Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. ‘States’ is used throughout this paper as shorthand for “states, territories, and authorized tribes.”

References

  • Alexander RB, Smith RA, Schwarz GE (2000) Effect of stream channel size on the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758–761

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict MA, McMahon MT (2006) Green infrastructure: linking landscape and communities. Island Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):389–396

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Blacksburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Benham B, Zeckoski R, Yagow G (2007) TMDL implementation: lessons learned. Proceedings: Water Environment Federation TMDL 2007 Conference, Bellevue, WA

  • Bergstrom JC, Boyle KJ, Poe GL (2001) The economic value of water quality. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 308:636–637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:499–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw AD (1993) Restoration ecology as a science. Restoration Ecology 1:71–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bond NR, Lake PS (2003) Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecological Management and Restoration 4:193–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26–29

  • Cairns J Jr (1990) Lack of theoretical basis for predicting rate and pathways of recovery. Environmental Management 14(5):517–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cairns J Jr (1999) Assimilative capacity—the key to sustainable use of the planet. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6:259–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies SP, Jackson SK (2006) The Biological Condition Gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16:1251–1266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis MA, Slobodkin LB (2004) The science and values of restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 12:1–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:33–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewald T (2006) Applications of the NHD at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Resources Impact 8:5–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond JM, Serveiss VB (2001) Identifying sources of stress to native aquatic fauna using a watershed ecological risk assessment framework. Environmental Science and Technology 35:4711–4718

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ducros CMJ, Joyce CB (2003) Field-based evaluation tool for riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environmental Management 32(2):252–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26–27

  • Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) (2008) Available at: http://sain.utk.edu/gis_apps/proj/brooktrout/index.php. Accessed August 27, 2008

  • Environmental Management (1990) Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems following disturbance: theory and applications. Environmental Management Special Issue 14(5)

  • 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])

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 27:285–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzpatrick FA, Scudder BC, Lenz BN, Sullivan DJ (2001) Effects of multi-scale environmental characteristics on agricultural stream biota in eastern Wisconsin. JAWRA 37:1489–1507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman RTT, Alexander LE (1998) Roads and their major ecological effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:207–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman MC, Marcinek PA (2006) Fish assemblage response to water withdrawals and water supply reservoirs in Piedmont streams. Environmental Management 38:435–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frink CR (1991) Estimating nutrient exports to estuaries. Journal of Environmental Quality 20:717–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gergel SE, Turner MG, Miller JR, Melack JM, Stanley EH (2002) Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquatic Sciences 64(2):118–128

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gesch D, Oimen D, Greenlee S, Nelson C, Steuck M, Tyler D (2002) The national elevation dataset. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68:5–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):1159–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory S, Li H, Li J (2002) The conceptual basis for ecological responses to dam removal. BioScience 52(8):713–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 95:1483–1487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holling CS (1973) Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 73:337–341

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 MA

  • Karr JR (1991) Biological integrity—a long-neglected aspect of water-resource management. Ecological Applications 1(1):66–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 6:189–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 7:665–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey RT (2001) Values, policy, and ecosystem health. BioScience 51:437–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom C (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19:79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundberg J, Moberg F (2003) Mobile link organisms and ecosystem functioning: implications for ecosystem resilience and management. Ecosystems 6(1):87–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack RN, Simberloff D, Lonsdale WM, Evans H, Clout M, Bazzaz F (2000) Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Ecological Applications 10:689–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael HJ, Boyle KJ, Bouchard R (2000) Does the measurement of environmental quality affect implicit prices estimated from hedonic models? Land Economics 76(2):283–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller GA (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63:81–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • NatureServe (2008) Interpreting NatureServe conservation status ranks. Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/ranking.htm. Accessed August 28, 2008

  • 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 14:571–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norton DJ (2005) Discussions with EPA regional offices of factors involved in state development of prioritized TMDL schedules. Unpublished

  • Norton MM, Fisher TR (2000) The effects of forest on stream water quality in two coastal plain watersheds of the Chesapeake Bay. Ecological Engineering 14:337–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novotny V, Bartosova A, O’Reilly N, Ehlinger T (2005) Unlocking the relationship of biotic waters to anthropogenic integrity of impaired stresses. Water Research 39:184–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill RV (1999) Recovery in complex ecosystems. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 6:181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palik BJ, Goebel PC, Kirkman LK, West L (2000) Using landscape hierarchies to guide restoration of disturbed ecosystems. Ecological Applications 10(1):189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:208–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):436–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:333–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterjohn WT, Correll DL (1984) Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 292:80–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimm SL (1984) The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 307:321–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestergaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769–784

