Skip to main content

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

Environmental Management volume 34, pages 62–74 (2004)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Figure 1.

References

  1. T. O. Adams D. D. Hook M. A. Floyd (1995) ArticleTitleEffectiveness monitoring of silvicultural best management practices in South Carolina Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 19 170–176

    Google Scholar 

  2. P. Basnyat L. D. Teeter K. M. Flynn B. G. Lockaby (1999) ArticleTitleRelationships between landscape characteristics and nonpoint source pollution inputs to coastal estuaries Environmental Management 23 539–549 Occurrence Handle10.1007/s002679900208 Occurrence Handle10085386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. M. Boroush (1998) Understanding risk analysis: a short guide for health, safety and environmental policy making American Chemical Society, and Resources for the Future Washington, D.C. 39

    Google Scholar 

  4. K. N. Brooks P. F. Ffolliott H. M. Gregersen L. F. DeBano (1997) Hydrology and the management of watersheds Iowa State University Press Ames, Iowa 502

    Google Scholar 

  5. S. A. Bryce D. P. Larsen R. M. Hughes P. R. Kaufmann (1999) ArticleTitleAssessing relative risks to aquatic ecosystems: a mid-Appalachian case study Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35 23–36

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. J. Chaplin R. A. Gerrard H. M. Watson L. L. Master S. R. Flack (2000) The geography of imperilment: targeting conservation toward critical biodiversity areas B. A. Stein L. S. Kutner J. S. Adams (Eds) Precious heritage: the status of biodiversity in the United States Oxford University Press New York 159–199

    Google Scholar 

  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. 229–235

  8. Y. D. Chen S. C. McCutcheon T. C. Rasmussen W. L. Nutter R. F. Carsel (1993) ArticleTitleIntegrating water quality modeling with ecological risk assessment for nonpoint source pollution control: a conceptual framework Water Science and Technology 28 431–440 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK2cXjslGisw%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. R. C. Conner A. J. Hartsell (2002) Forest area and conditions D. N. Wear a J. G. Greis (Eds) Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station Asheville, North Carolina 357–402

    Google Scholar 

  10. J. R. Cooper J. W. Gilliam R. B. Daniels W. P. Robarge (1987) ArticleTitleRiparian areas as filters for agricultural sediment Soil Science Society of America Journal 51 416–420

    Google Scholar 

  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): 1174–1181

  12. J. M. Diamond V. B. Serveiss (2001) ArticleTitleIdentifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment framework Environmental Science and Technology 35 4711–4718 Occurrence Handle10.1021/es0015803 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3MXotVOhtL4%3D Occurrence Handle11775143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. N. R. Draper H. Smith (1998) Applied regression analysis John Wiley & Sons, Inc New York 706

    Google Scholar 

  14. InstitutionalAuthorNameESRI (1999) ArcView 3.2 Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc Redlands, California

    Google Scholar 

  15. InstitutionalAuthorNameESRI (2001) ArcGIS 8.1 Environmental Systems Research Institute Inc Redlands, California

    Google Scholar 

  16. D. Genito W. J. Gburek A. N. Sharpley (2002) ArticleTitleResponse of stream macroinvertebrates to agricultural land cover in a small watershed Journal of Freshwater Ecology 17 109–119 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DC%2BD38XitFOmsrg%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. J. H. Gentile M. W. Slimak (1992) Endpoints and indicators in ecological risk assessments D. H. McKenzie D. E. Hyatt V. J. McDonald (Eds) Ecological indicators, proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, 16–18 October 1990, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Elsevier Applied Science London 1385–1397

    Google Scholar 

  18. R. L. Graham C. T. Hunsaker R. V. O’Neill B. L. Jackson (1991) ArticleTitleEcological risk assessment at the regional scale Ecological Applications 1 196–206

    Google Scholar 

  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: 135–151

    Google Scholar 

  20. J. S. Harding E. F. Benfield P. V. Bolstad G. S. Helfman E. B. D. Jones III (1998) ArticleTitleStream biodiversity: The ghost of land use past Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95 14843–14847 Occurrence Handle10.1073/pnas.95.25.14843 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXotVGmur0%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. A. T. Herlihy J. L. Stoddard C. B. Johnson (1998) ArticleTitleThe relationship between stream chemistry and watershed land cover data in the mid-Atlantic region, U.S Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 105 377–386

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Herrig P. Shute (2002) Aquatic animals and their habitats D. N. Wear J. G. Greis (Eds) Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Station Asheville, North Carolina 537–580

    Google Scholar 

  23. W. L. Hilsenhoff (1987) ArticleTitleAn improved biotic index of organic stream pollution Great Lakes Entomologist 20 31–36

    Google Scholar 

  24. C. T. Hunsaker D. A. Lecine S. P. Timmins B. L. Jackson R. V. O’Neill (1992) Landscape characterization for assessing regional water quality D. H. McKenzie D. E. Hyatt V. J. McDonald (Eds) Ecological indicators, proceedings of the International Symposium on Ecological Indicators, 16–18 October 1990, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Elsevier Applied Science London 997–1006

    Google Scholar 

  25. K. B. Jones A. C. Neale M. S. Nash R. D. Van Remortel J. D. Wickham K. H. Riitters R. V. O’Neill (2001) ArticleTitlePredicting nutrient and sediment loadings to streams from landscape metrics: A multiple watershed study from the United States Mid-Atlantic Region Landscape Ecology 16 301–312 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1011175013278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. J. R. Karr (1999) ArticleTitleDefining and measuring river health Freshwater Biology 41 221–234 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00427.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. D. R. Lenat (1993) ArticleTitleA biotic index for the southeastern United States: Derivation and list of tolerance values, with criteria for assigning water-quality ratings Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12 279–290

    Google Scholar 

  28. D. R. Lenat J. K. Crawford (1994) ArticleTitleEffects of land use on water quality and aquatic biota of three North Carolina piedmont streams Hydrobiologia 294 185–199

    Google Scholar 

  29. R. Lowrance R. Leonard J. Sheridan (1985) ArticleTitleManaging riparian ecosystems to control nonpoint pollution Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 40 87–91

    Google Scholar 

  30. J. L. Metcalfe-Smith (1994) Biological water-quality assessment of rivers: Use of macroinvertebrate communities P. Calow G. E. Petts (Eds) The rivers handbook: Hydrological and ecological principles, vol. 2 Blackwell Scientific Publications Oxford, United Kingdom 401–418

    Google Scholar 

  31. S. A. Morley J. R. Karr (2002) ArticleTitleAssessing and restoring the health of urban streams in the Puget Sound basin Conservation Biology 16 1498–1509 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01067.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. C. C. Morse A. D. Huryn C. Cronan (2003) ArticleTitleImpervious surface area as a predictor of the effects of urbanization on stream insect communities in Maine, USA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 89 95–127 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1025821622411 Occurrence Handle14609276

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. InstitutionalAuthorNameMulti-Resolution Land Characterization Consortium (2000) National land cover data: North Carolina U.S. Geological Survey Sioux Falls, South Dakota

    Google Scholar 

  34. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2002a) Benthic macroinvertebrates. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 87

    Google Scholar 

  35. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2002b) Basinwide assessment report: Chowan River and Pasquotank River basins. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 132

    Google Scholar 

  36. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2001a) Standard operating procedures for benthic macroinvertebrates. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 44

    Google Scholar 

  37. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2001b) Basinwide assessment report: Broad River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 87

    Google Scholar 

  38. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2001c) Basinwide assessment report: Neuse River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 278

    Google Scholar 

  39. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2000a) Basinwide assessment report: Hiwassee River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 45

    Google Scholar 

  40. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2000b) Basinwide assessment report: Little Tennessee River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 85

    Google Scholar 

  41. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2000c) Basinwide assessment report: Roanoke River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 152

    Google Scholar 

  42. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2000d) Basinwide assessment report: Savannah River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 29

    Google Scholar 

  43. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2000e) Basinwide assessment report: Watauga River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 46

    Google Scholar 

  44. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (2000f) Basinwide assessment report: White Oak River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 98

    Google Scholar 

  45. InstitutionalAuthorNameNorth Carolina Division of Water Quality (1999) Basinwide assessment report: Cape Fear River basin. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Water Quality Section Environmental Sciences Branch Raleigh, North Carolina 344

    Google Scholar 

  46. W. T. Peterjohn D. L. Correll (1984) ArticleTitleNutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest Ecology 65 1466–1475 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaL2MXhtF2nsA%3D%3D

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. J. L. Plafkin M. T. Barbour K. D. Porter S. K. Gross R. M. Hughes (1989) Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/440/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Assessment and Watershed Protection Division Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  48. C. Richards L. B. Johnson G. E. Host (1996) ArticleTitleLandscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53 IssueIDsuppl 1 295–311 Occurrence Handle10.1139/cjfas-53-S1-295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. A. H. Roy A. D. Rosemond M. J. Paul D. S. Leigh J. B. Wallace (2003) ArticleTitleStream macroinvertebrate response to catchment urbanisation (Georgia, U.S.A.) Freshwater Biology 48 329–346 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.00979.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. InstitutionalAuthorNameSAS Institute Inc (2000) The SAS System for Windows, Version 8.1 Cary North Carolina

    Google Scholar 

  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]

  52. R. A. Sponseller E. F. Benfield H. M. Valett (2001) ArticleTitleRelationships between land use, spatial scale and stream macroinvertebrate communities Freshwater Biology 46 1409–1424 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2427.2001.00758.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. J. S. Stewart L. Z. Wang J. Lyons J. A. Horwatich R. Bannerman (2001) ArticleTitleInfluences of watershed, riparian-corridor, and reach-scale characteristics on aquatic biota in agricultural watersheds Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37 1475–1487

    Google Scholar 

  54. G. W. Suter II (1993) Ecological risk assessment Lewis Publishers Boca Raton, Florida 538

    Google Scholar 

  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]

  56. InstitutionalAuthorNameUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (1998a) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 188

    Google Scholar 

  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]

  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]

  59. InstitutionalAuthorNameUnited States Environmental Protection Agency (1990) Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters. EPA/440/5-90-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards Washington, D.C. 57

    Google Scholar 

  60. R. L. Vannote G. W. Minshall K. W. Cummins J. R. Sedell C. E. Cushing (1980) ArticleTitleThe river continuum concept Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37 130–137 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0040-1951(90)90188-E

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. J. H. Volstad N. E. Roth G. Mercurio M. T. Southerland D. E. Strebel (2003) ArticleTitleUsing environmental stressor information to predict the ecological status of Maryland non-tidal streams as measured by biological indicators Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 84 219–242 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1023374524254 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DC%2BD3s3nvFynsg%3D%3D Occurrence Handle12807262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. L. Wang P. Kanehl (2003) ArticleTitleInfluences of watershed urbanization and instream habitat on macroinvertebrates in cold water streams Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39 1181–1196

    Google Scholar 

  63. A. D. Ward (1995) Surface runoff and subsurface drainage A. D. Ward W. J. Elliot (Eds) Environmental hydrology CRC Press LLC Boca Raton, Florida 133–175

    Google Scholar 

  64. D. N. Wear (2002) Land use D. N. Wear J. G. Greis (Eds) Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Station Asheville, North Carolina 153–173

    Google Scholar 

  65. B. M. Weigel J. Lyons L. K. Paine S. I. Dodson D. J. Undersander (2000) ArticleTitleUsing stream macroinvertebrates to compare riparian land use practices on cattle farms in southwestern Wisconsin Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15 93–106

    Google Scholar 

  66. B. M. Weigel L. Wang P. W. Rasmussen J. T. Butcher P. M. Stewart T. P. Simon M. J. Wiley (2003) ArticleTitleRelative influence of variables at multiple spatial scales on stream macroinvertebrates in the Northern Lakes and Forest ecoregion, USA Freshwater Biology 48 1440–1461 Occurrence Handle10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01076.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. B. West (2002) Water quality in the South D. N. Wear J. G. Greis (Eds) Southern forest resource assessment, Gen. Tec. Rep. SRS-53. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southern Research Station Asheville, North Carolina 455–477

    Google Scholar 

  68. P. A. Zandbergen (1998) ArticleTitleUrban watershed ecological risk assessment using GIS: a case study of the Brunette River watershed in British Columbia, Canada Journal of Hazardous Materials 61 163–173 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S0304-3894(98)00120-4 Occurrence Handle1:CAS:528:DyaK1cXkslGntrc%3D

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Dr. George Hess for his comments on the manuscript; Dr. Marcia Gumpertz, Amy Nail, and Mark Atlas for their constructive statistics advice; Dr. Jim Gregory for instruction on watershed hydrology and stream ecology; and David Lenat for his insights about the use of the benthic macroinvertebrate indices. Finally, we appreciate the helpful comments from Alan Herlihy and two anonymous reviewers. This project was supported by the US Environmental Protection Agency through Science to Achieve Results (STAR) grant 2000-STAR-K3 (EPA Agreement Number R828784). It has not been subjected to EPA review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of EPA, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 27695-8002, USA

    Kevin M. Potter, Frederick W. Cubbage & Gary B. Blank

  2. Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA

    Rex H. Schaberg

Authors
  1. Kevin M. Potter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederick W. Cubbage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gary B. Blank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rex H. Schaberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin M. Potter.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Potter, K., Cubbage, F., Blank, G. et al. A Watershed-Scale Model for Predicting Nonpoint Pollution Risk in North Carolina. Environmental Management 34, 62–74 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0117-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0117-7

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