Abstract
Public interest in the restoration of impaired water bodies is growing, and as such, it is critical to understand the causes of impairment and the likelihood of successful restoration. Restoration efforts often focus on a specific factor (stressors) of the impaired water body without including equally important but often overlooked societal and ecological factors. In this study, segment-specific indicators such as stressor exposure, ecological capacity, and societal traits were used to perform a screening analysis to evaluate the restoration potential of fifteen impaired segments in the Trinity River Basin. Data obtained for each impaired segment were normalized and compared using simple ranking, three-dimensional bubble plots, and mapping. Results indicate that when individual indices were rank-ordered, water segments that ranked low on the stressor index and high on the ecological and social indices had the best chance of restoration. While the three-dimensional bubble plot analysis of interrelated ecological, stressor, and social indices suggests that watershed segments with high ecological and low stressor indices may not necessarily be prime candidates for restoration. Their ranking on the social index score determines their priority for restoration. The results of the screening analysis show the utility of the recovery potential screening tool in prioritizing the restoration of impaired water bodies.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aarestad A, Barlow S, Beutel T, Bosner K, Corren A, Dagati K, Dominguez M, Gargiulo M, Gersie S, Goodwin M, Halpin S, Hollingsworth M, Jensen P, Mietkiewicz A, Peterson C, Roberts L, Rudnicki C, Wippick T (2014) Recovery potential screening case study. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/673a/24709299c647f71dd1d8bd88077894b102e3.pdf?_ga=2.140469168.2006580084.1574553486-1749686082.1574553486. Accessed 23 Nov 2019
Almendinger JE (1999) A method to prioritize and monitor wetland restoration for water-quality improvement. Wetlands Ecol Manage 6:241–251. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008439031165
Babin N, Mullendore ND, Prokopy LS (2016) Using social criteria to select watersheds for non-point source agricultural pollution abatement projects. Land Use Policy 55:327–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.021
Behrend GR, Linzer J, Moody B (2015) Georgia nonpoint source prioritization. Proceedings of the 2015 Georgia water resources conference, April 28–29, 2015, University of Georgia, Athens. https://gwri.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/files/docs/2015/2.1.5behrend.pdf. Accessed 14 Nov 2019
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. 1988, 1251-1387
Flanagan NE, Richardson CJ (2010) A multi-scale approach to prioritize wetland restoration for watershed-level water quality improvement. Wetlands Ecol Manage 18:695–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-010-9188-9
Guida-Johnson B, Zuleta GA (2019) Environmental degradation and opportunities for riparian rehabilitation in a highly urbanized watershed: the Matanza-Riachuelo in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Wetlands Ecol Manage 27:243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-019-09656-5
Land LF, Moring JB, Van Metre PC, Reutter DC, Mahler BJ, Shipp AA, Ulery RL (1998) Water quality in the Trinity River Basin, Texas, 1992–95, U.S. Geological Survey circular – 1171, ISBN 0–607–89233–1 https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1171/circ1171.pdf
Linker LC, Batiuk RA, Cerco CF, Shenk GW, Tian R, Wang P, Yactayo G (2016) Influence of reservoir infill on coastal deep-water hypoxia. J Environ Qual 45:887–893. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2014.11.0461
McKay L, Bondelid T, Dewald T, Johnston J, Moore R, Reah A (2012) NHDPlus version 2: user guide. ftp://ftp.horizon-systems.com/NHDplus/NHDPlusV21/Documentation/NHDPlusV2_User_Guide.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2013
Miltner RJ (2015) Measuring the contribution of agricultural conservation practices to observed trends and recent conditions in water quality indicators in Ohio, USA. J Environ Qual 44:1821–1831
Qasim SR, Armstrong AT, Corn J, Jordan BL (1980) Quality of water and bottom sediments in the Trinity River. Water Res Bull Am Water Res Assoc 16(3):522–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1980.tb03907.x
Schiff K (2014) Was the clean water act effective? Mar Pollut Bull 81:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.01.053
Sinhsaw TA, Surbeck CQ (2018) Impacts of social indicators on assessing the recovery potential of impaired watersheds. J Environ Manage 219:316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.073
TCEQ (2013) Texas Integrated Report – Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) https://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/waterquality/swqm/assess/12twqi/2012_303d.pdf
TCEQ (2016) Trinity river basin master plan. Trinity river authority of Texas, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality https://serv.trinityra.org/basinplanning/MasterPlan/Master_Plan_2016_Final-2.pdf
TCEQ (2019) 2019 Trinity river authority: clean rivers program, basin highlight report. Trinity river authority of Texas, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality https://www.trinityra.org/img/BasinPlanning/Final%25202019%2520TRA%2520BHR.pdf
TRA (2010) Trinity River Authority Clean Rivers Program 2010 Basin Summary Report https://www.trinityra.org/downloads/Final%25202010%2520TRA%2520BSR.pdf
Ulery RL, Van Metre PC, Crossfield AS (1993) Trinity river basin. Texas J Am Water Resour Assoc 29(4):685–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1993.tb03232.x
USEPA (2000) Stressor identification guidance document. Office of Water, Washington, DC. 2000, EPA/822/B-00/025. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20003F6L.PDF?Dockey=20003F6L.PDF Accessed 20 June, 2014
USEPA (2005) Comparing the restorability of Illinois impaired waters: a recovery potential pilot study. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/ilprojsum1110928.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2013.
USEPA (2010) Multi-scale screening assessment of recovery potential in Maryland watersheds. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-1/documents/mdprojsum110928.pdf Accessed 15 June, 2013
USEPA (2011) Using bubble plotting as a recovery potential screening tool. https://www.epa.gov/recoverypotential/ Accessed 13 June, 2013
USEPA (2014) National summary of impaired waters and TMDL information. https://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control Accessed 24 June, 2014
USEPA (2015) Recovery Potential Screening Example: Assessing Watershed Recovery Potential in Maryland’s Piedmont Ecoregion. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/screeningexample110927.pdf Accessed 13 May, 2013
Wang X (2001) Integrating water-quality management and land-use planning in a watershed context. J Environ Manage 61:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0395
Yetman KT (2002) Using Maryland’s stream corridor assessment survey to prioritize watershed restoration efforts. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38(4):905–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb05533.x
Yu D, Shi P, Liu Y, Xun B (2013) Detecting land use-water quality relationships from the viewpoint of ecological restoration in an urban era. Ecol Eng 53:205–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.045
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the grant obtained from the Texas Commission on Environment Quality under Umbrella Contract # 582-9-90439, Work Order #18, titled “Recovery Potential Screening Project-Trinity River Basin Bacteria Listings.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kurwadkar, S., Lambert, B., Beran, L. et al. Evaluation of ecological, stressor and social factors for the prioritization and restoration of Trinity River Basin watershed. Wetlands Ecol Manage 28, 623–639 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09736-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-020-09736-x