Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 1007–1024 | Cite as

Leveraging Big Data Towards Functionally-Based, Catchment Scale Restoration Prioritization

  • John P. LovetteEmail author
  • Jonathan M. Duncan
  • Lindsey S. Smart
  • John P. Fay
  • Lydia P. Olander
  • Dean L. Urban
  • Nancy Daly
  • Jamie Blackwell
  • Anne B. Hoos
  • Ana María García
  • Lawrence E. Band
Article

Abstract

The persistence of freshwater degradation has necessitated the growth of an expansive stream and wetland restoration industry, yet restoration prioritization at broad spatial extents is still limited and ad-hoc restoration prevails. The River Basin Restoration Prioritization tool has been developed to incorporate vetted, distributed data models into a catchment scale restoration prioritization framework. Catchment baseline condition and potential improvement with restoration activity is calculated for all National Hydrography Dataset stream reaches and catchments in North Carolina and compared to other catchments within the river subbasin to assess where restoration efforts may best be focused. Hydrologic, water quality, and aquatic habitat quality conditions are assessed with peak flood flow, nitrogen and phosphorus loading, and aquatic species distribution models. The modular nature of the tool leaves ample opportunity for future incorporation of novel and improved datasets to better represent the holistic health of a watershed, and the nature of the datasets used herein allow this framework to be applied at much broader scales than North Carolina.

Keywords

Restoration Watershed approach Catchment Watershed function 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful contributions to this manuscript, as well as Steve Preston and Chad Wagner of USGS for their review comments. We would also like to thank staff at NC DEQ for their guidance in developing, implementing, and continuing to improve this tool.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Association of State Wetland Managers (2017) In lieu fee programs approved under the 2008 mitigation rule. http://www.aswm.org/wetland-programs/in-lieu-fee/1043-in-lieu-fee-programs-approved-under-the-2008-mitigation-rule. Accessed February 2017
  2. Beechie TJ, Sear DA, Olden JD, Pees GR, Buffington JM, Moir H, Roni P, Pollock MM (2010) Process-based principles for restoring river ecosystems. BioScience 60:209–222.  https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.3.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernhardt ES et al. (2005) Synthesizing U.S. river restoration efforts. Science 308:636–637.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1109769 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black PE (1997) Watershed functions. J Am Water Resour Assoc 33:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1997.tb04077.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boesch DF, Brinsfield RB, Magnien RE (2001) Chesapeake Bay Eutrophication. J Environ Qual 30:303–319.  https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.302303x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohn BA, Kershner JL (2002) Establishing aquatic restoration priorities using a watershed approach. J Environ Manag 64:355–363.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2001.0496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breeding R (2010) Tar-Pamlico River Basin restoration priorities. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  8. Chowdary VM, Chakraborthy D, Jeyaram A, Murthy YVNK, Sharma JR, Dadhwal VK (2013) Multi-criteria decision making approach for watershed prioritization using analytic hierarchy process technique and GIS. Water Resour Manag 27:3555–3571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-013-0364-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clarke KC, Gaydos LJ (1998) Loose-coupling a cellular automaton model and GIS: long-term urban growth prediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 12:699–714.  https://doi.org/10.1080/136588198241617 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doyle MW, Miller DE, Harbor JM (1999) Should river restoration be based on classification schemes or process models? Insights from the history of geomorphology. In: ASCE international conference on water resources engineering, ASCE: Seattle, Washington, USA, 1999. pp 1–9Google Scholar
  11. Endries M (2011) Aquatic species mapping in North Carolina using Maxent. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Field OfficeGoogle Scholar
  12. Feaster TD, Gotvald AJ, Weaver JC (2014) Methods for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods for urban and small, rural streams in Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, 2011. US Geological Survey, SIR 2014-5030Google Scholar
  13. Foley JA et al. (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. García AM, Hoos AB, Terziotti S (2011) A regional modeling framework of phosphorus sources and transport in streams of the Southeastern United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 47:991–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00517.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gomez-Velez JD, Harvey JW (2014) A hydrogeomorphic river network model predicts where and why hyporheic exchange is important in large basins. Geophys Res Lett 41:6403–6412.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harman W, Starr R, Carter M, Tweedy L, Clemmons M, Suggs K, Miller C (2012) A function-based framework for stream assessment and restoration projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC, EPA 843-K-12-006Google Scholar
  17. Hoos AB, McMahon G (2009) Spatial analysis of instream nitrogen loads and factors controlling nitrogen delivery to streams in the southeastern United States using Spatially Referenced Regression on Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) and regional classification frameworks. Hydrol Process 23:2275–2294.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hoos AB, Moore RB, Garcia AM, Noe GB, Terziotti SE, Johnston CM, Dennis RL (2013) Simulating stream transport of nutrients in the eastern United States, 2002, using a spatially-referenced regression model and 1:100,000-scale hydrography. US Geological Survey SIR 2013-5102Google Scholar
  19. Kemp WM et al. (2005) Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: historical trends and ecological interactions. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 303:1–29.  https://doi.org/10.3354/meps303001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kershner JL (1997) Setting riparian/aquatic restoration objectives within a watershed context. Restor Ecol 5:15–24.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1997.tb00201.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambin EF et al. (2001) The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Glob Environ Change 11:261–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(01)00007-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mason Jr RR, Fuste LA, King JN, Thomas Jr WO (2002) The National Flood-Frequency Program—methods for estimating flood magnitude and frequency in rural and urban areas in North Carolina, 2001. US Geological Survey Fact Sheet Report 007-00Google Scholar
  23. McDonnell JJ et al. (2007) Moving beyond heterogeneity and process complexity: a new vision for watershed hydrology. Water Resour Res 43.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005467
  24. Meentemeyer RK, Tang W, Dorning MA, Vogler JB, Cunniffe NJ, Shoemaker DA (2013) FUTURES: multilevel simulations of emerging urban–rural landscape structure using a stochastic patch-growing algorithm. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 103:785–807.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2012.707591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (2017) Watershed approach to restoring and protecting water quality. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/watershed-approach-restoring-and-protecting-water-quality. Accessed February 2017
  26. Moore RB, Dewald TG (2016) The Road to NHDPlus—advancements in digital stream networks and associated catchments. J Am Water Resour Assoc 52:890–900.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. National Summary of Impaired Waters and TMDL Information (2017). US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/tmdl. Accessed February 2017
  28. NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services Planning Methodology. NC DEQ. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/methodology. Accessed December 2016
  29. North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program Flood Risk Information System. http://www.ncfloodmaps.com/. Accessed February 2017
  30. O’Neill MP, Schmidt JC, Dobrowolski JP, Hawkins CP, Neale CMU (1997) Identifying sites for riparian wetland restoration: application of a model to the Upper Arkansas River Basin. Restor Ecol 5:85–102.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1997.tb00208.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE (2006) Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Model 190:231–259.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2005.03.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rindfuss RR, Walsh SJ, Turner BL, Fox J, Mishra V (2004) Developing a science of land change: challenges and methodological issues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:13976–13981.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0401545101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rohde S, Hostmann M, Peter A, Ewald KC (2006) Room for rivers: an integrative search strategy for floodplain restoration. Landsc Urban Plan 78:50–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Roni P, Hanson K, Beechie T (2008) Global review of the physical and biological effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. North Am J Fish Manag 28:856–890.  https://doi.org/10.1577/M06-169.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Russell GD, Hawkins CP, O’Neill MP (1997) The role of GIS in selecting sites for riparian restoration based on hydrology and land use. Restor Ecol 5:56–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.1997.tb00205.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schwarz G, Hoos A, Alexander R, Smith R (2006) The SPARROW surface water-quality model: theory, application and user documentation. US Geological Survey Techniques and Methods Report, Book 6Google Scholar
  37. Smith JW, Smart LS, Dorning MA, Dupéy LN, Méley A, Meentemeyer RK (2017) Bayesian methods to estimate urban growth potential. Landsc Urban Plan 163:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith VH (2003) Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems a global problem. Environ Sci Pollut Res 10:126–139.  https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2002.12.142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Terando AJ, Costanza J, Belyea C, Dunn RR, McKerrow A, Collazo JA (2014) The southern megalopolis: using the past to predict the future of urban sprawl in the Southeast US. PloS One 9:e102261.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turner BL et al. (1990) Two types of global environmental change: definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions. Glob Environ Change 1:14–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(90)90004-S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Turner BL, Lambin EF, Reenberg A (2007) The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:20666–20671.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0704119104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD, Ladson AR (2009) Retention capacity: a metric to link stream ecology and storm-water management. J Hydrol Eng 14:399–406.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:4(399) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Walsh CJ, Roy AH, Feminella JW, Cottingham PD, Groffman PM, Morgan II RP (2005) The urban stream syndrome: current knowledge and the search for a cure. J North Am Benthol Soc 24:706–723.  https://doi.org/10.1899/04-028.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang L, Brenden T, Lyons J, Infante D (2013) Predictability of in-stream physical habitat for Wisconsin and Northern Michigan wadeable streams using GIS-derived landscape data. Riparian Ecol Conserv 1:11–24.  https://doi.org/10.2478/remc-2013-0003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. White D, Fennessy S (2005) Modeling the suitability of wetland restoration potential at the watershed scale. Ecol Eng 24:359–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wohl E et al. (2005) River restoration. Water Resour Res 41.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003985
  47. Woodruff SC, BenDor TK (2015) Is information enough? The effects of watershed approaches and planning on targeting ecosystem restoration sites. Ecol Restor 33:378–387.  https://doi.org/10.3368/er.33.4.378 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Lovette
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jonathan M. Duncan
    • 2
  • Lindsey S. Smart
    • 3
  • John P. Fay
    • 4
  • Lydia P. Olander
    • 5
  • Dean L. Urban
    • 4
  • Nancy Daly
    • 6
    • 7
  • Jamie Blackwell
    • 7
  • Anne B. Hoos
    • 8
  • Ana María García
    • 9
  • Lawrence E. Band
    • 10
    • 11
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ecosystem Science and ManagementPennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Forestry and Environmental ResourcesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  4. 4.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy SolutionsDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Wake County Department of Environmental ServicesRaleighUSA
  7. 7.North Carolina Department of Environmental QualityDivision of Mitigation ServicesRaleighUSA
  8. 8.U.S. Geological SurveyLower Mississippi-Gulf Water Science CenterNashvilleUSA
  9. 9.U.S. Geological SurveySouth Atlantic Water Science CenterRaleighUSA
  10. 10.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  11. 11.Department of Engineering Systems and EnvironmentUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations