Environmental Management

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 356–368 | Cite as

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

  • Douglas J. Norton
  • James D. Wickham
  • Timothy G. Wade
  • Kelly Kunert
  • John V. Thomas
  • Paul Zeph
Article

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.

Keywords

Clean Water Act Indicators Recovery Resilience Restorability Restoration Stressors Total Maximum Daily Load 

References

  1. Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE (2000) Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benedict MA, McMahon MT (2006) Green infrastructure: linking landscape and communities. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Bengtsson J, Angelstam P, Elmqvist T, Emanuelsson U, Folke C, Ihse M, Moberg F, Nystrom M (2003) Reserves, resilience and dynamic landscapes. AmBio 32(6):389–396Google Scholar
  4. Benham B, Zeckoski R, Yagow G, Ekka S (2006) TMDL implementation—characteristics of successful projects: final report. Project X7-83156301 for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Center for TMDL and Watershed Studies, Virginia Tech, BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
  5. Benham B, Zeckoski R, Yagow G (2007) TMDL implementation: lessons learned. Proceedings: Water Environment Federation TMDL 2007 Conference, Bellevue, WAGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Poe GL (2001) The economic value of water quality. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernhardt ES, Palmer MA, Allan JD, Alexander G, Barnas K, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm C, Follstad-Shah J, Galat D, Gloss S, Goodwin P, Hart D, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Katz S, Kondolf GM, Lake PS, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Powell B, Sudduth E (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brabec E, Schulte S, Richards PL (2002) Impervious surfaces and water quality: a review of current literature and its implications for watershed planning. Journal of Planning Literature 16:499–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradshaw AD (1993) Restoration ecology as a science. Restoration Ecology 1:71–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecological Management and Restoration 4:193–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Busiahn T, Kosa J (2008) The National Fish Habitat Action Plan: a partnership to restore native fish to mined watersheds. In: 30th annual National Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs Conference, Durango, CO, October 26–29Google Scholar
  12. Cairns J Jr (1990) Lack of theoretical basis for predicting rate and pathways of recovery. Environmental Management 14(5):517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cairns J Jr (1999) Assimilative capacity—the key to sustainable use of the planet. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6:259–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davies SP, Jackson SK (2006) The Biological Condition Gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16:1251–1266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davis MA, Slobodkin LB (2004) The science and values of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 12:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Detenbeck NE, De Vore PW, Niemi GJ, Lima A (1992) Recovery of temperate-stream fish communities from disturbance: a review of case studies and synthesis of theory. Environmental Management 16:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dewald T (2006) Applications of the NHD at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Resources Impact 8:5–7Google Scholar
  18. Diamond JM, Serveiss VB (2001) Identifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment framework. Environmental Science and Technology 35:4711–4718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ducros CMJ, Joyce CB (2003) Field-based evaluation tool for riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environmental Management 32(2):252–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Durbrow RP, Burns NB, Richardson JR, Berish CW (2001) Southeastern Ecological Framework: a planning tool for managing ecosystem integrity. In: Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference, University of Georgia, Athens, March 26–27Google Scholar
  21. Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) (2008) Available at: http://sain.utk.edu/gis_apps/proj/brooktrout/index.php. Accessed August 27, 2008
  22. Environmental Management (1990) Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems following disturbance: theory and applications. Environmental Management Special Issue 14(5)Google Scholar
  23. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA) (1972) Public Law 92-500, 86 Stat. 816 (Amended in 1977 and 1987, referred to as the Clean Water Act, codified at 33 U.S.C. 1251-1387 [1988])Google Scholar
  24. Fegeas RG, Claire RW, Guptil SC, Anderson KE (1983) Land use and land cover digital data. Geological Survey Circular 895-E. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Fennessy MS, Cronk JK (1997) The effectiveness and restoration potential of riparian ecotones for the management of nonpoint source pollution, particularly nitrate. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 27:285–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fitzpatrick FA, Scudder BC, Lenz BN, Sullivan DJ (2001) Effects of multi-scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. JAWRA 37:1489–1507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freeman MC, Marcinek PA (2006) Fish assemblage response to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environmental Management 38:435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Frink CR (1991) Estimating nutrient exports to estuaries. Journal of Environmental Quality 20:717–724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gergel SE, Turner MG, Miller JR, Melack JM, Stanley EH (2002) Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquatic Sciences 64(2):118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gesch D, Oimen D, Greenlee S, Nelson C, Steuck M, Tyler D (2002) The national elevation dataset. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68:5–11Google Scholar