    Google Scholar 

  • Poiani RA, Richter BD, Anderson MG, Richter HE (2000) Biodiversity conservation at multiple scales: functional sites, landscapes, and networks. BioScience 50:133–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):482–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):62–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power ME, Dietrich WE, Finlay JC (1996) Dams and downstream aquatic biodiversity: potential food web consequences of hydrologic alteration and geomorphic change. Environmental Management 20:887–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radwell AJ, Kwak TJ (2005) Assessing ecological integrity of Ozark rivers to determine suitability for protective status. Environmental Management 35:799–810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth NE, Allan JD, Erickson DL (1996) Landscape influences on stream biotic integrity assessed at multiple spatial scales. Landscape Ecology 11:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Schick R, Lindley ST (2007) Directed connectivity among fish populations in a riverine network. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:1116–1126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser IJ (1990) Environmental variation, life history attributes, and community structure in stream fishes: implications for environmental management and assessment. Environmental Management 14:621–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith RA, Schwarz GE, Alexander RB (1997) Regional interpretation of water quality monitoring data. Water Resources Research 33:2781–2798

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Storey RG, Cowley DR (1997) Recovery of three New Zealand rural streams as they pass through native forest remnants. Hydrobiologia 353:63–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) (1977) Title IV, reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program. December 9, 2006

  • Trombulak SC, Frissell CA (2000) Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation Biology 14:18–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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/

  • USEPA (1991) Guidance for water quality-based decisions: the TMDL process. Report EPA440/4–91-001. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • USEPA (2002) National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 report to Congress. EPA841-R-02–001. Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • USEPA (2009b) Restoration and recovery literature database (unpublished Microsoft access database). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

  • 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

  • USEPA (2009d) NHDPlus. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/waters. Accessed January 16, 2009

  • USEPA (2009e) Adopt Your Watershed database. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/adopt/. Accessed January 16, 2009

  • 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

  • USGS (2008) NHD data availability. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed August 27, 2008

  • 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):954–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace JB (1990) Recovery of lotic macroinvertebrate communities from disturbance. Environmental Management 14:605–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang X (2001) Integrating water quality management and land use planning in a watershed context. Journal of Environmental Management 61:25–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Warner S (2005) Down to the waterline: boundaries, nature, and the law in Florida. University of Georgia Press, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber T (2004) Landscape ecological assessment of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 94:39–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber T, Sloan A, Wolf J (2006) Maryland’s green infrastructure assessment: Development of a comprehensive approach to land conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:94–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westman WE (1978) Measuring inertia and resilience of ecosystems. BioScience 28:705–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 20:791–798

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham JD, Wade TG, Riitters KH (2008) Detecting temporal change in watershed nutrient yields. Environmental Management 42:223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yount JD, Niemi GJ (1990) Recovery of lotic communities and ecosystems from disturbance—a narrative review of case studies. Environmental Management 14:547–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors express their appreciation for technical and editorial input from Tommy Dewald, John Goodin, Dean Maraldo, Eric Monschein, John Perrecone, Shera Reems, Tom Wall, Mary White, Lester Yuan, and anonymous reviewers. USEPA Region 3, the Maryland Department of Environment, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection provided much appreciated project collaboration and GIS assistance. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Office of Research and Development (ORD) and Office of Water (OW) have co-funded and co-performed the research described. This manuscript has been subjected to USEPA’s peer and administrative review and approved for publication. However, publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the USEPA. Tetra Tech, Inc. and Research Triangle Institute partially supported this project through USEPA/OW contract 68-C-02-108.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460, USA

    Douglas J. Norton

  2. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E243-05), Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, USA

    James D. Wickham & Timothy G. Wade

  3. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4204M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460, USA

    Kelly Kunert

  4. Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1807T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20460, USA

    John V. Thomas

  5. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water Management, P.O. Box 2063, Harrisburg, PA, 17105-2063, USA

    Paul Zeph

Authors
  1. Douglas J. Norton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. James D. Wickham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy G. Wade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kelly Kunert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John V. Thomas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul Zeph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas J. Norton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Norton, D.J., Wickham, J.D., Wade, T.G. et al. A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning. Environmental Management 44, 356–368 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9304-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9304-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation