslope processes, drainage density, and landscape morphology. Water Resour Res 34:2751–2764.  https://doi.org/10.1029/98WR01474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. US Census Bureau (2016) TIGER Road data. https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger.html (accessed April 2016)
  110. USGS (2016) National Hydrography Dataset. US Geological Survey. http://nhd.usgs.gov/ (accessed 6 June-July 2016)
  111. Vigil JF, Pike RJ, Howell DG (2000) A tapestry of time and terrain. US Geological Survey. http://ulpeis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/references/pdfs/USGS_2003.pdf (accessed April 2016)
  112. Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM (1997) Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science 277:494–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Ward J, Tockner K, Schiemer F (1999) Biodiversity of floodplain river ecosystems: ecotones and connectivity Regulated Rivers. Res Manag 15:125–139Google Scholar
  114. Wenger SJ, Luce CH, Hamlet AF, Isaak DJ, Neville HM (2010) Macroscale hydrologic modeling of ecologically relevant flow metrics. Water Resour Res 46.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008839.
  115. Wheaton JM, Fryirs KA, Brierley G, Bangen SG, Bouwes N, O'Brien G (2015) Geomorphic mapping and taxonomy of fluvial landforms. Geomorphology 248:273–295.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.07.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Wheaton JM et al. (2017) Upscaling site-scale ecohydraulic models to inform salmonid population‐level life cycle modelling and restoration actions—lessons from the Columbia River Basin. Earth Surf Process Landf.  https://doi.org/10.1002/esp.4137
  117. Willgoose G, Bras RL, Rodriguez-Iturbe I (1991) A physical explanation of an observed link area‐slope relationship. Water Resour Res 27:1697–1702.  https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR00937 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Woltemade CJ, Potter KW (1994) A watershed modeling analysis of fluvial geomorphologic influences on flood peak attenuation. Water Resour Res 30:1933–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Zadeh LA (1996) Fuzzy logic=computing with words. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 4:103–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Zomer RJ, Trabucco A, Ustin SL (2009) Building spectral libraries for wetlands land cover classification and hyperspectral remote sensing. J Environ Manag 90:2170–2177.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • William W. Macfarlane
    • 1
  • Jordan T. Gilbert
    • 1
  • Joshua D. Gilbert
    • 1
  • William C. Saunders
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nate Hough-Snee
    • 3
  • Chalese Hafen
    • 1
  • Joseph M. Wheaton
    • 1
    • 4
  • Stephen N. Bennett
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Watershed SciencesUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  2. 2.Eco Logical Research, Inc.ProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Meadow Run Environmental, LLCLeavenworthUSA
  4. 4.Anabranch Solutions, LLCNewtonUSA

Personalised recommendations