  32. Grau HR, Aide TM, Zimmerman JK, Thomlinson JR, Helmer E, Zou XM (2003) The ecological consequences of socioeconomic and land-use changes in postagriculture Puerto Rico. BioScience 53(12):1159–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gregory S, Li H, Li J (2002) The conceptual basis for ecological responses to dam removal. BioScience 52(8):713–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Harding JS, Benfield EF, Bolstad PV, Helfman GS, Jones EBDIII (1998) Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95:1483–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Homer C, Dewitz J, Fry J, Coan M, Hossain N, Larson C, Herold N, McKerrow A, Van Driel JN, Wickham JD (2007) Completion of the 2001 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 73:337–341Google Scholar
  37. Hudy M, Thieling TM, Gillespie N, Smith EP (2005) Distribution, status, and threats to brook trout within the eastern United States. Report to the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Industrial Economics, Inc (2006) Developing effective non-point source TMDLs: an evaluation of the TMDL development process. Final Report for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Industrial Economics, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  39. Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity—a long-neglected aspect of water-resource management. Ecological Applications 1(1):66–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keller W, Heneberry J, Gunn JM (1999) Effects of emission reductions from the Sudbury smelters on the recovery of acid- and metal-damaged lakes. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6:189–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kolar CS, Hudson PL, Savino JF (1997) Conditions for the return and simulation of the recovery of burrowing mayflies in western Lake Erie. Ecological Applications 7:665–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lackey RT (2001) Values, policy, and ecosystem health. BioScience 51:437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lindblom C (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19:79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lundberg J, Moberg F (2003) Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6(1):87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz F (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Michael HJ, Boyle KJ, Bouchard R (2000) Does the measurement of environmental quality affect implicit prices estimated from hedonic models? Land Economics 76(2):283–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63:81–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. NatureServe (2008) Interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm. Accessed August 28, 2008
  49. Niemi GJ, De Vore P, Detenbeck N, Taylor D, Lima A, Pastor J, Yount JD, Naiman RJ (1990) Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems. Environmental Management 14:571–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Norton DJ (2005) Discussions with EPA regional offices of factors involved in state development of prioritized TMDL schedules. UnpublishedGoogle Scholar
  51. Norton MM, Fisher TR (2000) The effects of forest on stream water quality in two coastal plain watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Engineering 14:337–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Novotny V, Bartosova A, O’Reilly N, Ehlinger T (2005) Unlocking the relationship of biotic waters to anthropogenic integrity of impaired stresses. Water Research 39:184–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Neill RV (1999) Recovery in complex ecosystems. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Palik BJ, Goebel PC, Kirkman LK, West L (2000) Using landscape hierarchies to guide restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecological Applications 10(1):189–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Palmer MA, Allan JD, Lake PS, Alexander G, Brooks S, Carr J, Clayton S, Dahm CN, Shah JF, Galat DL, Loss SG, Goodwin P, Hart DD, Hassett B, Jenkinson R, Kondolf GM, Lave R, Meyer JL, O’Donnell TK, Pagano L, Sudduth E (2005) Standards for ecologically successful river restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:208–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parkyn SM, Davies-Colley RJ, Halliday NJ, Costley KJ, Croker GF (2003) Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: do they live up to expectations? Restoration Ecology 11(4):436–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peterjohn WT, Correll DL (1984) Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Peterson BJ, Wollheim WM, Mulholland PJ, Webster JR, Meyer JL, Tank JL, Martí EM, Bowden WB, Valett HM, Hershey AE, McDowell WH, Dodds WK, Hamilton SK, Gregory S, Morrall DD (2001) Control of nitrogen export from watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pimm SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestergaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769–784Google Scholar
  62. Poiani RA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Poor PJ, Boyle KJ, Taylor LO, Bouchard R (2001) Objective versus subjective measures of water clarity in hedonic property value models. Land Economics 77(4):482–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Potter KM, Cubbage FW, Blank GB, Schaberg RH (2004) A watershed-scale model for predicting nonpoint pollution risk in North Carolina. Environmental Management 34(1):62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Power ME, Dietrich WE, Finlay JC (1996) Dams and downstream aquatic biodiversity: potential food web consequences of hydrologic alteration and geomorphic change. Environmental Management 20:887–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Radwell AJ, Kwak TJ (2005) Assessing ecological integrity of Ozark rivers to determine suitability for protective status. Environmental Management 35:799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roni P, Beechie TJ, Bilby RE, Leonetti FE, Pollock MM, Pess GR (2002) A review of stream restoration techniques and a hierarchical strategy for prioritizing restoration in Pacific Northwest watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Roth NE, Allan JD, Erickson DL (1996) Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11:141–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubbell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (2005) Collaborative Approaches to watershed management. In: Sabatier PA et al (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  70. Schick R, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1116–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schlosser IJ (1990) Environmental variation, life history attributes, and community structure in stream fishes: implications for environmental management and assessment. Environmental Management 14:621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Alexander RB (1997) Regional interpretation of water quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research 33:2781–2798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Storey RG, Cowley DR (1997) Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia 353:63–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (1977) Title IV, reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program. December 9, 2006Google Scholar
  75. Trombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. USEPA (1984) Technical support manual: waterbody surveys and assessments for conducting Use Attainability Analysis. Vols 1–3. Reports EPA440/4-86-037, -038, -039. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/library/wqstandards/
  77. USEPA (1991) Guidance for water quality-based decisions: the TMDL process. Report EPA440/4–91-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  78. USEPA (2002) National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 report to Congress. EPA841-R-02–001. Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  79. USEPA (2005) Guidance for 2006 assessment, listing, and reporting requirements pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314 of the Clean Water Act. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/2006IRG/. Accessed August 27, 2008
  80. USEPA (2006) National TMDL Tracking System (NTTS) expert query tool user guide 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/tmdl/expert_query_user_manual.pdf. Accessed August 27, 2008
  81. USEPA (2009a) National summary of impaired waters and TMDL information. Available at: http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control?p_report_type=T. Accessed January 16, 2009
  82. USEPA (2009b) Restoration and recovery literature database (unpublished Microsoft access database). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  83. USEPA (2009c) Data downloads: Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental ResultS (WATERS). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/old_downloads.html. Accessed January 16, 2009
  84. USEPA (2009d) NHDPlus. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waters. Accessed January 16, 2009
  85. USEPA (2009e) Adopt Your Watershed database. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/adopt/. Accessed January 16, 2009
  86. USEPA (2009f) Handbook for developing watershed TMDLs: draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (in press). Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/draft_handbook.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2009
  87. USGS (2008) NHD data availability. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed August 27, 2008
  88. Wall SS, Berry CR, Blausey CM, Jenks JA, Kopplin CJ (2004) Fish-habitat modeling for gap analysis to conserve the endangered Topeka shiner (Notropis topeka). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61(6):954–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wallace JB (1990) Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance. Environmental Management 14:605–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Wang X (2001) Integrating water quality management and land use planning in a watershed context. Journal of Environmental Management 61:25–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Warner S (2005) Down to the waterline: boundaries, nature, and the law in Florida. University of Georgia Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  92. Weber T (2004) Landscape ecological assessment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94:39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J (2006) Maryland’s green infrastructure assessment: Development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:94–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Westman WE (1978) Measuring inertia and resilience of ecosystems. BioScience 28:705–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wickham JD, Norton DJ (2008) Recovery potential as a means of prioritizing restoration of waters identified as impaired under the Clean Water Act. WaterPractice 2(1):1–11. Available at: http://www.wef.org/ScienceTechnologyResources/Publications/WaterPractice
  96. Wickham JD, Riitters KH, Wade TG, Jones KB (2005) Evaluating the relative roles of ecological regions and land-cover composition for guiding establishment of nutrient criteria. Landscape Ecology 20:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wickham JD, Wade TG, Riitters KH (2008) Detecting temporal change in watershed nutrient yields. Environmental Management 42:223–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Yount JD, Niemi GJ (1990) Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—a narrative review of case studies. Environmental Management 14:547–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas J. Norton
    • 1
  • James D. Wickham
    • 2
  • Timothy G. Wade
    • 2
  • Kelly Kunert
    • 3
  • John V. Thomas
    • 4
  • Paul Zeph
    • 5
  1. 1.Office of WaterU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503T)WashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Office of Research and DevelopmentNational Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E243-05)Research Triangle ParkUSA
  3. 3.Office of WaterU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4204M)WashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Office of Policy, Economics and InnovationU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1807T)WashingtonUSA
  5. 5.Pennsylvania Department of Environmental ProtectionOffice of Water ManagementHarrisburgUSA

Personalised recommendations