Protecting
Healthy Watersheds
Concepts, Assessments, and Management Approaches
February 2012
Watersheds
-------
Disclaimer
This document provides information for states, territories, and federally recognized tribes for identifying and
protecting healthy watersheds. At times, this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions, which
contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations,
nor is it a regulation itself. Thus it does not impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, states, territories,
authorized tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.
EPA, state, territory, and authorized tribe decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches to
identify and protect healthy watersheds that differ from this document. EPA may change this document in
the future.
Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark,
manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or
favoring by the United States Government. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government, and shall not be used for advertising or
product endorsement purposes.
Some of the photos, figures, tables, and other graphics that are used in this document are copyrighted
material for which permission was obtained from the copyright owner for use in this document. Specific
materials reproduced by permission are marked, and are still under copyright by the original authors and
publishers. If you wish to use any of the copyrighted photos, figures, tables, or other graphics in any other
publication, you must contact the owner and request permission.
Main front cover photo courtesy of Kristin Godfrey. Inset front cover photos courtesy of US DA NRCS (top), USFWS
(middle), and Kristin Godfrey (bottom). Some of the photographs used on the chapter title pages are courtesy of Ben
Fertig (Chapter 2) and Jane Hawkey (Chapter 4 and Chapter 5), Integration and Application Network Image Library
(ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/). The six symbols used in Chapter 3 are courtesy of the Integration and Application
Network (ian.umces.edu/symbols/).
-------
Identifying and Protecting
Healthy Watersheds
Concepts, Assessments, and
Management Approaches
Contact Information
For more information, questions, or comments about this document, contact
Laura Gabanski, at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Mail
Code 4503T, Washington, DC 20460, or by email at gabanski.laura@epa.gov.
February 2012
EPA841-B-l1-002
-------
-------
Acknowledgements
This document was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Water, Office
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. The EPA Project Manager for this document was Laura Gabanski,
who provided overall direction and coordination. EPA was supported in the development of this document
by The Cadmus Group, Inc. Laura Blake and Corey Godfrey of The Cadmus Group, Inc. were responsible
for creating most of the content of this document. Mike Wireman (EPA Region 8), Leslie Bach and Allison
Aldous (The Nature Conservancy), and Christopher Carlson (U.S. Forest Service) were responsible for writing
sections on hydrology, ground water, and ground water dependent ecosystems. Jonathan Higgins (The Nature
Conservancy) wrote the sections on freshwater conservation priorities. Joe Flotemersch (EPA Office of Research
and Development) designed the healthy watersheds logo. A draft of this document underwent an external peer
review, as well as was released for public review. Comments and recommendations from the peer review and
public review were taken into consideration during the finalization of this document.
Peer Reviewers
Paul Blanchard, Missouri Department of Conservation
Gail Cowie, Georgia Department of Natural Resources
David Bradsby, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Mark VanScoyoc, Kansas Department of Wildlife
Karen Larsen, California State Water Resource Control Board
Peter Ode, California Department of Fish and Game
Tim Beechie, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
James O'Connor, U.S. Geological Survey
Julian Olden, University of Washington
Chris Yoder, Midwest Biodiversity Institute
Gerrit Jobsis, American Rivers, Inc.
Special appreciation is extended to the following individuals, who provided technical information, reviews,
and recommendations during the preparation of this document:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jim Carleton, Office of Water
Tommy Dewald, Office of Water
Laura Dlugolecki, Office of Water
Chris Faulkner, Office of Water
Robert Goo, Office of Water
Heather Goss, Office of Water
Susan Jackson, Office of Water
Tracy Kerchkof, Office of Water
Stuart Lehman, Office of Water
Sarah Lehmann, Office of Water
Fred Leutner, Office of Water (retired)
John McShane, Office of Water
Mike Muse, Office of Water
Doug Norton, Office of Water
Rich Sumner, Office of Water
Ellen Tarquinio, Office of Water
Don Waye, Office of Water
Dov Weitman, Office of Water
Naomi Detenbeck, Office of Research and
Development
Joe Flotemersch, Office of Research and
Development
Susan Julius, Office of Research and Development
Betsy Smith, Office of Research and Development
Wayne Davis, Office of Environmental Information
Ralph Abele, Region 1
Trish Garrigan, Region 1
Eric Perkins, Region 1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (cont.)
Tom DeMoss, Region 3
Bill Jenkins, Region 3
Sue McDowell, Region 3
Matt Nicholson, Region 3
Susan Spielberger, Region 3
Stephanie Fulton, Region 4
Christine McKay, Region 4
John Richardson, Region 4
Cynthia Curtis, Region 5
Betsy Nightingale, Region 5
Paul Thomas, Region 5
Brian Fontenot, Region 6
Leah Medley, Region 7
Jill Minter, Region 8
Mike Wireman, Region 8
Carolyn Yale, Region 9
Christina Yin, Region 9
Tracy Nadeau, Region 10
U.S. Forest Service
Christopher Carlson
John Potyondy
Nancy Stremple
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Jan Surface
Richard Weber
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Megan Estep
Will Duncan
Vincent Mudrak
Ron Nassar
Cindy Williams
U.S. Geological Survey
Stacey Archfield
Alex Covert
Jonathan Kennen
Donna Meyers
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Dianne Barton
Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection
Christopher Belluci
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Bob Angelo
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
Jan Boydstun
Maine CDC Drinking Water Program
Andrews Tolman
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Susan Davies (retired)
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Catherine McCall
Christine Conn
Paul Kazyak
Scott Stranko
Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game
Russ Cohen
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Paul Seelbach
Gary Whelan
Troy Zorn
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Sharon Pfeifer
Beth Knudsen
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Stephen Heiskary
New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services
Ted Walsh
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Bonnie Ashford
Ken Bierly
Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation
Robert Baker
Texas Parks and Wildlife
Dan Opdyke
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Tim Clear
Neil Kamman
Mike Kline
Leslie Matthews
Eric Sorenson
-------
Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation
Jason Bulluck
Jennifer Ciminelli
Rick Hill
Washington Department of Ecology
Stephen Stanley
Anne Arundel County, MD
Dawn Thomas
Cleveland Metroparks, OH
Jessica Ferrato
Delaware River Basin Commission
Robert Tudor
Hampton Roads Planning District Commission,
VA
Sara Kidd
Eric Walberg
New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
Paul Rush
Orange County Water District, CA
Michael Markus
Triangle J Council of Governments
Sarah Bruce
Warren County Conservation District, PA
Jean Gomory
Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators
Jim Taft
Board of Alliance for the Great Lakes
Jack Bails
The Conservation Fund
Will Allen
Campaign to Safeguard America's Waters
Gershon Cohen
Delaware Riverkeeper Network
Faith Zerbe
Environmental Law and Policy Center
Brad Klein
Gulf Restoration Network
Matt Rota
Kentucky Waterways Alliance
Judith Petersen
Licking River Watershed Watch
Barry Tonning
The Nature Conservancy
Allison Aldous
Colin Apse
Leslie Bach
Jonathan Higgins
Eloise Kendy
Mark Smith
Scott Sowa
Openlands
Stacy Meyers-Glen
River Network
Merritt Frey
Superior Watershed Partnership and Land Trust
Carl Lindquist
The Trust for Public Lands
Kelley Hart
Water Environment Federation
Tim Williams
Wild Utah Project
Jim Catlin
Allison Jones
Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve
Christine Feurt
Colorado State University
LeRoy Poff
Michigan State University
Peter Esselman
Oregon State University
Jimmy Kagan
University of California at Davis
Fraser Shilling
in
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
University of Kansas
James Thorp
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Ken Barton
University of New England, Australia
Martin Thorns
University of New Mexico
Peter Stacey
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
Patricia Sellers
University of Tennessee at Knoxville
Tracy Walker Moir-McClean
University of Washington
James Karr
Virginia Commonwealth University
Greg Garman
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Elisabeth Cianciola
Kristina Downing
Tracy Mehan
IV
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements i
Table of Contents v
Figures vii
Tables xi
Foreword xiii
1. Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-2
1.2 Healthy Watersheds Initiative 1-3
1.3 Characteristics of a Healthy Watershed 1-4
1.4 Benefits of Protecting Healthy Watersheds 1-4
1.5 Purpose and Target Audience 1-6
1.6 How Does the Healthy Watersheds Initiative and this Document Relate to What Others
are Doing? 1-6
1.7 How to Use this Document 1-6
2. Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches 2-1
2.1 A Systems Approach to Watershed Protection 2-2
2.2 Landscape Condition 2-4
2.2.1 Green Infrastructure 2-5
2.2.2 Rivers as Landscape Elements 2-7
2.2.3 Natural Disturbance 2-8
2.2.4 Connectivity and Redundancy 2-9
2.3 Habitat 2-9
2.3-1 Fluvial Habitat 2-9
2.3-2 Lake Habitat 2-14
2.3-3 Wetland Habitat 2-15
2.4 Hydrology 2-16
2.4.1 Hydroecology 2-16
2.4.2 Ground Water Hydrology 2-19
2.5 Geomorphology 2-24
2.6 Water Quality 2-26
2.7 Biological Condition 2-27
2.8 Watershed Resilience... .. 2-30
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
3. Examples of Assessment Approaches 3-1
3.1 Landscape Condition 3-3
3.2 Habitat 3-19
3-3 Hydrology 3-33
3.4 Geomorphology 3-51
3.5 Water Quality 3-56
3.6 Biological Condition 3-58
3.7 National Aquatic Resource Assessments 3-74
4. Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments 4-1
4.1 Integrated Assessment 4-2
4.2 Moving Towards Integrated Assessments 4-31
5. Management Approaches 5-1
5.1 Implementing Healthy Watersheds Programs in States 5-3
5.2 Protection Programs 5-5
5.2.1 National 5-5
5.2.2 State and Interstate 5-12
5.2.3 Local 5-28
5.2.4 Other Protection 5-39
5.3 Restoration Programs 5-41
5.3-1 National 5-41
5.3-2 State and Interstate 5-42
5-3-3 Local 5-43
5.4 Education, Outreach, and Collaboration 5-44
References R-l
Acronyms & Abbreviations AA-1
Appendix A. Examples of Assessment Tools A-l
Appendix B. Sources of National Data B-l
Appendix C. Cited Assessment and Management Examples C-l
VI
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1 Numbers of imperiled North American freshwater and diadromous fish taxa 1-2
Figure 1-2 Gap between impaired and delisted waters in EPA Region 3 1-2
Figure 2-1 Spatial and temporal scales of watershed processes 2-2
Figure 2-2 The five major factors that determine integrity of the aquatic resource 2-3
Figure 2-3 Essential ecological attributes 2-3
Figure 2-4 Healthy watersheds assessment components 2-4
Figure 2-5 Landscape condition 2-5
Figure 2-6 Green infrastructure network design 2-5
Figure 2-7 Map of the Chicagoland area showing land cover and currently protected areas 2-6
Figure 2-8 Components and dominant processes of the Active River Area 2-8
Figure 2-9 Cool water rivers 2-9
Figure 2-10 The River Continuum Concept 2-10
Figure 2-11 Hierarchy defining spatiotemporal scales of hydrogeomorphic patches 2-11
Figure 2-12 A conceptual riverine landscape 2-12
Figure 2-13 Distribution of the various Functional Process Zones in the Kanawha River, West
Virginia 2-13
Figure 2-14 Schematic of a lakeshore and the three habitat zones of a typical lake 2-15
Figure 2-15 Relation between water table and stream type 2-17
Figure 2-16 Different components of the natural flow regime 2-17
Figure 2-17 Ecological model of the Savannah River, Georgia 2-18
Figure 2-18 Geomorphic and ecological functions provided by different levels of flow 2-19
Figure 2-19 Different scales of ground water flow systems 2-20
Figure 2-20 Streambeds and banks are unique environments 2-21
Figure 2-21 Common locations for ground water dependent ecosystems 2-23
Figure 2-22 Lane's Balance 2-24
Figure 2-23 Channel evolution model 2-24
vn
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Figure 2-24
Figure 2-25
Figure 2-26
Figure 2-27
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 3-4
Figure 3-5
Figure 3-6
Figure 3-7
Figure 3-8
Figure 3-9
Figure 3-10
Figure 3-11
Figure 3-12
Figure 3-13
Figure 3-14
Figure 3-15
Figure 3-16
Figure 3-17
Figure 3-18
Figure 3-19
Figure 3-20
Figure 3-21
Figure 3-22
Figure 3-23
Rosgen stream types
Conceptual model of the Biological Condition Gradient
Maine Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores
Sprawling development
Green infrastructure in Maryland
Comparison of proposed greenways and green infrastructure in Anne Arundel
County, MD
Map of results from the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment Model
Green infrastructure in the Hampton Roads region
Three-zone buffer showing the protection, conservation, and stewardship zones
Components and dominant processes of the Active River Area
The Active River Area in the Connecticut River Basin
National output of the Fire Regime Condition Class Mapping Method
Map of stream habitat condition in Maryland, as determined with the Physical
Habitat Index
Map of focal wetland complexes shown by wetland density
Wyoming's wetlands
Framework for the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration Process
Thermal and fish assemblage based classification of streams in Michigan
Example flow alteration-ecological response curves from Michigan
Diagram of the Texas Instream Flows Program process
Environmental flow regime recommendations for the San Antonio River
Classification tree showing the seven naturalized hydrologic classes
Ground water dependent ecosystem clusters in Oregon
Decision tree for identifying ground water dependent river ecosystems
Ground water dependent biodiversity in the Whychus Creek Watershed
Phase 3 data gathering for Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessments
Intact and incised streambeds
Map of Oregon Water Quality Index results for water years 1998-2007
2-25
2-29
2-29
2-30
3-6
3-7
3-9
3-10
3-12
3-14
3-15
3-18
3-21
3-31
3-32
3-34
3-38
3-38
3-40
3-42
3-44
3-46
3-48
3-50
3-53
3-54
3-57
Vlll
-------
Figure 3-24 Human activities alter five water resource features, resulting in alteration offish
communities 3-60
Figure 3-25 Conceptual model of the Biological Condition Gradient 3-63
Figure 3-26 Maine Tiered Aquatic Life Uses in relation to Biological Condition Gradient Levels 3-64
Figure 3-27 Maps of Missouri showing levels four through seven of the aquatic ecological
classification hierarchy 3-66
Figure 3-28 Predicted aquatic species richness for HUC12 watersheds in Ohio 3-68
Figure 3-29 Map of watershed integrity in Virginia based on modified Index of Bio tic Integrity
scores 3-73
Figure 3-30 Status of healthy waters and watersheds in Maryland and Virginia 3-73
Figure 3-31 Biological quality results from EPA's Wadeable Streams Assessment 3-75
Figure 3-32 National Rivers and Streams Assessment sample sites 3-76
Figure 3-33 Biological condition of lakes nationally and based on lake origin 3-79
Figure 3-34 Sites for Regional and National Monitoring and Assessments of Streams and Rivers 3-82
Figure 4-1 Healthy watersheds integrated assessment and management framework 4-2
Figure 4-2 National Fish Habitat Assessment scores for Vermont 4-4
Figure 4-3 Blocks of contiguous natural land cover in Vermont 4-8
Figure 4-4 Percent natural land cover in the Active River Area of Vermont 4-9
Figure 4-5 Location of dams in Vermont 4-11
Figure 4-6 Class I and Class II significant wetlands in Vermont 4-12
Figure 4-7 Phase 1 stream geomorphic assessment results for Vermont 4-14
Figure 4-8 Reference and non-reference water quality sites in Vermont 4-16
Figure 4-9 Results of bioassessment scores at stream monitoring sites in Vermont 4-17
Figure 4-10 Relative watershed health scores for Vermont 4-19
Figure 4-11 Normalized watershed health scores for Vermont, with normalized attribute scores 4-20
Figure 4-12 Relative watershed vulnerability scores for Vermont 4-23
Figure 4-13 Example of a management priorities matrix for setting protection and restoration
priorities 4-24
Figure 4-14 Example of potential management guidance for Vermont 4-25
Figure 4-15 Regional results of the VCLNA Vulnerability Model overlain with results from
Virginia's Healthy Waters Program 4-27
IX
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Figure 4-16 Business as usual development pattern and compact center scenario used for the
alternative growth scenario evaluations 4-29
Figure 4-17 Virginia Watershed Integrity Model final output 4-34
Figure 4-18 Indicators used by the Watershed Assessment Tool for calculating watershed health
scores 4-36
Figure 4-19 Results of Minnesota's statewide watershed health assessment 4-37
Figure 4-20 Minnesota's watershed health assessment results for the Rapid River and Redwood
River watersheds 4-38
Figure 4-21 Oregon's Watershed Assessment Manual methodology framework 4-39
Figure 4-22 Example conceptual model for riparian forest indicator selection 4-42
Figure 4-23 Map of Pennsylvania's least disturbed streams 4-44
Figure 4-24 Watershed conservation priorities in Pennsylvania 4-45
Figure 4-25 Conceptual model of the effect of impervious cover on stream quality. 4-47
Figure 4-26 Map of Connecticut showing stream classes and management classes by watershed 4-47
Figure 4-27 Location of Kansas' least disturbed watersheds within individual ecoregions 4-49
Figure 4-28 Reach cumulative landscape disturbance scores summarized by local catchments for
the United States 4-51
Figure 4-29 Three-dimensional bubble plot comparing recovery potential among subwatersheds 4-53
Figure 4-30 Bubble plot of recovery potential screening of 94 non-tidal watersheds in Maryland 4-54
Figure 5-1 Areas of Freshwater Biodiversity Significance in the Upper Mississippi River Basin 5-8
Figure 5-2 The Delaware River as a Special Protection Water. 5-17
Figure 5-3 Example fish response curves 5-19
Figure 5-4 Illustration of the water withdrawal assessment process and resulting actions 5-20
Figure 5-5 Map and orthophoto depicting the meander belt width-based river corridor being
considered for protection in the Town of Cabot 5-22
Figure 5-6 Maryland's GreenPrint map of targeted ecological areas 5-25
Figure 5-7 Identification of targeted ecological areas 5-26
Figure 5-8 Green infrastructure identified for water quality protection 5-34
Figure 5-9 Map of Lower Meramec Conservation Priority Index Areas 5-36
Figure 5-10 Map of Cecil County Green Infrastructure Plan 5-38
Figure 5-11 Chesapeake Bay report card results for 2007 5-45
-------
Tables
Table 1-1 Estimated cost of pollutant cleanup in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 1-2
Table 1-2 Estimated range of values for ecological services provided by healthy watersheds 1-5
Table 3-1 List of assessment approach summaries and case studies included in Chapter 3 3-2
Table 3-2 Parameters and weights used to rank overall ecological significance of each hub
within its physiographic region 3-5
Table 3-3 Fire regime groups and descriptions 3-16
Table 3-4 Example reference condition table 3-17
Table 3-5 Management implications for the stand-level fire regime condition class based on
the S-Class relative amount 3-17
Table 3-6 Metrics for the Physical Habitat Index in each of the three stream classes in
Maryland 3-21
Table 3-7 Proper Functioning Condition checklist worksheet 3-23
Table 3-8 The four primary environmental flow components considered in the Texas
Instream Flows Program and their hydrologic, geomorphic, biological, and water
quality characteristics 3-39
Table 3-9 Criteria used to identify HUC12s in Oregon where ground water is important for
freshwater ecosystems 3-45
Table 3-10 Essential ecological attributes associated with ground water 3-47
Table 3-11 Parameters and variables in the Vermont Reach Habitat Assessment Protocol 3-52
Table 3-12 Eleven metrics included in the human-threat index 3-67
Table 3-13 Assessment criteria used for prioritizing and selecting aquatic ecological system
polygons and valley-segment type complexes for inclusion in the portfolio of
conservation opportunity areas 3-67
Table 4-1 Datasets used to identify healthy watersheds in Vermont 4-5
Table 4-2 Metrics calculated for each healthy watersheds assessment component 4-6
Table 4-3 Descriptions of the stream geomorphic condition categories 4-13
Table 4-4 Ecoregional water quality criteria used to screen for reference sites in Vermont 4-15
Table 4-5 Healthy watersheds assessment components addressed in each of the eight
assessments summarized in this section 4-32
XI
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Table 4-6 Data layers in Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool 4-35
Table 4-7 Parameters and criteria used to identify least disturbed watersheds in Connecticut 4-46
Table 4-8 Landscape alteration variables used in KDHE's reference stream assessment 4-49
Table 4-9 Example Recovery Potential Indicators 4-53
Table 4-10 Recovery potential indicators used to screen Maryland watersheds 4-54
Table 5-1 Management approaches and case studies summarized in Chapter 5 5-2
xn
-------
Foreword
Forty years ago, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created and tasked with implementing
programs designed to repair the damage already done to the environment and to help Americans make their
environment cleaner and safer. The objective of the 1972 Clean Water Act amendments was "to restore
and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Through restoration of
impaired water bodies, vast environmental improvements have been seen in the last 40 years. However, the
rate at which new waters are being listed for water quality impairments exceeds the pace at which waters are
removed from the list. It has become clear that a broader view of aquatic ecosystems is critical if we are to
truly protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our waters. As we look forward to the future,
EPA remains strongly committed to protecting and preserving our country's environment. On March 29,
2011, EPA released the Coming Together for Clean Water Strategy as the framework for guiding the Agency's
implementation efforts and actions to meet the 2011-2015 Strategic Plan objectives for protecting and
restoring our waters. One of the key areas of the Agency's strategy is to increase protection of healthy waters,
including healthy watersheds. The Healthy Watersheds Initiative was launched to place a renewed emphasis on
the protection of our nation's healthy waters and to leverage these natural resources to accelerate our restoration
successes. Through the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, EPA is working with state, tribal, and other partners to
take proactive measures to identify and protect healthy watersheds based on integrated assessments of habitat,
biotic communities, water chemistry, and watershed processes such as hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, and
natural disturbance regimes.
The integrity of aquatic ecosystems is directly affected by their landscape context and the processes that
occur in their watershed. Natural land cover maintains hydrologic and sediment regimes within a natural
range of variation that shape the aquatic habitat upon which biological communities have evolved and can't
live without. Conversion from natural to anthropogenic land cover typically results in altered flow regimes,
changes in sediment supply and transport, increased loading of nutrients and other pollutants, and ultimately
leads to degradation of the biological community. Recognizing these connections and the role of watershed
processes and functions on water quality, the Healthy Watersheds Initiative augments EPA's traditional focus
on regulating specific pollutants and pollutant sources, emphasizing protection of critical watershed processes
that support chemical, physical, and biological integrity. Healthy, functioning watersheds provide the building
blocks that anchor water quality restoration efforts. Without this ecological support system, we will have
more limited success in restoring impaired waters and will lose the many socio-economic benefits of healthy
ecological systems.
This document is a technical resource that provides information for assessing, identifying, and protecting
healthy watersheds. It is not program implementation guidance. EPA, state, territory, and authorized tribal
decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches to identify and protect healthy watersheds that differ
from those described in this document. This document can assist in those efforts by providing a wealth of
information and examples that we hope will inspire and motivate aquatic resource scientists and managers
to conduct integrated healthy watersheds assessments and initiate protection programs that are cognizant
of the systems context. Chapter 1 introduces the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, discusses the characteristics
of a healthy watershed, and reviews the benefits of protecting healthy watersheds. Chapter 2 describes the
healthy watersheds conceptual framework and discusses, in detail, each of the six assessment components —
landscape condition, habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition. A sound
understanding of these concepts is necessary for the appropriate application of the methods described in later
chapters. Chapter 3 summarizes a range of assessment approaches currently being used to assess the health of
watersheds, and are provided as examples of different assessment methods that can be used as part of a healthy
watersheds integrated assessment. Chapter 4 presents an example screening level method for conducting a
healthy watersheds integrated assessment and identifying healthy watersheds, and includes examples of
xin
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
state assessments that approximate integrated assessments. Chapter 5 summarizes a variety of management
approaches for protecting healthy watersheds. Lastly, the appendices contain a summary of assessment tools,
sources of data, and a compilation of assessment and management examples cited in the document. Readers
can navigate between the chapters depending on their needs and priorities.
The term integrated assessment is used in this document to describe a holistic evaluation of system components
and processes that results in a more complete understanding of the aquatic ecosystem, and allows for the
targeting of management actions to protect healthy watersheds. The healthy watersheds integrated assessment
and management framework, shown below, requires collaboration with multiple partners throughout the
entire process. Critical first steps include framing the scale and context of the assessment and ensuring that
all relevant data and expertise have been identified and obtained. The data are then used to evaluate each of
the six healthy watersheds assessment components - landscape condition, habitat, hydrology, geomorphology
water quality, and biological condition. The results of the individual assessments are synthesized to provide an
overall assessment of watershed health. From here, strategic watershed protection priorities can be identified
by evaluating vulnerability alongside the identified healthy watersheds. As watershed protection measures
are implemented, it will be important to collect new data and information that help to demonstrate the
effectiveness of watershed protection activities and that can be used to refine future assessments. The healthy
watersheds integrated assessment and management framework is not a linear effort with a defined endpoint.
Assessment and management of healthy watersheds is an adaptive and iterative process, with new data and
improved methodologies providing refined assessment results and more effective protection strategies over
time.
Involve partners to
identify available data
& scale of assessment
Evaluate each of the
six healthy watersheds
components
Measure progress &
collect new data
Implement strategic
watershed protection
priorities
Integrate results to
identify healthy
watersheds & evaluate
vulnerability
xiv
-------
1. Introduction
Introduction
This chapter introduces the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, discusses the
characteristics of a healthy watershed, and reviews the benefits of protecting
healthy watersheds. This chapter also describes the purpose, target audience, and
intended use of this document.
Overview of Key Concepts
This chapter describes the healthy watersheds conceptual framework. It then
discusses, in detail, each of the six assessment components - landscape condition,
habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition.
A sound understanding of these concepts is necessary for the appropriate
application of the methods described in later chapters. This chapter concludes
with a discussion of watershed resilience.
Examples of Assessment Approaches
This chapter summarizes a range of assessment approaches currently being used
to assess the health of watersheds. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
possible approaches, nor is this a critical review of the approaches included. These
are provided solely as examples of different assessment methods that can be used
as part of a healthy watersheds integrated assessment. Discussions of how the
assessments were applied are provided for some approaches. Table 3-1 lists all of
the assessment approaches included in this chapter.
—
Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
•L
This chapter presents two examples for conducting screening level healthy
watersheds integrated assessments. The first example relies on the results of a
national assessment. The second example demonstrates a methodology using
state-specific data for Vermont. This chapter also includes examples of state
efforts to move towards integrated assessments.
Management Approaches
This chapter includes examples of state healthy watersheds programs and
summarizes a variety of management approaches for protecting healthy
watersheds at different geographic scales. The chapter also includes a brief
discussion of restoration strategies, with focus on targeting restoration towards
degraded systems that have high ecological capacity for recovery. The results of
healthy watersheds integrated assessments can be used to guide decisions on
protection strategies and inform priorities for restoration.
1-1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
1.1 Background
The stated objective of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) is "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters" (33 U.S.C. Section
1251 (a); CWA Section 101 (a)). Since the 1972
amendments to the CWA (known then as the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act), federal
water quality regulations have led to significant
reductions in pollutant levels in many
impaired lakes, rivers, and streams. Further,
significant efforts have been undertaken to
restore aquatic ecosystems in our nation's
impaired watersheds. Despite these efforts, our
aquatic ecosystems are declining nationwide
(Figure 1-1). This trend has been documented
by many, including the Heinz Center (2008)
and the American Fisheries Society (Jelks et al.,
2008). Further, the rate at which new waters
are being listed for water quality impairments
exceeds the pace at which restored waters
are removed from the list (Figure 1-2), and
restoring impaired waters is costly (Table 1-1).
In addition to pollution, threats such as loss
of habitat and its connectivity, hydrologic
alteration, invasive species, and climate change
continue to increase. A better strategy is
needed if we are to achieve the objective of the
Clean Water Act.
Vulnerable
Threatened
Endangered
Extinct Delisted
300
1979
1989
2008
Figure 1-1 Numbers of imperiled North American freshwater
and diadromous fish taxa (modified from Jelks et al., 2008).
7000-r
5000 - -
S 3000-- „-
1000--
Impaired Waters
G
A
P
I
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Figure 1-2 Gap between impaired and delisted waters in EPA
Region 3.
Table 1-1 Estimated cost of pollutant cleanup in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (EPA Region 3).
Water Body
Corsica River, MD
Little Laurel Run, PA
Conewago Creek, PA
Bear Creek, PA
Catawissa Creek, PA
Thumb Run, VA
Willis River, VA
Muddy Creek, VA
Impairment
Nutrients
Metals
Nutrients
Metals
Metals
Bacteria
Bacteria
Bacteria
Miles
7.6
3
17
5
57.9
17
30
9
Cost
$17,500,000
$1,048,013
$4,300,000
$964,000
$3,500,000
$2,450,000
$2,794,160
$2,612,000
Average Cost/Mile
$2,302,632
$349,338
$252,941
$192,800
$60,449
$144,118
$93,139
$290,222
1-2
-------
1 Introduction
1.2 Healthy Watersheds Initiative
EPA's Healthy Watersheds Website
www.epa.gov/healthvwatersheds
The Section 101 (a) objective of the CWA is "...to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters." The Committee Report written in support of the 1972 Federal Water
Pollution Control Act amendments clarified that the term integrity "...refers to a condition in which the
natural structure and function of ecosystems is [sic] maintained," rather than simply improving water quality in
a narrow sense (U.S. Government Printing Office,
1972; Doppelt, Scurlock, Frissell, & Karr, 1993).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
in partnership with others, launched the Healthy
Watersheds Initiative to protect and maintain
remaining healthy watersheds having natural, intact
aquatic ecosystems; prevent them from becoming
impaired; and accelerate restoration successes. This
initiative is being implemented by promoting a
strategic, systems approach to identify and protect
healthy watersheds based on integrated assessments
of habitat, biotic communities, water chemistry,
and watershed processes such as hydrology, fluvial
geomorphology, and natural disturbance regimes.
Once healthy watersheds or healthy components
of watersheds are identified, priorities can be set for
protection and restoration, with the best chances of
recovery likely to be in waters near existing healthy
aquatic ecosystems (Roni et al., 2002; Norton et al.,
2009; Sundermann, Stoll, & Haase, 2011).
The key components of the Healthy Watersheds Initiative are as follows:
1. Partnerships are established to identify and protect healthy watersheds.
2. Healthy watersheds are identified state-wide using scientifically-sound integrated
assessment techniques.
3. Healthy watersheds are listed, tracked, maintained, and increased in number over
time.
4. Healthy watersheds are protected and enhanced using both regulatory and non-
regulatory tools.
5. Progress on protecting healthy watersheds is measured and tied to achieving the
overall goals of EPA's Water Program and Strategic Plan.
While the Healthy Watersheds Initiative is intended to be implemented to support strategic statewide and tribal
decisions, the assessment data and other information generated as part of a healthy watersheds assessment can
also be used to inform management decisions at the basin or local watershed levels, including implementing
water quality and other programs. The anticipated outcomes of the Healthy Watersheds Initiative are integrated
aquatic ecosystem protection programs that maintain and increase the number of healthy watersheds in our
nation.
1-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
1.3 Characteristics of a Healthy Watershed
A healthy watershed is one in which natural land cover supports dynamic hydrologic and geomorphic processes
within their natural range of variation; habitat of sufficient size and connectivity supports native aquatic and
riparian species; and water quality supports healthy biological communities. An interconnected network of
natural land cover throughout a watershed, and especially in the riparian zone, provides critical habitat and
supports maintenance of the natural flow regime and fluctuations in water levels. It also helps to maintain
natural geomorphic processes, such as sediment storage and deposition, which form the basis of aquatic
habitats. Connectivity of aquatic and riparian habitats, in the longitudinal, lateral, vertical, and temporal
dimensions helps to ensure that biotic refugia are available during floods, droughts, and other extreme events.
In addition to connectivity, redundancy of ecosystem types helps to ensure that the characteristics of a healthy
watershed will persist into the future. Processes that are maintained within their natural range of variation,
connectivity, and redundancy are thus critical characteristics of healthy watersheds.
1.4 Benefits of Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Motivation to protect ecosystems comes from a variety of sources, including intrinsic value, the services
ecosystems provide to humans, and legal mandates. There is growing recognition that functionally intact
and biologically complex freshwater
New York City Watershed: Economic Benefits and
Cost Savings of Protecting the Clean Water Supply
ecosystems provide valuable
commodities and services to society
(Baron et al., 2002). In 2000, the
United Nations Secretary General Kofi
Annan called for a global assessment of
ecosystems and implications for human
health and well-being. The resulting
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
documents worldwide trends in
ecosystem integrity and the services
they provide (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005). Ecosystems
provide raw products, including food,
fuel, fiber, fresh water, and genetic
resources. They regulate processes
affecting air quality, climate, soil
erosion, disease, and water purification.
Non-material cultural benefits derived
from ecosystems include spiritual
enrichment, cognitive development,
reflection, recreation, and aesthetic
experiences (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment, 2005). Research indicates
that the short-term economic benefits
from exploiting natural resources pale
in comparison to the long-term loss of
ecosystem services (Daily et al., 1997).
their drinking water source through a unique agreement that links
ecosystem service providers and beneficiaries. The New York City case
study demonstrates that watershed protection can be a highly cost-
effective alternative to technological treatment in meeting water quality
standards that can work for both upstream and downstream parties.
New York City was faced with building an estimated $6 billion filtration
plant with an annual operating cost of $300 million to ensure compliance
with the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, the City had the option of
requesting a waiver if they could demonstrate that they can meet water
quality standards through protection of their source watersheds. The
City went through a long agreement-building process with the private
landowners and communities within the Catskill-Delaware watersheds,
which supply the City with 90% of its drinking water.
Terms of the agreement included that the City would not condemn
any land through the state's health eminent domain process. The City
would also purchase properties for their actual face value from willing
sellers and pay taxes on the properties so that it would not erode the
local tax revenues. The total amount of land purchased was estimated
at $94 million, which doubled the area of the protected buffer. The
overall investment was estimated to be $1 billion. The City also
initiated other programs and a trust fund within the area to promote
best management practices. These practices, along with the protected
lands, increased property values, provided additional income, created
healthier streams and habitats, and provided additional recreational
opportunities. Future protection of this area will be dependent on
population and development growth and any future regulations.
1-4
-------
1 Introduction
Watersheds are coupled social-ecological systems,
meaning that the health and well-being of human
societies are dependent on the health and well-being of
the watersheds they live within, and vice versa (Bunch,
Morrison, Parkes, &Venema, 2011). Key to maintaining
this relationship is a diverse ecological and social
structure, as well as the ability to adapt to the change and
uncertainty characteristic of natural processes (Berkes,
2007)- A systems approach for understanding social-
ecological systems forms the backbone of sustainability
science and modern-day adaptive management (Berkes
& Folke, 2000). The healthy watersheds approach draws
from and builds on this work to protect the ecological
infrastructure that society depends on.
The Economic Impact of Recreational
Trout Angling in the Driftless Area
-pi
Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois. According to a study
by Trout Unlimited and Northstar Economics
(2008), direct spending of $647 million per year on
recreational angling, plus a "ripple effect" of nearly
$3,000 per angler, in the Driftless Area generates
a $1.1 billion annual economic benefit to the local
economy. The ripple effect is a result of the money
spent by anglers flowing through the local economy,
stimulating additional spending by local businesses.
Trout Unlimited attributes these economic benefits
to the natural potential of the Driftless Area streams,
good land stewardship, public access, and wise
investment in restoration. Trout fishing has very
limited impact on natural resources. Anglers tend
to treat the Driftless Area with respect, and many
release the fish they catch back to the stream. It
is clear that the thriving economy of the Driftless
Area is at least partially supported by clean water,
resilient streams, and healthy fish populations.
There are many economic benefits to protecting healthy
watersheds, including the avoidance of expensive
restoration activities. Healthy watersheds sustain water-
related recreation opportunities, such as fishing, boating,
and swimming, and provide hiking, birding, hunting,
and ecotourism opportunities. Vulnerability to floods,
fires, and other natural disasters is minimized, thereby
reducing costs to communities. Healthy watersheds can also help to assure availability of sufficient amounts
of water for human consumption and industrial uses. By protecting aquifer recharge zones and surface water
sources, costs of drinking water treatment may be reduced. A survey of 27 drinking water utilities found that
for every 10% increase in forest cover of the source area, chemical and treatment costs decrease by 20% (Ernst,
2004). The functions that healthy watersheds provide, and the benefits they create, are often taken for granted
when they exist in natural systems, but are difficult and expensive to achieve when they must be reproduced
(Table 1-2).
Table 1-2 Estimated
provided by healthy
& Bergkamp, 2006).
range of values for ecological services
watersheds (Smith, de Groot, Perrot-Matte,
Service Provided Estimated Value ($/acre/year)
Drinking Water
Fisheries
Water quality control
Flood mitigation
Carbon sequestration
Recreation and tourism
$18 - $3,035
$81
$24 - $2,711
$6 - $2,227
$53 - $109
$93 - $1,214
The recognition of climate change as a serious
threat to ecosystem structure and function
provides additional motivation to protect
healthy watersheds. Natural vegetative cover
(including forests, wetlands, and grasslands)
sequesters large amounts of carbon, and the
soil resources that this vegetation maintains
can hold even larger amounts of carbon.
Protection of these resources can help to
mitigate increased carbon dioxide emissions
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
201 la).
Water is the primary medium through which climate change will be seen and felt. Both droughts and large
storm events are expected to increase in frequency and severity in some parts of the country. Wetlands and
forested areas have a profound effect on watershed hydrology, regulating flows during droughts and large storm
events. This regulating function has far-reaching effects on provision of drinking water, flood reduction, and
other natural hazard reductions. Protection of watershed processes can help to maintain and increase resilience
to climate change (e.g., keeping ecosystems healthy can reduce management costs to sustain these benefits).
1-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
1.5 Purpose and Target Audience
The purpose of this document is to provide state water quality and aquatic resource scientists and managers
with an overview of the key concepts behind the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, examples of approaches for
assessing components of healthy watersheds, integrated assessment options for identifying healthy watersheds,
examples of management approaches, and some assessment tools and sources of data. With this information,
scientists and managers will be able to conduct healthy watersheds assessments and initiate protection programs.
The results of healthy watersheds assessments can be used by local land use managers to inform protection
priorities. This document is not a guide, nor does it provide step-by-step instructions, but it does identify
example approaches and sources for scientists and managers to obtain detailed information on assessment
methods and management tools. Finally, this document is not EPA program implementation guidance, but
rather a resource that states and other entities may choose to use for assessing, identifying, and protecting
healthy watersheds.
1.6 How Does the Healthy Watersheds Initiative and this
Document Relate to What Others are Doing?
The book Entering the Watershed (Doppelt et al., 1993) outlines many of the concepts necessary for a truly
holistic approach to riverine ecosystem protection. Since its publication, various aquatic ecosystem assessment
approaches and protection strategies have been developed. Some of the many examples include the Ecological
Limits of Hydrologic Alteration, The Nature Conservancy's Active River Area and Freshwater Ecoregional
Assessments, Virginia's Conservation Lands Needs Assessment, Ohio's Primary Headwaters Habitat Assessment,
and State Wildlife Action Plans (see Chapters 3 and 5). The Healthy Watersheds Initiative builds on this body
of work. The integrated assessment approaches presented in Chapter 4 expand the value of other approaches
by linking the assessments of biota, habitat, and functional processes together to evaluate aquatic ecosystem
integrity within a watershed context. The Healthy Watersheds Initiative also includes strategic implementation
of protection and restoration measures to maintain and increase the number of healthy watersheds. Many state
agencies and other organizations are already implementing initiatives that are similar to the healthy watersheds
approach, and this document highlights their projects as examples. Further, complementary approaches have
also been adopted by other federal agencies. For example, along with the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service developed and are
implementing the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, which takes a holistic systems approach to protecting
and restoring fish habitat (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2006). Also, the U.S. Forest Service
developed the Watershed Condition Framework, which employs an integrated, systems-based approach
for classifying watershed condition based on an evaluation of the underlying ecological, hydrologic, and
geomorphic functions and processes (U.S. Forest Service, 2011). The U.S. Forest Service is using the results of
a national reconnaissance-level assessment of watershed condition, based on the Framework, to identify high
priority watersheds on national forests and grasslands for restoration starting with the "best" watersheds first.
1.7 How to Use this Document
Every organization has a unique combination of strengths in aquatic ecosystem assessment and protection.
Many have solid grounding in the field of water quality, while others have strengths in landscape ecology or
biodiversity conservation. This document should be used as a reference for expanding capabilities beyond a
specific area of expertise to include a holistic approach for identifying and protecting healthy watersheds. It is
recommended that all users read Chapter 2 to familiarize or refresh themselves with the concepts underlying
the Healthy Watersheds Initiative. Chapter 3 provides examples of assessment approaches in use across the
country, and Chapter 4 provides examples of ways in which integrated assessments can be conducted and used
to identify healthy watersheds and set protection priorities. Chapter 5 presents some of the many management
approaches that can be used at the national, state, or local level to protect healthy watersheds. Appendix A
contains assessment tools, Appendix B identifies sources of data, and Appendix C includes a compilation of
resources and sources of information mentioned in this document for use in assessing and protecting healthy
watersheds. Readers can navigate between these chapters depending on their needs and priorities.
1-6
-------
2. Key Concepts and Assessment
Approaches
Introduction
This chapter introduces the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, discusses the
characteristics of a healthy watershed, and reviews the benefits of protecting
healthy watersheds. This chapter also describes the purpose, target audience, and
intended use of this document.
Overview of Key Concepts
This chapter describes the healthy watersheds conceptual framework. It then
discusses, in detail, each of the six assessment components - landscape condition,
habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition.
A sound understanding of these concepts is necessary for the appropriate
application of the methods described in later chapters. This chapter concludes
with a discussion of watershed resilience.
Examples of Assessment Approaches
This chapter summarizes a range of assessment approaches currently being used
to assess the health of watersheds. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
possible approaches, nor is this a critical review of the approaches included. These
are provided solely as examples of different assessment methods that can be used
as part of a healthy watersheds integrated assessment. Discussions of how the
assessments were applied are provided for some approaches. Table 3-1 lists all of
the assessment approaches included in this chapter.
Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
This chapter presents two examples for conducting screening level healthy
watersheds integrated assessments. The first example relies on the results of a
national assessment. The second example demonstrates a methodology using
state-specific data for Vermont. This chapter also includes examples of state
efforts to move towards integrated assessments.
Management Approaches
This chapter includes examples of state healthy watersheds programs and
summarizes a variety of management approaches for protecting healthy
watersheds at different geographic scales. The chapter also includes a brief
discussion of restoration strategies, with focus on targeting restoration towards
degraded systems that have high ecological capacity for recovery. The results of
healthy watersheds integrated assessments can be used to guide decisions on
protection strategies and inform priorities for restoration.
2-1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
2.1 A Systems Approach to Watershed Protection
The healthy watersheds conceptual framework is based on a holistic systems approach to watershed assessment
and protection that recognizes the dynamics and interconnectedness of aquatic ecosystems. Maintenance
of aquatic ecological integrity requires that we understand not only the biological, chemical, and physical
condition of water bodies, but also landscape condition and critical watershed attributes and functions, such as
hydrology, geomorphology, and natural disturbance patterns.
Watersheds provide a useful context for managing aquatic ecosystems. Rivers, lakes, wetlands, and ground water
are sinks into which water and materials from the surrounding landscape drain (U.S. EPA Science Advisory
Board, 2002). Landform, hydrology, and geomorphic processes generate and maintain freshwater ecosystem
characteristics, including stream channel habitat structure, organic matter inputs, riparian soils, productivity,
and invertebrate community composition (Montgomery & Buffington, 1998; Vannote, Minshall, Cummins,
Sedell, & Gushing, 1980). Consequently, the ecosystem protection approaches described in this document
focus on assessing and managing landscape conditions, including connectivity, and key functional processes
in the watershed of which the aquatic ecosystem is a part and cannot function without. These processes are
hierarchically nested and occur at multiple spatiotemporal scales (Beechie et al., 2010) (Figure 2-1). Therefore,
assessment and management must also occur at multiple spatial and temporal scales.
Large
Reach scale:
riparian and channel-
floodplain processes
Shade
Channel
migration.
Floodplain
building
Pool formation
Bar depostion
Watershed scale:
erosion and runoff
processes
Sot) creep Ove
Jjf flow
Laiirislklinrj
EslaDlishmem
Succession
Shading
Wood recnjitmenl
Litterfall
Litho-topograpntc
template
Migration
Colonization
Population
dynamics
Valley
confinement
abilat selection,
Trophic dynamics
Small
Short *
Dnving variables controlled by
reach-scale processes
- root reinforcement
- wood supply
Reach-scale processes:
- nparian processes
- channel-floodplain
Interactions
Spatial scale of processes:
10-1 -10'km2
Temporal scale of processes
10' -10'yr
Dnving variables controlled by
watershed-scale processes:
- sediment supply
- discharge
Watershed-scale processes:
- runoff processes
- erosion
Spatial scale of processes1
10-1 -10" km2
Temporal scale of processes:
10-' -10'yr
Driving variables controlled by
the [lino-topographic template
- channel slope
- valley confinement
Landscape-scale processes:
- tectonics
-erosion
Spatial scale of processes
»Id1km'
Temporal scale of processes:
>103yr
Temporal scale
Figure 2-1 Spatial and temporal scales of watershed processes. Watershed and ecosystem processes
operate at a variety of spatial and temporal scales, with processes operating at larger spatial scales generally
influencing processes operating at smaller scales. In some instances, processes operating at smaller scales
may also influence processes operating at larger spatial scales. This is perhaps best illustrated in fishes,
where processes such as habitat selection and competition influence survival of individuals, which influences
population dynamics at the next larger space and time scale (Beechie et al., 2010). Reprinted with permission
of University of California Press.
2-2
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
ECOLOGICAL
Although EPA's watershed approach has traditionally focused
primarily on the management of the chemical, physical, and
some biological aspects of water quality, the importance of
pattern, connectivity, and process for integrated management of
watershed health is emerging (e.g., California's Healthy Streams
Partnership and Virginia's Healthy Waters Program). Assessments
of landscape condition, hydrology, geomorphic condition, and
natural disturbance regimes provide complementary information
to the chemical, physical, and biological parameters commonly
measured by water quality monitoring programs. Integrating the
results of all of these assessment approaches can help to provide a
more comprehensive understanding of aquatic ecosystem health.
The healthy watersheds conceptual framework is consistent with
recommendations by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) (U.S.
EPA Science Advisory Board, 2002). Building on previous work
to describe aquatic resource integrity (Figure 2-2), the EPA SAB
identified six essential ecological attributes (EEAs) to describe factors that support healthy ecosystems (Figure
2-3). These include landscape condition, biotic condition, chemical and physical characteristics, ecological
Figure 2-3 Essential ecological attributes
(U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2002).
Solubilities
W
Adsorption
Alkalinity
Temperature
D.O.
Nutrients
Sunlight
Organic Matter
Inputs
Precipitation &
Runoff
INTEGRITY OF THE
WATER RESOURCE
"Principal Goal of the Clean Water Act
Riparian
Vegetation
1°and2°
Production
Siltatiori
Sinuosity
^
Current
Canopy
Width/Depth
Bank Stability
Channel
Morphology
Gradient
In stream
Cover
Figure 2-2 The five major factors that determine integrity of the aquatic resource (modified from Karr, Fausch,
Angermeier, Yant, & Schlosser, 1986).
2-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
elements (e.g., energy and material flow), hydrologic and geomorphic condition, and natural disturbance
regimes. The healthy watersheds concept views watersheds as integral systems that can be understood through
the dynamics of these essential ecological attributes.
The systems approach to healthy watersheds assessment and protection is based on an integrated evaluation of:
1) Landscape Condition, 2) Habitat, 3) Hydrology, 4) Geomorphology, 5) Water Quality, and 6) Biological
Condition (Figure 2-4). Ecological processes and natural disturbance regimes are addressed in the context of
these six components. Background information on each of these components is provided in the pages that
follow.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
Figure 2-4 Healthy watersheds assessment components.
2.2 Landscape Condition
Natural vegetative cover stabilizes soil, regulates watershed hydrology, and provides habitat to terrestrial and
riparian species. The type, quantity, and structure of the natural vegetation within a watershed have important
influences on aquatic habitats. Land cover is a driving factor in determining the hydrologic and chemical
characteristics of a water body. Vegetated landscapes cycle nutrients, retain sediments, and regulate surface
and ground water hydrology. Riparian forests regulate temperature, shading, and input of organic matter to
headwater streams (Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management, National Research Council,
2008). Conversely, agricultural and urban landscapes serve as net exporters of sediment and nutrients, while
increasing surface runoff and decreasing infiltration to ground water stores.
Recognition of these landscape influences has shaped previous aquatic ecosystem management efforts. Adequate
protection of a range of aquatic ecosystem types is a widely accepted conservation approach (Noss, LaRoe III,
& Scott, 1995). The Center for Watershed Protection (2008c) recommends conservation of multiple landscape
areas: 1) critical habitats; 2) aquatic corridors; 3) undeveloped areas, such as forests, which help maintain
the pre-development hydrologic response of a watershed; 4) buffers to separate water pollution hazards from
aquatic resources; and 5) cultural areas that sustain both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
It is important that forest patches, wetlands, and riparian zones are of sufficient size, quantity, and quality
to sustain ecological communities and processes. Interconnections among habitat patches are also important.
For many species, an isolated forest patch is not a high quality habitat. However, a number of forest patches
interconnected by forested corridors can provide outstanding habitat for a number of species. This is because
species need to migrate, feed, reproduce, and ensure genetic diversification. Native habitat in the landscape
provides a variety of benefits for aquatic ecological integrity, including maintenance of the natural watershed
hydrology, soil and nutrient retention, preservation of habitat for both aquatic and terrestrial species, and
the prevention of other adverse impacts associated with development. The photos in Figure 2-5 illustrate the
difference between intact habitat in the landscape and fragmented habitat.
2-4
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Figure 2-5 These photos provide an example of intact landscape condition (on the
left) and fragmented landscape condition (on the right).
2.2.1 Green Infrastructure
The concept of linked landscape elements and ecological networks has evolved into the green infrastructure
movement in land conservation. Green infrastructure is "an interconnected network of natural areas and other
open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water, and provides
a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife" (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). The natural areas are typically
referred to as "hubs," and the connections, or links, between the hubs are termed "corridors" (Figure 2-6). The
green infrastructure movement is rooted in: 1) Frederick Law Olmsted's idea of linking parks for the benefit
of people (e.g., Boston's famous Emerald Necklace) and 2) the recognition by wildlife biologists and ecologists
that interconnected habitat patches are essential for maintaining viable ecological communities (Benedict &
McMahon, 2002). The evolution of the green infrastructure movement has coincided with the development
of geographic information system (GIS) technology and conceptual developments in landscape ecology and
conservation biology.
The green infrastructure approach considers open and green space as a system to be managed to meet the needs
of both ecosystems and humans. It can provide information to assist community planning, and to identify
and prioritize conservation opportunities. It can be mapped as a network of key ecological areas, or hubs, and
corridors connecting them. For example, the Green Infrastructure Vision of Chicago Wilderness identifies
1.8 million acres of potential areas for protection and restoration throughout the region (Figure 2-7; Chicago
Wilderness, 2009).
The greenways movement, an evolution
of Olmsted's idea, has influenced green
infrastructure considerably, linking people with
their landscape through recreational activities.
Greenways are recreational and alternative
transportation corridors surrounded by
vegetation. An example of a popular greenway
approach is the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy's
acquisition of abandoned railways to create bike
paths for local transportation and recreation.
Green infrastructure is different from greenways
in that green infrastructure emphasizes ecology
over recreation. Further, green infrastructure
focuses on large, ecologically important
hubs and planning for growth around the
green infrastructure, as opposed to "fitting"
Figure 2-6 Green infrastructure network design (modified
from Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2011).
2-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Land Cover
• Forested Land
• Urban Open Space
Rural Grassland orShrublan'
Water
• Wetland
Agricultural Land
• Urban Developed Land
• Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
Protected Land
CD Protected Land Overlay
Figure 2-7 Map of the Chicagoland area showing land cover and currently protected
areas (Chicago Wilderness, 2009).
2-6
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
conservation areas into developed landscapes (Benedict & McMahon, 2002). Identification of hubs in a
green infrastructure program typically involves a land cover and human infrastructure assessment to identify
interior habitat patches, which are areas of forest or wetland that have not been fragmented by roads or other
development. These hubs often serve as core habitat for a number of species. The links, or corridors, between
these hubs provide opportunities for movement of fauna and flora between the habitat patches, thus allowing
for dispersal and genetic diversity, which are essential for ecological integrity.
The 1990s saw the development of a number of green infrastructure programs, the most notable of which
were in Florida and Maryland (Benedict & McMahon, 2006). Ecologists Larry Harris and Reed Noss at the
University of Florida conceptualized an integrated habitat conservation system to address the fragmentation of
natural areas that they saw as the primary cause of biodiversity decline across the state (Benedict & McMahon,
2006). This vision led to the development of Florida's Ecological Network Project and, later, the Southeastern
Ecological Framework Project, the first regionally-based green infrastructure study (John Richardson, EPA
Region 4, Personal Communication). Maryland's green infrastructure assessment built off of the success of
these pioneering programs (John Richardson, EPA Region 4, Personal Communication). These programs
also drew upon work by The Nature Conservancy on an ecoregional approach to selecting wildlife reserves
(Benedict & McMahon, 2006). The original green infrastructure approaches contain five basic steps, as
outlined by Benedict and McMahon (2006):
1. Develop network design goals and identify desired features.
2. Gather and process data on landscape types.
3. Identify and connect network elements.
4. Set priorities for conservation action.
5. Seek review and input.
Green infrastructure assessments utilize a weighted overlay technique in GIS that identifies the most ecologically
valuable lands based on co-occurrence of multiple ecological attributes. For example, creating a map that
overlays the state's road network with land cover data allows one to identify those areas with remaining natural
land cover that contain the fewest road crossings. Additional data layers can be added to this analysis, with
each layer weighted according to the importance of its features for ecological integrity. The final result is a map
that shows the areas with the highest priority for conservation. This approach has been replicated and modified
for use in a number of states, local communities, and regions throughout the United States.
2.2.2 Rivers as Landscape Elements
Although the term landscape implies a focus on terrestrial features, aquatic systems are just as much landscape
elements as forested patches and corridors (Wiens, 2002). Rivers interact with other landscape elements over
time through their natural floodplains, migrating meander belts, and riparian wetlands (Smith, Schiff, Olivero,
& MacBroom, 2008). Natural hydrology provides connectivity among aquatic habitats and between terrestrial
and aquatic elements. Many aquatic organisms depend on being able to move through connected systems
to habitats in response to variable environmental conditions. Forested riparian zones are often some of the
best remaining green infrastructure links, or corridors, for connecting hubs on the landscape. Furthermore,
maintenance of natural land cover protects aquatic ecosystems from nonpoint sources of pollution, including
urban and agricultural runoff.
Recognizing the importance of connectivity, The Nature Conservancy advocates a systems approach to river
protection, exemplified by the Active River Area (Figure 2-8), which includes not only the river channel but
also floodplains, riparian wetlands, and other parts of the river corridor where key habitats and processes
occur (Smith et al., 2008). The Active River Area concept can be applied at different scales, from basin to
catchment or reach. For example, identification of intact riparian areas and headwaters in the Connecticut
River Basin was accomplished using standard GIS techniques, available models, and national datasets (Smith
et al., 2008). A more detailed analysis, using techniques such as Vermont's Stream Geomorphic Assessment
protocols (see Chapter 3), can then be used to identify specific conservation priorities on a subwatershed scale.
2-7
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
MATERIAL
• CONTRIBUTION
• V-SHAPED CONFINED VALLEY
- HEADWATER CATCHMENT AREAS
- WETLANDS
ALLUVIAL FAN
NCISED TRIBUTARY
LATERAL
MIGRATION
BACKSWAMP
FLOOOPLAIN
FLOODPLA1N FOREST
RIPARIAN WETLAND
OX BOW ABANDONED
CHANNEL
BRAIDED RIVER
FLOODPLAIN DELTA
HEADWATERS
• CPOM I.-vi -v !."'*'.! MWn
• 3040 METERS FROU CHAM-4EL
. <1 YEAR RECURRENCE WTERVAL
MID • WATERSHED
. UEMOBl H--I i
SEDIMENT EROSION. STORACE DEPOSITION.
AND TRANSPORT IN THE CHANEL AND FlOODfVAIW
. MEAnoeft KIT (« CHMI.VB. IWDTHSI «
ADJACEWTUJW ACTIVE fLOQORAIN
. * 1 TO 1 ID YEAR RECLP.RENCE
LONG-TERM SEDIMENT STORAGE
• ENTIRE VALLEV BOTTOM
• 1.10 YEARS RECURRENCE
INTERVAL
NATURAL SEDIMENTARY
LEVEE
I 1 LOCATION OF THE
J ACTIVE RIVER AREA
Figure 2-8 Components and dominant processes of the Active River Area (Smith et al., 2008).
Active River Areas, in their natural state, maintain the ecological integrity of rivers, streams, and riparian areas
and the connection of those areas to the local ground water system. They also provide a variety of ecosystem
services, such as flood prevention and hazard avoidance, recreation and open space, and other habitat values.
The Active River Area is essential to healthy and productive fish populations. Preserving riparian wetlands
and a river channel's connection with its floodplain provides surface and subsurface floodwater storage and
reduces stream power during flood events. This is especially important in temperate regions, where increases
in average annual precipitation and frequency of extreme storm events have been observed and are expected to
continue as a result of climate change (IPCC, 2007). Also, warming temperatures will increase the importance
of these undeveloped areas as zones of ground water discharge provide refugia for coldwater aquatic species.
Maintaining natural vegetation in the entire Active River Area and in the wider watershed provides water
quality improvements through reduced surface runoff and increased opportunity for ground water infiltration
and storage.
2.2.3 Natural Disturbance
The natural disturbance regime is an important consideration in assessment and management of landscape
condition. Ecosystems are naturally dynamic and depend on recurrent disturbances to maintain their health.
Natural disturbance events that affect watershed ecosystems include fires, floods, droughts, landslides, and
debris flows. The frequency, intensity, extent, and duration of the events are collectively referred to as the
disturbance regime (U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board, 2002). The natural fire regime, particularly in some
regions of the United States (e.g., longleaf pine/flatwoods ecosystems of the southeast), helps to maintain
healthy landscape condition through a process of ecological renewal that creates opportunities for some species
while scaling back the prevalence of others. Fire dependant ecosystems require this periodic disturbance to
maintain their natural state and composition. Suppression of the natural fire regime may cause an excessive
build-up of nutrients on the forest floor due to decomposition of organic matter (Miller et al., 2006). These
2-8
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
nutrients can then be transported to aquatic ecosystems during rainfall/runoff events, causing eutrophic
conditions. Fire disturbances of natural frequency and intensity remove the excess organic matter causing the
nutrient build-up and may actually improve long-term water quality, although water quality will be temporarily
worsened immediately following a fire (Miller et al., 2006). The Fire Regime Condition Class methodology is
an example of a landscape condition assessment that focuses on the natural disturbance regime (see Chapter 3).
This approach assesses a landscape's degree of departure from the natural fire regime and suggests management
approaches for emulating that regime.
2.2.4 Connectivity and Redundancy
Connectivity of landscape elements, including aquatic ecosystems, provides organisms with access to the
habitats and resources necessary for the different stages of their life cycle (e.g., breeding, feeding, nesting). It
also helps to ensure that ecosystems and species have the ability to recover and recolonize following disturbance
(Poiani, Richter, Anderson, & Richter, 2000). Lateral (floodplain access), vertical (hyporheic exchange), and
longitudinal (stream flow) connectivity are equally important for supporting these processes. Physical barriers,
such as dams and levees, isolate aquatic populations and prevent dispersal of organisms (Frissel, Poff, & Jensen,
2001). Further, these barriers prevent the flow of water, sediment, nutrients, and heat loads that support
ecosystem processes (Frissel, Poff, & Jensen, 2001). As a result, non-native species are often better able to
compete with native species (Frissel, Poff, & Jensen, 2001). Connectivity is therefore critical to ensuring the
persistence of native species by providing habitat refugia and recolonization access. Redundancy refers to the
presence of multiple examples of functionally similar habitat and ecosystem types that help to "spread the risk"
of species loss following major ecological disturbances. This can allow populations of the same species to persist
in the presence of disturbance or environmental change.
2.3 Habitat
Habitat extent is directly related to hydrologic and geomorphic processes. The number and distribution of
different habitat types, or patches, and their connectivity influence species population health (Committee
on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management, National Research Council, 2008). Habitat quality is also
affected by the physical and chemical characteristics of water (e.g., water temperature). Water quality and
geomorphic and hydrologic processes are all affected
by landscape condition, which also shapes riparian
and terrestrial habitat. Thus, habitat condition
serves as an integrating indicator of other watershed
variables, upon which biological condition is highly
dependent.
Protection efforts must consider a variety of habitat
types that serve different needs of an ecosystem,
such as cool water rivers for trout foraging (Figure
2-9), riffles in cold headwater streams for breeding,
and springs for thermal refuge during low water
conditions (Montgomery & Buffington, 1998). In
addition, natural variability within a habitat patch
provides opportunities for species with different
requirements and tolerances (Aber et al., 2000).
2.3.1 Fluvial Habitat
Figure 2-9 Cool water rivers provide important trout
foraging habitat.
Hydrologic and geomorphic processes create the physical habitat template that supports aquatic communities
in fluvial systems. As described by the River Continuum Concept (RCC), physical habitat variables can change
predictably along the longitudinal gradient of the riverine system (Figure 2-10) (Vannote et al., 1980). Changes
in biological communities generally correspond with this physical gradient. For example, a characteristic
community of macroinvertebrates (dominated by shredders and collectors) is typically found in headwater
2-9
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
shredders
grazers
•S 4
01
f
o
10
11
12
course
A paniculate
matter
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Relative Channel Width
Figure 2-10 The River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al., 1980).
Canada.
2008 NRC
streams. These species are dependent on sufficient shade and inputs of terrestrial vegetation (e.g., large woody
debris) from riparian areas. As a stream channel widens, allowing more sunlight to penetrate into the open
water, algae and rooted vascular plants become the primary sources of energy input, and the macroinvertebrate
community reflects this transition (dominated by collectors and grazers). As a river becomes larger and wider,
fine particulate matter from upstream becomes more important as an energy source for the macroinvertebrate
community (dominated by collectors).
This predictable change in community structure has been shown to be generally true at broad scales. However,
the influence of tributary confluences and watershed disturbances on aquatic habitat must be understood
to explain the many deviations from the habitat type and expected biological community predicted by the
River Continuum Concept. Inputs of sediment and large woody debris at river confluences create habitat
2-10
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
heterogeneity, allowing for the existence of communities that would not otherwise be expected to occur in a
given stream order. Additionally, flood pulses and other aspects of the natural flow regime create a lateral and
temporal gradient of habitat from the stream channel and out on to the floodplain. Ground water input in the
hyporheic zone also creates unique habitats that cannot be explained from a purely longitudinal perspective
of riverine habitat. This inherent complexity of riverine ecosystems is responsible for the diversity of aquatic
habitats and resultant biological communities found within them.
Understanding riverine ecosystems in a landscape context can help to elucidate the complex relationships that
define aquatic habitat. The RCC conceptual model has been improved upon in recent years to include not
only the longitudinal dimension of river systems, but also the lateral (floodplain and riparian zone), vertical
(hyporheic zone), and temporal (flow regime) dimensions (Thorp, Thorns, & DeLong, 2006). The Riverine
Ecosystem Synthesis (RES) (Thorp, Thorns, & Delong, 2008) builds on the RCC and other leading concepts in
river ecology to explain the spatial and temporal distribution of species, communities, and ecosystem processes
as a function of hydrogeomorphic differences in
the riverine landscape. Heterogeneous patches
of habitat result from unique combinations of
hydrologic and geomorphic processes, including
the dynamics of watershed disturbance and the
structure of the river network within a watershed.
Organizational Levels
The geomorphic, hydrologic, and ecological
processes that form these patches operate at a
variety of scales. Thus, hydrogeomorphic patches
exist at multiple spatial and temporal scales,
such as drainage basins or watersheds, functional
process zones (FPZ), reaches, functional units,
and individual habitats (Thorp, Thorns, &
DeLong, 2006) (Figure 2-11). Hierarchically-
organized units, such as watersheds, are most
affected by the scale immediately below that of
interest and the scale immediately above it (Thorp,
Thorns, & Delong, 2008). As FPZs are the level
immediately below watersheds or basins, they
are an appropriate scale for integrated watershed
assessments and receive special attention in the
RES. These FPZs are not necessarily distributed
in a manner predictable by longitudinal theories
of river ecology, such as the RCC (Figure 2-12).
Rather, all four dimensions of the riverine system
influence their distribution.
Figure 2-11 Hierarchy defining spatiotemporal scales
of hydrogeomorphic patches (Thorp, Thorns, & Delong,
2008). Reprinted with permission of Elsevier.
Through a collaborative effort, EPA and the University of Kansas developed a computer program that
statistically delineates FPZs using precipitation, geology, elevation, and remote sensing data. The program
extracts 14 hydrogeomorphic variables from these datasets and uses multivariate cluster analysis to identify the
distinct FPZ types. This approach minimizes human bias in the classification. See Figure 2-13 for an example
of the various FPZs delineated in the Kanawha River Basin of West Virginia.
Stratifying a field sampling program based on FPZs can be a useful method for ensuring that scale is adequately
considered in the data collection process. Data can be collected at reaches within each FPZ and averaged to
get a condition score for the FPZ. FPZs can then be compared across the watershed to understand watershed
condition. Important habitat variables at the reach scale (and smaller) include substrate composition and
riparian vegetation, both of which are dependent on processes operating at larger scales.
2-11
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Anabranch
Braidec
Anabranch
Meandering
Distributary
Distributary
Flow
Pulse
Flow
History
Flow
Regime
HYDROLOGY
INFORMATION KEY
Lateral
Longitudinal
Vertical
CONNECTIVITY
FCL Food chain length
| Nutrient spiralling
QijSjpJ Species Diversity
ECOSYSTEM FUNCTION
Figure 2-12 A conceptual riverine landscape is shown depicting various functional process zones (FPZ) and
their possible arrangement in the longitudinal dimension. Note that FPZs are repeatable and only partially
predictable in location (corrected copy from Thorp, Thorns, & Delong, 2008). Reprinted with permission of
Elsevier.
2-12
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Functional Process Zones
Constricted High Energy Upland Zone
Lowland Alluvial River
Lowland Constricted Zone
Open Valley Upland Zone
Resen/oirZone
Upland Constricted Zone
A
N
0 12.5 25
50
75
100
• km
Figure 2-13 Distribution of the various Functional Process Zones in the Kanawha River, West Virginia (from
in-review manuscript by J.H. Thorp, J.E. Flotemersch, B.S. Williams, and L.A. Gabanski entitled "Critical role for
hierarchical geospatial analyses in the design of fluvial research, assessment, and management").
2-13
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Headwater streams represent more than half of the nation's stream miles and are fundamental to a healthy
watershed. Properly functioning headwater streams are one of the primary determinants of downstream flow,
water quality, and biological communities (Cohen, 1997)- Headwater streams provide sediment, nutrient, and
flood control and help to maintain base flow in larger rivers downstream. They support macroinvertebrate,
amphibian, and plant populations that contribute to regional and local biodiversity.
Riparian zones are strongly influenced by the flow regime of a river, as well as the geomorphology of the river
network, including the river banks and floodplain elevations. Riparian zones provide organic material as input
to the riverine system, providing both energy and habitat to stream dwelling organisms. Riparian vegetation
stabilizes the banks of the river channel and provides important nutrient and mineral cycling functions (Mitsch
& Gosselink, 2007). Riparian habitats support diverse plant and animal species that provide important
ecological functions and also regulate inputs to the aquatic system. These unique habitats require hydrologic
connectivity with the river channel to be maintained.
Substrate composition is a physical habitat variable that is highly dependent on flow, geomorphic stability, and
sediment inputs from the watershed. Many macroinvertebrates and aquatic plants require specific substrates
for attachment and anchoring, while fish use cobble and boulders for shelter from currents and predators.
Some fish species lay their eggs, which require unrestricted flow of well-oxygenated water, in gravel substrates.
When these gravel substrates become embedded in finer sediment, the eggs do not have access to sufficient
oxygen and die.
2.3.2 Lake Habitat
Lakeshores also have riparian zones that serve as a source of organic material to the lake's aquatic habitat and
stabilize the lake's perimeter. Lakeshore vegetation creates stable habitat conditions in the peripheral waters of a
lake by buffering it from exposure to environmental elements such as wind and sunlight. EPA's National Lakes
Assessment (NLA) indentified poor lakeshore habitat as the most prominent stressor to the biological health of
lakes (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a).
Lakes are typically thought of as having three habitat zones: the littoral zone, the limnetic zone, and the benthic
zone (Figure 2-14). The littoral zone is the nearshore area where sufficient sunlight reaches the substrate,
allowing aquatic plants to grow. This zone provides habitat for fish, invertebrates, and other aquatic organisms.
The limnetic zone is the open water area where light does not penetrate to the substrate. Although rooted
aquatic plants cannot live in this zone, plankton and nekton are found here and serve as sources of food for
many fish species. Habitat in the benthic zone (the lake bottom) consists of mostly mud and sand, which can
support diverse invertebrate and algal communities, which in turn serve as primary food sources for many fish
and other vertebrates.
The three lake habitat zones are tightly coupled, with organic matter from the limnetic zone serving as an
important food source for animals in the benthic zone and many organisms spending different parts of their
life cycles in different zones. Many fish species, for example, spend their time in the limnetic zone as juveniles,
taking advantage of the abundant plankton found there. As they grow, they shift to feeding in the benthic zone
and may spend their nights in the littoral zone, while other species may spend the day in the near shore zone
and the night in the limnetic zone.
Lakes with greater, and more varied, shallow water habitat are able to more effectively support aquatic life (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). Lakeshore habitat is strongly influenced by natural fluctuations in
lake levels, with characteristic plant communities existing in the transition zone where the water rises and
recedes. The natural fluctuation helps to prevent establishment of invasive species that are not adapted to such
fluctuations and provides seasonal cues for reproduction of native species. Lake level fluctuation is influenced
by ground water inputs, precipitation, evaporation, and runoff from storm events or snowmelt. Like riverine
habitats, the physical and chemical characteristics of the water also contribute to the quality of a lake's aquatic
habitat.
2-14
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
trophic zone
Figure 2-14 Schematic of a lakeshore and the three habitat zones of a typical lake (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2009a).
2.3.3 Wetland Habitat
Wetland habitat characteristics are largely affected by their hydrologic connectivity to surrounding landscape
features. The hydrogeomorphic wetland classification and assessment approach defines seven types of wetlands
based on their geomorphic setting and dominant water sources: riverine wetlands primarily receive overbank
flow from the stream channel, depressional wetlands receive return inflow from ground water and interflow,
slope wetlands receive return inflow from ground water, mineral soil flats and organic soil flats primarily receive
inputs from precipitation, estuarine fringe wetlands receive their water from overbank flows from the estuary,
and lacustrine fringe wetlands receive their water primarily from overbank flows from lakes (Smith, Ammann,
Bartoldus, and Brinson, 1995).
The biological communities that occur in wetlands are uniquely adapted to their environmental conditions
because wetland habitats offer essential resources in limited forms and quantities. Soil saturation reduces the
availability of oxygen to plants, and nutrient availability is low in some wetland types because decomposition
rates are slowed in these low-oxygen conditions. Bogs, in particular, are characterized by their low nutrient
concentrations. In other wetlands, the combination of shallow water, high levels of nutrients, and primary
productivity is ideal for the development of organisms that form the base of the food web and feed many
species offish, amphibians, shellfish, and insects. Many species of birds and mammals also rely on wetlands for
food, water, and shelter, especially during migration and breeding. Variations in the biological communities of
different wetland types provide unique habitat structures. For example, swamp communities are dominated
by woody vegetation, whereas marshes are dominated by herbaceous vegetation. More than one third of the
United States' threatened and endangered species live only in wetlands, and nearly half use wetlands at some
point in their lives (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995).
2-15
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
2.4 Hydrology
Watershed hydrology is driven by climatic processes; surface and subsurface characteristics, such as topography,
vegetation, and geology; and human processes, such as water and land use. A watershed can be thought of as a
surface catchment (drainage basin) plus a subsurface catchment. A drainage basin can be defined as the surface
area that, on the basis of topography, contributes all the runoff that passes through a given cross section of a
stream (Dingham, 2002). Drainage that occurs via subsurface flow, controlled by hydrogeology, is called the
subsurface catchment (Kraemer et al., 2000). Precipitation that falls within the watershed can be stored on the
land surface (e.g., lakes or wetlands), infiltrate to the subsurface, move as overland flow to stream channels, or
be lost to evapotranspiration. Ground water can also enter and exit a watershed via inflow and outflow through
aquifers that extend beyond the surface catchment. Rain and snowmelt produce runoff that moves through a
variety of surface and subsurface pathways as it flows through the drainage network, eventually exiting the
watershed via stream or ground water flow.
An important conceptual framework for understanding and evaluating watershed structure and function is the
water budget (see Appendix A). A water budget can be developed for any hydrologic feature and accounts for
all water inputs and outputs. A watershed scale water budget includes the following components:
P + Gin - (Q + ET + Gout) = AS,
where P is precipitation, G is ground water inflow to the watershed, Q is stream outflow, ET is
evapotranspiration, Gou(is ground water outflow from the watershed and AS is change in storage over time.
Spatial and temporal variation in evapotranspiration, infiltration, and overland flow is determined by the size
of the watershed, the surface topography and vegetation, the underlying geology, climatic conditions, and
water and land uses. Small watersheds are more dynamic than large watersheds, responding more rapidly to
inputs from precipitation. Hydrographs for streams dominated by snowmelt and base flow follow a more
predictable pattern than those for streams dominated by surface runoff (Healy, Winter, LaBaugh, & Franke,
2007). Surface and ground water interact in a variety of ways. Overland flow to surface waters results from
both saturation-excess and infiltration-excess runoff processes. Water that infiltrates to the subsurface can
discharge to a nearby stream as interflow or move vertically to the water table providing aquifer recharge.
Water that recharges aquifers flows through the subsurface to discharge areas, such as springs, seeps, wetlands,
fens, streams, and lakes.
Stream flow can be affected by surface runoff, interflow discharge, and base flow discharge. The contribution of
ground water to stream flow varies significantly, but is estimated to be 40% to 50% in small- to medium-sized
streams (Alley, Reilly, & Franke, 1999). A given reach of stream can be perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral
(Figure 2-15) and the ground water contribution can vary over an annual hydrograph.
2.4.1 Hydroecology
Hydroecology is a new discipline that examines the relationship of hydrology and ecology. Although
hydroecology as a distinct discipline is new, this interdisciplinary field has, at its roots, the applied science of
instream flows. With increasingly large withdrawals from surface and ground water, protection of sufficient
instream flow became a major concern during the middle of the last century. The difficulty in determining
ecologically relevant instream flow requirements initially led to the development of "rule of thumb" hydrologic
statistics serving as the basis of minimum flows requirements (Annear, et al., 2004). The 7Q10 rule is
an example of this kind of thinking. 7Q10 refers to the lowest 7-day average flow that occurs on average
once every 10 years. It is calculated based on historic flows and does not necessarily "protect" because it is
unrelated to any explicit biological needs or thresholds. Increased knowledge of aquatic ecosystems and access
to computers led to more sophisticated techniques for assessing instream flow requirements in the 1970s
and 1980s (Annear, et al., 2004). The National Biological Service published its Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM) in 1995- The IFIM uses a suite of models to evaluate physical habitat availability in
riverine systems based on recent historical stream flows (Stalnaker, Lamb, Henriksen, Bovee, & Bartholow,
1995). It was developed in response to the National Environmental Policy Act's mandate that all federal water
2-16
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Losing Stream
(ft-A'J
Gaining Stream in Spring
Losing Stream in Fall
(B-B')
Gaining Stream
(C-C)
in Fall (F)
Figure 2-15 Relation between water table and stream type (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987).
resource management agencies consider alternative water development and management schemes (Stalnaker
et al., 1995). IFIM was designed to predict the flow/habitat relationships for different species and lifestages,
evaluate flow management alternatives, and reach agreement on preferred flow regime(s). This method is data
intensive, requiring substantial fieldwork and multidisciplinary expertise.
Ecosystems are naturally dynamic and depend on recurrent natural disturbances to maintain their health. The
publication of The Natural Flow Regime (Poff, et al., 1997) contributed greatly to the understanding that a
dynamic river is a healthy river. Natural flow regimes are composed of seasonally varying environmental flow
components (Matthews & Richter, 2007), including high flows, base flows, pulses, and floods. Each flow
component serves critical ecological functions such as creating habitat and providing cues for spawning and
migration during discrete times of the year (Figure 2-16 and Figure 2-17). Environmental flow components can
be characterized in terms of their magnitude, frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change. The Indicators
of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA)
(Richter et al., 1996) quantifies these
characteristics of environmental
flow components, as well as other
ecologically relevant stream flow
statistics, based on daily stream flow
data. IHA can also calculate the
degree to which flow components
have been altered from a reference
condition. The Hydroecological
Integrity Assessment Process
(Henriksen, Heasley, Kennen, &
Nieswand, 2006) also calculates
stream flow statistics, and uses them
to classify streams into regional
hydrologic types. The Ecological
Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
(Poff, et al., 2010) is a framework
that relates hydrologic alteration to
ecological response to support the
Principle 3
lateral connectivity
longitudinal connectivity
spates
Principle 1
channel form
habitat complexity—
patch disturbance
biotic diversity
Principle 2
Life history patterns
• spawning
• recruitment
J"
stable baseflcws
drought
Time
Principle 4
natural regime discourages invasions
Figure 2-16 Different components of the natural flow regime support
different ecological processes and functions (Bunn & Arthington, 2002).
Reprinted with permission of Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
2-17
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
110,000
Prothonotary warbler in return
Central and South America migration
wintering grounds j»
100,000
90,000
breeding/nesting
f \
fledging fall
migration
Bald cypress peak seed fall seed dispersal
and germination
growing season
seed fall
1944 (pre-dam average year)
1972 (post-dam average year]
:ober November December January February March April May June July August September
Figure 2-17 Ecological model of the Savannah River, Georgia illustrating the ecological
importance of the natural flow regime. Note the loss of high and low flows during
critical bioperiods for the post-dam hydrograph (The Nature Conservancy). Illustrations
from the National Audubon Society: Sibley Guide to Birds, by David Allen Sibley,
published by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. Copyright © 2000 by Andrew Stewart Publishing,
Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder.
determination of environmental flow standards or targets. Recognition of the role that flow variability and
disturbance play on the health of aquatic and riparian species initially led to flow prescriptions focused on one
or a few species (Richter, Baumgartner, Powell, & Braun, 1996). More recent, holistic assessment methods
(Tharme, 2003) focus on maintaining the natural flow regime, or the flow variation that existed prior to human
modification, by relating flow statistics to a variety of biological community metrics (Richter et al., 1996).
The natural disturbance regime is a vital component of instream flow assessments. Holistic assessments
determine the flow variability and magnitude necessary to maintain aquatic and riparian communities over
time (Figure 2-18). In the higher order reaches of large river/floodplain systems, aquatic biota have adapted
their life history strategies to cope with, and even take advantage of, the predictable flood regime. For example,
a gradient of plant species exists along the aquatic/terrestrial transition zone as a result of seasonal degrees
of inundation, nutrients, and light (Bayley, 1995). The littoral zone in rivers is a moving zone of alternating
flooding and drying as the water level rises and falls. This zone provides excellent nursing grounds for many
fish species, which have adapted their life histories to spawn just before or during the rising, flooding phase.
During the drawdown phase, nutrient runoff from the littoral zone increases primary production of algae,
which in turn increases production of aquatic invertebrates that feed on these algae. Not only does periodic
flooding affect biological communities directly, but it also affects the distribution of habitat patches through
sediment deposition and scouring. In order for this natural regime of flood disturbance to effectively influence
riparian biodiversity, it is essential that the river channel maintain lateral connectivity with its floodplain (Junk
&Wantzen, 2004).
2-18
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Frequency
Annual
Figure 2-18 Geomorphic and ecological functions provided by different levels of flow. Water tables that
sustain riparian vegetation and that delineate in-channel baseflow habitat are maintained by ground water
inflow and flood recharge (A). Floods of varying size and timing are needed to maintain a diversity of riparian
plant species and aquatic habitat. Small floods occur frequently and transport fine sediments, maintaining
high benthic productivity and creating spawning habitat for fishes (B). Intermediate-sized floods inundate
low-lying floodplains and deposit entrained sediment, allowing for the establishment of pioneer species
(C). These floods also import accumulated organic material into the channel and help to maintain the
characteristic form of the active stream channel. Larger floods that recur on the order of decades inundate
the aggregated floodplain terraces, where later successional species establish (D). Rare, large floods can
uproot mature riparian trees and deposit them in the channel, creating high-quality habitat for many aquatic
species (E) (Poff et al., 1997). Reprinted with permission of University of California Press.
2.4.2 Ground Water Hydrology
It is estimated that ground water represents about 97% of all the liquid freshwater on earth (Dunne & Leopold,
1978). Water stored in rivers, lakes, and as soil moisture accounts for less than 1% of the planet's freshwater.
Ground water is an important source of water for meeting human needs, including drinking water, irrigation,
and industrial use. In the United States, approximately 50% of the drinking water supply comes from ground
water; in rural areas, 99% of the population relies on ground water to meet their drinking water needs (Kenny
et al., 2009). Ground water is equally important to conservation of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and
species. Many aquatic, riparian, and wetland ecosystems rely on ground water to meet their water needs.
Ground water is also important for maintaining the water temperature and chemical conditions required by
these ecosystems and the plants and animals they support. Describing the link between ground water and
ecosystems, understanding and documenting the key processes and functions that ground water provides, and
identifying the critical threats are key components of a healthy watersheds assessment.
Spatial and temporal distribution of ground water recharge is influenced significantly by geomorphic landforms,
soil conditions, vegetation patterns, and land use. Direct recharge occurs when precipitation infiltrates to the
water table at or near the point of impact and does not run off. Direct recharge, more common in humid
areas, is controlled by soil moisture, plant communities, and landform type. Indirect recharge occurs when
precipitation flows as surface runoff and infiltrates to the water table at some distance from its original point
of impact. More common in semi-arid regions, indirect recharge can occur in two ways: 1) infiltration of
overland flow into fractures, joints, faults, and macropores; and 2) seepage through the beds and banks of
recognizable streams, lakes, or wetlands (Younger, 2006). This happens in beds of ephemeral streams during
flood flow and through multiple channel beds in alluvial fans along mountain fronts. Recharge to regional
aquifers underlying a watershed may also occur by ground water inflow from aquifers outside the boundaries of
the surface catchment. Adequate recharge is fundamental to ensuring that sufficient ground water is available
to support ecosystems.
2-19
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Ground water flows from areas of recharge to locations of discharge. Depending on the size and geology of
a watershed, multiple aquifers may be found within the boundaries of a surface catchment. Conversely, a
single aquifer may underlie multiple watersheds. Watersheds of moderate to large size and significant relief
typically contain multiple ground water flow systems of different scales (Figure 2-19). Flow system boundaries
are controlled by topography, type, and distribution of geomorphic land forms within the watershed, and the
underlying geology. Ground water discharge is dynamic and occurs at a variety of locations within a watershed,
including springs and seeps, streams, wetlands, and lakes. Discharge from local and intermediate ground water
flow systems is likely to fluctuate over an annual hydrograph while discharge from deeper, regional aquifers is
likely to be more stable. Travel times from ground water recharge areas to ground water discharge areas can
vary greatly, from days to millennia.
LOCAL AND
INTERMEDIATE
RECHARGE
LOCALAND
REGIONAL
DISCHARGE
LOCAL
RECHARGE
LOCAL
RECHARGE
LOCALAND
REGIONAL
DISCHARGE
LOCAL AND
INTERMEDIATE
RECHARGE
Figure 2-19 Different scales of ground water flow systems (modified from U.S. Geological Survey, 1999).
Discharge to Springs
Springs are focused points of ground water discharge. The locations of springs within a watershed are controlled
primarily by topography and geology. Springs are the principal type of natural discharge for confined aquifers
and are also important discharge features in unconfined aquifers. Springs can be divided into four types: 1)
depression springs occur where the water table intersects the land surface; 2) contact springs occur along the
geologic contact between an aquifer and a confining layer, usually at the lowest point where the confining
layer intersects the land surface; 3) fault springs occur where faulting has brought an aquifer in contact with
a confining layer; and 4) sinkhole springs occur in karst terrains where natural vertical shafts connect the land
surface to underlying, confined karst aquifers. In watersheds underlain by consolidated bedrock, springs often
occur where preferential flow paths composed of fractures and joints intersect the land surface. In semi-arid
regions underlain by extensive bedrock formations, regional springs are critical for sustaining important
ecological resources.
Discharge to Streams
Ground water discharges to streams via seepage faces above the channel and by direct inflow through the
streambed. Streams can also lose water to underlying aquifers. Temporal and spatial distribution of ground
water discharge can vary over the annual hydrograph. Perennial flow in most streams is due to base flow
provided by ground water discharge. In arid areas or areas where aquifer water levels have been significantly
lowered due to pumping, streams can be disconnected from the underlying aquifer.
2-20
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
An important hydrologic process affecting the chemical and biological conditions within a stream system is
hyporheic flow (Figure 2-20). In streams with coarse bed sediments, there is strong mixing between ground
water and stream water within the bed sediment in response to local head conditions. Within the hyporheic
zone: 1) water in the channel can flow into the coarse bed sediment and back into the channel a short distance
later; 2) ground water discharge can flow upwards through the bed sediment and into the channel; and 3)
water from the open channel can flow downward though the bed sediment and infiltrate into the underlying
aquifer.
Interface of local and regional
round-water flow systems,
hyporheic zone, and stream
Direction of
round-water
flow
Figure 2-20 Streambeds and banks are unique environments because they are found where ground water
that drains much of the subsurface of landscapes interacts with surface water that drains much of the surface
of landscapes (Winter, Harvey, Franke, & Alley, 1998).
Discharge to Wetlands
Wetlands generally occur where hydrologic and geologic/topographic settings facilitate the retention of soil
water and/or surface water. Wetlands commonly occur in topographic depressions and flat lying lowlands.
However, wetlands can also occur on slopes and topographic high points. Sources of water to wetlands include
rainfall, surface water inflow, and ground water discharge. Many wetlands occur where there is a perennial
ground water discharge. Ground water supports wetlands by either focused discharge at the ground's surface or
discharge from an underlying aquifer.
Discharge to Lakes and Ponds
Ground water discharge to lakes and ponds occurs primarily by preferential or diffuse inflow through the
lakebed sediments in the littoral zone, and less commonly from seepage faces or springs above or below the
water line. In humid, temperate areas there are typically four types of lake-ground water relationships (Younger,
2006): 1) lakes that receive most inflow from ground water and all outflow is to surface water, 2) lakes that
receive most inflow from surface water and most outflow is to ground water, 3) lakes that receive most inflow
from ground water and all outflow goes back to ground water (through-flow lakes), and 4) lakes that receive
inflow from ground water and surface water and outflow is to ground water.
Ground Water Dependent Ecosystems
Ecosystems and species that depend on ground water to sustain their ecological structure and function are
termed Ground Water Dependent Ecosystems, or GDEs (Murray, Hose, Eamus, & Licari, 2006). GDEs often
harbor high species richness for their overall size, contributing significantly to the ecological diversity of a
region. GDEs often contain endangered, threatened, or rare plants and animals. In addition, GDEs can act
as natural reservoirs, storing water during wet periods and releasing it during dry periods, and can function as
refugia during periods of environmental stress. In some circumstances, the flora and fauna of GDEs can help
clean up contaminants and sediments.
2-21
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Eamus and Froend (2006) identified six ecosystems that depend on ground water: springs, wetlands, rivers,
lakes, phreatophytes, and subterranean systems. These ecosystems can be classified as either obligately ground
water dependent or facultatively ground water dependent. Obligately ground water dependent ecosystems are
found only in association with ground water. Facultatively ground water dependent ecosystems may receive
some or all of their water supply from ground water, depending on the hydrogeologic setting.
Springs, including seeps, are ecosystems where ground water discharges at the surface. Thus, they are obligately
ground water dependent by definition. The water supply of springs comes solely from ground water, and often
this water has chemical or temperature characteristics that support uncommon communities or species (Sada
et al., 2001; Williams & Williams, 1998). With some exceptions (e.g., arid regions), wetlands are generally
facultative GDEs that, depending on their setting, may rely on ground water to create specific hydroperiods
or chemical conditions, which govern wetland structure and function (Wheeler, Gowing, Shaw, Mountford,
& Money, 2004; Mitsch & Gosselink, 2007). Some types of wetlands are obligately ground water dependent,
such as fens, which receive their water supply almost exclusively from ground water (Bedford & Godwin,
2003). In some ecosystems, such as calcareous fens, the influx of ground water creates unusual water chemistry
(Almendinger & Leete, 1998).
In general, rivers, lakes, and areas of phreatophytic plants are facultatively ground water dependent. However,
perennial rivers and streams are often obligately dependent on ground water to maintain late-season base flow,
maintain moderate temperature regimes, create certain water chemistry conditions, or produce thermal refugia
for fish and other species during temperature extremes (Power, Brown, & Imhof, 1999). Lakes can receive
significant inputs of ground water during certain times of the year under specific hydrologic, geologic, and
topographic conditions (Grimm et al., 2003; Riera, Magnuson, Kratz, & Webster, 2000; Winter, 1978; Winter,
1995). Phreatophytic plants have deep roots that can access water in the capillary fringe, immediately above
the water table; if these plants use this deep water at some point during the year or the plant life cycle, they
are considered to be ground water dependent (Zencich & Froend, 2001). These species have been identified
in arid climates, and recent work in more humid climates suggests this phenomenon may be more widespread
than is generally acknowledged (Brooks, Meinzer, Coulombe, & Gregg, 2002).
Subterranean GDEs consist of aquatic ecosystems that are found in the free water of caves and karst systems,
and within aquifers themselves (Gilbert, Danielopol, & Stanford, 1998). Aquifer ecosystems represent the most
extended array of freshwater ecosystems across the entire planet (Gilbert, 1996). Their fauna largely consists
of invertebrates and microbes (Humphreys, 2006). The ecological importance of subterranean ecosystems has
only recently emerged in the scientific literature (Tomlinson & Boulton, 2008; Goldscheider et al., 2007;
Hancock, Boulton, & Humphreys, 2005).
The type and location of GDEs depends on the hydrogeologic setting of the ecosystem in the watershed and
its climate context. The hydrogeologic setting is defined by factors that control the flow of surface water and
ground water to ecosystems. These factors include: elevation and slope of the land surface; composition,
stratigraphy, and structure of subsurface geological materials in the watershed and underlying the GDE;
and position of the GDE in the landscape (Winter, Labaugh, & Rosenberry, 1988; Komor, 1994; Bedford,
1999). Some common locations for GDEs to occur are landscape depressions, breaks in slope, and areas of
stratigraphic change (Figure 2-21).
In general, there are three ecological attributes related to ground water that can be important to GDEs:
1. Water quantity: This includes timing, location, and duration of ground water discharge. In rivers and
streams, ground water provides the base flow component of the hydrograph. In wetlands, ground
water may partly or fully control the hydroperiod, or water table fluctuation. Shallow ground water
can support terrestrial and riparian vegetation, either permanently or seasonally. Healthy watershed
assessments and actions need to consider the relationship of ground water quantity to aquatic
ecosystems.
2-22
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Slope break
General direction of
ground-water (low
--- Average water table
Forest vegetation
Scrub-Shrub vegetation
EXPLANATION
Jl|/l,\| Emergent vegetation
II Peat
I Glacial till
I (low permeability)
| Sand and gravel
(high permeability)
Figure 2-21 Common locations for ground water dependent ecosystems to occur include landscape
depressions, breaks in slope, and areas of stratigraphic change (modified from U.S. Geological Survey, 1999).
2. Water chemistry: When ground water discharges at the surface, its chemical composition represents
a mixture affected by the quality of the recharge water and the interaction of ground water with the
geologic materials through which it flows. Many ground water fed wetlands (e.g., calcareous fens)
have chemical compositions that support a unique suite of flora and fauna. In some settings, ground
water can be the principal source of dissolved chemicals to a lake, even in cases where ground water is
a small component of the lake's water budget (Striegl & Michmerhuizen, 1998).
3- Water temperature: Ground water emerging at the surface often maintains a fairly constant
temperature year round. This low variability can be important as ground water dependent species can
be adapted to these stable conditions. Localized areas of ground water discharge often provide areas of
thermal refugia for fish in both winter and summer (Hayashi & Rosenberry, 2002). This is particularly
important for species such as salmonids, including bull trout, which have specific temperature
requirements for spawning and egg incubation (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2002; King County
Department of Natural Resources, 2000). In some settings, ground water emerges at the surface as hot
springs, which support a unique set of flora and fauna (Springer, Stevens, Anderson, Parnell, Kreamer,
& Flora, 2008).
2-23
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
2.5 Geomorphology
Fluvial geomorphology seeks to
explain river forms and processes
through an understanding of landscape
characteristics, water movement, and
sediment transport (Leopold, Wolman, &
Miller, 1964). Watershed inputs (water,
sediment, and organic matter) and valley
characteristics (valley slope and width,
bedrock and surficial geology, soils, and
vegetation) determine a river channel's
form (pattern, profile, and dimension)
(Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation, 2007)- Although watershed
inputs and channel form vary over time,
they are often considered to be balanced
in natural systems. This natural balance is termed "dynamic equilibrium" and is illustrated by Lane's Balance
(Figure 2-22), where sediment size and volume are in balance with stream slope and discharge. Any time one
of these variables changes, the other variables will respond to bring the stream back to a dynamic equilibrium.
Disturbances such as floods or forest fires are natural, episodic events that cause a stream to become unbalanced.
After such disturbances, the stream will "seek" equilibrium conditions through adjustment of the components
of Lane's Balance until the stream is once again in a form that allows it to efficiently perform its functions
Sediment Supply
(Volume)
Discharge
(Volume/Time)
Figure 2-22 Lane's Balance (1955). Modified from Rpsgen (1996).
Reprinted with permission of American Society of Civil Engineers.
1
Equilibrium Channel
Incised due to berming
or headcutting
Widening due to
bank failures
Continued
widening &
aggrading
. Terrace 2
Stage 1
Terrace 1
New flood plain
Stage 3
Figure 2-23 This channel evolution model
shows the stages of channel adjustment due to
a disturbance (modified from Schumm, 1977).
of water and sediment discharge. This form may or may not
be the same as the pre-disturbance form. There are instances
where a threshold is crossed, pushing the stream into a new,
metastable state (Hugget, 2011). Periodic disturbances,
of natural intensity and frequency, can increase aquatic
biodiversity by creating opportunities for some species and
scaling back the prevalence of others.
As a result of its watershed inputs and valley characteristics,
a stream will typically have a predictable and characteristic
form. When watershed inputs or valley characteristics change,
or when disturbances are of extreme intensity or frequency, as
many human disturbances are, a stream channel will undergo
adjustment to a new form. Assessing a stream's watershed
inputs and valley characteristics allows the resource manager
to determine the predicted form of the stream channel. If
the existing channel does not match the predicted form, it is
likely undergoing adjustment to a new form, which will be
evidenced by head cuts or channel incision (bed degradation),
sedimentation or deposition (bed aggradation), or channel
widening (Figure 2-23). The channel may also have already
undergone adjustment and be in a stable new form. Factors
that may initiate channel adjustment include changes in land
use/cover (e.g., urbanization or agriculture), channel and
floodplain encroachment (e.g., bank armoring and riverside
development), and flow alteration (e.g., dam construction
or large municipal withdrawals) (Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation, 2007).
2-24
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Before the publication of Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology (Leopold, Wolman, & Miller, 1964), the field
was primarily descriptive. The new quantitative focus drew the interest of engineers, which resulted in the
development of engineered approaches to river restoration over the next few decades. David Rosgen's 1996
publication Applied River Morphology is one of the most influential in modern river restoration practice. His
ideas built off of Luna Leopold's classification and Stanley Schumm's concept of channel evolution. Rosgen
developed a classification system for describing channel form and sequences of adjustment in disturbed
channels. The underlying principles in Rosgen's Applied River Morphology have been used by a number of states
in their own river protection programs. The following are the objectives of the Rosgen stream classification
system:
• Predict a river's behavior from its appearance.
• Develop specific hydraulic and sediment relationships for a given stream type and its
state.
• Provide a mechanism to extrapolate site-specific data to stream reaches having similar
characteristics.
• Provide a consistent frame of reference for communicating stream morphology and
condition among a variety of disciplines.
This four-level, descriptive classification system is analogous to the Linnaean classification system in biology, in
which each species receives one Latin name for its genus and one for its species. Level I of the Rosgen system
classifies a channel as one of seven letters (A through G) based on channel slope, entrenchment, width/depth
ratio, and sinuosity. The width/depth ratio and entrenchment refer to the amount of erosion that has shaped the
stream channel and relate to the stream's power. There are then six numerical categories based on the dominant
bed material (Rosgen, D., 1994) (Figure 2-24). An A3 stream, for example, is one in which the dominant
substrate is cobble, the slope is steep, does not have much sinuosity (the channel is relatively straight), has a
low width/depth ratio, and is well entrenched. These streams are typically found in mountainous headwater
areas. Level II classifies stream types to a finer level of detail based on slope ranges. Levels III and IV then assess
Figure 2-24 Rosgen stream types (Rosgen, D., 1996).
2-25
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
the stream's condition and validate the predictions based on field measurements. The Rosgen classification
system is a valuable tool for communicating stream characteristics to others. However, it has been criticized for
focusing too heavily on form without sufficient regard to variation in the processes affecting streams, such as
flow hydraulics, sediment transport, and bank stability (Simon et al., 2007).
The mechanisms by which streams adjust to altered inputs of energy (stream slope and discharge) and
materials (sediment size and volume) are just as important as the form of the channel. Quantitative linkages
between sediment transport (the combination of energy and materials) and the driving and resisting forces
(flow hydraulics and bank stability) acting on the stream channel can enhance the understanding of processes
controlling channel form (Simon et al., 2007). For example, three streams with the same original morphology
and similar altered sediment transport scenarios may adjust to different morphologies because of differences in
bank materials (e.g., clay vs. silt vs. sand) (Simon et al., 2007).
2.6 Water Quality
Aquatic ecosystems are substantially affected by the quality of their water, but also by the chemical and
physical characteristics of the air, surrounding watershed soils, and sediment transported through the aquatic
system. EPA and states have established water quality criteria for freshwater ecosystems that address important
ecological constituents. Chemical and physical constituents include: (1) concentrations of organic and
inorganic constituents, such as nutrients, trace metals, and dissolved organic matter; (2) additional chemical
parameters indicative of habitat suitability, such as pH and dissolved oxygen; and (3) physical parameters,
including water temperature and turbidity. Many of these constituents are dynamic and related to natural
watershed hydrology. For example, dissolved oxygen fluctuations in streams are related to watershed nutrient
loading, biotic activity, stream flow, and temperature. Monitoring methods for many of these parameters are
well established and should be part of an ecosystem assessment and management approach (MacDonald,
Smart, & Wissmar, 1991).
Physical and chemical water quality is strongly influenced by hydrology, geomorphology, and landscape
condition. Forested landscapes cycle nutrients and retain sediments, while riparian forests regulate temperature,
shading, and input of organic matter to headwater streams (Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest
Management, National Research Council, 2008). Natural quantities of suspended and bedded sediments
(SABS) transport nutrients, detritus, and other organic matter, which are critical to the health of a water body.
Natural quantities of SABS also replenish sediment bed loads and create valuable microhabitats, such as pools
and sand bars.
Material flows, such as the cycling of organic matter and nutrients, are very important ecosystem functions. As
described in The River Continuum Concept (Vannote et al., 1980), the flow of energy and materials is closely
linked by downstream transport of biomass created by primary productivity in headwater streams. These
areas contain unique assemblages of organisms that begin the processing of coarse particulate organic matter,
providing the nutrients required by other assemblages of organisms downstream.
Chemical and physical water quality parameters are common in water quality monitoring programs. The
ecological information derived from chemical/physical monitoring will become more valuable as more
sophisticated monitoring designs, sampling instruments, modeling tools, and analytical procedures are
developed. Chemical and physical assessment information has been well integrated into assessments of
biological condition, hydrology, geomorphology, and the importance of vegetative cover.
2-26
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
2.7 Biological Condition
Ecosystem protection efforts are often driven by concerns over biodiversity. Though originally defined simply
as the number of species in a given region, the term biodiversity is now commonly used to refer to the diversity
of life at all levels (from genes to ecosystems). Biological condition is defined here as the ability to support
and maintain a balanced, integrated, and adaptive community with a biological diversity, composition, and
functional organization comparable to those of natural aquatic ecosystems in the region (Frey, 1977; Karr
& Dudley, 1981; Karr, Fausch, Angermeier, Yant, & Schlosser, 1986). Thus, biodiversity is one aspect of
biological condition.
Large river basins that contain a distinct assemblage of aquatic communities and species are referred to as
freshwater ecoregions. Freshwater ecoregions are a useful organizational unit for conducting biodiversity
assessments, as a given ecoregion contains similar species, ecosystem processes, and environmental conditions.
Freshwater ecoregional assessments identify the suite of places that collectively best represent the biodiversity
and environmental processes of a large river basin. Efforts to protect "enough of everything" (The Nature
Conservancy, 201 la) should consider ecoregional patterns and processes when assessing and prioritizing areas
for ecosystem protection actions.
Biological condition can refer to individual organisms, species, or entire communities. The health of individuals
may provide an indication of future trends affecting an entire population or supporting ecological process
(e.g., the spread of a virus in fish populations). Species are a common focus because they may be endangered or
game species, or because they exert an important influence on an ecosystem (e.g., indicator species or keystone
species). Measures of species health include population size and genetic diversity. The condition of an entire
ecological community depends upon species composition, trophic structure, and habitat extent and pattern.
A balanced ecological community, as naturally occurs, reflects good water quality and a naturally expected
hydrologic regime. Habitat variables such as substrate and vegetative cover also impact the biological health
of aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, landscape conditions in the watershed will affect aquatic habitat through the
dynamic linkage of terrestrial and aquatic elements that defines a watershed. Biology and habitat are intricately
entwined, with habitat structural elements often composed of biotic components themselves. For example,
certain invertebrate communities live out their lives on the leaves of wetland vegetation. If it were not for the
existence of the wetland vegetation, which has its own habitat requirements, these invertebrate communities
would likely not exist.
Biological assessments typically rely on bioindicators (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 201 Ib).
Bioindicators are groups of organisms used to assess environmental condition. Fish, invertebrates, periphyton,
and macrophytes can all be used as bioindicators. Species within these
groups are used to calculate metrics, such as percent Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT) or an Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), which
convey important information on the state of a water body. Bioindicators
are useful measurements of environmental condition because they integrate
multiple effects over time. An assessment of biotic organisms can often
detect ecosystem degradation from unmeasured stressors and unknown
sources of stressors. Many biological assessments rely on the concept of
reference conditions to determine the relative biological health of a given
water body. Reference conditions are the expected conditions of aquatic
biological communities in the absence of human disturbance and pollution.
Reference conditions may be modeled or determined through an assessment
of minimally-impacted sites that represent characteristic stream types in a
given ecoregion. Identifying reference conditions provides some of the
information for the biological condition assessment component of a healthy
watersheds assessment.
2-27
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) is a conceptual, scientific model for interpreting biological response
to increasing levels of stressors. It has been shown to assist with more accurate assessments of aquatic resource
condition, a primary objective of the CWA (Davies & Jackson, 2006). The BCG (Figure 2-25) describes six
different levels of biological condition along a generalized stressor gradient ranging from biological conditions
found at no or low stress (level 1) to those found at high levels of stress (level 6). This generalized stressor
gradient consists of the sum of all aquatic resource stressors, including chemical, hydrologic, and geomorphic
alterations. Biological condition can be evaluated through the use of new or existing biological assessment
methods that have been calibrated to the BCG, such as an IBI, the River Invertebrate Prediction and
Classification System (RIVPACS), or Threshold Indicator Taxa Analysis (TITAN).
The BCG is characterized by a description of how 10 attributes of aquatic ecosystems change in response
to increasing levels of anthropogenic stress. The attributes include several aspects of community structure,
organism condition, ecosystem function, spatial and temporal attributes of stream size, and connectivity
(Davies & Jackson, 2006). A BCG can be used in conjunction with biological assessments to more precisely
define designated aquatic life uses, establish biological criteria, and measure the effectiveness of controls and
management actions aimed at protecting the aquatic biota (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 201 Ib).
This approach, often called tiered aquatic life uses, when applied to water quality standards (WQS), consists
of bioassessment-based statements of expected biological condition in specific water bodies and is based on the
following concepts:
• Surface waters and the biological communities they support are predictably and
consistently different in different parts of the country (classification along a natural
gradient, ecological region concept);
• Within the same ecological regions, different types of water bodies (e.g., headwaters,
streams, rivers, wetlands) support predictably different biological communities (water
body classification);
• Within a given class of water bodies, observed biological condition in a specific water
body is a function of the level of stress (natural and anthropogenic) that the water
body has experienced (the biological condition gradient);
• Similar stressors at similar intensities produce predictable and consistent biological
responses in waters within a class, and those responses can be detected and quantified
in terms of deviation from an expected condition (reference condition); and
• Water bodies exposed to higher levels of stress will have lower biological performance
compared to the reference condition than those waters experiencing lower levels of
stress (the biological condition and stressor gradients).
The results of biological assessments based on the BCG approach can be used in state healthy watersheds
assessments to identify high quality biological condition (e.g., BCG levels I and II) (Figure 2-26).
2-28
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
Levels of Biological Condition
Level 1. Natural structural, functional,
andtaxonomic integrity is preserved.
Level 2. Structure & function similar to
natural community with some additional
taxa & biomass; ecosystem level
functions are fully maintained.
Levels. Evident changes in structure
due to loss of some rare native taxa;
shifts in relative abundance; ecosystem
level functions fully maintained.
Level4. Moderate changes in structure
due to replacement of some sensitive
ubiquitous taxa by more tolerant taxa;
ecosystem functions largely
maintained.
Level 5. Sensitive taxa markedly
diminished; conspicuously unbalanced
distribution of major taxonomic groups,
ecosystem function shows reduced
complexity &redundancy.
Level 6. Extreme changes in structure
and ecosystem function; wholesale
changes in taxonomic composition;
extreme alterations from normal
densities
Watershed, habitat,flow regime
and water chemistry as
naturally occurs
Ch emistry, h abitat, an d/or flow
regime severely altered from
natural conditions
Figure 2-25 Conceptual model of the Biological Condition Gradient (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2011c).
Allagash
Aroostook
Reference Sites
St John
W Br Penobscot
E & N Br Penobscot
Upper Androscoggin
Upper Saco
Lower Saco
Penobscot Tribs
Upper Kennebec
Moose R/E-W Outlets
Penobscot
St Croix
Sandy
Lower Androscoggin
Presumpscot
Sebasticook
Lower Kennebec
100 80 60 40 20 0
Maine Rivers Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
Figure 2-26 Box-and-whisker plots of Maine Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores
arranged, and color coded, according to the six Biological Condition Gradient
(BCG) tiers (Chris Yoder, Midwest Biodiversity Institute, Personal Communication).
The dark blue watersheds can be considered the healthy watersheds.
2-29
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
2.8 Watershed Resilience
A key component of watershed health is the
ability to withstand, recover from, or adapt
to disturbances, such as fires, floods, and
droughts. Healthy ecosystems are naturally
dynamic and often depend on recurrent
natural disturbances to maintain their health.
However, natural disturbance regimes have
been severely altered in many watersheds due
to dam construction, fire suppression, surface
and ground water withdrawals, and land use
change (Figure 2-27). This can increase a
watershed's vulnerability to future disturbance
events, whether natural or anthropogenic.
Anthropogenic disturbances may take years
to be recognized and can persist for decades
or centuries (Committee on Hydrologic
Impacts of Forest Management, National
Research Council, 2008).
Figure 2-27 Sprawling development results in significant land
use change, which can alter natural disturbance regimes.
Broadly speaking, stressors from human activity can be classified into two categories: 1) changes in the natural
variability of ecological attributes; and 2) introduction of pollutants or species that interfere with ecological
processes (Center for Watershed Protection, 2008c). The former can include urbanization impacts on the
magnitude and frequency of stormwater runoff events, habitat conversion and fragmentation, climate change,
and over-harvesting. If perturbations are large enough to reach a threshold, ecosystems can change rapidly
to a new state (e.g., fishery collapse), and these changes are typically difficult to reverse (Noss, LaRoe III, &
Scott, 1995). Pollutants that disrupt ecosystem function can be physical (e.g., sediment from construction
sites) or chemical (e.g., pesticides). Salt Cedar, an example of a biological stressor, is an invasive tree that has
spread throughout the western United States and uses long taproots to take advantage of deep water tables. Its
invasion not only disrupts the native vegetative community, but also disrupts the natural hydrology of the area,
affecting aquatic habitat as well.
The impact of climate change and other stressors on different ecosystems and regions of the United States
depends on the vulnerability of those systems and their ability to adapt to the changes imposed on them.
As temperature and precipitation regimes change, so too will the ecological processes that are driven by
these regimes. These processes are assumed to have a natural range of variability that may be exceeded when
disturbances, changes, and shocks occur to a system. In such cases, the system may still recover because its
adaptive capacity has not been exceeded, or it could pass a threshold and change into another ecosystem
state. Although some ecosystems can rely on their size for resistance to climate change, other ecosystems will
need to rely on resilient processes. Resistance is distinguished from resilience in that resistant systems persist
and remain relatively stable when faced with stresses, whereas resilient systems are affected by stresses, but
are able to recover from the impacts of stress and adapt to new conditions. Increasing a system's resilience to
pressures includes ensuring that watersheds have adaptive attributes such as meander belts, riparian wetlands,
floodplains, terraces, and material contribution areas. For example, a disturbance may lead to changes in the
timing, volume, or duration of flow that are outside the natural range of variability. In a healthy, resilient
watershed, these perturbations would not cause a permanent change because riparian areas and floodplains
would help to absorb some of the disturbance. Managing to optimize resilience includes both minimizing
threats and protecting the most essential or sensitive areas.
2-30
-------
2 Key Concepts and Assessment Approaches
An example of managing for resilience is the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife's process for
identifying and prioritizing land protection and stewardship actions needed for long-term conservation of the
state's biodiversity, and for climate adaptation (Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game and The Nature
Conservancy, 2010):
1. Prioritize habitats, natural communities, and ecosystems of sufficient size. Larger
ecosystems are more likely to provide the tracts of intact habitat and functioning
ecosystem processes needed to support larger numbers of organisms and a broader
diversity of native species. Climate refugia, which organisms can use to endure
extreme conditions, are likely to be more prevalent in larger ecosystems than they are
in smaller ecosystems as well.
2. Select habitats, natural communities, and ecosystems that support ecological
processes. Healthy functioning of ecological processes allows an ecosystem to persist
through conditions of environmental stress or adapt to the stresses imposed on it.
Natural flow regime is an ecological process that is particularly important to healthy
watersheds. Ecosystems that have the least potential to be disturbed by anthropogenic
influences often have the greatest potential to maintain functioning processes in the
long term and are thus most likely to have the resilience needed to recover from
climate change impacts.
3. Build connectivity into habitats and ecosystems. Connectivity is a conservation
priority for the same reason that large ecosystems are a conservation priority: it
maximizes the accessibility of resources populations can use to survive periods
of environmental stress. Many species representing diverse classes of organisms,
including amphibians, aquatic insects, and anadramous and catadramous fish require
multiple habitat types to carry out their life cycles. In addition to connectivity to
other habitat sources, wildlife populations need connectivity to other populations of
their own species in order to maintain levels of genetic diversity sufficient to sustain
viable populations.
4. Represent a diversity of species, natural communities, ecosystems, and ecological
settings. Conserving a representative set of species and habitats creates a diversified
"savings bank" of physical and genetic resources that provides the greatest chances
for successful ecosystem adaptation and recovery. In addition, protecting a variety of
habitat conditions provides a coarse filter for protecting the diversity of biota these
conditions support.
2-31
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
2-32
-------
3. Examples of Assessment
Approaches
Introduction
This chapter introduces the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, discusses the
characteristics of a healthy watershed, and reviews the benefits of protecting
healthy watersheds. This chapter also describes the purpose, target audience, and
intended use of this document.
Overview of Key Concepts
m.
This chapter describes the healthy watersheds conceptual framework. It then
discusses, in detail, each of the six assessment components - landscape condition,
habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition.
A sound understanding of these concepts is necessary for the appropriate
application of the methods described in later chapters. This chapter concludes
with a discussion of watershed resilience.
Examples of Assessment Approaches
This chapter summarizes a range of assessment approaches currently being used
to assess the health of watersheds. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
possible approaches, nor is this a critical review of the approaches included. These
are provided solely as examples of different assessment methods that can be used
as part of a healthy watersheds integrated assessment. Discussions of how the
assessments were applied are provided for some approaches. Table 3-1 lists all of
the assessment approaches included in this chapter.
Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
This chapter presents two examples for conducting screening level healthy
watersheds integrated assessments. The first example relies on the results of a
national assessment. The second example demonstrates a methodology using
state-specific data for Vermont. This chapter also includes examples of state
efforts to move towards integrated assessments.
Management Approaches
This chapter includes examples of state healthy watersheds programs and
summarizes a variety of management approaches for protecting healthy
watersheds at different geographic scales. The chapter also includes a brief
discussion of restoration strategies, with focus on targeting restoration towards
degraded systems that have high ecological capacity for recovery. The results of
healthy watersheds integrated assessments can be used to guide decisions on
protection strategies and inform priorities for restoration.
3-1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Table 3-1 List of assessment approach summaries and case studies included in Chapter 3.
Landscape Condition
Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment
Cose Study: Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan
Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment
Cose Study: Green Infrastructure in Hampton Roads
Beaver Creek Green Infrastructure Plan
The Active River Area
Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class
3-4
3-7
3-8
3-10
3-11
3-13
3-16
Ohio's Primary Headwaters Habitat Assessment 3-20
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in Maryland 3-21
Proper Functioning Condition 3-22
Rapid Stream-Riparian Assessment 3-24
Ohio Rapid Assessment Method 3-26
California Rapid Assessment Method 3-28
Wyoming Wetland Complex Inventory and Assessment 3-30
Hydrology
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration 3-34
Cose Study: A Regional Scale Habitat Suitability Model to Assess the Effects of Flow Reduction on Fish Assemblages in 3-37
Michigan Streams
Texas Instream Flow Assessments 3-39
Cose Study: San Antonio River Basin 3-41
Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Washington State Rivers 3-43
Ground Water Dependent Ecosystems Assessment 3-45
Cose Study: Identifying GDEs and Characterizing their Ground Water Resources in the Whychus Creek Watershed 3-49
Geomorphology
Vermont's Stream Geomorphic and Reach Habitat Assessment Protocols 3-52
Cose Study: Geomorphic Assessment and River Corridor Planning of the Batten Kill Main-Stem and Major Tributaries 3-55
Water Quality
Oregon Water Quality Index 3-57
Biological Condition
Index of Biotic Integrity 3-59
Cose Study: Ohio Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment 3-61
The Biological Condition Gradient and Tiered Aquatic Life Uses 3-62
Cose Study: Maine Tiered Aquatic Life Use Implementation 3-64
Aquatic Gap Analysis Program 3-65
Cose Study: Ohio Aquatic GAP Analysis: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native Aquatic 3-68
Animal Species
Natural Heritage Program Biodiversity Assessments 3-69
Cose Study: Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center 3-71
Virginia Interactive Stream Assessment Resource and Healthy Waters Program 3-72
National Aquatic Resource Assessments
National Rivers and Streams Assessment 3-75
Cose Study: Oklahoma National Rivers and Streams Assessment 3-77
National Lakes Assessment 3-78
Cose Study: Minnesota National Lakes Assessment 3-80
Regional and National Monitoring and Assessments of Streams and Rivers 3-81
3-2
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
3.1 Landscape Condition
This section provides summaries for some examples of approaches currently being used to assess landscape
conditions. See Chapter 2 for background information on landscape condition.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
Large patches of natural
vegetative land
cover stabilize
soil, regulate
watershed
hydrology, and
provide habitat
for terrestrial
and aquatic
species.
Photo: BLM.
Ecosystems in some
parts of the country
^ require a natural
fire regime to
help maintain
habitat,
biodiversity,
and nutrient
cycling
properties.
Photo: BLM.
Wetlands provide
important fish and
wildlife habitat,
improve water
quality, and
help regulate
water levels
within
watersheds.
Photo: Jane Hawkey, IAN.
Natural land cover
within the Active
River Area
maintains
connectivity
between
terrestrial
and aquatic
elements of
the landscape.
Photo: USFWS.
3-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
More Information: http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/
The Maryland Green Infrastructure Assessment is a proactive approach to addressing the state's growing
forest fragmentation, habitat degradation, and water quality problems. By determining those areas that are
most critical to protecting the ecological integrity of Maryland's natural resources, the conservation programs
operating through the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Program Open Space and the Rural
Legacy Program) can strategically and defensibly pursue the acquisition and easement of lands that are among
the most ecologically valuable in the state. In addition, this assessment, joined with other natural resource
assessments, now forms the foundation for the Governor's GreenPrint initiative in Maryland. As part of the
GreenPrint initiative, an interactive mapping tool was developed to identify high priority conservation lands,
provide performance measures to track the success of state land conservation programs, and facilitate united
and integrated land conservation strategies among all conservation partners in Maryland. As part of its Coastal
Atlas program, Maryland DNR is also mapping the state's "blue infrastructure." The state's blue infrastructure
is defined as the critical near-shore habitat that serves as a link between the aquatic and terrestrial environments
of Maryland's coast. By combining the green infrastructure assessment with the blue infrastructure assessment,
a "complete ecological network" is being identified to prioritize lands for acquisition that protect both terrestrial
and aquatic resources.
Conservation of habitats and multiple species is a more cost-effective and less reactive approach than single
species management and engineering-based solutions to ecosystem degradation (Jennings, 2000). This
proactive approach has shown significant success in Maryland in recent years. In addition, surveys have shown
that the majority of Maryland's citizens support public land conservation programs. Preservation of open space
is considered a worthwhile expenditure of public funds by most residents. Several land conservation programs
exist in Maryland; however, only 26% of the state's green infrastructure was protected in 2000. Many of the
larger tracts of land are becoming more fragmented over time. By protecting the remaining tracts of contiguous
land, or hubs, and connecting them with natural corridors, many of the same benefits of larger conservation
areas can be realized, including maintenance of natural watershed hydrology and thermal regimes.
Based on the principles of landscape ecology and conservation biology, Maryland's Green Infrastructure
Assessment tool uses GIS to identify the ecologically important hubs and connecting corridors in the state.
Hubs are defined by Maryland DNR as:
• Large blocks of contiguous interior forest containing at least 250 acres, plus a
transition zone of 300 feet.
• Large wetland complexes, with at least 250 acres of unmodified wetlands.
• Important animal and plant habitats of at least 100 acres, including rare, threatened,
and endangered species locations; unique ecological communities; and migratory
bird habitats.
• Relatively pristine stream and river segments (which, when considered with adjacent
forests and wetlands, are at least 100 acres in size) that support trout, mussels, and
other sensitive aquatic organisms.
• Existing protected natural resource lands that contain one or more of the above; for
example, state parks and forests, National Wildlife Refuges, locally owned reservoir
properties, major stream valley parks, and Nature Conservancy preserves.
The corridors connecting these hubs are typically streams with wide riparian forest buffers, ridge lines, or
forested valleys. They are at least 1,100 feet wide, which allows for the dispersal of organisms that require
interior cover. These areas were identified in Maryland using a GIS technique called "least cost path." With
this technique, each landscape element is assigned different values ("costs") based on its ability to provide for
movement of wildlife. For example, a road is assigned a value reflective of a "high cost" for wildlife movement,
3-4
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
while a forested area is assigned a "low cost" value. The algorithm then determines the least cost path from one
hub to another.
Hubs and corridors in Maryland were given ecological scores based on their relative importance in the overall
green infrastructure network (Table 3-2). Each hub or corridor's ecological score was evaluated alongside an
assessment of development risk to rank and prioritize lands for protection actions. The lands outside of the
network (developed, agricultural, mined, or cleared lands) were also evaluated for their restoration potential
by considering watershed condition, landscape position, local features, ownership, and programmatic
considerations.
Table 3-2 Parameters and weights used to rank overall ecological significance of each hub within its
physiographic region (Weber, 2003).
Parameter
Heritage and Maryland's Biological Stream Survey element occurrence (occurrences of rare,
threatened and endangered plants and animals; rated according to their global or range-
wide rarity status; state-specific rarity status; and population size, quality, or viability)
Area of Delmarva fox squirrel habitat
Fraction in mature and natural vegetation communities
Area of Natural Heritage Areas
Mean fish IBI score
Mean benthic invertebrate IBI score
Presence of brook trout
Anadromous fish index
Proportion of interior natural area in hub
Area of upland interior forest
Area of wetland interior forest
Area of other unmodified wetlands
Length of streams within interior forest
Number of stream sources and junctions
Number of GAP vegetation types
Topographic relief (standard deviation of elevation)
Number of wetland types
Number of soil types
Number of physiographic regions in hub
Area of highly erodible soils
Remoteness from major roads
Area of proximity zone outside hub
Nearest neighboring hub distance
Patch shape
Surrounding buffer suitability
Interior forest within 10 km of hub periphery
Marsh within 10 km of hub periphery
Weight
12
3
6
6
1
1
2
1
6
3
3
2
4
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
3-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Maryland's Program Open Space, operating since 1969, funds land conservation through the real estate
transfer tax. Since the completion of the green infrastructure assessment, Program Open Space and other land
conservation efforts have continued to refine targeting and acquisition/easement approaches for conserving
and protecting the most ecologically significant lands in the state. In addition to mapping out the highest
priorities, a GIS-based parcel evaluation scores the potential project based on the property's importance in the
green infrastructure network and on other natural resource values. These assessments are validated through field
visits before additional decisions are made. As the project is prepared for approval, a conservation scorecard,
documenting conservation values, is presented to the Board of Public Works (consisting of the Governor, the
Treasurer, and the Comptroller) to justify the expenditure of state funds on protection efforts. In addition to
Program Open Space and the Rural Legacy Program, the Maryland Environmental Trust and the Maryland
Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation form an "implementation quilt" of state land conservation
programs that bring together different resources to implement the protection strategies identified by the
green infrastructure assessment. The GreenPrint initiative provides transparency and accountability through
performance measures, and clearly identifies and maps land conservation goals that bolster the integration and
effectiveness of Maryland's conservation programs. The results of the green infrastructure assessment (Figure
3-1) are being used by other counties and municipalities in their local land use planning efforts as well. Private
land trusts are using the results to help prioritize their land acquisition strategies. Private citizens can also
use the online mapping tool to see the ecological value of the land they own and make wise decisions for
future use of their land. Since 1999, 88,000 acres have been protected in Maryland through the use of green
infrastructure assessment information.
I Kilometers
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 3-1 Green infrastructure in Maryland (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2011).
3-6
-------
Case Study
Anne Arundel County Greenways Master
Plan
More Information: Anne Arundel County, 2002 (http://www.aacounty.org/PlanZone/MasterPlans/
Greenways/Index.cfm)
Anne Arundel County was the first county in the State
of Maryland to base its Greenways Plan on the results
of the Maryland green infrastructure assessment. The
Plan won an award from the Maryland chapter of the
American Planning Association in 2003- Greenways
are typically focused on recreational and scenic
opportunities as priorities. Anne Arundel County,
in its Greenways Plan, takes an ecological approach
to identifying its potential greenways, using the
following criteria:
1. Habitat value.
2. Size.
3- Connections to other land with
ecological value.
4. Future potential.
5. National and countywide trails.
The county used habitat requirements of indicator
species (downy woodpecker, bobcat, and red-spotted
newt) to identify the "best" lands for inclusion in the
greenways system. These species were chosen because
their habitat requirements are general enough to
provide protection to most other species as well. Using
the five criteria for identifying potential greenways,
a network of hubs and corridors was designed. This
network closely reflects the green infrastructure
assessment network (Figure 3-2). One of the
advantages of the Anne Arundel County Greenways
Plan is that it makes explicit the added benefit of
low impact recreational and scenic use to the general
public, which can greatly increase public support of
the plan. In addition, it protects and improves water
quality and wildlife habitat.
I | Green Infrastructure
t=l Proposed Greenways
Figure 3-2 Comparison of proposed greenways and
green infrastructure in Anne Arundel County, MD
(modified from Anne Arundel County, 2002).
3-7
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) - Division of Natural Heritage
More Information: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnavnla.shtml
The Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment (VCLNA) is a flexible GIS tool for integrated and
coordinated modeling and mapping of land conservation priorities and actions in Virginia. The VCLNA is
currently composed of seven separate, but interrelated models: 1) Natural Landscape Assessment Model, 2)
Cultural Model, 3) Vulnerability Assessment Model, 4) Forest Economics Model, 5) Agricultural Model, 6)
Recreation Model, and 7) Watershed Integrity Model. Together, these models are used to identify and assess the
condition of Virginia's green infrastructure. The Natural Landscape Assessment Model is described here. The
Watershed Integrity Model is described in Chapter 4. All VCLNA models, along with Virginia's Conservation
Lands and a variety of reference layers, can be viewed on an interactive mapping site called the Virginia Land
Conservation Data Explorer at www.vaconservedlands.org.
The VCLNA Natural Landscape Assessment Model is a geospatial inventory of the remaining patches of
natural land and the links between those patches throughout Virginia. Large patches are those with interior
cover of at least 100 acres, while small patches are identified as areas containing between 10 and 99 acres of
interior cover. Interior cover, also known as the core area, is defined as the natural land cover beginning 100
meters inside of a habitat patch. As large patches of core area tend to have a greater variety of habitats and
increased protection from adjacent disturbances, biodiversity in these areas typically doubles for every 10-fold
increase in habitat size. In addition, certain species require large areas deep within interior habitat patches to
carry out their life histories. Large patches of natural land cover also prevent erosion, filter nutrients and other
pollutants in runoff, provide pollinators for crops, and sequester carbon in their biomass. Fewer and fewer
large patches of natural vegetation remain in Virginia, as fragmentation resulting from roads and suburban
development continues to spread at an advancing rate. As more habitat is fragmented, the interior area to edge
perimeter ratio decreases to such an extent that, while there continue to be patches of vegetation scattered
across the landscape, there will be virtually no interior cover remaining for species that require this core area to
survive and reproduce.
Although conservation of larger natural areas is typically an effective strategy for preserving biodiversity and
ecological integrity, patchwork patterns of human development make it necessary to conserve many modestly-
sized natural areas. By connecting these smaller areas with corridors of natural vegetation, the levels of
biodiversity maintained in large conservation areas can be approached. However, these corridors should also
contain nodes, or smaller habitat patches interspersed along these links that facilitate dispersal of organisms
between ecological cores. Through the evaluation of ecologically significant attributes (such as species diversity,
presence of rare habitats, and water quality benefits), a prioritization scheme was developed by Natural Heritage
biologists for use in selecting those lands most critical for maintaining ecological integrity across the landscape
of the Commonwealth of Virginia. One of five scores was given to each ecological core area, and corridors
between patches receiving the two highest rankings were designated using a GIS technique called "least cost
path." This technique employs a variety of user defined attributes for determining the easiest routes for wildlife
to migrate between the ecological core areas. Wherever possible, lower-ranked ecological core areas were used
as nodes in the corridors connecting the larger ecological cores.
The landscape assessment results are provided in GIS data, hard copy, and digital maps (Figure 3-3), which can
be explored with an online interactive tool called Land Conservation Data Explorer (Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, 2009).
3-8
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
The results of the Natural Landscape Assessment provide guidance on lands to prioritize for conservation
actions in Virginia. A number of municipalities, counties, land trusts, and other organizations are using the
methods and results from the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment. Ranked cores and corridors are used
by the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation and various conservation organizations (e.g., land trusts)
throughout the commonwealth to help assure that conservation efforts are concentrated on the areas with high
ecological integrity. Furthermore, the cores are an essential component of the State Wildlife Action Plan. The
Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment identifies and ranks ecological integrity statewide, while also providing
a tool that can be used to better inform local conservation planning efforts.
Cores and Habitat FngmtMs by
Ecological Integrity
04 C1: Outstanding
O4 C2: Very High
03 High
04 C4' Moderate
04 C5: General
LEGEND
Other VaNLA Features
^^^^ Landscape Corridor
: • Corridor Node
*^^P Natural Landscape Block
Reference Features
f ' „ Locality Boundary
^\^s Interstate Highway
Primary Road
C~^) Open Water
(^^) Land Without VaNLA Features
Figure 3-3 Map of results from the Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment Model (Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation, 2008).
3-9
-------
Case Study
Green Infrastructure in Hampton Roads
More Information: Kidd, McFarlane, & Walberg, 2010 (http://www.hrpdc.org/PEP/PEP
Green InfraPlan2010.asp)
The Hampton Roads Green Infrastructure Plan was
undertaken to expand upon the Southern Watershed
Area Management Program Conservation Corridor
System previously developed as a collaborative
state, federal, and local effort. The corridor system
identified in that study was contained to southern
Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, Virginia. The
Hampton Roads Green Infrastructure Plan identifies
green infrastructure throughout the entire Hampton
Roads region (Figure 3-4). With conservation and
restoration of water quality as a primary goal, the
technical development and stakeholder involvement
process focused on riparian areas as they provide
multiple benefits including water quality protection,
wildlife habitat, and flood storage.
The Hampton Roads green infrastructure model uses
the output layer from the VCLNA project to identify
ecological cores. It also uses wetlands, land cover,
and a riparian corridor layer developed specifically
for the project. Each of these four layers was ranked
and prioritized by stakeholders for use in a weighted
overlay analysis in GIS. Given the riparian focus, the
links between ecological cores were mostly found
along streams and rivers.
The green infrastructure network is being
implemented through several parallel efforts including
provision of GIS data to Hampton Roads localities
for use in comprehensive plan updates and other
planning efforts, working with the Department of
Defense to include the regional network in efforts to
buffer military facilities from encroachment, and use
of the network as a basis for obtaining grant funding
to purchase lands based on habitat value. Efforts are
also underway to improve the integration of the green
infrastructure network with the implementation of
wetlands mitigation and stormwater and water quality
regulatory programs.
Hampton Roads
Green Infrastructure Network
££ High Value-Water Quality
Q^l Higli Value-Habitat Protection
AA Higli Value-Both
••"
\
Figure 3-4 Green infrastructure in the Hampton Roads region (Kidd, McFarlane, & Walberg, 2010).
3-10
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Beaver Creek Green Infrastructure Plan
Author or Lead Agency: Tracy Moir-McClean and Mark DeKay of University of Tennessee's College of Architecture
and Design
More Information: http://ww2.tdot.state.tn.us/sr475/library/bcgitdot.pdf
The Beaver Creek Green Infrastructure Plan was created in 2006 to protect and restore naturally functioning
ecosystems in the Beaver Creek watershed along the northern border of Knox County, TN for the purposes
of improving water quality, mitigating floods, protecting wildlife habitat, and connecting communities and
neighborhoods. The underlying perspective of the plan is "the idea that the form of settlement grows out of
an understanding of landscape context, both ecological and social." The three primary elements of the plan are
the water network, open space network, and settlement network. Analyzing these networks and basing land
use decisions around them can help to create a sustainable and livable community.
A Land Stewardship Network was identified based on a composite of four assessments identifying: 1) stream
protection corridors, 2) ground water protection corridors, 3) ridge protection corridors, and 4) heritage
protection corridors. This network represents the most ecologically and culturally valuable conservation land
in the watershed, forming a framework around which to base development and protection strategies. Three-
zone buffers were created around each of the four corridor types. The innermost zone is a protection zone,
followed by a conservation zone, and a stewardship zone at the interface with surrounding developed land uses
(Figure 3-5).
As a result of development patterns in the Beaver Creek watershed, water quality has degraded and flooding
has become severe. The full length of Beaver Creek is included on Tennessee's list of impaired waters and the
floodplain has expanded as a result of the increased runoff from growing impervious areas in the watershed.
The stream and ground water protection corridors in the Green Infrastructure Plan address these issues by
protecting and restoring vegetated riparian areas, which slow runoff and filter pollutants, and by protecting
wetlands and sinkholes that help to maintain the watershed's natural hydrology. Stream and ground water
protection corridors were created by buffering first and second order streams, wetlands, and sinkholes with
100 foot protection zones. Third order streams were buffered with a 125 foot protection zone and springs were
given a 500 foot radius protection zone. In order to create a continuous network of protected waters, features
adjacent to streams and chains of related features were all linked to the zone 1 protected stream network.
The boundaries of the zone 2 conservation network were extended 75 feet for streams with defined Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodways and 50 feet for smaller streams. This distance is in
addition to the first zone buffer distances and is extended to the edges of the FEMA floodplain when present.
A 50 foot conservation buffer was added to sinkholes and wetlands and 450 feet was added to the uphill sides
of springs. The final zone 3 buffer adds an additional 25 feet to the network.
Ridge protection corridors were created by identifying all land with slopes greater than 25% plus adjacent
forested areas with slopes greater than 15%. Heritage protection corridors were identified as areas with prime
or good farmland, remaining forests, prime grassland habitat, and riparian habitat areas. Ground water and
stream protection corridors were identified and linked with the ridge and heritage protection corridors.
The composite of the ground water, stream, ridge, and heritage protection corridors provides the final land
stewardship network.
Parcels that intersect the land stewardship network were identified for consideration in conservation and
development decisions such as conservation easements and proposed town, village, and neighborhood centers.
A proposed future settlement pattern was created to guide land use planning decisions in the coming years.
This involves a density gradient of neighborhood types that allows for the most ecologically important areas to
be protected while allowing other areas to be developed at reasonable and desirable densities.
3-11
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Green infrastructure plans, such as the one developed for Beaver Creek, can help communities to plan for
smart growth and sustainable development that preserves the socially and ecologically valuable lands that will
provide recreational, aesthetic, and ecosystem services to future generations. This kind of planning is necessary
for maintaining healthy watersheds while allowing for the economic growth that is necessary to support
growing populations.
FLOODWAY
ZONE1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
STEWARDSHIP
ATTITUDES
CLIMAX of
NATIVE
VEGETATION
PROTECT, STABILIZE
and
SHADE STREAM
CONSERVE
and
RESTORE
ENCOURAGE
LANDOWNER
CONSERVATION
ADJACENT LAND-USE
Figure 3-5 Three-zone buffer showing the protection, conservation, and
stewardship zones (Moir-McClean & DeKay, 2006).
3-12
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
The Active River Area
Author or Lead Agency: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/freshwaterbooks/documents/
active-river-area-a-conservation-framework-for/view.html
The Nature Conservancy's Active River Area approach is a framework for protecting rivers and streams.
The health of a stream or river depends on a variety of physical and ecological processes that operate within
the dynamic environment of the water/land interface. This environment has been termed the "Active River
Area" and is formed and maintained by disturbance events and regular variations in flow. The Active River
Area includes the river channel itself, as well as the riparian lands necessary for the physical and ecological
functioning of the river system. The approach complements other programs that seek to protect natural
hydrologic regimes, maintain connectivity, improve water quality, eradicate invasive species, and maintain
riparian lands in natural cover.
The proper functioning of rivers and riparian areas depends on the dynamic ecological interactions and
disturbance events that characterize natural flowing water systems. The Active River Area focuses on five key
processes: hydrology and fluvial action, sediment transport, energy flows, debris flows, and biotic actions and
interactions. The approach identifies the places where these processes occur based on valley setting, watershed
position, and geomorphic stream type. The five primary components of the Active River Area are:
1. Material contribution areas.
2. Meander belts.
3. Floodplains.
4. Terraces.
5. Riparian wetlands.
Material contribution areas are small headwater catchments in the uppermost reaches of the watershed, as
well as upland areas immediately adjacent to streams and rivers that are not floodplain, terrace, or riparian
wetlands. Material contribution areas provide food and energy (e.g., falling leaves) to aquatic organisms that
is then transported downstream through ecological processes. Meander belts are the most active part of the
Active River Area and are defined as the area within which the river channel will migrate, or meander, over
time. The meander belt width is the cross-channel distance that spans the outside-most edges of existing or
potential meanders and can be easily measured and mapped for both healthy and altered rivers, providing a
basis for management decisions (e.g., implementation of no-build zones). Floodplains are expansive, low-slope
areas with deep sediment deposits. Low floodplains are immediately adjacent to the stream channel and are
typically flooded annually, while high floodplains are at somewhat higher elevations and flooded every one to
10 years on average. Terraces are former floodplains that may be flooded and provide storage capacity during
very large events (e.g., the 100-year flood). Riparian wetlands are areas with hydric soils that support wetland
plant species. Riparian wetland soils are flooded by the adjacent river water and/or high ground water levels.
These areas support a high biodiversity with a variety of aquatic and terrestrial habitat types.
The physical and ecological processes occurring in each of these five areas differ depending on watershed
position (Figure 3-6). The Active River Area framework uses Schumm's (1977) system of classifying watershed
position to organize the five Active River Area components into upper-watershed, mid-watershed, and low-
watershed zones. This system of organization helps to understand the Active River Area in the context of the
landscape of which it is a part. The mosaic of habitat patches formed by the dynamic interactions in the Active
River Area could be considered landscape elements, with the river corridor itself serving as a link between the
elements.
The methods used to delineate the Active River Area involve GIS techniques and analyses of elevation, land
cover, and wetlands data. The meander belt/floodplain/riparian wetland/terrace area can be identified using a
Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and a technique that calculates the area within which the river is expected to
interact dynamically with the land surface. It is based on both the lateral and vertical distance (elevation) from
3-13
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
- V-SHAPED CONFINED VALLEY
-HEADWATER CATCHMENT AREAS
- WETLANDS
ALLUVIAL FAN
INCISED TRIBUTARY
FLOODPLAIN FOREST
RIPARIAN WETLAND
BRAIDED RIVER
FLOODPLAIN DELTA
HEADWATERS
• CPOM LWD, SEDIMENT
. 30-60 METERS FROM Cl
• <1 YEAR RECURRENCE
MID - WATERSHED
.MEANDER BELT ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO
SEDIMENT EROSION. STORAGE. DEPOSITION,
AND TRANSPORT IN THE CHANNEL AND FLOODPLAIN
• MEANDER BELT (4-6 CHANNEL WIDTHS) S
ADJACENTLOW ACTIVE FLOODPLAIN
• < 1 TO 1 - 10 YEAR RECURRENCE INTERVAL
LOW - WATERSHED
• FLOODPLAIN INUNDATION fi
LONG-TERM SEDIMENT STORAGE
• ENTIRE VALLEY BOTTOM
• 1-10 YEARS RECURRENCE
INTERVAL
NATURAL SEDIMENTARY
LEVEE
| 1 LOCATION OF THE
J ACTIVE RIVER AREA
Figure 3-6 Components and dominant processes of the Active River Area (Smith et al., 2008).
the stream and user-supplied cutoff distances that are determined based on stream size (Strager, Yuill, & Wood,
2000). By considering stream size, the dominant physical processes occurring in each zone of the watershed
are accounted for. Since the extent of riparian wetlands is dependent not only on overbank flows, but also on
ground water and runoff from adjacent uplands, a second technique is used to determine those areas expected
to be wet based on slope and a flow moisture index. Combining these identified areas with the known
occurrence of wetlands from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) data and a distance cutoff based on stream size, riparian-associated wetlands can be identified.
Material contribution areas can also be identified using GIS techniques. The DEM data layer for a watershed
is divided into 10 equal elevation groups. Headwater catchments can be defined based on size relative to the
watershed and inclusion in the appropriate elevation group. The appropriate elevation group and headwater
catchment size depends on area-specific conditions and is determined by the user. For example, a headwater
catchment area of <10 m2 falling mostly within the top 40% of elevation bands could be used as the criteria
for identifying headwater material contribution areas. For the streamside areas not yet included in either of
the above methods, an area with a width of 30-50 meters can be used as a cutoff for identifying streamside
material contribution areas.
These GIS techniques identify the material contribution areas, riparian wetlands, and the combined area
consisting of the meander belt/floodplains/terraces. Distinguishing between the meander belt, floodplains,
and terraces requires more detailed field assessments such as the Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessment
Protocols (Kline, Alexander, Pytlik, Jaquith, & Pomeroy, 2009). However, these simple GIS techniques alone
are enough to delineate the Active River Area and begin to prioritize lands for conservation.
The Nature Conservancy has demonstrated the technique in the Connecticut River Basin to highlight the utility
of the methodology for identifying and prioritizing lands within the Active River Area for conservation actions
(Figure 3-7). The Active River Area was delineated using the GIS techniques described above. A condition
3-14
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
analysis using land cover data was then performed to identify the largest intact areas with minimal developed
or agricultural lands. For example, riparian areas with less than 25% agricultural land use could be considered
most intact and prioritized for conservation. Similarly, headwater areas with less than 1 % impervious surfaces
and less than 5% agricultural land use could be considered very good, while those headwater areas with less
than 3% impervious surfaces and less than 25% agricultural land use could be considered good. This is a
simple method for identifying priority conservation lands within the Active River Area. Other prioritization
methodologies are available to address more specific objectives. Prioritization methodologies should be based
on local knowledge and data whenever possible.
Combining the Active River Area approach with other approaches such as a green infrastructure assessment
or GAP analysis can provide a comprehensive framework for identifying those areas critical for maintaining
watershed and river ecological integrity. Water quality, habitat, and biomonitoring data can further refine
the analysis of healthy components of the watershed. Identifying those areas within the Active River Area
that are not currently protected, but that are comprised of land uses compatible for conservation, as well as
the corridors connecting the Active River Area with other hubs, or habitat patches, on the landscape creates
the outline of a strategy to protect aquatic ecosystems. The Active River Area components can be used to
design freshwater protected areas that support natural disturbance regimes, natural hydrologic and geomorphic
variability, and a connected network of healthy areas.
Active River Area
Riparian Areas and
Headwater Areas
Headwater Areas by Intactness
| Very Good
Good
Largest Riparian Areas by Intactness
• <25% Agriculture
>25% Agriculture
VT
Figure 3-7 The Active River Area in the Connecticut River Basin (Smith et al., 2008).
3-15
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class
Author or Lead Agency: Hann et al., 2008. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, The Nature
Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management
More Information: http://frames.nbii.gov/documents/frcc/documents/FRCC+Guidebook 2008.10.30.pdf
The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) methodology relies upon concepts that define the natural fire regime
as "the role fire would play across a landscape in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention but
including the possible influence of aboriginal fire use." The FRCC field and mapping assessment methods
describe the departure of fire disturbance regime from reference periods or the natural range of variability
(as determined through modeling). These results allow land managers to focus management strategies on
maintaining or restoring the natural disturbance regime of the forest or rangeland ecosystem. These methods
were developed by an interagency working group and The Nature Conservancy, and managed by the National
Interagency Fuels Coordination Group.
The FRCC methodology allows for the assessment of the fire disturbance regime and resultant vegetation
at the stand and landscape scales. Two procedures exist for determining the FRCC. The FRCC Standard
Landscape Worksheet Method provides the background understanding necessary to use the other tools in the
FRCC Guidebook, as well as allows for assessment at both the landscape and stand scales. The FRCC Standard
Landscape Mapping Method determines FRCC based on vegetation departure alone, while the Worksheet
Method assesses both vegetation departure and fire regimes directly. However, methods are under development
for assessing the fire regime through the Mapping Method. Outputs from the Mapping Method are consistent,
objective, and spatially explicit at multiple scales. The Mapping Method can also be employed for larger
geographic scales with much less staff time. Maintenance or restoration of the natural fire regime is important
for preventing severe fires that can destroy entire forest ecosystems, contribute vast quantities of sediment to
streams from surface erosion, and damage public and private infrastructure. Areas that have departed from
their natural fire regime have also been shown to cause excessive build-up of nutrients on the forest floor due
to decomposition of organic matter (Miller et al., 2006). These nutrients can then be transported to aquatic
ecosystems during rainfall/runoff events, causing eutrophic conditions. The continual build-up of nutrients on
the forest floor provides a constant source of pollution to streams and lakes in the watershed. Fire disturbances,
of natural frequency and intensity, remove the excess organic matter causing the nutrient build-up and may
actually improve long-term water quality, although it will be temporarily worsened immediately following
a fire (Miller et al., 2006). These are important considerations for watershed managers seeking to maintain
overall watershed health.
Five natural fire regimes are classified based on frequency and severity, which reflect the replacement of
overstory vegetation (Table 3-3). The natural fire regime for a landscape unit is determined based on its
biophysical setting. A biophysical setting, in the FRCC methodology, is described based on the vegetation
composition and structure associated with particular fire regimes.
Table 3-3 Fire regime groups and descriptions (Hann et al., 2008).
Group Frequency
0-35 Years
Severity
II
III
IV
0-35 Years
35-200 Years
35-200 Years
Low/Mixed
Replacement
Mixed/Low
Replacement
Severity Description
Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25% of the
dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixed-severity
fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory.
High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the
dom inant overstory vegetation.
Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires.
High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the
dom inant overstory vegetation.
200+Years Replacement/Any Severity
3-16
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
The LANDFIRE Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior, 2009) models
reference conditions for biophysical settings for the entire United States based on five characteristic succession
classes of forest and rangeland ecosystems:
1. S-Class A: Early serai, post-replacement.
2. S-Class B: Mid serai, closed canopy.
3. S-Class C: Mid serai, open canopy.
4. S-Class D: Late serai, open canopy.
5. S-Class E: Late serai, closed canopy.
Evaluating the vegetation across the project landscape allows for the delineation of biophysical settings, which
can be compared to the relative amounts of each succession class for reference conditions in that biophysical
setting. For example, Table 3-4 shows the percent coverage of each succession stage (columns A-E) within the
biophysical setting. The last column displays the "fire regime group" for each biophysical setting's reference
conditions, which has a frequency range of 35-200 years and an average severity of mixed to low.
Table 3-4 Example reference condition table (Hann et al., 2008).
Biophysical Setting
Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest & Woodland
Rocky Mountain Lodgepole Pine Forest
Rocky Mountain Alpine Dwarf Shrubland
34%
29%
14%
Fire Regime Group
20% 8% 26% 12% 3
47% 26% 0% 0% 4
86% 0% 0% 0% 5
Weighted averages for percent coverage of succession classes in all biophysical settings within the project
landscape and weighted averages of the fire frequency and severity for all biophysical settings in the project
landscape are used to determine the degree of departure from reference conditions. The FRCC is then
determined based on this degree of departure:
1. FRCC 1: < 33% (within reference condition range of variability).
2. FRCC 2: > 33% to < 66% (moderate departure).
3. FRCC 3: > 66% (high departure).
Management implications are then defined based on the FRCC and relative amount of succession class (Table
3-5). For example, an FRCC of 3 and an abundant amount of the succession class would suggest that thinning
of the forest stand would improve the condition. Conversely, an FRCC of 1 with only trace amounts of the
succession class does not require any action.
Table 3-5 Management implications for the stand-level fire regime condition
class based on the S-Class relative amount (Hann et al., 2008).
S-Class Relative Amount
Trace
Under-represented
Similar
Over-represented
Abundant
Stand FRCC
1
1
1
2
3
Improving Condition if Stand is:
Maintained
Maintained
Maintained
Reduced
Reduced
The relative amount of each S-Class (A, B, C, D, and E) is determined for the stand and evaluated against the
reference conditions for its biophysical setting (e.g., Table 3-4). Five natural fire regimes are classified based
on frequency and severity, which reflect the replacement of overstory vegetation (Table 3-3). The natural
fire regime for a landscape unit is determined based on its biophysical setting. A biophysical setting, in the
FRCC methodology, is described based on the vegetation composition and structure associated with particular
3-17
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
fire regimes (Table 3-4). The FRCC for the stand is then determined based on the departure from reference
conditions (e.g., under-represented or over-represented).
The entire process involves a significant amount of data gathering and input that can be greatly facilitated
through the use of the GIS-based FRCC Mapping Tool. Outputs of the FRCC Mapping Tool include:
1. Succession class relative amount.
2. Succession class relative departure.
3- Stand FRCC.
4. Biophysical setting departure.
5. Biophysical setting FRCC.
6. Landscape departure.
7- Landscape FRCC.
The FRCC Mapping Method provides condition class outputs at three scales (stand, biophysical setting, and
landscape). Figure 3-8 displays an example of the landscape scale output.
The results of the FRCC assessment are used to prioritize fire suppression activities across the United States.
They can also be used to help manage invasive species through the use of controlled burns without destroying
natural ecosystem components. The methodology also provides a foundation on which other disturbance
regime assessments can be built.
Fire Regime Condition Class
Coarse Scale - 2000
Legend
^| Condition Class 1
I | Condition Class 2
^H Condition Class 3
I I Agriculture, Barren, Alpine, & Urban
^H Water
Figure 3-8 National landscape-scale output of the Fire Regime Condition Class Mapping Method. (Hann et al.,
2008).
3-18
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
3.2 Habitat
This section provides summaries for some examples of approaches currently being used to assess habitat. See
Chapter 2 for background information on habitat.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
Headwater streams
maintain water quality,
attenuate flooding,
maintain water
supplies, trap
and retain
sediments,
process
organic
matter, and
maintain
aquatic
biodiversity.
Photo: Adrian Jones, IAN.
Large woody debris
increases stream
habitat diversity,
helps control
the grade of a
stream channel,
and protects
streambanks
from erosion.
Photo: USFS.
Isolated wetlands
provide habitat for
many threatened
and endangered
species,
including plants,
amphibians,
and birds.
Photo: USFWS.
Vegetated riparian
areas provide habitat
for turtles, birds,
and a variety of
fish species;
they also can
trap sediment
and reduce
nutrients
and other
pollutants
from runoff.
Photo: USFWS.
3-19
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Ohio's Primary Headwaters Habitat Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/index.aspx
Ohio EPA's Primary Headwater Habitat (PHWH) Assessment procedure uses a rapid Headwater Habitat
Evaluation Index (HHEI) along with two optional levels of biological assessment (order-family level or genus-
species level) to assign a headwater stream to one of three classes. Primary headwater streams comprise over 80%
of all stream miles in Ohio and provide a variety of ecosystem services and benefits (Meyer, Wallace, Eggert,
Helfman, & Leonard, 2007)- Most primary headwater streams in Ohio have not been assigned a designated
beneficial use. Additionally, due to habitat differences, biological criteria and methods of sampling used in
larger streams are not applicable to many primary headwater streams. In response to these limitations, Ohio
EPA conducted a statewide evaluation of PHWH and developed the HHEI. The HHEI uses a combination
of three habitat variables to predict the presence or absence of an assemblage of cold-cool water adapted
vertebrates and benthic macroinvertebrates. Using the results of the HHEI, a. potential existing aquatic life use
can be assigned to the stream reach. When biological assessment data are available, these data will be used to
determine the actual existing aquatic life use designation.
Primary headwater streams are defined by Ohio EPA as streams having a watershed area of less than one square
mile, with a defined stream bed and bank, and a natural pool depth of less than 40 cm. Streams with a larger
watershed area or natural pool depths greater than 40 cm should be evaluated using the Qualitative Habitat
Evaluation Index, as opposed to the HHEI. For the purposes of the HHEI, stream reaches of up to 200 ft.
should be delineated for assessment. Tributaries of the PHWH stream should be evaluated separately from
the main stem. The evaluation should be conducted at a time when base flow conditions are present. Once
the watershed drainage area has been calculated and the stream reaches delineated, physical habitat conditions
including bank full width, maximum pool depth, and substrate composition are recorded on the PHWH
form. Additional habitat parameters may be measured and recorded if desired. These include gradient, flood
prone width, and pebble counts. Water chemistry, salamander, fish, and macroinvertebrate survey data can also
be collected if desired or deemed appropriate. The data from the HHEI and/or the biological survey data (if
available) should be used to determine the appropriate Class I, II, or III existing aquatic life use designation
(Class III being of the highest quality). The HHEI is calculated based on a scoring system using the bank full
width, maximum pool depth, and substrate composition.
Biological survey data can be collected for a more detailed evaluation of primary headwater streams. A
Headwater Macroinvertebrate Field Evaluation Index can be calculated to refine a PHWH stream classification.
Based on the taxa present, a scoring system places the stream reach into one of the three classes of PHWH. The
presence of cold water fish indicator species automatically places the stream in the Class III PHWH category.
In the absence of fish, aquatic and semi-aquatic salamanders are the primary vertebrate predator functional
group in Ohio's headwater streams. Therefore, a salamander survey is used to evaluate the biological health
of headwater habitats. Three different assemblages of salamander species have been identified by Ohio EPA
as corresponding to the three PHWH Classes. The goal of the salamander survey is simply to document the
presence or absence of the species representing the three assemblages.
The output of the Primary Headwaters Habitat Assessment is a classification of:
• Class I PHWH - ephemeral stream, normally dry channel.
• Class II PHWH - warm water adapted native fauna.
• Class III PHWH - cool-cold water adapted native fauna.
These classifications help to protect Ohio's primary headwater streams through the state's water quality
standards, which are chemically and biologically based.
3-20
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams in Maryland
Author or Lead Agency: Maryland Department of Natural Resources
More Information: http://www.dnr.md.gov/streams/pubs/ea03-4phi.pdf
The Maryland Biological Stream Survey developed a multimetric index to describe stream physical habitat.
The effort resulted in a Physical Habitat Index (PHI) that relates metrics of geomorphology, visual habitat
quality, and riparian condition to classify streams compared to reference conditions in the state. The PHI is
significantly correlated with the benthic IBI and fish IBI. This correlation can help to elucidate the effects of
physical habitat attributes and chemical stressors on biological condition.
Based on the understanding that physical habitat degradation is one of the leading causes of stream impairment,
the Maryland Biological Stream Survey began collecting a variety of physical habitat variables as part of its
routine biomonitoring program in 1994. Based on a statistical evaluation of these data, the Coastal Plain,
Piedmont, and Highland regions were chosen to represent three biologically distinct stream classes. Reference
and degradation criteria were determined based on the amount of forested, agricultural, and urban land use.
Different reference criteria were developed for each of the three stream classes. The metrics selected for each
stream class are shown in Table 3-6. The final PHI for a stream is calculated by averaging the individual metric
scores.
Table 3-6 Metrics for the Physical Habitat Index in each of the three stream classes in Maryland (Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, 2003).
| Coastal Plain
Bank stability
Instream wood
Instream habitat quality
Epibenthic substrate
Shading
Remoteness
Piedmont
Riffle quality
Bank stability
Instream wood
Instream habitat quality
Epibenthic substrate
Shading
Remoteness
Highland |
Bank stability
Epibenthic substrate
Shading
Riparian width
Remoteness
Embeddedness
The relationship between the PHI, fish IBI, and benthic IBI were examined by ecoregion and river basin.
These relationships were found to
be significantly correlated. However,
the degree to which the PHI predicts
fish or benthic IBI depends on the
presence and levels of other stressors,
such as low dissolved oxygen or
high temperatures. Given that the
PHI was found to be significantly
correlated with biological condition,
the analysis was completed statewide
(Figure 3-9). The PHI is used in
Maryland's statewide monitoring and
assessment program and, along with
biological and chemical assessments,
is used to communicate the
condition of Maryland's streams to
the public and decision makers.
Severely Degraded
Degraded
Partially Degraded
Minimally Degraded
Figure 3-9 Map of stream habitat condition in Maryland, as determined
with the Physical Habitat Index (Maryland Biological Stream Survey,
2005).
3-21
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Proper Functioning Condition
Author or Lead Agency: U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Natural Resources
Conservation Service
More Information: ftp://ftp.blm.gov/pub/nstc/techrefs/Final%20TR%201737-9.pdf
The Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment method is a checklist-based evaluation of riparian
wetland functional status that was developed by the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). It is a qualitative, field-based methodology
developed by an interdisciplinary team around the principles of the quantitative Ecological Site Inventory
(Habich, 2001) method. The method was developed with the purpose of restoring and managing riparian
wetlands in 11 western states.
The PFC process requires an interdisciplinary team of soil, vegetation, hydrology, and biology specialists
and follows three overall steps: 1) review existing documents, 2) analyze the PFC definition, and 3) assess
functionality using the checklist. The PFC method defines a riparian wetland area as being in proper
functioning condition when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to:
• Dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing erosion
and improving water quality.
• Filter sediment, capture bedload, and aid floodplain development.
• Improve flood-water retention and ground water recharge.
• Develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action.
• Develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the
water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fish production, waterfowl
breeding, and other uses.
• Support greater biodiversity.
The PFC method evaluates a specific riparian wetland area against its capability and potential. Capability is
defined as "the highest ecological status an area can attain given political, social, or economical constraints,
which are often referred to as limiting factors." Potential is defined as "the highest ecological status a riparian-
wetland area can attain given no political, social, or economical constraints, and is often referred to as the
potential natural community." Restoration goals resulting from the assessment emphasize achievement of the
highest level of functioning given the political, social, or economic constraints that are present. Therefore, PFC
does not necessarily equate to "natural" conditions. Assessing a specific area's capability and potential involves
examination of soils for evidence of previous saturation, frequency and duration of flooding, historic record of
plant and animal species present, relic areas, and historic photos. Table 3-7 contains the 17 components of the
PFC checklist.
Using the checklist and the definition of PFC, an assessment of a riparian wetland results in one of four
ratings:
• Proper functioning condition. • Nonfunctional.
• Functional - at risk. • Unknown.
A rating of proper functioning condition means that the riparian area is stable and resilient at high flow events,
while ratings of functional — at risk or nonfunctional mean that the area is susceptible to damage at medium to
high flow events. Rehabilitation strategies should be developed for areas rated as nonfunctional (e.g., riparian
revegetation). Areas placed in the functional - at risk category should be evaluated for their trend toward
or away from proper functioning condition and the appropriate protection or monitoring strategies put in
place. The results of a PFC analysis can be combined with other types of watershed assessments for a better
understanding of how the riparian and upland areas interact. A PFC analysis is also often used as a screening
level assessment to determine whether or not more intensive, quantitative analyses are necessary.
3-22
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Table 3-7 Proper Functioning Condition checklist worksheet (Bureau of Land Management, 1998).
HYDROLOGY
1) Floodplain above bankfull is inundated in "relatively frequent" events
2) Where beaver dams are present they are active and stable
3) Sinuosity, width/depth ratio, and gradient are in balance with the landscape setting (i.e.,
landform, geology, and bioclimatic region)
4) Riparian-wetland area is widening or has achieved potential extent
5) Upland watershed is not contributing to riparian-wetland degradation
Yes No N/A
VEGETATION
6) There is diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation (recruitment for
maintenance/recovery)
7) There is diverse composition of riparian-wetland vegetation (for maintenance/recovery)
8) Species present indicate maintenance of riparian-wetland soil moisture characteristics
9) Stream bank vegetation is comprised of those plants or plant communities that have root masses
capable of withstanding high stream flow events
10) Riparian-wetland plants exhibit high vigor
11) Adequate riparian-wetland vegetative cover is present to protect banks and dissipate energy
during high flows
12) Plant communities are an adequate source of coarse and/or large woody material (for
maintenance/recovery)
Yes No N/A
EROSION/DEPOSITION
13) Floodplain and channel characteristics (i.e., rocks, overflow channels, coarse and/or large woody
material) are adequate to dissipate energy
14) Point bars are revegetating with riparian-wetland vegetation
15) Lateral stream movement is associated with natural sinuosity
16) System is vertically stable
17) Stream is in balance with the water and sediment being supplied by the watershed (i.e., no
excessive erosion or deposition)
3-23
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Rapid Stream-Riparian Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: Wild Utah Project
More Information: http://wildutahproject.org/files/images/rsra-ug2010v2 wcover.pdf
The Rapid Stream-Riparian Assessment (RSRA) protocol (Stevens et al., 2005 and Stacey et al., 2007) was
developed to provide a mechanism to objectively determine the functional condition of both the aquatic
and riparian components of small and medium sized streams and rivers in the American Southwest and in
other arid and semi-arid regions. It provides a standardized method to evaluate the existing conditions along
a particular reach of river to determine which components of the stream-riparian ecosystem differ from what
would be expected within the reach under geomorphically similar but unimpacted reference conditions. It
also creates a yardstick by which to objectively monitor any future changes within the system that result either
from active restoration programs or from allowing the system to follow its current trajectory under existing
management programs. Because the protocol can be completed in a relatively short time and does not require
specialized and expensive equipment, it is possible to efficiently survey a number of different reaches within
a particular watershed. This can then provide an understanding of both the variation in conditions within a
particular watershed, as well as any potential trends that might indicate cumulative impacts of various activities
upon the stream-riparian ecosystem.
The RSRA utilizes a primarily qualitative assessment based on quantitative measurements made in the field. It
focuses upon five functional components of the stream-riparian ecosystem that provide important benefits to
humans and wildlife and which, on public lands, are often the subject of government regulation and standards.
These components are:
1. Non-chemical water quality and pollution;
2. Stream channel and floodplain morphology and the ability of the system to limit
erosion and withstand flooding without damage;
3. The presence of habitat for native fish and other aquatic species;
4. Riparian vegetation structure and productivity; including the occurrence and relative
dominance of exotic or nonnative species; and
5. Suitability of habitat for terrestrial wildlife, including threatened or endangered
species.
Within each of these areas, the RSRA evaluates between two and seven variables that reflect the overall function
and health of the stream-riparian ecosystem. Variables are measured either along the entire study reach (usually
around 1 kilometer in length, depending on
local conditions) or along 200 meter sample
transects. Each variable is assigned a score from
1 to 5, using pre-defined scoring levels that can
be scaled to the individual geomorphic and
ecological conditions of that particular reach. A
score of 1 indicates that the ecosystem is highly
impacted and non-functional for that variable,
while a score of 5 indicates that the system is
healthy and is functioning in a way that would
be found in a local and geomorphically similar
reference stream that has not been impacted by
human activities. A complete description of the
variables and the methods used to collect and
score them can be found in Stacey et al. (2007).
Examples of RSRA Variables
Overbank co\
Plant community cover and structural diversity
Dominant shrub and tree demography
Non-native herbaceous and woody plant cover
Mammalian herbivory impacts on ground cover
Mammalian herbivory impacts on shrubs and small trees
Riparian shrub and tree canopy cover and connectivity
Fluvial habitat diversity
3-24
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
The RSRA provides information that will be of value to land managers in making policy decisions and to
help provide guidance for potential restoration programs. The protocol considers features or variables that
not only indicate the ability of the system to provide specific functions, but ones that also reflect important
ecological processes within the stream-riparian system. For example, the fish habitat section includes a measure
of the relative amount of undercut banks along the reach. Undercut banks not only provide important habitat
and hiding cover for fish and other aquatic species, but their presence along a reach indicates that the banks
themselves are well vegetated and that there is sufficient root mass from vegetation to allow the development
of the hour-glass shape channel cross-section that is typical of most healthy stream systems. The presence of
this channel shape, in turn, indicates that the fluvial processes of erosion and deposition along that reach are in
relative equilibrium. Thus, when interpreting RSRA surveys, the results of all indicators should be considered
in concert. This will facilitate deciding which parts of the ecosystem within the study reach may be most out
of balance with natural processes and, therefore, which of those parts may be the most important or the most
suitable for future restoration efforts.
In order to increase the number of survey sites that can be sampled, the protocol uses variables that can be
measured rapidly in the field and that do not require specialized equipment. More detailed and extensive
methods have been developed for several of the individual indicators included in this protocol. Many of these
analyses may take one or more days to complete, just for that single variable. However, should any of the
individual indicators be found to be particularly problematic or non-functional in a specific reach using the
RSRA protocol, more specialized methods can be used during subsequent visits to the site in order to collect
additional quantitative information on that particular indicator.
The RSRA protocol measures only the current condition of the ecosystem. It does not base its scores upon
some hypothesized future state or successional trend within the reach, as is done with several other riparian
assessment methods (e.g., the BLM's Proper Functioning Condition assessment). The RSRA method addresses
the ability of the ecosystem to provide some important function at the present time, not whether it would be
likely to do so at some point in the future, if current trends or management practices on the reach continue.
This approach is used because stream-riparian systems are highly dynamic, and they are often subject to
disturbances (e.g., large floods) that can alter successional trends and make predictions of future conditions
on an individual reach highly problematic. Also, by evaluating only current conditions, this protocol can
serve as a powerful tool for monitoring and
measuring future changes in the functional
status of the system. For example, if a particular
set of indicators suggest that a reach is in poor
condition, re-evaluating the system with the same
protocol in subsequent years gives one the ability
to measure the effectiveness of any management
change or active restoration program and to
undertake corrective action if the restoration
efforts are not found to be producing the desired
changes. This type of adaptive management
approach can be extremely challenging if the
evaluation and monitoring measures are based
primarily upon the expectations of some future,
rather than current, condition.
3-25
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Ohio Rapid Assessment Method
Author or Lead Agency: Ohio EPA Division of Surface Water
More Information: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wetlandsAVetlandEcologySection.aspxtfORAM
Having worked through five previous versions of a wetlands assessment methodology based on the Washington
State Wetlands Rating System, Ohio EPA decided to impart a new format and structure on the assessment
process when the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method (ORAM) for Wetlands Version 5-0 was developed. ORAM
is designed to measure the intactness of the hydrologic regime and habitat of a wetland relative to the type
of wetland in question. The basis for ORAM is a ten-page wetland categorization form. The form includes
worksheets that direct the assessor through the process of identifying background information, a scoring
boundary, and a narrative rating for the wetland. The first part of the assessment is to use the wetland's
hydrologic regime to define the boundary of the area to be assessed. Following the six-step process outlined on
the form, the assessor:
1. Identifies the area of interest;
2. Locates physical evidence of rapid changes in hydrology;
3. Delineates a boundary around all areas within and contiguous with the area of
interest that have the same hydrologic regime as the area of interest;
4. Verifies that none of the boundaries of the delineation have been defined using
artificial boundaries;
5. Adjusts the delineation as needed to encompass multiple wetlands for scoring if
appropriate; and
6. Consults the current version of the ORAM manual to ensure that any complex
situations (i.e., patchworks, wetlands bounded by water bodies, wetlands transected
by artificial boundaries, or wetlands that may fit into multiple categories) have been
handled properly.
Once the boundary to be used in the assessment has been defined, the assessor proceeds to awarding the
wetland a narrative rating. Additional information is gathered through site visits, literature searches, and data
requests from relevant agencies. Site visits should be carefully scheduled paying close attention to the possibility
that seasonal changes may affect the assessor's ability to make unbiased observations. The narrative rating uses
the presence or absence of threatened or endangered species to determine whether or not the wetland should be
considered for superior function/integrity status (Category 3). Wetlands that are not candidates for Category
3 are divided between wetlands having moderate function/integrity (Category 2) and wetlands with minimal
function/integrity (Category 1) in the quantitative rating process. As in a dichotomous key, the "Yes" or "No"
questions used in the narrative rating process form a decision tree that solicits responses from the assessor that
set him or her up to be able to answer questions appropriately in the quantitative rating process.
Metrics assessed in the quantitative rating process include:
• Wetland size (6 points);
• Buffer size and intensity of pressure from surrounding land use (14 points);
• Hydrology (30 points);
• Habitat alteration and development (20 points);
• Special wetlands (i.e. bogs, fens, old growth forest) (10 points); and
• Plant communities, interspersion, and microtopography (20 points).
3-26
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
In the hydrology and habitat alteration and development sections of the assessment, there are also tables that
prompt the assessor to identify any disturbances observed during the site visit. After rating the wetland for all
six metrics, the assessor compares the total number of points awarded to the wetland to the set of breakpoints
between categories to place the wetland into one of the same set of three categories used in the narrative
rating process. The categories break according to the following point values for emergent wetland vegetation
communities: 0-11 points (Category 1), 12-16 points (Category 1 or 2), 17-29 points (Category 2), 30-
34 points (Category 2 or 3), and 35 or more points (Category 3). In the case of forested and shrub-scrub
wetlands, the categorical breakpoints are as follows: 0-16.9 points (Category 1), 17-0-19-9 points (Category 1
or 2), 20.0-25-9 points (Category 2), 26.0-28.9 points (Category 2 or 3), and 29-0 or more points (Category
3). In either categorization scheme, a wetland can earn up to a maximum of 100 points. The assessment
questions and point values are based on significant differences in vegetation index of biotic integrity scores,
as developed by Mack et al., (2000). For wetlands that score in point ranges assigned to multiple categories
(i.e., "gray zones"), the wetland is assigned to the higher (lower quality) of the two categories, unless detailed
assessments and narrative criteria justify assigning the wetland to the lower (higher quality) category. Even
with this protocol in place, it remains a possibility that a wetland could be under- or over-categorized because
it in some way defies one of ORAM's underlying assumptions, such as the assumption that human disturbance
degrades biotic integrity and function.
Although the numeric output and wetland categorization drawn from ORAM are neither absolute values
nor comprehensive ratings of ecological and human value, but rather are most useful when interpreted in
the context of all available, relevant information, the results of ORAM assessments nonetheless are useful for
comparing different types of wetlands because scores are derived using standardized procedures. In the State
of Ohio, the ORAM categories are used to divide wetlands into regulatory groups. Different antidegradation
procedures are applicable for Category 1 wetlands, which are held to lower avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation standards because they have been so severely degraded. Many of the wetlands that fall into Category
2 have also been degraded, but have a reasonable potential for successful restoration. Ohio's stormwater runoff
control also only applies to wetlands in Categories 2 and 3, and demonstration of public need for disturbing
a wetland only applies to wetlands in Category 3- In cases where impact cannot be avoided, compensatory
mitigation is required; however, ORAM is not recommended for use beyond the wetland classification process
(i.e., analyzing the success of a mitigation project).
3-27
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
California Rapid Assessment Method
Author or Lead Agency: California Wetland Monitoring Group
More Information: http://www.cramwetlands.org/
Like other rapid assessment methods, the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) uses field indicators to
evaluate the ecological condition of wetlands and associated aquatic resources. CRAM was initially designed for
use in assessing the ambient condition of wetlands of seven main types: depressional, estuarine (separated into
saline and non-saline), lacustrine, playa, riverine and riparian, vernal pool, or wet meadow. More recent work
has focused on the use of CRAM assessment to inform regulatory decisions involving dredge and fill projects
and associated mitigation. The results generated by CRAM for these uses have been found to correspond
well with other biological and landscape disturbance assessments (Stein et al., 2009). The assessment can be
conducted at one of four scales: an individual project, watershed, geographic region, or state. Eight key steps
are involved in implementing CRAM (Collins et al., 2008):
1. Assemble background information about the management history of the wetland.
2. Classify the type of wetland with the assistance of the CRAM user's manual.
3. Determine the appropriate season and other timing aspects of the assessment.
4. Estimate the boundary of the area of assessment.
5. Conduct an office assessment of stressors and on-site conditions of the area of
assessment.
6. Conduct a field assessment of stressors and on-site conditions of the area of
assessment.
7- Complete CRAM scores and perform quality assurance and control procedures.
8. Upload CRAM results to state and regional information systems.
The user's manual (Collins et al., 2008) provides guidance, derived from the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method
(Mack, 2001) on determining what portions of the wetland should be included in the area of assessment(s).
The CRAM software package makes assessments standardized and cost-effective, requiring a team of two
trained professionals to invest half of a day conducting preparations and analyses in the office and half of a
day collecting data in the field. Real-time data collection can be conducted using the PC-based data-entry
and imagery-delivery system eCRAM, which interfaces with the CRAM website and eliminates the need to
produce hard-copy data in the field.
CRAM evaluates wetland condition through an analysis of the size and structural complexity of a wetland
determined through assessments of buffer and landscape context, hydrology, physical structure, and biotic
structure. Several metrics are used to assess each of these four wetland attributes. For each metric, the assessor
matches field observations to one of the condition descriptions (A, B, C, or D) for that metric. Landscape
and buffer context is used to estimate the capacity of area surrounding a wetland to shield it from the impacts
of pollution and pollutants. Hydrology metrics strive to characterize the magnitude, intensity, and duration
of water movement because these hydrologic characteristics affect the wetland's structure as well as the
movement of both nutrients and pollutants through the wetland. The physical structure and biotic structure
of wetlands are assessed for their ability to support ecosystem functioning as indicated by the complexity of
wetland site morphology and plant community composition respectively. The letter grades associated with
each of the descriptions given to the wetland are then converted into ordinal scores that can be added across
metrics to obtain a score for each attribute; the attribute scores are then summed to obtain the wetland's overall
CRAM score. Since the scoring characteristics are consistent regardless of the scale at which the assessment is
conducted, wetland scores are comparable across scales.
3-28
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
The spectrum of output scores from CRAM encompasses ecologically-intact aquatic systems, severely degraded
aquatic systems, and various conditions between these extremes. In the State of California, CRAM scores are
being used to describe trends in wetland
condition over time. When comparing
the CRAM scores of different wetlands, it
is important to consider that the context
of a wetland can degrade its condition.
The stressor checklist developed as part of
CRAM provides assessors with a means
of identifying possible factors that may
be causing a wetland to score poorly.
Similarly, in a regulatory context the
stressor checklist can be used to evaluate
the ecological suitability of sites proposed
for compensatory mitigation.
3-29
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Wyoming Wetland Complex Inventory and Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: Copeland et al., 2010
Wetlands are a key component to assess when evaluating watershed health, as they lay at the intersection
of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Because wetlands support a hybrid of terrestrial and aquatic features, a
disproportionately large number of wildlife species depend on wetlands at some point in their life histories. This
point has been particularly noted in Wyoming, where 90% of the state's wildlife species use wetlands, but most
of the state is arid and lacks the surface hydrology needed to support wetland complexes and riparian habitat
(Hubert, 2004; Nicholoff, 2003). Furthermore, these wetlands face a number of potential threats, including
impacts from surrounding lands that are irrigated, fertilized, or treated with pesticides; urban runoff; dams and
water withdrawals; climate change; permitted mines and underground injection wells; and fragmentation due
to development of oil and gas reserves or residential subdivisions. The need to protect the health of Wyoming's
wetlands is clear; however, with limited resources available to support conservation and management, it is
critical that resources are strategically allocated to the wetlands where protection and restoration will have the
greatest impact.
The Nature Conservancy developed a GIS-based assessment tool to aggregate all the layers of geospatial data
for Wyoming, including current and future conditions that decision makers need to consider when developing
wetland conservation priorities. Evaluating all data in the same manner at a consistent level for each wetland
allows decision makers to compare and rank wetlands for conservation. The assessment is done at the wetland
complex level, which requires that wetlands be mapped and then grouped into complexes. To map Wyoming's
wetlands, National Wetlands Inventory data were merged with National Hydrography Data via a crosswalk
table. The protection status of the assessed wetlands was determined using merged and intersected datasets
from the 1994 Wyoming GAP Analysis, the Bureau of Land Management's Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern, and conservation easement data from Wyoming Land Trusts and the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department. Wetlands were grouped by hydroperiod, and palustrine systems were selected for study in this
assessment. Areas in which the wetland density exceeded one per km2 were designated as wetland complexes.
Several refinements were made to the resulting set of wetland complexes to reach the final set of complexes
shown in Figure 3-10. Wetland complexes less than 200 hectares in size were excluded from the assessment
because the datasets used were poorly suited for such a small scale. On the other hand, the three largest
complexes were partitioned into smaller complexes by ecoregion because they encompassed too much
environmental variability to be assessed as single units. Furthermore, watersheds larger than 40,500 hectares
were split into their sixth level hydrologic unit codes (HUC), although Yellowstone National Park was
maintained as a single unit because it is uniformly managed by the National Park Service.
Each complex was divided into hexagons 259 hectares in size. Distribution data for the 49 species identified
in Wyoming's 2005 Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy were generated using geospatial data such
as ecological systems, watersheds, water features, and elevation to predict the presence of each species in each
hexagon. Shannon's Diversity Index and rare species richness were calculated for each hexagon. The mean
values for these indicators were calculated for each complex, and mean indicator scores were normalized to a
0-100 scale (Figure 3-11).
The most current publicly available geospatial data depicting locations and values of factors known to affect the
functional integrity of wetlands were compiled. This included irrigated lands, urban areas, golf courses, roads,
dams, permitted mines and underground injection permits, potential sources of contamination (e.g., oil and
gas wells, wastewater discharge, hazardous waste sites), pipelines, surface water use, toxic contaminants, and
county-wide pesticide use. Overall landscape condition was assessed for each wetland complex by summing the
scores for individual landscape condition factors and scaling those sums from 1 to 100. Individual condition
factor scores were based on the mean distance between the wetland complex and the landscape condition
factor, and normalizing the distances on a zero to one scale. Area-weighted means were used for county-based
factors.
3-30
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
C~) Wetland Complexes
Wetland Density
High : 28.0121
Low: 0
Figure 3-10 Map of focal wetland complexes shown by wetland density. Density is defined as the unit area of
wetlands divided by the area of the wetland focal complex. The labels are unique wetland IDs (Copeland et al.,
2010). Reprinted with permission of Elsevier.
The assessment also examined the vulnerability of each wetland complex to three key potential environmental
changes: oil and gas development, rural residential subdivision, and climate change. A spatial model of oil and
gas development potential based on geophysical and topographic predictor variables was used to determine
vulnerability to oil and gas development. Each wetland complex was given an area-weighted score based on the
percent of its area that has high (exceeding 75%) potential for oil and gas development. A model forecasting
exurban subdivision development potential in the United States for 2030 was used to identify cells of land
vulnerable to subdivision development. The percent cover of exurban development cells was calculated for
each wetland complex. Lastly, climate change vulnerability was assessed using water balance deficit trends.
Water balance deficit was calculated by subtracting total monthly precipitation (mm) from potential
evapotranspiration for wetland complexes already experiencing drying trends.
Water balance deficit values for all months were summed for each year. The ClimateWizard climate change
analysis tool was used to calculate linear trends in water balance deficit; complexes with a positive trend
(increasing water balance deficit) were treated as vulnerable to climate change. The vulnerability of wetland
complexes to all three land use changes was documented in maps.
3-31
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Number of Wetlands
Condition
(a)
(b)
(d)
Figure 3-11 Wyoming's wetlands ranked by number (a), condition (b), Shannon diversity (c), and rarity (d).
All rankings are presented using the Jenks natural breaks method (Copeland et al., 2010). Reprinted with
permission of Elsevier.
Two other key land uses that impact wetland condition are agriculture and hunting. To quantify agricultural
influence, the area and percent of irrigated lands was calculated for each wetland complex. Hunting potential
was quantified using duck breeding data and duck harvesting data. Where "average indicated breeding pair
density" data were available for duck species, survey areas were given a 10 kilometer buffer and data were
extrapolated to wetland complexes by calculating the maximum buffered survey value per wetland complex. In
addition, the mean annual duck harvest from 2002 to 2005 was calculated within each waterfowl management
area using data provided by the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. The influence of agriculture and
hunting potential were also documented in maps.
The final step of the assessment is to integrate the appropriate individual assessments of biological diversity,
protection status, proximity to sources of impairment, and susceptibility to land use changes to make
conservation decisions. The results highlight wetlands that are supporting high biodiversity, as well as those
that are most vulnerable to degradation. Some wetlands, especially at lower elevations, fall into both of these
categories and would thus make good candidates for protection. It is intended that this assessment will be used
in Wyoming not only by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in the development of its wetland
assessment protocol, but also to inform the State Wildlife Action Plan and nonpoint source pollution control
program. At the national level, assessments such as this one may help establish a trend emphasizing landscape-
scale wetlands mitigation.
3-32
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
3.3 Hydrology
This section provides summaries for some examples of approaches currently being used to assess hydrology. See
Chapter 2 for background information on hydrology.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
Springs are a type
of ground water
dependent
ecosystem that are
characterized by
relatively stable
ground water
discharge,
temperature,
and chemistry.
Photo: USFWS.
Dams can dramatically
alter the natural flow
regime of a river
and disconnect
many aquatic
species from
upstream
habitats.
Photo: Jane Hawkey, IAN.
The natural flow regime
helps to shape
physical habitat,
provides cues
for spawning
and migration,
and maintains
ecosystem
processes.
Photo: BLM.
Lake levels fluctuate
naturally, resulting in
variations in lake
shore vegetation,
including
some plant
species whose
succession is
dependent
upon lake
level cycles.
Photo: Melissa Andreycheck, IAN.
3-33
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
Author or Lead Agency: International Workgroup comprised of Colorado State University, The Nature Conservancy,
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and seven other U.S. and international organizations
More Information: http://www.conserveonline.org/workspaces/eloha
The Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration (ELOHA) is a framework for assessing instream flow needs
at the regional level where in-depth, site-specific studies are not feasible. The approach involves a scientific
and social process for classifying river segments, determining flow-ecology relationships, and identifying
environmental flow targets based on socially acceptable ecological conditions (Figure 3-12). The process is
flexible, allowing the user to choose between a number of tools and strategies for each step of the process.
The concepts put forth in The Natural Flow Regime (Poff et al., 1997) have rapidly gained acceptance in the
scientific and resource management community (see Chapter 2). However, due to the difficulty in determining
the specific flow requirements of a river and its biota, simple "rules of thumb" are still being used in place of
scientifically sound environmental flow requirements for the management of riverine resources (Arthington,
Bunn, Poff, & Naiman, 2006). This poses a great threat to the nation's freshwater biodiversity. Many aquatic
and riparian organisms depend on the natural variability in the flow magnitude, duration, timing, frequency,
and rate of change that characterize the natural flow regime. ELOHA addresses the threats to freshwater
biodiversity through an assessment of flow alteration-ecological response relationships for different types of
rivers. Classifying rivers based on their unaltered hydrology allows for limited ecological information to be
applied to unstudied rivers in the same hydroecological class. This involves the assumption that ecosystems
with similar stream flow and geomorphic characteristics respond similarly to flow alterations.
SCIENTIFIC PROCESS
Step 1. Hydrologic Foundation
Step 2. River Classificat/pn (for each analysis node)
Hydrologic
Classification
Geomorphic
Sub-
classification
*7 River Type /
Sfep 3. Flow Alteration (for each analysis node)
Step 4. Flow-Ecology Relationships
Monitoring
Flow - Ecology
Hypotheses for
each river type
:cological Data
for each
inalysis node
Flow Alteration-Ecological
Response Relationships
for each river type
Acceptable
Ecological
Conditions
Societal
Values and
Management Needs
Figure 3-12 Framework for the Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration Process (Poff et al., 2010). Reprinted
with permission of John Wiley and Sons.
3-34
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
The scientific and social components of the ELOHA framework may be conducted concurrently. The scientific
component involves four steps:
1. Building a hydrologic foundation involves the development of a regional database that
includes daily or monthly stream flow hydrographs from both baseline (i.e., natural)
conditions and developed conditions. The time period of stream flow data should be long
enough to represent climatic variability (typically about 20 years). Sites where biological
data have also been collected should be included in order to facilitate development of
flow alteration-ecological response relationships in step 4. Hydrologic modeling can be
used to extend stream flow records beyond their dates of data collection or to estimate
stream flow records at ungaged sites.
2. Classifying river segments involves grouping rivers according to similar flow regimes
and geomorphic characteristics. A nationwide classification of stream flow regimes (Poff
N. L., 1996) identifies rivers as: 1) harsh intermittent, 2) intermittent flashy or runoff, 3)
snowmelt, 4) snow and rain, 5) superstable or stable ground water, or 6) perennial flashy
or runoff. Other, region-specific, classifications have used temperature (as a surrogate for
flow) and catchment geomorphic characteristics to classify stream types (Zorn, Seelbach,
Rutherford, Willis, Cheng, & Wiley, 2008).
3. Compute hydrologic alteration as the percentage deviation of developed flows from
baseline flows for each river segment. Use a small set of flow statistics that are strongly
correlated with ecological conditions (e.g., frequency of low flow conditions, etc.).
4. Develop flow alteration-ecological response relationships by associating the degree of
hydrologic alteration with changes in ecological condition for each river type. Ecological
data can come from aquatic invertebrate or fish biomonitoring, riparian vegetation
assessments, or other sources, but should be sensitive to flow alteration and able to
be validated with monitoring data. Expert knowledge and a literature review should
supplement ecological data.
The social component of ELOHA involves three steps:
1. Determining acceptable ecological conditions involves a stakeholder process for
identifying the goals for each river segment or river type. ELOHA does not attempt to
protect or restore pristine conditions in all rivers. It recognizes society's needs for water
as well. Therefore, some amount of degradation may be acceptable to stakeholders in
some rivers, while other rivers will receive the highest degree of protection.
2. Development of the environmental flow targets is based on the ecological condition
goals determined in the stakeholder process. The flow alteration-ecological response
curves translate acceptable ecological condition into allowable degree of flow alteration.
3. Implementation of environmental flow management incorporates the environmental
flow targets into existing or proposed water policies and planning.
There are many instances where stream flow data are not available for computing the flow statistics required
to implement the methodology. A number of tools have been developed to address this, including rainfall-
runoff models such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool and Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran; water
budget models such as the Colorado River Decision Support System (CROSS); and regression models such as
the Massachusetts Sustainable Yield Estimator (SYE) (The Nature Conservancy, 201 Ib). The Massachusetts
Sustainable Yield Estimator was developed as a USGS/Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
collaboration to estimate the unimpacted daily hydrograph for any stream in southern New England, gaged
or ungaged. Basin characteristics were related to the flow duration curves in gaged streams in order to estimate
the flow duration curve in ungaged streams. The tool can be used to evaluate the impacts of proposed and
existing withdrawals to determine the baseline stream flow conditions needed for aquatic habitat integrity and
to estimate inflows to drinking water supply reservoirs for safe yield analyses at ungaged locations (Archfield,
2009).
3-35
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
A variety of tools are available for assessing the degree of flow alteration including USGS' Hydroecological
Integrity Assessment Process (HIP) and The Nature Conservancy's Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA).
The IHA examines 67 biologically relevant flow statistics, quantified in terms of their magnitude, duration,
timing, frequency, and/or rate of change. All 67 flow statistics may be evaluated for pre- and post-development
timeframes and are compared to calculate the degree of hydrologic alteration. IHA is available as a free
download from TNC.
USGS' HIP uses a Hydrologic Index Tool (HIT) to calculate 171 biologically relevant stream flow statistics,
stream classification, and a Hydrologic Assessment Tool (HAT) to determine the degree of departure from
baseline conditions. The two tools are available for download from USGS (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009b)
and allow the user to calculate all 171 hydroecological indices using daily and peak stream flow data imported
directly from the National Water Information System (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009b). 10 statistically
significant, non-redundant, hydroecologically relevant indices are then chosen out of these 171. These 10
indices may include:
1. Magnitude of: 3- Duration of:
• Average flow conditions. • Low flow conditions.
• Low flow conditions. • High flow conditions.
• High flow conditions. 4. Timing of:
2. Frequency of: • Low flow conditions.
• Low flow conditions. • High flow conditions.
• High flow conditions. 5- Rate of change in flow events.
Stream classification in the HIP is conducted according to Poff (1996) and requires user expertise in hydrology.
USGS will work with state agencies and other organizations to develop their own stream classification tool to
facilitate the classification process. Such a tool was created in New Jersey. Similarly, a state-specific HAT was
created in New Jersey and can also be created for any other state wishing to do so (Henriksen et al., 2006).
However, in the absence of a state-specific HAT, the National HAT can be used. This tool helps to determine
the degree of departure in stream flow from baseline conditions if they have been determined, for example, via
rainfall-runoff modeling
The HAT can be used to evaluate alternative flow management scenarios. This evaluation can be as simple
as modifying the flow data in a spreadsheet and re-importing the data into the tool or can involve the use
of a sophisticated watershed model for simulating future stream flow under different land use, climate, or
withdrawal conditions.
ELOHA advances the state of the science by relating ecologically relevant flow statistics from IHA or HIP
to biological responses in the riverine or riparian system. The outcome of the ELOHA process is a set of
ecological-flow standards for different river types and ecological condition goals determined from the flow
alteration-ecological response relationships and the acceptable ecological conditions determined through the
social process. Environmental flow standards are then implemented through protection or restoration strategies
as part of an overall water policy.
The case study from Michigan (see next page) provides an example of the practical application of an ELOHA-
like framework. The Michigan case study is the closest example to date of carrying the science process through
to policy implementation, but it differs significantly from ELOHA in: 1) only fish, not entire biological
communities were assessed; 2) only minimum flows were examined, and; 3) current condition is considered
"baseline" so flow restoration is not a goal.
3-36
-------
Case Study
A Regional Scale Habitat Suitability Model to
Assess the Effects of Flow Reduction on Fish
Assemblages in Michigan Streams
More Information: Zorn et al., 2008 (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/
RR2089 268570 7.pdfi
In response to the 2001 Annex to the Great Lakes
Charter of 1985, the State of Michigan enacted Public
Act 33 of 2006. This Act required the creation of an
assessment model to determine the potential effects of
water withdrawals on the aquatic natural resources of
the state. Fish were chosen as the indicator of stream
health because they are widely recognized as indicators
of stream health by scientists and are known and
appreciated by the general public. The state's Ground
Water Conservation Advisory Council was charged
with the development of this assessment model.
Many of the same steps outlined by the ELOHA
process were followed to build a hydrologic
foundation, classify river segments based on similar
ecological characteristics, and develop flow alteration-
ecological response curves for each river type. River
segments were delineated and classified based
on relationships between fish species and water
temperature in Michigan according to the following
four categories:
• Cold = July mean water temperature
<63-5°F (17-5°C). The fish community is
nearly all coldwater fishes; small changes
in temperature do not affect species
composition.
• Cold-transitional = July mean water
temperature >63-5°F (17-5°C) and
<67°F (19-5°C). The fish community is
mostly coldwater fishes, but some warm
water fishes are present; small changes in
temperature cause significant changes in
species composition.
• Cool (or warm-transitional) = July mean
water temperature >67°F (19-5°C) and
<70°F (21.0°C). The fish community
is mostly warm water fishes, but some
coldwater fishes are present; small
changes in temperature cause significant
changes in species composition.
• Warm = July mean water temperature
>70°F (21.0°C). The fish community is
nearly all warm water fishes and is not
affected by small changes in temperature.
Each of the approximately 9,000 river segments was
also given a size classification as follows:
• Stream = Segment catchment area <80
mi2 (207 km2).
• Small river = Segment catchment area
>80 mi2 (207 km2) and <300 mi2 (777
km2).
• Large river = Segment catchment area
>300 mi2 (777 km2).
The resulting 11 temperature-size categories are
the classification upon which the flow alteration-
ecological response modeling was then performed
(Figure 3-13).
Using catchment size, baseflow yield, July mean
temperature, and fish survey data, impacts to fish
species and assemblages were predicted for 10%
incremental reductions in base flow for each river
type. The flow alteration-ecological response curves
(Figure 3-14) developed from this modeling analysis
were used as a basis for determining, for each river
type, the level of flow reduction that would cause
Continued on page 3-38
3-37
-------
an Adverse Resource Impact on the fish community.
The river-type specific, flow reduction limits were
linked to a database with flow predictions for rivers
statewide and a model that predicts effects of ground
water pumping on stream flow (the hydrologic
foundation) to develop a water withdrawal assessment
tool. This water withdrawal assessment tool is
available as an online decision support system for use
by proposed water users to determine whether the
impacts of proposed withdrawals combined with all
existing withdrawals will cause degradation of fish
communities beyond the allowable amount.
Using the water withdrawal assessment tool, Michigan
policy makers are able to use sound science to
determine maximum allowable withdrawal amounts
that will maintain fish communities well into the
future.
0.00
025
0.50
075
100
Figure 3-14 Example flow alteration-ecological
response curves from Michigan (Zorn et al., 2008).
For this river type, an Adverse Resource Impact (10%
decline in the fish community metric) occurs when
the index flow declines by about 23%.
Cold stream
Cold small river
Cold transitional stream
Cold transitional small river
Cold transitional large river
Warm transitional stream
Warm transitional small river
Warm transitional large river
Warm stream
Warm small river
Warm large river
Figure 3-13 Thermal and fish assemblage based classification of
streams, small rivers, and large rivers in Michigan (Zorn et al., 2008).
3-38
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Texas Instream Flow Program
Author or Lead Agency: Texas Water Development Board
More Information: http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water supply/water rights/eflows/resources.html
Recognizing the substantial risk imposed on the State of Texas by rapid population growth and resultant water
shortages, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 2 to establish the Texas Instream Flow Program (TIFP) in
2001. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and
Texas Water Development Board are primarily responsible for the development and implementation of the
Instream Flow Program, which relies on "multidisciplinary studies, considering a range of spatial and temporal
scales, focusing on essential ecosystem processes, and recommending a flow regime to meet study goals and
objectives." These studies are conducted on individual sub-basins, recognizing that assessment methods must
be consistent across the state, but adaptable to accommodate the diversity of aquatic ecosystems in Texas.
Due to the relatively long time frame required to conduct the sub-basin studies under the TIFP, Senate Bill
3 was enacted in 2007 to provide for an aggressive, adaptive management process for generating regulatory
environmental flow standards based on the best science currently available. In accordance with this statute,
each of the state's basins has a Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committee (BBASC), which appoints a Basin
and Bay Expert Science Team (BBEST) to conduct environmental flow analyses and recommend flow regimes
based solely on the best available science. The BBESTs are not permitted to consider other water needs, such as
drinking water, irrigation, recreation, etc. Once the BBEST makes their recommendations, the BBASC then
considers these other water needs along with the science-based environmental flow recommendations to make
balanced flow management recommendations to the TCEQ. TCEQ then adopts environmental flow standards
for each river basin and bay through a public rule-making process. Since the statute requires that the BBEST
complete its work within one year and the BBASC complete its work six months later, environmental flow
standards can be set before a TIFP sub-basin study has been completed.
The sub-basin studies conducted under the TIFP, which are carried out separately from, but strongly influence,
the BBEST studies, focus on hydrology, geomorphology, biology, water quality, and four environmental
flow components (Table 3-8). Connectivity and scale (spatial and temporal) are also considered. There are
Table 3-8 The four primary environmental flow components considered in the Texas Instream Flows Program
and their hydrologic, geomorphic, biological, and water quality characteristics (Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Texas Water Development Board, 2008).
Component
Subsistence flows
Hydrology
Infrequent, low flows
Geomorphology
Increase deposition
of fine and organic
particles
Biology
Provide restricted
aquatic habitat; Limit
connectivity
Water Quality
Elevate temperature and
constituent concentrations;
Maintain adequate levels
of dissolved oxygen
Base flows
High flow pulses
Overbank flows
Average flow
conditions, including
variability
In-channel, short
duration, high flows
Infrequent, high
flows that exceed the
channel
Maintain soil moisture
and ground water
table; Maintain a
diversity of habitats
Maintain channel
and substrate
characteristics; Prevent
encroachment of
riparian vegetation
Provide lateral
channel movement
and floodplain
maintenance; Recharge
floodplain water table;
Form new habitats;
Flush organic material
into channel; Deposit
nutrients in floodplain
Provide suitable
aquatic habitat; Provide
connectivity along
channel corridor
Serve as recruitment
events for organisms;
Provide connectivity
to near-channel water
bodies
Provide new life phase
cues for organisms;
Maintain diversity of
riparian vegetation;
Provide conditions for
seedling development;
Provide connectivity to
floodplain
Provide suitable in-channel
water quality
Restore in-channel water
quality after prolonged low
flow periods
Restore water quality in
floodplain water bodies
3-39
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Stage 1: Identify and Engage Stakeholders
Stage 2: Conduct Sub-basin Orientation Meetings
Reconnaissance and Information
Evaluation
StageS: Establish Sub-basin Workgroups
and Conduct Study Design Workshops
Goal Development Consistent with
SoundEcological Environment
Study Design
Stage 4: Conduct Data Collection Workshops/Field
Demonstrations (by request)
essentially four steps in the process of conducting a sub-basin study (blue boxes in Figure 3-15) and hydrology,
geomorphology, biology, and water quality are all considered at each step. In addition, stakeholder involvement
and peer review are incorporated throughout the process (yellow and pink boxes in Figure 3-15)- The end
result is a flow regime prescription that includes targets for each of the four environmental flow components:
subsistence flows, base flows, high flow pulses, and overbank flows.
The primary objective of the subsistence flow component is to maintain water quality. Hydrologic and water
quality models are used to relate biologically-relevant water quality constituents to low flow conditions so that
flow management guidelines that maintain these constituents within their natural range can be identified.
The primary objective of the
base flow component is to ensure
adequate habitat conditions,
including their natural variability.
GIS-based physical habitat models
are used along with biological
and geomorphic data collected
in the field to determine the
habitat versus flow relationships
specific to each river basin. Flow
management guidelines are
developed (often for wet, average,
and dry conditions) to ensure
that base flows adequately protect
the target species or guilds. The
primary objective of the high flow
pulse component is to maintain
physical habitat and longitudinal
connectivity. Hydrologic statistics
that characterize the magnitude,
frequency, timing, and shape of
high flow pulses can then be used
along with geomorphic data and
sediment budgets to ensure that
habitat structure and connectivity
adequately support the aquatic
biota. The primary objective of the
overbank flows component is to
maintain riparian areas and lateral
connectivity with the floodplain.
Geomorphic studies that
characterize the active floodplain
and channel processes are used
with flood frequency statistics to
model the extent of inundation
during flood events.
Multidisciplinary Data Collection
and Evaluation
StageS: Conduct Data Integration Workshops
Data Integration to Generate
Flow Recommendations
Draft Study Report
Stage 6: Review Study Report
+
Final Study Report
E
Next Steps:
Implementation, Monitoring, and
Adaptive Management
Figure 3-15. Diagram of the Texas Instream Flows Program process.
Blue boxes represent the four primary steps, green boxes represent
deliverables, yellow boxes represent public outreach components,
and pink boxes represent peer review steps (Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Texas
Water Development Board, 2008).
3-40
-------
Case Study
San Antonio River Basin
More information: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/instreamflows/sanantonioriverbasin.html
The San Antonio River Basin occupies 14 counties
in south central Texas and has experienced rapid
population growth and development over the past
several decades. The increased use of ground water
to support this rapid development, combined with
increased areas of impervious surface, has led to
increased base flows as a result of the dramatically
increased wastewater return flows. Depending on
future water management policies in the basin, this
trend could continue (as population grows even
further) or reverse (if water reuse policies are put in
place). Based on these concerns, development of
a TIFP sub-basin study design for the San Antonio
River Basin began in 2006. A BBASC was named in
the fall of 2009, a BBEST was named in the spring
of 2010, the BBEST recommendations report was
submitted on March 1, 2011, and the BBASC
recommendations report was submitted on September
1,2011.
To maintain consistency with the separate TIFP
sub-basin study, the BBEST selected indicators
representing hydrology, biology, water quality, and
geomorphology for the larger Guadalupe River Basin,
San Antonio River Basin, San Antonio—Nueces
Coastal Basin, San Antonio Bay, and the Mission,
Copano, and Aransas Bays (the GSA Basins). The
first step in the assessment was to select flow gages for
which environmental flow recommendations would
be developed. Sixteen USGS gages in the GSA Basins
were selected, ensuring that a range of hydrologic,
water quality, geomorphic, and biological conditions
were represented. Using the Hydrology-based
Environmental Flow Regimes (HEFR) methodology,
initial recommendations were developed based on
the long-term hydrologic data collected from the
USGS gages. The HEFR methodology involves
hydrograph separation to parse the hydrograph
into components that provide the ecological
functions described in Table 3-8. This facilitates
characterization of the four flow regime components:
subsistence flows, base flows, high flow pulses, and
overbank flows. Additional steps in the HEFR
methodology include selection of an appropriate
period of record and selection of the appropriate
length and number of seasons for development
of environmental flow recommendations. Once
the initial flow recommendations were developed
through the HEFR process, a number of ecological
"overlays" were developed and used to refine the flow
recommendations as necessary.
A Biology Overlay was developed based on habitat
suitability curves. Habitat suitability curves are
created by identifying habitat guilds, or groups of
species using similar habitats, and relating habitat
characteristics to different hydrologic conditions.
For example, the Texas Logperch and Burrhead
Chub both rely on shallow riffle habitat for critical
stages of their life. Fish abundance and associated
depth, velocity, and substrate data are compiled
from multiple studies to determine the relationship
between fish use and habitat characteristics. A focal
species is then selected for each habitat guild and
the species-specific habitat suitability curves are used
as the basis for defining overall habitat guild habitat
suitability curves. Habitat-discharge relationships are
then determined through physical habitat modeling
and, finally, results of the HEFR analysis are used to
estimate habitat availability for various discharges at
the sixteen flow recommendation sites.
A Water Quality Overlay was also developed by the
BBEST. This involved regression analyses between
water quality variables of concern and flow. Dissolved
oxygen, pH, conductivity, temperature, ammonia-
nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total kjeldahl
nitrogen were all evaluated. Results of these analyses
showed no significant relationships and thus do not
impact the environmental flow recommendations.
For the BBEST Geomorphology Overlay, sediment
transport was evaluated with sediment rating curves.
Sediment rating curves allow for an examination of
relationships between flow and transport of sediments
of various sizes. Combined with a flow duration
curve, sediment rating curves can be used to estimate
effective discharge — "the (relatively narrow) range of
flows from the entire range of flows associated with
some hydrologic condition that transports the most
sediment over time." This can be thought of as the
channel forming flow that must be attained in order
Continued on page 3-42
3-41
-------
to maintain stream channel shape over time. Current
and proposed flow regimes can then be evaluated to
determine their impact on the shape of the stream
channel. It was found that maintaining the effective
discharge within +/- 10% of current conditions
requires a flow regime that does not fall below 80%
of the current average annual water yield. While this
information was included in the BBEST report, there
was no formal recommendation to maintain 80% of
the current average annual water yield.
The results of the biological, water quality, and
geomorphology overlays were compared with the
initial HEFR recommendations and modifications
were made to ensure protection of these attributes.
In order to account for variable hydrologic
conditions, high, medium, and low flow criteria
were determined. These flow levels are calculated
on the first day of each season and are based on the
previous 12-months of flow data. High flow pulse and
overbank flow recommendations are not subject to
these hydrologic conditions. The final environmental
flow recommendations were then developed for the
16 USGS gage sites in the Guadalupe-San Antonio
system (Figure 3-16).
These matrices form the quantitative recommendations
of the BBEST. Details on the implementation of these
values are included in the recommendations report.
Most importantly, these flow values are solely intended
as pass-through conditions on new and amended
water rights. They are not intended or expected to
be achieved all of the time and these pass-through
conditions will not be imposed on existing water
rights. These matrices were subsequently modified
by the BBASC and both reports are under review at
TCEQ for future rule-making.
Qp: 1,520 cfs with Avera
Frequency 1 per season
Regressed Volume is 12,800
Duration Bound is 19
Qp: 3,540 cfs with Average
Frequency 1 per season
Regressed Volume is 30,000
Duration Bound is 24
Qp: 1,640 cfs with Average
Frequency 1 per season
Regressed Volume is 11,200
Duration Bound is 16
Qp: 2,320 cfs with Average
Frequency 1 per season
Regressed Volume is 17,600
Duration Bound is 19
Qp: 550 cfs with Average
Frequency 2 per season
Regressed Volume is 3,940
Duration Bound is 11
Qp: 1,570 cfs with Average
Frequency 2 per season
Regressed Volume is 11,300
Duration Bound is 16
Qp: 750 cfs with Average
Frequency 2 per season
Regressed Volume is 4,450
Duration Bound is 10
Qp: 780 cfs with Average
Frequency 2 per season
Regressed Volume is 5,070
Duration Bound is 11
High (75th %ile
Medium (50th %ile)
Low (25th %ile)
Subsistence
Notes:
1. Period of Record used: 1/1/1940 to 12/31/1969.
2. Volumes are in acre-feet and durations are in days.
Figure 3-16. Environmental flow regime recommendations for the San Antonio River at Goliad
(GSA BBEST, 2011).
3-42
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Hydrogeomorphic Classification of Washington State Rivers
Author or Lead Agency: University of Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Australian
Rivers Institute, Skidmore Restoration Consulting, United States Geologic Survey, and The Nature Conservancy
More Information: Reidy Liermann et al., 2011
Hydrologic classification is a necessary prerequisite to the development of regional environmental flow rules. By
determining the stream flow characteristics common amongst rivers across a state or region, limited ecological
response data can be extrapolated to other streams and rivers with similar flow regimes. In addition to the
stream flow characteristics common amongst rivers, aquatic habitat is also strongly influenced by geomorphic
characteristics. Thus, classification systems based on both hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics result in
improved resolution of flow alteration — ecological response relationships used in the development of regional
environmental flow standards.
Scientists from the University of Washington, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Australian
Rivers Institute, Skidmore Restoration Consulting, United States Geologic Survey, and The Nature
Conservancy developed a statewide hydrogeomorphic classification for streams and rivers in Washington State.
In addition to predicting the unregulated hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics of ungaged streams, the
classification incorporates climate change projections and potential reassignment of streams to different flow
classes in the future. The classification fills data gaps across the state at the resolution of practical management
units that will support the development of regional environmental flow protection programs that are flexible
and responsive to the expected ecological responses that will result from climate change.
Sixty-four reference gages were first selected out of a total of 372 stream gages with long-term (>15 years)
flow records. The upstream catchment areas were delineated for all gages and those with no more than one
dam regulating <5% mean annual discharge, <10% urban or agricultural land use, and <20% water rights
or permits allocation were identified as reference gages. With a goal of maximizing the spatial coverage of
reference stream gages, these criteria were then relaxed somewhat to ensure that a sufficient number of gages
encompassed all ecological drainage units in the state.
Hydrologic classification was performed using Bayesian mixture modeling and a classification tree based on
recursive partitioning (Figure 3-17), while the geomorphic classification was based on whether a channel is
able to migrate and create a floodplain or not. This was determined based on estimates of the confinement
ratio using a digital elevation model, precipitation, and field measured geomorphic data. The hydrologic and
geomorphic classifications were then combined into a 14-tier hydrogeomorphic classification. Other than
elevation, drainage basin characteristics did not prove to be as strong predictors of hydrogeomorphic class as
the climatic variables. This is in contrast to hydrogeomorphic classifications conducted in other states. The
interactive effects of elevation and precipitation variables in the classification are a result of snowpack typically
melting later in the season at higher elevations. The timing and magnitude of this snowmelt runoff are the most
influential hydrologic metrics in the classification. This suggests that climate change may result in significant
changes to the hydrologic regimes of Washington streams and rivers if high elevation snowmelt occurs earlier
in the season.
3-43
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
I •
March Precipitation £ 261.7 mm
• I I ~
March Precipitation < 185.6 mm
Rainfall
r>=7
Rain-Snow
n=17
January Temperature
> -5.0 °C *
Naturalized
Hydrologic Classes
i i Ultra-Snowmelt
^^H Snowmelt
i i Snow-with-Rain
i i Snow-and-Rain
I I Rain-with-Snow
I I Rainfall
^^H Groundwater
Annual Snow
Depth < 1,741 mm**
Snow&Rain
Minimum Winter n=14
Temperature < -7.7 °C
Groundwater
r>=3
Snow-Rain
n=7
u
Ultra- Snowmelt
Snowmelt n=w
n=6
Figure 3-17 Classification tree showing the seven naturalized hydrologic classes. Combined
with the geomorphic classification distinguishing between migrating and non-migrating
channels, the number of stream classes doubles (Reidy Liermann et al., 2011).
Shifts in hydrologic class as a result of climate change were predicted using both high and low emissions
scenarios produced from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's ensemble of global circulation
models. The projected changes in precipitation, temperature, and snowfall were input into the random forest
classifier (i.e., collection of classification trees) to produce the projected future hydrologic classification. Results
from both climate change scenarios indicated large-scale shifts from streams dominated by snowmelt runoff to
streams dominated by rainfall runoff. The number of streams that are currently classified as 'ultra-snowmelt',
for example, decreased by 86% while streams currently classified as 'rainfall' increased by over 125%. Ground
water-dominated streams were relatively insensitive to climate changes.
The results of the climate change analysis are generally consistent with other findings for the region and allow
for management planning at the reach scale. The affected stream reaches represent one third of the state's total
river miles and alteration of their flow regimes will have large effects on the timing of water availability. This
will have far-reaching effects on both humans and aquatic ecosystems, as earlier snowmelt will result in less
runoff to water supply reservoirs during the summer months and loss of biological refugia during summer low
flows. For example, five Pacific Northwest salmon and steelhead species are currently listed as threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act. With flow alteration cited as the primary cause of their decline,
the ability to target specific management actions to specific stream classes that these species depend on will be
critical.
3-44
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Ground Water Dependent Ecosystems Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: http://tinyurl.com/GDE-Workspace
Ground water is a vital source of water that sustains ecosystems, aquatic species, and human communities
worldwide. Wetlands, rivers, and lakes often receive inflow from ground water; it provides late-summer flow
for many rivers, and creates cool water upwelling critical for aquatic species during the summer heat. These
species and ecosystems that rely on ground water discharge for water quantity or quality are collectively called
ground water dependent ecosystems, or GDEs.
The Nature Conservancy has developed tools to map and understand GDEs at two scales. At the landscape
scale (i.e., multiple adjacent watersheds), a GIS-based assessment tool is available to identify and map all
types of GDEs and the land uses and human activities that threaten their ecological integrity. At the scale of
individual watersheds, tools are available to assist in understanding ground water processes and characterizing
the ground water requirements of individual GDEs. These tools were developed and tested in the Pacific
Northwest; detailed analyses are available for Oregon and similar assessments were developed in Washington
and California. The assessment tools should be transferable to most watersheds, providing technical expertise is
available to ensure that the local hydrogeologic context is adequately incorporated.
Landscape scale assessment. The Oregon Groundwater Dependent Biodiversity Spatial Assessment (Brown ].,
Wyers, Bach, & Aldous, 2009a) is a GIS-based screening methodology that uses existing datasets to identify
and locate ground water-dependent ecosystems and describe threats to their integrity and sustainability. It
describes the assessment processes, and includes a detailed description of the GIS-based analysis methods. A
companion document, Atlas of Oregon Groundwater Dependent Biodiversity and Associated Threats (Brown ].,
Wyers, Bach, & Aldous, 2009b; Brown, J., Bach, Aldous, Wyers, DeGagne, 2011) contains all of the maps
that were produced using this assessment protocol for Oregon. The assessment is focused on the landscape scale
and relies on readily available data sets. These data include physical parameters (e.g., soils, geology, topography,
surface hydrology, and hydrogeology), and biological data (e.g., species distributions maps of wetlands and
springs, and vegetated land cover).
The analysis is carried out in two steps. First, data are analyzed to determine the distribution of GDEs across
the landscape. Obligate GDEs, such as springs, are ground water-dependent regardless of where they occur.
Facultative GDEs such as certain wetlands, rivers, and lakes, may be fed by ground water, depending on their
hydrogeologic setting. Thus, further analysis is required to evaluate whether these ecosystems are GDEs. The
assessment includes analysis tools for determining whether a specific ecosystem is ground water-dependent.
Once each freshwater ecosystem is coded as being a GDE or not, the data are aggregated at the HUC12 scale.
This is done to better understand the relative importance of ground water in different areas of the landscape.
A rule set was developed to classify HUC12 units that contain relatively high densities of GDEs (Table 3-9).
The specific rule sets may need to be modified for other landscapes, depending on the relative distribution of
GDEs. Once each HUC12 was coded as containing GDEs, the data were further aggregated by number of
GDE types within the HUC (Figure 3-18). For example, a green HUC12 has three types of GDEs, and can
include springs, a wetland, and a river that are all ground water-dependent.
Table 3-9 Criteria used to identify HUC12s in Oregon where ground water is important for
freshwater ecosystems (Brown et al., 2009a).
Springs Contains >1 spring/2236 ha (5525 acres)
Wetlands Contains a fen OR Area of ground water dependent wetlands >1% of HUC12 area
Rivers Contains ground water dependent river
Lakes Contains a lake
Species and communities Contains an obligately ground water dependent species or community
3-45
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Figure 3-18 Ground water dependent ecosystem clusters (blue through red). Number of ground water
dependent ecosystems present in each HUC12, per criteria in Table 3-9 (Brown et al., 2009a).
The second step in this landscape-scale assessment is to identify and map threats to ground water and GDEs.
The ecological integrity of GDEs may be impacted by activities that threaten their essential ecological
attributes, specifically from alterations to water quantity, water quality (chemistry and temperature), and direct
habitat destruction. Specific methods are included for evaluating current and potential future threats such as
ground water extraction for irrigation and domestic use, as well as contamination from nutrients, pesticides,
and toxic chemicals. This analysis uses available data of the human fingerprint on the landscape (e.g., land
use; municipal, agricultural, and industrial water uses; population projections; and waste disposal types and
locations).
In some cases, further analyses were required to evaluate the threat of certain activities to GDEs. One example
is the effect of pesticides on GDEs. Very few data are available quantifying the presence of agricultural
pesticides in ground water outside of drinking water systems. For any one of these pesticides to pose a threat to
a GDE, it must be mobile in ground water, toxic to aquatic life, and have the potential to move from its source
to the GDE. Therefore, the 43 pesticides registered for agricultural uses in Oregon were evaluated. Of those,
10 were mobile in ground water and toxic to aquatic life. HUC12 reporting units that have soils with low
potential to retain those 10 pesticides (meaning they would be easily transported in ground water) were then
identified. Finally, HUC12 reporting units meeting all three of the following criteria were identified: at least
one of the 10 mobile pesticides is applied in the HUC, the soils do not retain the pesticides, and GDE clusters
are present. GDEs in these HUCs are at highest risk of pesticide contamination.
3-46
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Watershed scale assessment. The Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Methods Guide (Brown ]., Wyers, Aldous,
& Bach, 2007) was developed to help resource managers and conservation groups identify site-specific
GDEs, understand their ecological requirements, and incorporate this information into water resources and
biodiversity conservation plans. The assessment is focused on the watershed or project scale, and utilizes
more site-specific information than the landscape scale assessment. This protocol includes three sections: 1)
determining if ecosystems within the planning area are GDEs, 2) characterizing the ground water requirements
of each type of GDE, and 3) understanding and mapping the ground water flow systems that provide ground
water discharge to those GDEs.
The assessment provides a set of decision trees for evaluating whether an ecosystem is dependent on ground
water. This involves a series of yes/no questions in sequence, similar to a dichotomous key used in plant or
animal taxonomy. Individual decision trees are provided for wetlands, rivers, lakes and species. An example
decision tree is provided for rivers (Figure 3-19). As described above, springs and subterranean ecosystems are,
by definition, ground water-dependent.
Once an ecosystem or species has been determined to be a GDE, characterizing its ground water requirements
is an important step in protecting and/or restoring its ecological integrity, and in conducting adaptive
management of that resource. This is done by identifying the essential ecological attributes, or EEAs,
identifying measurable indicators that can be used to track the status of the EEAs over time, and describing a
desired future condition for each of those EEAs.
While different types of GDEs will have different EEAs, two categories of EEAs are common to all GDEs:
water quantity and water quality. Water quantity is a function of the hydrogeology of the contributing area
and ground water discharge to the ecosystem, and water quality is generally expressed in terms of the water
chemistry or water temperature. Indicators specific to a particular GDE can be developed based on these two
EEAs. Table 3-10 provides an example for ground water-dependent rivers.
Finally, the ground water flow system can be characterized to understand the context of the GDE in relation to
its ground water sources. This includes identifying ground water recharge and discharge areas and developing
conceptual ground water flow paths. These final steps, as well as the previous two, are illustrated in the
following case study from Whychus Creek, in the Deschutes Basin, Oregon.
Table 3-10 Essential ecological attributes associated with ground water and potential indicators of the integrity
of rivers: (Brown et al., 2007).
Essential Ecological Attribute
Temperature regime
Hydrologic regime
Indicator
Maximum 7-day average of daily maximum temperature
Location and number of thermal refugia
Number of zero-flow days
Trend in annual mean low flow
Location and continued presence of springs/seeps adjacent to the stream.
3-47
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Ql: Does the stream
flow year-round?
No
Low
likelihood of
groundwater
dependence
Yes
Q2: Are springs
present in the
drainage nearthe
streams?
Yes
Q2A: Is summer
precipitation a
significant source of
water?
No
High
likelihood of
groundwater
dependent—
Q3: Are snowfields or
glaciers in the
headwaters?
No
Yes
Yes
likelihood of
groundwater
dependence
Q4: Is summer
precipitation a
significant source of
water?
Yes
No
High
likelihood of
groundwater
dependence
Figure 3-19 Decision tree for identifying ground water dependent river ecosystems (Brown et al., 2009a).
3-48
-------
Case Study
Identifying GDEs and Characterizing their
Ground Water Resources in the Whychus
Creek Watershed
More Information: http://tinvurl.com/GDE-Workspace
The Whychus Creek Watershed, located in Oregon's
Upper Deschutes Basin, offers a good illustration of
how a combination of GIS datasets and decision trees
can be used to identify GDEs. Using the decision
tree for river ecosystems, TNC determined that the
rivers in the Whychus Creek Watershed are highly
likely to be ground water dependent, because they
are perennial (determined through examination of
the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)), they are
associated with springs, and summer precipitation
is not a significant source of water. USGS gage data
further confirm the high likelihood of ground water
dependence, because they show that low flow is 59%
of annual mean monthly flow, and base flow is active
through most of the year. Lastly, seepage-run data
provided by the Oregon Water Resources Department
and USGS gage data indicate that stream reaches in
the Whychus Creek Watershed are gaining streams
(i.e., ground water discharges into them).
To identify ground water dependent wetlands, TNC
compiled datasets for known and potential wetlands
from the NWI, the Northwest Habitat Institute's
Interactive Biodiversity System, STATSGO, and the
Deschutes Wetland Atlas developed by the Deschutes
River Conservancy. Applying the wetlands ecosystem
decision tree, TNC determined that both subalpine
parkland and wet meadow wetlands in the Whychus
Creek Watershed are highly likely to be ground water
dependent, because they are present year round and
they either occur in slope breaks or are associated with
springs or seepage areas.
Using the decision tree for lake ecosystems, TNC
determined that lakes in the watershed are likely
to depend on local ground water for part of their
water supply, because they are located on permeable
geologic deposits, no seeps or springs are known to
discharge into the lakes, and the lakes are located in
the upper portion of the watershed.
Spring ecosystems, which are ground water dependent
by definition, were mapped using data from the
USGS Geographic Names Information System,
the Pacific Northwest Hydrography data layer, the
Oregon Gazetteer, and Forward Looking Infrared
data. Phreatophytic ecosystems (above ground
ecosystems that depend on subsurface expressions of
ground water) were not included in this assessment
because extensive laboratory study would be needed
to confirm their dependence upon ground water.
Subterranean ecosystems were also not considered in
this assessment, because there are no mapped caves in
the Whychus Creek Watershed.
The assessment also identified ground water dependent
species in the watershed. Species that were potentially
dependent upon ground water were identified from
TNC's ecoregional assessment and the U.S. Forest
Service's watershed analysis. This list was refined
with input from local experts to consist exclusively of
ground water dependent species by comparing species
distributions with the distributions of ground water
dependent ecosystems in the watershed.
The assessment then used geologic and topographic
maps to delineate the ground water contributing area,
which in this case matched the surface watershed
for Whychus Creek. A layer of precipitation data
was used with the geologic data layer to locate wet,
permeable areas that are likely sites for ground water
recharge. Recharge areas were refined using USGS'
Deep Percolation Model. Horizontal flow paths were
mapped, connecting ground water recharge and
discharge sites. Hydrogeologic cross-sections were
developed from geologic and topographic maps using
ground water recharge and discharge data. Vertical
ground water flow paths were mapped on the cross-
sections. These recharge, discharge, flow path, and
GDE distribution data are now available to inform
conservation priorities for the Whychus Creek
Watershed (Figure 3-20).
Continued on page 3-50
3-49
-------
Figure 3-20 Ground water dependent biodiversity in the Whychus Creek Watershed (Brown et al., 2007).
3-50
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
3.4 Geomorphology
This section provides summaries for some examples of approaches currently being used to assess geomorphology.
See Chapter 2 for background information on geomorphology.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
High gradient
mountain streams are
characterized by
relatively straight
stream channels
and larger
substrate, such
as cobble and
boulders.
Photo: BLM.
Meandering is a
common characteristic
of low gradient
streams and
is critical to
the physical
stability of the
channel and
the health of
the stream.
Photo: USFWS.
Maintenance of a river
channel's lateral
connectivity with its
floodplain allows
for the natural
regime of flood
disturbance
to effectively
influence
riparian
biodiversity.
Photo: NRCS.
Stream geomorphic
state and processes
are intricately tied
to aquatic habitat
condition
and macro-
invertebrate
community
composition.
Photo: USFWS.
3-51
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Vermont's Stream Geomorphic and Reach Habitat Assessment Protocols
Author or Lead Agency: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
More Information: http://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv geoassess.htm
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (VTANR) is using fluvial geomorphic-based watershed assessments
to plan and manage streams toward their natural dynamic equilibrium. The state has developed a series of
assessment protocols that are broken down into three phases, facilitating assessment at multiple scales. A
growing statewide database of fluvial geomorphic and physical habitat data collected through the use of these
protocols is allowing resource managers across Vermont to understand river systems as integral components of
the landscape and to classify river segments according to reference conditions specific to Vermont. Vermont's
Stream Geomorphic Assessment Protocols (Kline, Alexander, Pytlik, Jaquith, & Pomeroy, 2009) provide
resource managers with a method to characterize riparian and instream habitat, stream-related erosion and
depositional process, and fluvial erosion hazards for informing watershed planning and management activities
that are ecologically sustainable and that avoid conflicts between human investments and river systems.
Vermont has fully integrated Reach Habitat Assessment Protocols (Schiff, Kline, & Clark, 2008) with stream
geomorphic protocols to evaluate habitat connectivity and the departures in natural hydrologic, sediment, and
woody debris regimes that explain physical processes and alterations to the hydro-geomorphic units associated
with shelter, feeding, and reproductive habitats (Table 3-11).
Table 3-11 Parameters and variables in the Vermont Reach Habitat Assessment Protocol
(Schiff, Kline, & Clark, 2008).
Key Ecological Processes
Aquatic Life Cycle Requirements
Cover/Shelter Habitat based on:
The Vermont Stream Geomorphic and Reach Habitat Assessment Protocols provide resource managers with
a scientifically sound, consistent set of tools to classify, assess the condition of, and design management
approaches for the state's flowing water resources. The protocols are separated into three phases. Phase 1
includes watershed-scale assessments that are based on valley land forms, geology, land use, and channel and
floodplain modifications, and are typically conducted with remotely-sensed data. Stream type, condition,
fluvial processes, and sensitivity are provisionally assigned and can be refined in phases 2 and 3- Although
phase 1 assessments are primarily desktop analyses, a few months is typically necessary to assess a large
watershed. Phase 2 assessments are rapid field assessments. Channel and floodplain cross-section, as well as
stream substrate are measured. Qualitative field evaluations of erosion and depositional processes, changes in
channel and floodplain geometry, and riparian land use/cover are used to identify geomorphic and physical
habitat condition, adjustment processes, reach sensitivity, and stage of channel evolution. A phase 2 assessment
on a one mile reach requires one to two days in the field to complete. Phase 3 assessments are survey-level field
3-52
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
assessments. Quantitative measurements of channel dimension, pattern, profile, and sediments confirm, and
provide further detail on, the stream types, hydraulic conditions, and adjustment processes identified in phases
1 and 2 (Figure 3-21). Phase 3 assessments are used to characterize reference reaches and to gather intensive
data for river corridor protection or restoration projects. Phase 3 assessments require three to four days to
survey a sub-reach of two meander wavelengths, as well as professional level stream survey and geomorphic
assessment skills and equipment.
Interactive web-based data storage, retrieval, and mapping systems, as well as spreadsheets and GIS tools, have
been developed by VT ANR to facilitate data reporting and analysis for all three phases of the assessment
process. Whether the user decides to perform the phase 1 screening level assessment or the detailed phase 3
assessment, they will have a better understanding of the physical conditions of their streams and the linkages
of stream channel condition with watershed inputs and floodplain and valley characteristics. Assessing the
streams access to its floodplain; sediment size, quantity, and transport processes; erodibility of the stream bed
and banks; and runoff characteristics of the watershed allows for a classification of stream type. The resource
manager then categorizes the stream type as a reference stream type — the natural stream type in relation to the
natural watershed inputs and valley characteristics, existing stream type — the stream type and processes under
current conditions, or modified reference stream type — the stream type that may evolve as a result of the human
imposed channel, floodplain, or watershed changes. The existing stream type is often the same as the reference
stream type, with the exception that its geomorphic and physical habitat condition is different. Stream reach
condition can be assessed as in regime — exhibiting dynamic equilibrium, in adjustment— changing in form and
process outside of natural variability, or active adjustment and stream type departure — exhibiting adjustment
to a new stream type or fluvial process as a result of a change in floodplain function and/or watershed inputs
(Figure 3-22). In addition, a stream sensitivity rating is assigned to each assessed reach. A stream's inherent
sensitivity is related to its setting and location within the watershed. Sensitivity ratings are assigned based on
the reference stream type and the degree of departure from that reference. Certain reference stream types, as a
result of their natural characteristics, are more susceptible or sensitive to certain perturbations that may initiate
adjustment and channel evolution.
Figure 3-21 Phase 3 data gathering (Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, 2007).
3-53
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
With the resulting stream type, geomorphic and physical habitat condition, and sensitivity rating, an
assessment indicates what type of stream should exist and why, what type of stream does exist and the watershed
characteristics that caused it, the type of stream that will evolve if left alone, and the potential actions that
can be taken to restore or accommodate the adjustment of a stream to its reference type or protect it from
departing from its reference type. A stream that has departed from its reference type, due to excess watershed
runoff from impervious surfaces or other causes, no longer provides its proper functions (e.g., maintenance of
habitat, sediment storage and transport, etc.). This type of information is invaluable to the natural resource
planner evaluating alternative management scenarios for land use, flow regulation, or channel modification.
Vermont's River Corridor Planning Guide (Kline & Cahoon, 2010) provides detailed data reduction methods
and mapping tools, and helps watershed planners make management recommendations to address fluvial
process-based departures and reach-specific stressors. River corridor plans include watershed-scale strategies for
prioritizing river corridor protections and restorative actions aimed at helping the state and its local partners
manage streams toward their dynamic equilibrium condition. Plans also include river corridor maps based
on the meander beltways that provide a critical spatial context for achieving and maintaining equilibrium by
limiting land use encroachments and channelization (Kline & Cahoon, 2010). The results of Vermont's stream
geomorphic and reach habitat assessments can be used to identify: a) conservation reaches, b) strategic sites,
c) reaches with high recovery potential, and d) moderately to highly degraded sites. Conservation reaches are
the least disturbed reaches of a watershed and should be maintained in their natural state in a protected river
corridor. Starting from this base of healthy ecosystem components, protection and restoration measures can be
focused on less healthy reaches. Strategic sites are those vulnerable, sensitive sites where protection strategies
should be prioritized to avoid impacts to adjacent conservation reaches or to accommodate fluvial processes that
will lead to a more even distribution of energy and sediments within the watershed (Leopold, 1994). Reaches
with high recovery potential are those where active restoration strategies should be prioritized. Moderate or
highly degraded sites are those where expensive and uncertain restoration actions would be necessary. These
projects should only be undertaken after impacts to watershed hydrologic and sediment regimes have been
remediated and upstream sources of instability have been resolved. Working out from conservation reaches to
strategic sites, reaches with high recovery potential, and finally to moderate and highly degraded sites provides
the most efficient method of protecting and restoring the dynamic equilibrium of the watersheds running
water resources.
Figure 3-22. Intact (left) and incised (right) streambeds. (Images courtesy of Ben Fertig
(left) and Jane Thomas (right), IAN Image Library (ian.umces.edu/imagelibrary/)).
3-54
-------
Case Study
Geomorphic Assessment and River Corridor
Planning of the Batten Kill Main-Stem and
Major Tributaries
More Information: http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/watera/rivers/htm/rv aeoassess.htm
The Batten Kill is considered Vermont's best
trout fishing stream and has been rated by Trout
Unlimited as one of the 10 best trout streams in the
United States (Cox, 2006). However, since the early
1900s the quality of the fishery has been declining
(Jaquith, Kline, Field, & Henderson, 2004). Altered
land use patterns, channel straightening, floodplain
encroachment, and dam construction have been
prevalent in the Batten Kill watershed, as they have
been in much of New England for over a century.
A phase 1, watershed-scale, fluvial geomorphic
assessment was conducted in the Batten Kill
watershed to understand the extent to which these
disturbances are affecting the geomorphic condition
of the stream and the degradation of physical habitat
due to channel adjustment processes.
The phase 1 assessment identified over half of the
Batten Kill and its tributaries as being in some form
of channel adjustment. Phase 2 assessments were
conducted on 36 reaches and phase 3 assessments
were conducted on eight segments in the watershed
to verify the results of the phase 1 assessment. Likely
causes of channel adjustment were determined
through an examination of historic channel and
floodplain modifications including deforestation, dam
construction, agricultural practices, transportation
development, and the more recent straightening,
dredging, and berming of the river for flood control.
As the low gradient, meandering streams of the
Batten Kill were straightened due to rail and road
construction and berming of the river, the channelized
streams were no longer able to dissipate the energy
of their flows through lateral migration. Instead, the
energy was dissipated through erosion of the channel
bed, causing channel incision and loss of access to the
streams floodplain. Additionally, watershed runoff
and sediment supply were historically altered due
to changing land use patterns, deforestation, and
agricultural practices. Aggradation or deposition
of sediment occurred in downstream, low-
gradient reaches, resulting in embedded substrates.
Embeddedness refers to the deposition of finer
sediments in the spaces between cobbles and boulders.
These spaces are prime habitat for juvenile fish. Deep
pools and other structural elements, such as large
woody debris, have been scoured from the river bed,
reducing habitat for adult fishes. In addition, gravel
substrate critical for spawning in some tributaries of
the Batten Kill has been scoured and lost.
The recommendations resulting from this geomorphic
assessment include strategic river corridor protection
to protect segments that are in regime (exhibiting the
dynamic equilibrium characteristic of natural stream
channels), and to allow for channel adjustments and
the evolution of the channel and floodplains to a
dynamic equilibrium condition. The river corridor
plan also focuses activities (e.g., erosion control
practices) on the whole system instead of individual
sites, in order to restore geomorphically unbalanced
streams to equilibrium conditions. An education
program to increase public awareness, perception,
and participation in appropriate watershed activities
was also identified as critical to the long-term health
of the Batten Kill.
3-55
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
3.5 Water Quality
This section provides summaries for some examples of approaches currently being used to assess water quality.
See Chapter 2 for background information on water quality.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
Riparian buffers filter
pollutants, regulate
water temperature,
and help to
maintain
hydrologic
regimes that
support water
quality.
As runoff and surface
water pass through,
wetlands remove
or transform
pollutants (e.g.,
sediments,
nutrients,
etc.) through
physical,
chemical, and
biological
processes.
Photo: NRCS.
A Secchi disk is used to
measure how deep
a person can see
into the water,
and provides an
approximate
evaluation
of the
transparency
of water.
Photo: Adrian Jones, IAN.
State, tribal, federal,
and local agencies,
as well as many
watershed
organizations,
conduct
water quality
monitoring
programs.
Photo: Jane Thomas, IAN.
3-56
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Oregon Water Quality Index
Author or Lead Agency: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
More Information: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/wqimain.htm
The Oregon Water Quality Index (WQI) is a single number that describes water quality by integrating
measurements of eight water quality variables: temperature, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand,
pH, ammonia and nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, total solids, and fecal coliform. The purpose of the WQI
is to provide a simple and concise method for expressing the ambient water quality of Oregon's streams. The
WQI is useful for answering general questions (e.g., how well does water quality in my stream rate on a scale of
0 to 100?) and for comparative purposes (e.g., comparing several streams within the same watershed; detecting
trends over time, etc.). The WQI is not, however, suited for site-specific questions that should be based on
the analysis of the original water quality data. The WQI can serve as a useful screening tool for general water
quality conditions, as well as to help to communicate water quality status and illustrate the need for, and
effectiveness of, protective practices.
The Oregon WQI is calculated in two steps. First, the raw analytical results for each parameter are transformed
into unitless, subindex values. These values range from 10 (poor water quality) to 100 (excellent water quality)
depending on that parameter's contribution to water quality impairment. These subindices are combined
to give a single water quality index value ranging from 10 to 100. The unweighted harmonic square mean
formula used to combine subindices allows the most impacted parameter to impart the greatest influence on
the water quality index. This method acknowledges that the influence of each water quality parameter on
overall water quality varies with time and location. The formula is sensitive to changing conditions and to
significant impacts on water quality.
Water quality indices, such as the Oregon WQI, when used appropriately, can be powerful tools for comparing
aquatic health conditions in different water bodies and in communicating information to the general public
(Figure 3-23). A water quality index has the potential to be combined with other indices (such as an IBI or
Index of Terrestrial Integrity) in order to evaluate the overall health of a watershed.
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network
Oregon Water Quality Index Results ( WY 1998 - 2007)
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Laboratory May 2008
Figure 3-23 Map of Oregon Water Quality Index (WQI) results for water years
(WY) 1998-2007 (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2008).
3-57
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
3.6 Biological Condition
This section provides summaries for some examples of approaches currently being used to assess biological
condition. See Chapter 2 for background information on biological condition.
Landscape Condition
Patterns of natural land cover, natural disturbance regimes,
lateral and longitudinal connectivity of the aquatic
environment, and continuity of landscape processes.
Habitat
Aquatic, wetland, riparian, floodplain, lake, and shoreline
habitat. Hydrologic connectivity.
Hydrology
Hydrologic regime: Quantity and timing of flow or water
level fluctuation. Highly dependent on the natural flow
(disturbance) regime and hydrologic connectivity, including
surface-ground water interactions.
Geomorphology
Stream channels with natural geomorphic dynamics.
Water Quality
Chemical and physical characteristics of water.
Biological Condition
Biological community diversity, composition,
relative abundance, trophic structure, condition,
and sensitive species.
Macroinvertebrates are
a critical element in
the aquatic food
B^ chain and are
frequently used
as indicators
of aquatic
ecosystem
condition.
Photo: Jane Hawkey, IAN.
Native aquatic plants
can be an important
indicator of
biological
condition, and
also create
habitat for
other aquatic
organisms.
Photo: Ben Fertig, IAN.
Amphibian species
are an indicator
of biological
condition,
especially in
headwater
streams that
lack fish
populations.
Photo: USFWS.
Presence of certain
fish species, such as
trout and salmon
in coldwater
streams, can
be indicators
of good
biological
condition.
Photo: USFWS.
3-58
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Index of Biotic Integrity
Author or Lead Agency: James Karr
More Information: http://www.epa.gov/bioiwebl/html/ibi history.html
The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a multi-metric index of aquatic health based on ecological characteristics
of biological communities. It was originally developed by James Karr in 1981 for use in warm water streams
in Illinois and Indiana and has since been modified for use in other states and aquatic ecosystem types in
the United States, as well as in other countries. It was developed to provide an alternative perspective to
physicochemical water quality monitoring programs that were initially the typical monitoring approach for
addressing the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Clean
Water Act). The advantage of integrating biological assessments into physicochemical assessments is a more
complete understanding of the effects of point and nonpoint source pollution in the context of aquatic life.
Biological communities are sensitive to a variety of environmental factors including chemical contamination
from point and nonpoint sources, physical habitat alteration, flow modification, and disruption of ecological
processes and biotic interactions. Since chemical monitoring programs are not designed to detect some of
these, such as habitat alteration and flow modification impacts, biological assessments provide a mechanism for
evaluating the effects of all of these factors on ecosystem health. Additionally, biological communities integrate
the cumulative, and sometimes synergistic, effects of pollutants and other disturbances over time. Chemical
monitoring programs, for example, might miss episodic discharges of untreated wastewater while the resident
biota can often be affected by those events for an extended period of time.
The original IBI developed by James Karr assessed 12 characteristics offish communities. These 12 metrics
captured information about species richness and composition, indicator species, trophic organization,
reproductive behavior, and individual condition. These metrics are directly affected by human disturbance and
alteration of the aquatic system and its watershed. Choosing specific metrics within these classes allows for the
development of an IBI in any region based on local ecological and biological conditions. The IBI approach
requires that the fish sample used is representative of the fish community at the sample site, the sample site is
representative of the stream or watershed, and that the lead biologist is very familiar with the local fish fauna
and stream ecology.
A score is assigned to each of the chosen metrics, and then summed to arrive at the IBI for the site. The IBI
score for the site is interpreted relative to undisturbed, reference conditions for the region. However, reference
sites in many states represent least disturbed conditions so threshold selection needs to take into consideration
the quality of the reference sites (Stoddard et al., 2006; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 201 Ic)
Reference conditions must be defined for each stream type in an ecoregion. The final IBI score represents
the health of the biological community relative to reference conditions for that stream type. Through careful
selection of metrics, human alteration of the five water resource features can be determined (Figure 3-24).
Ohio is an example of a state that uses biological data and biocriteria as the principal mechanism for assessing
aquatic life use attainment for its Water Resource Inventory (CWA Section 305(b) report) (see following case
study). Biocriteria are also used in setting water quality standards, supporting the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process, performing nonpoint source assessments, and as part of
risk assessments in various states. Other states have used modified IBIs in integrative assessments of watershed
condition. For example, the Virginia DCR uses a modified IBI in its Watershed Integrity Model (summarized
in Chapter 4). In the Watershed Integrity Model, a spatial representation of the IBI is combined with other
aquatic and terrestrial ecological indicators and a weighted overlay is created in a GIS. The weighted overlay
provides guidance on watershed lands that are most valuable for maintaining aquatic ecosystem integrity.
The IBI approach to assessing the biological health of surface water resources is a valuable and widely used
method that can be modified and integrated into region-specific conditions and objectives. Evaluating the
biological condition of a watershed's streams, lakes, and rivers allows for the identification of the healthiest
sites that should be prioritized for protection.
3-59
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Direct ecological effects
Channel modifications
Riparian clearing
Water withdrawal
Addition of alien taxa
Indirect ecological effects
Changing land use
Appropriation of water
Stormwater runoff
Pollutant generation
Human activities
(stressors)
Habitat
Structure
Flow
Regime
Water
Quality
Energy
Sources
Biotic
Interactions
Altered water
resource features
Declining diversity within
feeding and reproductive
guilds
Loss of migratory species
Disrupt flow regime
Loss of sensitive taxa
Increased frequency of
tumors, lesions, etc.
Declining diversity of
food specialists
Increase in omnivores
Loss of top predators
Decline of harvestable
species
Biological changes
(fish)
Figure 3-24 Human activities alter five water resource features, resulting in alteration of fish
communities (Modified from Karr & Yoder, 2004).
3-60
-------
Case Study
Ohio Statewide Biological and Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment
More Information: State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 2009 (http://www.epa.state.oh.us/
dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.aspx)
Ohio EPA has relied on biological monitoring and
assessment as a critical component of its water quality
program for almost three decades. Ohio created
three different modified versions of Karr's IBI for
application to headwater streams (drainage area <20
mi2), wadeable sites, and larger non-wadeable sites.
These three different versions were necessary due to
fundamental differences of the fauna at different
site types and consideration of sampling methods.
However, Karr's original ecological structure was
maintained throughout the development of the three
versions. In addition, Ohio created modified versions
of an Invertebrate Community Index and a Modified
Index of Wellbeing. These are conceptually similar to
the IBI. The IBI and Modified Index of Wellbeing
are based on assessments of stream fish assemblages
while the Invertebrate Community Index is based on
macroinvertebrate assemblages.
Ohio uses the IBI, Invertebrate Community
Index, and Modified Index of Wellbeing biological
assessments along with physicochemical assessments
to assess compliance with water quality standards.
Numeric biocriteria have been specified for each of the
three indices, and in each of Ohio's five ecoregions,
using a system of tiered aquatic life uses (limited
resource water, modified warm water habitat, warm
water habitat, and exceptional warm water habitat).
Biocriteria for the exceptional warm water habitat
are derived from biological assessments conducted
in undisturbed, reference reaches for each ecoregion.
Management responses are prioritized along this tiered
aquatic life use gradient. For example, exceptional
warm water habitats are of the highest quality and
would merit protection as a management measure.
Warm water habitats are somewhat degraded and
would thus be ideal locations for restoration projects.
Highly degraded sites would receive enhancement
management measures and the most severely degraded
sites are considered irretrievable. Ohio adopted
numeric biocriteria into its water quality standards
in 1990, which has allowed the state to assess
cumulative impacts, define appropriate aquatic life
use designations, assess impacts from altered habitat,
and to identify high quality waters.
3-61
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The Biological Condition Gradient and Tiered Aquatic Life Uses
Author or Lead Agency: Susan K. Jackson (U.S. EPA)
More Information: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/aqlife/biocriteria/uses index.cfm
The Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) is a conceptual, scientific model for interpreting the biological
response of aquatic ecosystems to increasing levels of stressors. The BCG model was developed by a workgroup
of aquatic ecologists and biologists from different regions of the United States to represent their empirical
observations of biological response to ecosystem stress, regardless of the monitoring methodology employed.
The model evaluates the response of 10 aquatic ecosystem attributes to locate a stream's condition on the
stressor-response curve (Figure 3-25). There are six levels, or tiers, of biological condition on the stressor
response curve. The BCG model is intended to assist states and tribes to more precisely define the aquatic
biota expected along a gradient from undisturbed to severely disturbed conditions and assign goals for a water
body that better represent its highest achievable condition. The model accounts for geographical differences
in ecosystem attributes, so is applicable across the nation; however, modifications to the levels can be made
by individual states and tribes to most appropriately characterize their regional conditions (e.g., use of three
levels, as opposed to six). For example, New Jersey calibrated a five level BCG for their upland streams and is
evaluating options for application. Maine has incorporated a three tier BCG to define their aquatic life use
classification framework (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 201 Ic).
The ten attributes assessed in the BCG evaluate several aspects of community structure, organism condition,
ecosystem function, and spatial and temporal attributes of stream size and connectivity. The stressor axis of
the BCG model represents a composite of all of the chemical, physical, and biological factors that can disrupt
ecological integrity. Placement of a monitoring site in one of the six BCG levels, as described in Figure 3-25, is
determined through an examination of the ten attributes:
1. Historically documented, sensitive, long-lived or regionally endemic taxa.
2. Sensitive-rare taxa.
3. Sensitive-ubiquitous taxa.
4. Taxa of intermediate tolerance.
5. Tolerant taxa.
6. Non-native or intentionally introduced taxa.
7- Organism condition.
8. Ecosystem functions.
9- Spatial and temporal extent of detrimental effects.
10. Ecosystem connectance.
A number of states have, or are in the process of developing, their own regional or statewide BCG models. The
initial step in developing a state-specific or ecoregional BCG model is to identify and define, where possible,
undisturbed conditions on which the model's level 1 category will be based. Calibration of the model has
sometimes resulted in combining BCG level 1 and level II categories to define the upper gradient of a local
BCG because of lack of undisturbed sites. A workgroup of professional biologists with considerable field
experience and knowledge of the local fauna should be assembled to calibrate the BCG model. They will define
the ecological attributes by, for example, assigning taxa to attributes 1-6. This will involve the examination of
a variety of bioassessment and stressor data and the classification of different sites into the different levels of
biological condition along a gradient of increasing stress. It is often possible to calibrate existing indices of
biotic integrity, such as the IBI, to the levels of biological condition, which will facilitate the application of
the BCG model to future monitoring endeavors (e.g., Pennsylvania Case Example in U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 201 Ic). If a biotic index system does not exist, an index that corresponds to the newly
established levels may be developed. The stressor axis of the BCG model represents the composite stressors
on the aquatic ecosystem. These stressors can originate from: 1) chemical factors, 2) the flow regime, 3) biotic
3-62
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
factors, 4) energy sources, and 5) habitat structure (Karr, Fausch, Angermier, Yant, & Schlosser, 1986). Like the
biological condition axis, the stressor axis is based upon deviation from natural (e.g., undisturbed, minimally
disturbed) conditions and thus should be calibrated to the local conditions and stressors.
Once the BCG model has been calibrated to local conditions, it can be used by states and tribes to more
precisely evaluate the current and potential biological conditions of their streams and more precisely define
aquatic life uses. The BCG is based on 30 years of conceptual development in aquatic ecology and represents
the understanding that biological communities differ in a predictable manner across ecoregions, water body
types, and levels of stressors (Davies & Jackson, 2006). The use of the BCG allows states to assess the ecological
condition of water bodies from a more holistic standpoint than using chemical and physical water quality data
alone. The method is scientifically and statistically robust, and can be used to complement existing or develop
new quantitative measures of ecosystem health.
Levels of Biological Condition
Level 1. Natural structural, functional,
and taxonornic integrity is preserved.
Level 2. Structure & function similar to
natural community with some additional
taxa & biornass; ecosystem level
functions are fully maintained.
Levels. Evident changes in structure
due to loss of some rare native taxa;
shifts in relative abundance; ecosystem
level functions fully maintained.
Level 4. Moderate changes in structure-
due to replacement of some sensitive
ubiquitous taxa by more tolerant taxa;
ecosystem functions largely
maintained.
Level 5. Sensitive taxa markedly
diminished; conspicuously unbalanced
distribution of major taxonomic groups;
ecosystem function shows reduced
complexity & redundancy.
Levels. Extreme changes in structure
and ecosystem function; wholesale
changes in taxonomic composition;
extreme alterations from normal
densities.
Watershed, habitat,flow regime
and water chemistry as
naturally occurs
Ch ernistry, h abitat, an d/or flow
regime severely altered from
natural conditions
Figure 3-25 Conceptual model of the Biological Condition Gradient (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2011c).
3-63
-------
Case Study
Maine Tiered Aquatic Life Use
Implementation
More Information: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonitoring/index.
html
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) has used a tiered approach to water quality
management since the early 1970s, before adoption
of the Clean Water Act. Classifications of AA, A,
B, or C are given to the state's water bodies, with
Class AA waters receiving the highest levels of
protection. Numeric biocriteria have been developed
based on benthic macroinvertebrate assessments.
Over the years, Maine DEP biologists have made
empirical observations of the differences in aquatic
macroinvertebrate communities across gradients of
stressors. At the same time, work in aquatic stress
ecology, particularly by Eugene Odum, helped
to reinforce these observations with a theoretical
underpinning. Narrative biological criteria were
designed to be consistent with these observations
and ecological understanding. Maine DEP biologists
aligned the narrative criteria with a slight modification
of the already-established four tier classification
system. Class AA and A were combined to yield a
three-tier system of Class A, B, or C (Figure 3-26).
Maine DEP quantified each of their aquatic life use
classes in the late 1980s using a probability-based
statistical model of 31 biological variables. This model
was developed based on the best professional judgment
of Maine DEP biologists through an evaluation of
144 samples with 70,000 organisms. The model was
recalibrated with an additional 229 samples in 1999-
Using this model and current biomonitoring data, an
aquatic life attainment classification of A, B, or C is
given to each stream. If the stream is not attaining its
aquatic life use designation, it is listed as impaired on
the state's 303 (d) list of impaired water bodies.
With 51% of the state's water bodies designated as
Class AA or Class A, Maine maintains a strong focus
on protection of aquatic life use. Any discharge to
waters with these classifications must be of equal or
better quality than the receiving water and any flow
obstructions must not have effects greater than what
would be expected from a natural flow obstruction,
such as a beaver dam.
Natural
o
o
"TO
o
'5)
£
o
ffl
Severely
Altered
•j Native or natural condition
Minimal loss of species: some
density changes may occur
Some replacement of «
sensitive-rare species: J
functions fully maintained
Some sensitive species
4 maintained: altered
distributions: functions
largely maintained
Tolerant species show
increasing dominance:
sensitive species are
rare: functions altered
Severalteration of -,
structure and function «
Low
Stressor Gradient
High
Class AA/A
As naturally occurs.
Habitat: "natural"
Class B
No detrimental change:
support all indigenous species
Habitat: "unimpaired"
Maintain structure and function:
support all indigenousfish
(salmonids).
Habitat for fish and aquatic life
Non-attainment of
minimum standards
Figure 3-26 Maine Tiered Aquatic Life Uses in relation to Biological Condition Gradient Levels (Davies
and Courtemanch, 2012).
3-64
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Aquatic Gap Analysis Program
Author or Lead Agency: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
More Information: http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/projects/aquatic/default.htm: http://morap.missouri.edu/Projects.
aspx
The USGS Gap Analysis Program (GAP) is designed to keep common species common by proactively
identifying the distribution of habitats and species not currently represented in conservation networks and
disseminating this information to relevant stakeholders before the organisms become threatened or endangered.
A fundamental concept to the GAP program is that species distributions can be predicted based on habitat
indicators. Many approaches to biodiversity conservation have focused on single-species management, typically
threatened or endangered species. While these approaches have their place, a proactive approach to biodiversity
conservation will include methods for identifying habitats that support a diversity of species and ensuring
protection of these areas before the species become threatened. The availability of remotely sensed data and
the vast improvements in computing power over the past couple of decades have facilitated the possibility of
identifying these areas at multiple scales and with minimal resources. By identifying these areas and comparing
them with the current network of conservation lands, the "gaps" in the network can be identified and these
areas prioritized for conservation.
The terrestrial component of the USGS GAP program began in 1988 and is now operating in every state. The
aquatic component of GAP has only recently begun, with nine state projects and four regional projects. Similar
to the terrestrial component, Aquatic GAP seeks to identify areas of high biodiversity within watersheds and
use remotely sensed data to map habitats and predict aquatic biodiversity to provide a biological basis on
which to create aquatic conservation plans. While the terrestrial component relies primarily on vegetation as a
habitat indicator, the Aquatic GAP uses multiple indicators to identify Aquatic GAP habitat types and develop
species-habitat relationships. While each individual project may use a different subset of habitat indicators, the
following are typically used:
• Stream size.
• Stream gradient.
• Watershed land use.
• Riparian forest cover.
• Bedrock and surficial geology.
• Water quality.
• Stream sinuosity.
Remote sensing data are used to determine the first four indicators. Digital Elevation Models, which are
available from the USGS, can be used to determine stream size and stream gradient. Watershed land use and
riparian forest cover data are readily available from sources such as the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
Consortium, which is a group of federal agencies working together to produce and maintain comprehensive
and current data on land cover. Bedrock surficial geology maps are available from the USGS. Ambient water
quality data are typically available from state and national monitoring programs, as well as through some
local monitoring programs. Stream sinuosity can be measured using available stream data layers such as the
National Hydrography Dataset. These habitat indicators must be combined to establish discrete habitat types
for each delineated catchment or watershed. Relationships between species presence and habitat type are then
determined with statistical models using biomonitoring data for fish and macroinvertebrate taxa.
An aquatic GAP assessment for Missouri (Sowa, Annis, Morey, & Diamond, 2007), for example, used
indicators such as those mentioned above, along with biological data, to generate a hierarchical classification
of riverine ecosystems, with the smallest unit representing distinct habitat types. This eight-level classification
was developed in collaboration with TNC's Freshwater Initiative staff (see Appendix A) and includes aquatic
subregions, ecological drainage units (EDUs), aquatic ecological systems (AESs), and valley-segment types
(VSTs) (Figure 3-27). Using this classification system and species-habitat relation models, maps of predicted
3-65
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
species distribution were then generated. The conservation status (based on ownership/stewardship) of each
AES was also mapped. A human threat index was created to evaluate the vulnerability of these systems using
eleven different metrics (Table 3-12) and AESs and VSTs were prioritized for conservation (Table 3-13).
Regional experts weighted each of the metrics in the human threat index, which was also calculated for every
stream reach in the region (Annis et al., 2010). The individual metric data, as well as the index results, can be
summed cumulatively at any location.
The results of an Aquatic GAP assessment, such as the one conducted for Missouri, are intended to be used
by state and local decision makers for land use planning, conservation management, and public education.
Partnerships between various agencies and other stakeholders are vital to coordinating collection and analysis
of the data required as well as to the successful use of the assessment in actual management plans. Use of
this information as part of a comprehensive watershed assessment strategy can complement other biological
condition and landscape condition assessment approaches and provide a greater level of protection to healthy
ecosystems and their components.
Aquatic subregions
Ecological drainage units
Aquatic ecological system types
Valley-segment types
Figure 3-27 Maps of Missouri showing levels four through seven of the aquatic ecological classification
hierarchy (Sowa et al., 2007). Reprinted with permission of Ecological Society of America.
3-66
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Table 3-12 Eleven metrics included in the human-threat index and the criteria used to define the four relative
ranks for each individual metric (Sowa et al., 2007).
•
Number of introduced species
Percentage urban
Percentage agriculture
Density of road-stream crossings (no./km2)
Population change 1990-2000 (no./km2)
Degree of hydrologic modification and/or fragmentation by
Number of Federally licensed dams
Density of coal mines (no./km2)
Density of lead mines (no./km2)
Density of permitted discharges (no./km2)
Density of confined animal feeding operations (no./km2)
Relative Ranks ^^^^1
1 2 3 4-5
0-5 5-10 11-20 0.20
0-25 26-50 51 - 75 0.75
0 - 0.09 0.10 - 0.19 0.2 - 0.4 0.4
-16 - 0 0.04 - 5 6-17 0.17
major impoundment 1 2 or 3 4 or 5 6
0 1-9 10-20 0.20
0 0.1-2 2.1 - 8 0.8
0 0.1-2 2.1 - 8 0.8
0 0.1-2 2.1-8 0.8
0 0.1-2 2.1 - 4 0.4
Table 3-13 Assessment criteria used for prioritizing and selecting aquatic ecological system (AES) polygons and
valley-segment type (VST) complexes for inclusion in the portfolio of conservation opportunity areas (Sowa et
al., 2007).
• AES-level Criteria
Select the AES polygon that:
VST-level Criteria ^^^H
Select an interconnected complex of VSTs that: ^^^^1
Has the highest predicted richness of target species.
Contains known viable populations of species of special
concern.
Has the lowest degree of human disturbance based on human- Has the lowest degree of human disturbance based on a
threat index value and qualitative evaluation of threats using the qualitative evaluation of relative local and watershed conditions
full breadth of available human-threats data. using the full breadth of available human-threats data.
Has the highest percentage of public ownership.
Is already contained within the existing matrix of public lands.
Overlaps with existing conservation initiatives or high public
support for conservation.
Overlaps with existing conservation initiatives or high public
support for conservation.
3-67
-------
Case Study
Ohio Aquatic GAP Analysis: An Assessment
of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status
of Native Aquatic Animal Species
More Information: U.S. Geological Survey, 2006 (http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/
ofr20061385)
The Ohio Aquatic GAP pilot project assessed all
continuously flowing streams in Ohio to identify
gaps in the current conservation network that could
potentially pose a risk to freshwater biodiversity. A
classification system was developed to characterize
and map the aquatic habitats of 217 freshwater fish,
crayfish, and bivalve species. The classification system
used geomorphic and stream network variables, such
as stream size and connectivity, sinuosity, and gradient
to identify physical habitat types.
Biological data were compiled from multiple sources
representative of the variety of stream types and
sizes in Ohio. Species distributions were predicted
using statistical models that relate the eight habitat
indicators to the occurrence of individual species.
The results of this analysis were overlain on a map of
all conservation lands in the state. Predicted species
distributions from the GAP Analysis showed that the
predicted distribution of 24 species fell completely
outside of these conservation lands. Nine of the 24
species are threatened or endangered. The results
of this analysis were used to identify conservation
priority lands based on predicted species richness
(Figure 3-28).
Lake Erie drainage basin
Small stream (1st order)
I I fish (95
l"1 fish (95
Small AND n edium streams (1st, 2nd, 3rd
.)
(95%)
Medium streams (2nd and 3rd order)
I I fish (95%)
I I crayfish (95%)
I I fish (90%) bivalves (95%)
Large streams (4th order and larger)
I I fish (95%)
I I crayfish bivalves (75%) fish (95%)
I I crayfish <95%>
I I fish (90%) crayfish (95%)
HI fish (95%) crayfish (95%)
I I fish.'crayfish/bivalves (75%)
I I fish bivalves (90%)
^H bivalves (90%) fish (95%)
^H fish (90%) bivalves (95%)
• fish (95%) bivalves (95%)
IH crayfish (75%) fish (95%) bivalves (95'
Ohio River drainage basin
Sin all streams (1st order)
E~»1 fish (95%)
L . I crayfish (95%)
rder) F"5"! bivalves (95%)
[Medium streams (2nd and 3rd order)
C3 bivalves (75%) crayfish (90%) fish (95%)
1 I tish crayfish bivalves (75%)
I I fish (95%)
E-H bivalves (75%) fish (90%) crayfish (95%)
I I bivalves (75%) iish.'crayfish (90%)
I I crayfish (95%)
I I fish (95%) and bivalves (95%)
Large streams (-Ith order and linger)
I I lish.orayfish. bivalves (75%)
I I fish (95%)
I I crayfish, bivalves (75%) fish (95%)
dJ bivalves (75°») fish.crayfish (90°»)
I I crayfish (95%)
I I fish, bivalves (90%)
^H bivalves (90%) fish (95%)
• crayfish (75%) fish/bivalves (90%)
i) ^M crayfish (75%) bivalves (90%) fish (95%)
•I aa>lish<75%) fish <95%) and bivalves (95%)
Cold wafer streams
I cold water
Figure 3-28 HUC12 watersheds in Ohio. The different color watersheds represent high predicted aquatic
species richness for various taxa (U.S. Geological Survey, 2006).
3-68
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Natural Heritage Program Biodiversity Assessments
Author or Lead Agency: NatureServe and state partners
More Information: http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/network.jsp
When it was formed in 1951, The Nature Conservancy's primary mission was the conservation of biological
diversity through the establishment of nature reserves (Groves, Klein, & Breden, 1995)- Realizing the need for
a scientifically sound data collection and management program on which to base conservation decisions, the
first state Natural Heritage Program was formed in South Carolina in 1974 (Groves, Klein, & Breden, 1995).
Today, the Natural Heritage Network is comprised of 82 independent programs that are located in all 50 U.S.
states, 11 provinces and territories of Canada, and in many countries and territories of Latin America and
the Caribbean. These programs collect, analyze, and disseminate information about the biodiversity of their
respective regions. With three decades of data collection and over 1,000 professional biologists, this network
maintains the most comprehensive conservation database available in the western hemisphere. NatureServe,
originally established in 1994 as the Association for Biodiversity Information, is the umbrella organization that
now represents all of the state Natural Heritage Programs in the United States and Conservation Data Centers
internationally.
The Natural Heritage Methodology gathers, analyzes, organizes, and manages information on biodiversity
through a network of professional biologists in partner agencies who keep pace with the growth in scientific
understanding while maintaining an underlying continuity in the methodology. NatureServe (2008) identifies
the following characteristics of the Natural Heritage Methodology:
• It is designed to support a decentralized database network that respects the principle
of local custodianship of data.
• It supports the collection and management of data at multiple geographic scales,
allowing decisions to be made based on detailed local information, yet within a
global context.
• It encompasses both spatial and attribute data, but emphasizes the type of fine-scale
mapping required to inform on-the-ground decisions.
• It includes multiple quality control and quality assurance steps to ensure that data
products have the reliability needed to inform planning and regulatory actions.
• It incorporates explicit estimates of uncertainty and targets additional inventory work
to reduce levels of uncertainty.
• It integrates multiple data types, including: species and ecological communities;
collections and other forms of observational data; and biological and non-biological
data.
3-69
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The methodology is based upon the occurrence of "elements of biodiversity," which include both species
and communities. These element occurrences are stored in spatial databases that are maintained by the local
programs in each state. NatureServe maintains a central database where all local programs upload their
information at least once per year. The following are the basic steps in the Natural Heritage Methodology as
defined by NatureServe (2008):
1. Develop a list of the elements of biodiversity in a given jurisdiction, focusing on
better-known species groups (e.g., vertebrate animals, vascular plants, butterflies,
bivalve mollusks), and on the ecological communities present.
2. Assess the relative risk of extirpation or extinction of the elements to determine
conservation status and set initial priorities for detailed inventory and protection.
3- Gather information from all available sources for priority elements, focusing on
known locations, possible locations, and ecological and management requirements.
4. Conduct field inventories for these elements and collect data about their location,
condition, and conservation needs.
5. Process and manage all the data collected, using standard procedures that will allow
compilation and comparison of data across jurisdictional boundaries.
6. Analyze the data with a view toward refining previous conclusions about element
rarity and risk, location, management needs, and other issues.
7- Provide access to data and information products to interested parties so that it can
be used to guide conservation, management planning, and other natural resource
decision-making.
The information collected, compiled, and distributed by state Natural Heritage Programs and NatureServe is
used by land use and community planners, land owners, and natural area managers. Conservation groups use
the data to set conservation priorities within their region. Developers and businesses use the data to comply
with environmental regulations and government agencies use the data to help manage public lands and guide
policy. The approach can be used to assess the biotic condition of a watershed at the local scale or aquatic
ecoregions at the state scale. The general framework of the approach can also serve as a useful model for
other assessment approaches that seek to identify healthy components of watersheds and prioritize sites for
conservation or protection actions.
3-70
-------
Case Study
Oregon Biodiversity Information Center
More Information: Oregon Biodiversity Program, 2009 (http://orbic.pdx.edu/)
The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center
(ORBIC) works across agencies to identify the
biological and ecological resources of the state.
Formed in 1974, it was the first Natural Heritage
Program in the west and is charged with the voluntary
establishment of natural areas, manages the Rare and
Endangered Invertebrate Program, and develops and
distributes information on species and ecosystems
throughout Oregon and the Pacific Northwest.
ORBIC is also heavily involved in the state Gap
Analysis Program and other conservation assessment
and planning efforts in the state.
ORBIC typically identifies elements of biodiversity at
the community or ecosystem level that represent the
full range of diversity in the state. While this approach
captures most species, there are times when individual
species must be singled out as elements. These
elements are mapped where they occur throughout
Oregon, but examples are selected as Natural Areas
at the ecoregional level in order to ensure that the
full range of Oregon's natural areas is represented.
Ecoregions are delineated areas with similar climate,
vegetation, geology, geomorphology, soils, and
ecosystem processes that define characteristic natural
communities of plant and animal life.
When a community or ecosystem element makes
a significant contribution to biodiversity within its
ecoregion, it is defined as a natural area ecosystem
element. Both ecosystems and species are then ranked
by conservation priority according to: 1) rarity, 2)
threats, 3) ecological fragility, and 4) the adequacy and
viability of protected occurrences. ORBIC then works
with landowners and managers to conserve a good
example of these in a protected area. Classifications
of terrestrial, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems are
organized according to ecoregions. The current
classification system used for riverine communities is
based on the system used by the USGS Aquatic GAP
and identifies unique "valley segment" types that
contain distinct fish or aquatic species assemblages.
Valley segment types are defined based on elevation,
stream order, stream gradient, stream sinuosity, and
the geology of the basin.
A unique aspect of the Oregon Natural Areas
Program's approach is that, in addition to the
identification and ranking of ecosystem cells,
natural disturbance processes are also identified
and prioritized for conservation. Ecosystem process
elements are identified as areas containing landscape
scale disturbance processes that occur with a frequency
that is shorter than the life cycle of the affected
communities. Wildfires are the most common type of
natural disturbance in Oregon and typically require
protected areas of several thousand acres to maintain.
Special species lists are also created to ensure that rare,
threatened, and endangered species receive the level
of protection that they require.
ORBIC pursues a variety of conservation strategies on
both public and private lands. Lands can be dedicated
as State Natural Areas, Research Natural Areas, Marine
Reserves, Biosphere Reserves, Nature Conservancy
Preserves, as well as many other designations. ORBIC
also seeks out donations of land from individuals
and works with state and federal land managers to
promote the acquisition of those private lands which
are critical for conservation.
3-71
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Virginia Interactive Stream Assessment Resource and Healthy Waters Program
Author or Lead Agency: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Commonwealth University
Center for Environmental Studies
More Information: www.dcr.virginia.gov/healthywaters and http://instar.vcu.edu
The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and Virginia Commonwealth University Center for
Environmental Studies are collaborating in the development and implementation of a statewide Healthy Waters
program to identify and protect healthy streams. The Interactive Stream Assessment Resource (INSTAR) is
an online, interactive database application that evaluates the ecological integrity of Virginia's streams using
biological and habitat data. This web-mapping application is available to the public as a free resource to help
planners, advocacy groups, and individuals to make wise land use decisions.
The INSTAR and Healthy Waters program would not be possible without the substantial investment Virginia
has made in the collection of biological and habitat field data. Watershed biotic integrity is evaluated with a
modified Index of Biotic Integrity (mlBI) that uses the following six metrics:
• Native species richness.
• Number of rare, threatened, or endangered species.
• Number of non-indigenous species.
• Number of significant species (ecologically or economically important).
• Number of tolerant species.
• Number of intolerant species.
The mlBI score can range from 6-30 and scores greater than 16 are considered to represent high watershed
integrity. This analysis has been completed for all HUC12 watersheds across the entire State of Virginia (Figure
3-29). The ecological health of individual stream reaches is also evaluated based on their comparability to
virtual reference streams. These virtual reference streams are modeled for each ecoregion and stream order
and eliminate many of the limitations of other bioassessment approaches (e.g., finding appropriate reference
sites) by relying on an objective reference condition based on fish and macroinvertebrate assemblage
structure, instream habitat, and geomorphology. A virtual stream assessment is then conducted by evaluating
the comparability of the empirical data to the appropriate virtual reference stream. Streams that are >70%
comparable are considered healthy and those that are >80% comparable are considered "Excellent." Due to
lack of data in the western part of the state, most of the healthy waters have so far been identified in eastern
Virginia, but the goal is to expand sampling across the state (Figure 3-30).
The Virginia Healthy Waters program promotes the protection of headwater areas, riparian buffers, and
maintenance of natural stream flow as management strategies for its high quality streams and watersheds. The
INSTAR assessment identified Dragon Run as one of the highest quality streams in Virginia. The watershed
is primarily forested, with some agricultural land uses as well, and there are only a few bridge crossings in the
whole watershed. Maintenance of the wide riparian buffers, core forests, and wildlife corridors will be critical
in maintaining Dragon Run as a high quality stream. Virginia is working with The Nature Conservancy and
the residents of the watershed to ensure that this stream remains healthy.
3-72
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Legend
Biotic Integrity
Ranking
Moderate
High
Very High
Outstanding
No Score
This map *as produced by the
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES at
\^rginia Commonwealth University.
Foi additional information, contact the Center at:
VAVW.VCLI . eclu/cesweb
Map publication date: FEBRUARY 1, 2011
Data shown in map can be lound at INSTAR -
Virginia Coostol zone **
OCR
North Carolina
Distribution of modified Index of Biotic Integrity (rnlBI)
scores for Virginia's 5th order watersheds (HUCs).
The mlBI scores are generated from an extensive
database offish species occurrences, scoring criteria,
and metrics such as native species richness and the
number of toleranttaxa. Data used to generate this
map were current as of December. 2010.
Figure 3-29 Map of watershed integrity in Virginia based on modified Index of Biotic Integrity
scores (Greg Garman, Virginia Commonwealth University, Personal Communication).
Legend
• Healthy Waters
__S Healthy Watersheds
£3 MaJ°r Drainages
^^ Chesapeake Bay Basin
Data Description:
302 Healthy Waters'
152 Healthy Watersheds-
Virginia:
175 Hf-.iltliy Waters'
205 Healthy Watersheds"
through Maryland's anii-degradation regulation. Maryland stronghold watersheds
University's !NSTAR prog
region ally-specific, model refer'
the INSTAR program, visit
Figure 3-30 Status of healthy waters and watersheds in Maryland and Virginia (Greg Garman, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Personal Communication).
3-73
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
3.7 National Aquatic Resource Assessments
This section provides summaries for some examples of national programs that monitor and assess aquatic
resources, including water quality, biology, and habitat. Working with state, tribal, and other federal agency
partners, EPA is conducting statistical surveys of the nation's streams and rivers, lakes and reservoirs, coastal
waters, and wetlands. Because different organizations use differing monitoring designs, indicators, and
methods, EPA cannot combine their information to effectively answer questions about the quality of the
nation's waters or track changes over time. EPA and its state, tribal, and federal partners are implementing a
series of aquatic resource surveys to address this national information gap. These National Aquatic Resource
Surveys (NARS) use randomized sampling designs, core indicators, and consistent monitoring methods and lab
protocols to provide statistically-defensible assessments of water quality at the national scale. Additionally, the
national surveys are helping build stronger monitoring programs across the country by fostering collaboration
on new methods, new indicators, and new water quality research. EPA implements the surveys on a five year
rotation. As the surveys repeat, EPA will be able to track changes over time and advance our understanding
of important regional and national patterns in water quality. USGS' National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) Program also conducts national and regional assessments of status and trends of aquatic ecological
condition. These national programs can serve as sources of biological, geological, chemical, geospatial, and
physical data, which can be used to assess water quality conditions within a watershed.
Plankton nets are
used to collect
and evaluate for
abundance and
diversity of
phytoplankton
and
zooplankton,
which form
the base
of a lake's
food chain.
Photo: NEIWPCC.
Water quality
multiprobes are often
used to collect data
in the field on
temperature,
dissolved
oxygen,
conductivity,
pH, and other
parameters.
Photo: USFWS.
Working with partner
organizations
increases access to
the specialized
equipment
that can be
needed for
water quality
monitoring.
Photo: USGS.
in
Examination of diatoms
cross sections of
sediment core
can provide
insight on a
lake's historical
chemical
and physical
characteristics,
= such as total
phosphorus
and clarity.
Photo: NEIWPCC
3-74
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
National Rivers and Streams Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: U.S. EPA
More Information: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/riverssurvey index.cfm
In 2006, EPA released a report on the Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA), which was the first statistically
valid national survey of the biological condition of small streams throughout the United States (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2006c). The WSA uses macroinvertebrate communities to report on
biological condition and measures other key parameters such as riparian and instream habitat, sediments,
nutrients, salinity, and acidity. With 1,392 randomly selected sites, a representative sampling of the condition
of streams in all ecoregions established a national baseline of biological condition. The WSA found that,
compared to best available reference sites in their ecological regions, 42% of U.S. stream miles are in poor
condition, 25% are in fair condition, and 28% are in good condition (Figure 3-31). The National Rivers
and Streams Assessment (NRSA) expands on the WSA by including larger streams and rivers. The NRSA is
designed specifically to:
• Assess the condition of the nation's rivers and streams.
• Help build state and tribal capacity for monitoring and assessment.
• Promote collaboration across jurisdictional boundaries.
• Establish a baseline to evaluate progress.
• Evaluate changes in condition since the first Wadeable Streams Assessment.
West
152,425 stream miles
Plains and Lowlands
242,264 stream miles
Eastern Highlands
276,362 stream mile!.
rl.
TT.
5.0%
National Biological Quality
Cood
Fair
Not Assessed
Figure 3-31 Biological quality results from EPA's Wadeable Streams Assessment (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2008c).
3-75
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The sampling design for the NRSA survey is a probability-based network that provides statistically valid
estimates of condition for a population of rivers and streams with a known confidence. A total of 1,800 sample
sites were selected to represent the condition of rivers and streams across the country (Figure 3-32), 900 in each
of two categories of waters: wadeable and non-wadeable. The survey is measuring a wide variety of variables
intended to characterize the chemical, physical,
and biological condition of the nation's flowing
waters. These include water chemistry, nutrients,
chlorophyll a, sediment enzymes, enterococci,
fish tissue, physical habitat characteristics,
and biological assessments including sampling
of phytoplankton, periphyton, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fish communities.
Sample collection was completed in 2009 and a
final report is scheduled for 2012. Data collected
through the NRSA will be made available
through EPA's Water Quality Exchange (WQX)
(see Appendix B). These data can be used by state ^W W^ ^ Vf't't ^J MR^~.
and local watershed managers for targeting of
more intensive monitoring plans and for regional
comparisons of water quality.
Figure 3-32 National Rivers and Streams Assessment sample sites (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
2011d).
3-76
-------
Case Study
Oklahoma National Rivers and Streams
Assessment
More information: http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports pdf/REMAP-
OKStreamRiver ProbMonitorNetwork.pdf
Several agencies, including the Oklahoma Water
Resources Board and the Oklahoma Conservation
Commission, conduct water quality monitoring
in the State of Oklahoma. Since the early 1990s,
monitoring programs have developed complementary
monitoring objectives that support the management
of Oklahoma's surface waters, including a long-term,
fixed-station water quality monitoring network on
rivers and lakes, and a small-watershed rotating basin
monitoring program that targets smaller streams. As
part of Oklahoma's long-term water quality monitoring
strategy, a probabilistic approach to resources has been
in development since 2001, with the primary objective
to compliment other programs.
Due to funding and resource constraints, full
implementation of probabilistic monitoring has taken
a number of years to reach full maturation. As late as
2003, Oklahoma agencies remained unable to initiate
further planning and make a long-term commitment,
even though the need for the approach had already
been accepted. However, in 2004, Oklahoma took
part in the National WSA, and from 2004-2008, the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board received several
grants to study the feasibility of, and to implement, a
probabilistic monitoring approach in rivers, streams,
and lakes. These projects included CWA 104(b)3
grants, a Regional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment grant, and CWA 106 monies to perform
the NARS monitoring in lakes (2007) and rivers/
streams (2008-2009). Over this five year span, a
probabilistic approach was fully integrated into the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board's monitoring
strategy and has been adopted by the Oklahoma
Conservation Commission as part of their long-term
monitoring approach. With the assistance of continued
NARS funding and supplemental 106 monitoring
funds coupled with the leveraging of state dollars, the
various programs have grown to include monitoring
of various resource types and sizes. The statewide
rivers and streams probabilistic program will enter its
fourth study cycle in 2013 and considers both small
and large water bodies separately. The program has
also integrated several studies to investigate regional
needs. Additionally, a statewide lakes program
entered its second study cycle in 2010. The design
considers both large lakes (>500 surface acres) and
small lakes (>50 surface acres). Lastly, using CWA
319 funds, the Oklahoma Conservation Commission
has implemented a probabilistic component as part
of its rotating basin monitoring program.
In terms of water quality management, the most
obvious outcome of probabilistic design has been
the inclusion of statistically valid surveys for creation
of the state's 305(b) report. However, several
technological enhancements developed through
NARS are being used to benefit the state in several
ways. First, biological indicator development has
taken a dramatic leap forward with the inclusion of
probabilistic data. Although Oklahoma has used both
invertebrate and fish indicators in wadeable streams
assessments for years, probabilistic collections
will facilitate refinement of reference conditions,
improvement of metrics, and development of other
indicators, such as phytoplankton and zooplankton.
Also, indicator collection methods and eventually
assessment indices developed through NARS for both
large rivers and lakes are being implemented widely
throughout Oklahoma. Second, the enhancement
of indicator-stressor relationships through NARS
is being used in Oklahoma studies. Concepts of
relative risk have been included in several studies
and can be used to develop long-term strategies for
toxic monitoring, nutrient criteria development, and
refinement of sediment and in-situ water quality
criteria. Additionally, the NARS quantitative habitat
methodologies have been combined with rapid
bioassessment protocols to develop more sensitive
habitat metrics. Lastly, use of multiple design
strategies (fixed and probabilistic) will improve the
ability to identify regional hotspots for resource
allocations.
3-77
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
National Lakes Assessment
Author or Lead Agency: U.S. EPA
More Information: http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/lakessurvey index.cfm
Lakes are an important water resource to monitor, because they provide, among other things, drinking
water, habitat for fish and wildlife, recreational opportunities, and flood control. However, their integrity is
potentially threatened by the continual expansion of lakeshore development. The National Lakes Assessment
was conducted in 2007 to survey the biological condition of the nation's lakes, ponds, and reservoirs as part
of the NARS Program. The NLA incorporates assessments of biological, chemical, and physical integrity; this
integrated approach is expected to focus attention on the relationships between stressor levels and lake integrity
and developing management strategies that foster healthy lake conditions in all three of these aspects of lake
integrity.
For the NLA, indicators were selected to measure the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of lakes and
their capacity to support recreational opportunities. The NLA is designed to provide information on the entire
population of lakes, nationally and at other broad scales; it does not assess the quality of individual lakes.
The NLA emphasizes the analysis of biological indicators and biological condition, because biological systems
integrate the affects of multiple stressors over time. Biological indicators included observed versus expected
(O/E) phytoplankton and zooplankton, the Lake Diatom Condition Index, benthic macroinvertebrates,
algal density (chlorophyll a), and invasive species. Chemical indicators included phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations, characteristics of the water column profile (dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, turbidity,
acid neutralizing capacity, salinity), and sediment mercury concentrations. Indicators of physical integrity
included lakeshore habitat cover and structure, shallow water habitat cover and structure, and lakeshore
human disturbance. Poor lakeshore habitat was the most significant stressor among lakes studied, being both
the most prevalent problem (occurring in one third of studied lakes) and the stressor that has the greatest
negative impact on a lake's biological health. This finding implies a need for management strategies that
protect and restore the natural state of lakeshore habitat to provide essential vegetative cover and buffering
from human disturbances. Lastly, recreational suitability indicators included pathogens (enterococci), algal toxin
concentrations (microcystins), and cyanobacteria counts.
Well-documented sample collection and analysis procedures were used to conduct the NLA. Depth profiles for
temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, water clarity, and the depth at which light penetrates the lake's water were
measured over the deepest point in each lake. Single grab water samples were collected to measure nutrients,
chlorophyll a, phytoplankton, and the algal toxin microcystin. Zooplankton samples were collected using fine
and coarse plankton nets. A sediment core was taken to provide data on sediment diatoms and mercury levels.
Along the perimeter of the lake, crews collected data on the physical characteristics that affect habitat suitability.
Substrate composition data were recorded along the ten peripheral stations. Benthic macroinvertebrates and
water samples for pathogen analysis were collected at the first and last stations, respectively.
All of these measurements were made for lakes selected through the random selection process and for a set of
least disturbed lakes that exhibit the highest quality condition. The results obtained from analysis of these high
quality lakes were used to define a set of reference lakes for biological condition and a set of reference lakes
for nutrient condition, to which lower quality lakes were compared. Lakes which had results above the 25th
percentile of the reference range values were considered "good" (56%); those which had results between the
fifth and 25th percentiles were considered "fair" (21%); and lakes which had results below the fifth percentile of
the reference range values were considered "poor" (22%) (Figure 3-33).
3-78
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
National All Lakes
49,546
Natural Lake
29,308
Man-Made Lakes
20,238
Taxa Loss
Good = <20%
Fair = 20% - 40%
Poor= >40%
Figure 3-33 Biological condition of lakes nationally and based on lake origin (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2009a).
The data produced by the 2007 NLA and future applications of its standardized field and laboratory protocols
contribute to the kind of statistically valid assessment of lakes that EPA and states need to inform their
lake management policy decisions. This survey established the first nationally consistent assessment of both
condition and extent of stressors to lake biological condition, which may be used to measure the impact of
future management activities. EPA sees the analyses that were developed for the NLA, such as the IBI for lake
diatoms and plankton O/E models, as tools that can be adapted for use within individual states. Data generated
through the NLA can be used to identify regional hotspots for particular stressors and promote collaboration
between jurisdictional authorities in those hotspots to reduce the stressors' impacts on lake integrity. States
can also use NLA data to tailor restoration strategies to address the stressors identified for each of the lakes
in their jurisdictions, making it easier for them to leverage programs such as the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program and Conservation Reserve and Enhancement Programs managed by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service and the CWA Section 319 Program and
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
3-79
-------
Case Study
Minnesota National Lakes Assessment
More information: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-
programs/surface-water/lakes/lake-water-quality/national-lakes-assessment-project-nlap.
html?menuid=&redirect=l
Minnesota's 2007 NLA effort was led by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). Other
collaborators included the U.S. Forest Service,
Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and USGS.
Minnesota received 41 lakes as a part of the original
draw of lakes for the national survey—the most of
any of the lower 48 states. Minnesota added nine
lakes to the survey to yield the 50 lakes needed for
statistically-based statewide estimates of condition. In
addition to the 50 lakes, 14 reference lakes were later
selected and sampled by EPA as a part of the overall
NLA effort. Data from the reference lakes provide
an additional basis for assessing lake condition as a
part of NLA. Because of its statistically-based nature,
this dataset provides a good basis for describing the
typical range of constituents and interrelationships in
Minnesota's lakes on a statewide basis.
Previous studies have described regional patterns
in lake trophic status and the NLA data reinforce
these patterns and provide a basis for statistically
describing trophic status on a statewide basis and
providing estimates at an ecoregion basis. In terms
of phosphorus-based trophic status, the distribution
of Minnesota's lakes is similar to that of the Nation
and about 64% of Minnesota's lakes are considered
oligotrophic or mesotrophic (on a weighted basis).
The Minnesota NLA phosphorus, chlorophyll a, and
Secchi data exhibit relatively strong correlations and
can be used to describe interrelationships and identify
thresholds. With respect to nitrogen, the Minnesota
data reveal very poor correspondence among nitrogen
and chlorophyll a, and nitrogen:phosphorus ratios
indicate that <10% of the lakes might be considered
"nitrogen-limited" — both of which support the
need to emphasize phosphorus over nitrogen when
developing nutrient criteria in freshwater lakes.
In addition to the measurements made as a part of the
overall NLA, Minnesota made several enhancements
to their survey, including: collaboration with U.S.
Forest Service in sampling the Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness, which allowed for inclusion
of hard-to-access lakes in this wilderness area;
sampling in support of lake Index of Biotic Integrity
(IBI) development; and a region-wide assessment of
the Prairie Pothole Region conducted in conjunction
with North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana and
Iowa an ongoing effort with primary emphasis
on identifying reference condition for this unique
population of lakes.
The NLA data provide a valuable complement to data
collected from other more targeted programs. This
statistically-based dataset allows for extrapolation to
the entire state or ecoregions. This can provide context
for data collected from other programs, estimate
numbers or percentages of lakes that meet water
quality standards or numbers or percentages of lakes
that may have a chemical make-up or other attributes
that may be of interest to state or local lake managers.
Minnesota's NLA reports also provide information on
other lake attributes that is useful to lake managers
and scientists.
3-80
-------
3 Examples of Assessment Approaches
Regional and National Monitoring and Assessments of Streams and Rivers
Author or Lead Agency: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/studies/mrb/
USGS implemented the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program in 1991 to develop long-
term, consistent and comparable information on streams, rivers, ground water, and aquatic systems in support
of national, regional, state, and local information needs and decisions related to water quality management and
policy. The current focus of USGS' National Water Quality Assessment Program is on regional and national
scale assessments of status and trends in streams, rivers, and ground water across the nation. Under the
NAWQA program, USGS collects and interprets a variety of biological, geological, chemical, geospatial, and
physical data, which can be used to assess water quality conditions and trends within a watershed. Available
ground water quality data are similar to surface water quality data but in addition include volatile organic
compounds, major anions and cations, trace elements, and selected radionuclides. Chemical, physical, and
aquatic biological parameters collected in surface waters include:
• Temperature
• Specific conductance
• Dissolved oxygen
• pH
• Alkalinity
• Chloride
• Carbonate
• Bicarbonate
• Sulfate
• Suspended sediment
• Nitrogen
• Phosphorus
Fish
Aquatic macrolnvertebrates
Periphyton
Chlorophyll
Stream habitat
Daily stream flow
NAWQA has identified eight large geographic regions (referred to as "major river basins") as the basis for its
status and trends assessments (Figure 3-34). The most recent NAWQA assessments (2002-2010) build upon
previous findings generated from 1992-2001 for streams and rivers in smaller basins (referred to as "study
units"). Primary goals remain the same: characterize the status of surface water quality (stream chemistry and
ecology) and ground water quality; determine trends at those sites that have been consistently monitored for
more than a decade; and build an understanding of how natural features and human activities affect water
quality. The number of sites included in NAWQA's status and trends network totals 113 across the eight major
river basins (Figure 3-34). The NAWQA monitoring network uses a fixed-site, five interval rotational sampling
scheme; therefore, sampling intensity varies from every year to one in four years at the different sites. The
results of regional and national scale water quality assessments are published in various USGS and journal
publications. In addition, data collected through the NAWQA monitoring network are made available through
USGS' National Water Information System (NWIS) and the NAWQA Data Warehouse (see Appendix B).
3-81
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
An important design element of the NAWQA Program is the integration of monitoring data with modeling
and other scientific tools to estimate water quality at unmonitored sites based on data collected at comparable
sites. Many of these tools are designed to evaluate various resource management scenarios and predict how
management actions are likely to affect water quality. Some specific applications of NAWQA tools include:
• The use of a hybrid statistical, GIS, and process-based model, SPARROW (SPAtially
Referenced Regressions On Watershed attributes), to estimate nutrient fluxes in
unmonitored streams throughout the conterminous United States (U.S. Geological
Survey, 2009d).
• The use of statistical and GIS tools for classifying watersheds into Hydrologic
Landscape Regions.
These modeling tools, based on the NAWQA data, can provide watershed managers with valuable information
when site-specific data are not available. National water quality monitoring and assessment programs such as
NAWQA and the National Rivers and Streams Assessment are important in the development of these tools, as
well as for providing information on aquatic ecosystem health.
MRB1
1
if Urban core sites (14)
if Agricultural core sites (8)
A Urban indicator sites sampled every 2 years (12)
A Agricultural indicator sites sampled every 2 years (3)
ft. Urban indicator sites sampled every 4 years (12)
ft Agricultural indicator sites sampled every 4 years (25)
ftj Integrator sites sampled every 4 years (30)
ft Reference indicator sites sampled every 4 years (19)
Figure 3-34 Sites for Regional and National Monitoring and Assessments of Streams and Rivers within
Major River Basins (MRB) (U.S. Geological Survey, 2009c).
3-82
-------
4. Healthy Watersheds Integrated
Assessments
Introduction
This chapter introduces the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, discusses the
characteristics of a healthy watershed, and reviews the benefits of protecting
healthy watersheds. This chapter also describes the purpose, target audience, and
intended use of this document.
Overview of Key Concepts
This chapter describes the healthy watersheds conceptual framework. It then
discusses, in detail, each of the six assessment components - landscape condition,
habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition.
A sound understanding of these concepts is necessary for the appropriate
application of the methods described in later chapters. This chapter concludes
with a discussion of watershed resilience.
Examples of Assessment Approaches
This chapter summarizes a range of assessment approaches currently being used
to assess the health of watersheds. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
possible approaches, nor is this a critical review of the approaches included. These
are provided solely as examples of different assessment methods that can be used
as part of a healthy watersheds integrated assessment. Discussions of how the
assessments were applied are provided for some approaches. Table 3-1 lists all of
the assessment approaches included in this chapter.
s
Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
This chapter presents two examples for conducting screening level healthy
watersheds integrated assessments. The first example relies on the results of a
national assessment. The second example demonstrates a methodology using
state-specific data for Vermont. This chapter also includes examples of state
efforts to move towards integrated assessments.
Management Approaches
This chapter includes examples of state healthy watersheds programs and
summarizes a variety of management approaches for protecting healthy
watersheds at different geographic scales. The chapter also includes a brief
discussion of restoration strategies, with focus on targeting restoration towards
degraded systems that have high ecological capacity for recovery. The results of
healthy watersheds integrated assessments can be used to guide decisions on
protection strategies and inform priorities for restoration.
4-1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
4.1 Integrated Assessment
The term "integrated assessment," as used in this document, refers to a holistic evaluation of system components
and processes that results in a more complete understanding of the aquatic ecosystem, and allows for the
targeting of management actions to protect healthy watersheds. Figure 4-1 shows the healthy watersheds
integrated assessment and management framework. Collaboration with multiple partners is critical for framing
the scale and context of the assessment and ensuring that all relevant data and expertise are identified and
made available. These data are then used to evaluate each of the six healthy watersheds assessment components
- landscape condition, habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition. The results
of the individual assessments are synthesized to provide an overall assessment of watershed health. Strategic
watershed protection priorities can then be identified by evaluating vulnerability alongside the identified
healthy watersheds. Examples of watershed protection strategies and the role of outreach and education are
discussed in Chapter 5- It is also important to collect new data for demonstrating the effectiveness of watershed
protection activities and to refine future assessments. Assessment and management of healthy watersheds is an
adaptive and iterative process, with new data and improved methodologies providing better assessment results
and more effective protection strategies over time.
Involve partners to
identify available data
& scale of assessment
Measure progress &
collect new data
Evaluate each of the
six healthy watersheds
components
Implement strategic
watershed protection
priorities
Integrate results to
identify healthy
watersheds & evaluate
vulnerability
Figure 4-1 Healthy watersheds integrated assessment and management framework.
4-2
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Numerous approaches are available for evaluating each healthy watersheds attribute, ranging from screening
level analyses and desktop assessments to field assessments. The National Fish Habitat Assessment (NFHA) is
an example of a screening level analysis that was conducted for the entire United States (National Fish Habitat
Board, 2010). The assessment estimates relative fish habitat condition for all rivers at the reach, catchment, and
HUC12 scale. The following fifteen human disturbance variables were calculated for all reaches represented in
the NHDPlus dataset:
1. Population density
2. Developed open space
3. Road crossing density
4. Low intensity development
5. Road density
6. Medium intensity development
7- Dam density
8. High intensity development
9. Mine density
10. Impervious surfaces
11. Toxics Release Inventory site density
12. Pasture/hay
13- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System site density
14. Cultivated crops
15- Superfund national priority site density
Canonical correspondence analysis and multiple linear regression were used to relate the best subset of the
human disturbance variables to a fish community metric, percent intolerant species. The fish community data
were available from 2,440 sites sampled since 1995- The NFHA results can be downloaded by state and used
as a first pass for identifying healthy watersheds (http://ecosystems.usgs.gov/fishhabitat/). NFHA results for
Vermont are shown in Figure 4-2.
4-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
N
A
Not Scored
^H 5 Best Condition
3.6001 - 4.9999
.3334 - 3.6000
1.0001 -2.3333
1 Poorest Condition
Miles
10
20
Figure 4-2 National Fish Habitat Assessment (NFHA) scores at the 12 digit hydrologic unit code
(HUC) scale for Vermont (courtesy of the National Fish Habitat Board).
4-4
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
NFHA results provide one option for easily identifying potential healthy watersheds without the need to
collect additional data or conduct an assessment. Many states have detailed datasets available that include more
specific indicators of watershed health and consider additional attributes and habitats (e.g., lakes, wetlands,
etc.). These states are in a good position to perform their own assessment and identify healthy watersheds. This
chapter outlines one example of a GIS-based, screening level methodology for identifying healthy watersheds
statewide. This assessment methodology uses an index approach for identifying healthy watersheds across the
State of Vermont with existing data collected by state and national organizations. Indices are a convenient
way to aggregate data and communicate complex information in a simplified manner. They are most useful
for comparative purposes (e.g., healthy or degraded) and to communicate with the public or decision makers.
By design, indices contain far less information than the raw data that they summarize; they do not convey
information about underlying processes. Statistical methods can be used to better understand the relationships
between individual metrics that make up an index. The results of such analyses can be helpful in estimating
conditions in data-poor watersheds and can also help to set management goals. For example, multiple linear
regression can be used to investigate relationships between different land cover classes in a watershed and
indicators of biological condition such as macroinvertebrate species richness. Biological conditions can then
potentially be estimated in similar watersheds that lack biomonitoring data by applying the regression equation
to available land cover data. In addition, this type of analysis provides information on potential land cover
thresholds that result in lowered biological condition. These thresholds can then be used to inform land use
planning decisions.
Some of the datasets used in this example are unique to the State of Vermont, while others are available
nationwide. Most states and tribes will find that they are able to gather sufficient existing data, from both
internal sources and from national databases, to perform screening level assessments for identifying healthy
watersheds. Screening level assessments allow early action to protect healthy watersheds and prioritization of
future field data collection efforts that will be used to verify and refine the assessments of individual healthy
watersheds components. It is important to work across programs and agencies in order to identify all potentially
useful datasets. The datasets used in the assessment summarized in this chapter come from the organizations
listed in Table 4-1. These data were used to calculate metrics for each of the six healthy watersheds assessment
components (Table 4-2). The rest of this section describes how these metrics were calculated and integrated
into an overall index of watershed health.
Table 4-1 Datasets used to identify healthy watersheds in Vermont.
Dataset
Dam inventory
Water quality monitoring data
Stream geomorphic assessment data
Significant Wetlands Inventory
Biological monitoring data
Draft results from Vermont's Habitat Blocks and Wildlife
Corridors Analysis
National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPIus)
National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2001 and 2006
Active River Area delineation for the northeastern U.S
Climate change projections
Impervious cover change projections
Water use change projections
Organization
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
The Nature Conservancy
Climate Wizard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey
4-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Table 4-2 Metrics calculated for each healthy watersheds assessment component.
Healthy Watersheds Assessment Component
Landscape Condition
Metric
Percent of watershed occupied by unfragmented natural land cover
Percent natural land cover within the Active River Area
Dam density (#/mi)
Percent of watershed occupied by significant (i.e., high quality) wetlands
Dam storage ratio (days)
Percent of assessed stream miles in reference condition
Percent of assessed sites in reference condition
Percent of assessed sites in BCG Tiers I or II
Determine the Appropriate Scale
One of the first steps in any watershed assessment is to decide on the appropriate geographic scale. Depending
on the specific objectives and the resources available, the assessment can be conducted at a number of scales.
Watersheds have a hierarchical nature; every watershed is nested within a larger watershed and has smaller
watersheds nested within it. The appropriate scale for conducting a healthy watersheds assessment depends
on the user and their specific objectives, as well as the hydrologic characteristics of the region (e.g., larger
watersheds in arid regions, smaller watersheds in regions with high precipitation). It is also important to
consider the resolution of available datasets when choosing the appropriate scale for the assessment. For
example, the NLCD layer has a resolution of 30 meters and should only be used in landscape scale analyses
(not site-based). Ideally, field data will have been collected under a probabilistic monitoring design that allows
for statistical estimates of aquatic ecosystem condition at the watershed scale. In the absence of probabilistic
data, data gaps and uncertainties should be clearly stated. In this example, data were aggregated at the HUC12
scale to identify healthy watersheds throughout Vermont. Though the field data used here were not collected
under a probabilistic design, the large amount of data collected in all areas of the state helps to minimize
uncertainty. A refinement of this analysis would include statistically-based estimates of biological condition at
the watershed scale using data collected under a probabilistic monitoring design.
4-6
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Evaluate Landscape Condition
The percent natural land cover within a watershed can be an important indicator of watershed health.
Land cover data are sometimes available from the state or county. When local data are not available,
the NLCD can be downloaded for free from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
(http ://www.mrlc.gov). This dataset contains land cover data for the years 1992, 2001, and 2006, as well
as percent impervious data for the entire United States. Impervious surfaces are associated with roads and
residential and urban areas, and can increase watershed runoff, leading to instream flow alteration, geomorphic
instability, and increased pollutant loading. Less than 10% impervious cover throughout a watershed has been
correlated with excellent or very good IBIs and is suggested as a threshold beyond which aquatic ecosystem
health begins to decline (Schueler, 1994). Recent research has suggested that much lower levels of impervious
cover may have significant impacts on the aquatic biota (King, Baker, Kazyak & Weller, 2011). A general
trend of declining IBI scores has also been observed with increasing agricultural land use (Wang & Yin, 1997).
However, generally applicable thresholds have yet to be determined and are likely to vary by region.
The extent and connectivity of natural land cover within a watershed are very important for ecological integrity.
Natural land cover within the watershed, and especially within headwater areas and riparian corridors, helps to
maintain the hydrologic regime, regulates inputs of nutrients and organic matter, and provides habitat for fish
and wildlife. Assessing the connectivity of large core areas of natural vegetation involves a green infrastructure
assessment such as those that have been conducted by Virginia, Florida, and Maryland (see Chapter 3).
Green infrastructure assessments identify large core areas of unfragmented natural vegetation and corridors of
sufficient width to allow for the migration of wildlife between the core areas. A number of CIS tools have been
developed to assist with green infrastructure assessments, such as the University of Connecticut's Landscape
Fragmentation Tool (University of Connecticut Center for Land Use Education and Research, 2009). This
tool delineates areas of contiguous natural land cover, allowing for the identification of core areas or hubs.
Typically, green infrastructure assessments then use GIS techniques to identify corridors that represent the
easiest migration routes for wildlife to move from one core area to another. For the Vermont example, draft
results from the Fish and Wildlife Department's Habitat Blocks and Wildlife Corridors analysis were used to
identify contiguous blocks of natural land cover and calculate the percent of each watershed's area occupied by
these blocks (Figure 4-3). The green infrastructure metric was calculated as follows:
(Acres of contiguous natural land cover in watershed)
Green infrastructure metric =
(Total acres in watershed)
The amount of natural land cover within the Active River Area is another important indicator of landscape
condition. The Active River Area framework was developed by The Nature Conservancy and includes the
river channel, lakes and ponds, and the riparian lands necessary for the physical and ecological functioning of
the aquatic ecosystem (see Chapter 3). This area is formed and maintained by disturbance events and regular
variations in flow and water level within the dynamic environment of the water/land interface. The Active River
Area focuses on five key processes: hydrology and fluvial action, sediment transport, energy flows, debris flows,
and biotic actions and interactions (Smith et al., 2008). The analysis identifies the places where these processes
occur based on valley setting, watershed position, and geomorphic stream type. The Active River Area has
already been delineated by The Nature Conservancy for the entire northeastern United States (Arlene Olivero,
The Nature Conservancy, Personal Communication). A set of GIS tools for delineating the Active River Area
in other parts of the country can be obtained by contacting TNC's freshwater program. For the Vermont
example, the percent natural land cover within the Active River Area was calculated for each watershed (Figure
4-4). The Active River Area metric was calculated as follows:
(Acres of natural land cover in Active River Area)
Active River Area metric =
(Total acres in Active River Area)
4-7
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Habitat Blocks
Water
HUC 12 Watersheds
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-3 Blocks of contiguous natural land cover in Vermont (courtesy of Vermont Fish and Wildlife
Department).
4-8
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
% Natural Land Cover
^H 9-31
32-54
55-77
^H 78-100
H Water
I I HUC 12 Watersheds
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-4 Percent natural land cover in the Active River Area of Vermont (Active River Area delineation
courtesy of The Nature Conservancy)..
4-9
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Evaluate Habitat Condition
The quality of aquatic habitat is dependent on the surrounding landscape, and hydrologic and
geomorphic processes. Therefore, habitat condition is partly accounted for through indicators
representing those assessment components. The potential for organisms to migrate upstream and
downstream within a riverine system can also serve as an indicator of aquatic habitat condition. For the
Vermont example, dam density (dams per stream mile) was calculated and used as an indicator of aquatic
habitat connectivity (Figure 4-5). The habitat connectivity metric was calculated as follows:
(Number of dams in watershed)
Habitat connectivity metric =
(Total stream miles in watershed)
Intact wetlands help to maintain natural hydrologic regimes, provide important habitat for fish and wildlife,
and regulate water quality. The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has inventoried and
classified wetlands in Vermont into one of three classes according to their overall condition and ability to
provide important habitat or maintain important ecosystem functions. Class I and Class II wetlands are
designated as significant wetlands based on the function and value they provide. For the Vermont example, the
percent of the watershed occupied by Class I and Class II wetlands was calculated and used as an additional
indicator of habitat condition for each watershed (Figure 4-6). The wetland metric was calculated as follows:
(Acres of Class I and Class II significant wetlands)
Wetland metric =
(Total acres in watershed)
Evaluate Hydrologic Condition
/T\ Where long-term stream flow data are available, either from a USGS stream gage or a locally
^ 1 operated stream gage, and predevelopment flow data are available or have been modeled, the degree
W/ of hydrologic alteration can be rigorously evaluated. Where long-term flow data are not available,
it can be estimated with a number of modeling techniques. For example, StreamStats is a web-based USGS
application that will estimate monthly stream flow statistics at ungaged sites across the United States (U.S.
Geological Survey, 2009e). The Massachusetts Sustainable Yield Estimator estimates daily stream flow at
ungaged sites anywhere in Massachusetts (Archfield et al., 2010). The USGS is currently working to expand
the approach developed in Massachusetts to estimate continuous, daily unimpacted stream flow at any ungaged
location in the Connecticut River Basin (portions of MA, CT, NH, and VT). This will result in a seamless,
multi-state GIS-based point-and-click application that will allow users to identify a stream reach of interest in
the Connecticut River Basin and obtain estimated continuous daily, unimpacted or "natural" stream flow at
the selected location.
The ratio of the volume of water impounded by dams and the average annual predevelopment stream flow
can also serve as an indicator of potential hydrologic alteration.The National Inventory of Dams (NID),
as well as many state dam inventories, contains the annual storage volume impounded behind each dam.
Summing these values for an entire watershed gives the numerator of the dam storage ratio. Estimated average
annual predevelopment stream flow can be obtained for any watershed in the country from the National
Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus). Dividing the dam storage volume by the predevelopment stream flow
yields the storage ratio. It is important to keep in mind that these values are only coarse estimates and that this
indicator does not represent the important hydrologic processes that drive aquatic ecosystem condition. More
sophisticated analyses of hydrologic condition should be conducted when feasible. For the Vermont example,
the dam storage ratio was calculated for each watershed and used as a metric of hydrologic alteration. The
hydrologic alteration metric was calculated as follows:
(Dam storage volume)
Hydrologic alteration metric =
(Predevelopment annual stream flow)
4-10
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Dams
Streams
Lakes
HUC 12 Watersheds
Miles
10 20
N
A
Figure 4-5 Location of dams in Vermont (courtesy of Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation).
4-11
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
HUC 12 Watersheds
Vermont Significant Wetlands
Water
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-6 Class I and Class II significant wetlands in Vermont (courtesy of Vermont Department of
Environmental Conservation).
4-12
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Evaluate Geomorphic Condition
Built infrastructure can fragment both terrestrial and aquatic habitat throughout a watershed and
can modify natural stream geomorphology. In the absence of data on stream geomorphology, the
percent natural land cover in the Active River Area can be used as a potential indicator of geomorphic
condition. Detailed assessments of stream geomorphic condition can be performed using procedures such as
the Massachusetts River and Stream Continuity Project protocols (Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game,
2011), Vermont's Stream Geomorphic Assessment protocols (Kline, Alexander, Pytlik, Jaquith, & Pomeroy,
2009), or other similar, region-specific protocols. Most of these protocols typically begin with a desktop based
analysis (Phase 1) of geomorphic condition and are often followed up with detailed field assessments.
Phase 1 stream geomorphic assessments have been conducted for a large number of watersheds in Vermont
using techniques described in Chapter 3 (Figure 4-7). Phase 1 assessments are GIS-based analyses using
elevation, land cover, and stream network data layers to classify stream types and evaluate the condition of
individual reaches based on a comparison to reference conditions for that stream type. Additional data used
to evaluate stream reach condition include locations of flow regulations and water withdrawals (including
dams, bridges, culverts, etc.), USGS topographic maps, and historical information concerning dredging, gravel
mining, and bank armoring. The Phase 1 geomorphic condition is determined primarily through a stream
impact rating based on channel, floodplain, and land use modifications. Low stream impact ratings indicate
reaches that are in good to excellent condition and may be candidate reference reaches. The specific methods
used to determine stream geomorphic condition are described in detail in the Vermont SGA protocols. Table
4-3 describes the stream geomorphic condition categories that are determined through the stream impact
rating. For the Vermont example, the percent of assessed stream miles in reference condition was calculated for
each watershed and used as an indicator of geomorphic condition. The geomorphology metric was calculated
as follows:
Geomorphology metric =
(Stream miles in reference condition)
(Total stream miles assessed in watershed)
Table 4-3 Descriptions of the stream geomorphic condition categories (Kline et al., 2009).
Condition
Reference
Good
Fair
Poor
Description
In Equilibrium - no apparent or significant channel, floodplain, or land cover modifications; channel geometry is
likely to be in balance with the flow and sediment produced in its watershed.
In Equilibrium but may be in transition into or out of the range of natural variability - minor erosion or lateral
adjustment but adequate floodplain function; any adjustment from historic modifications nearly complete.
In Adjustment- moderate loss of floodplain function; or moderate to major plan-form adjustments that could lead
to channel avulsions.
In Adjustment and Stream Type Departure - may have changed to a new stream type or central tendency of fluvial
processes or significant channel and floodplain modifications may have altered the channel geometry such that the
stream is not in balance with the flow and sediment produced in its watershed.
4-13
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Stream Geomorphic Condition
Poor
Fair
Good
Reference
Unassessed
Water
HUC 12 Watersheds
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-7 Phase 1 stream geomorphic assessment results for Vermont (courtesy of Vermont Department
of Environmental Conservation).
4-14
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Evaluate Water Quality
Water quality can be evaluated in a number of ways, ranging from statewide probabilistic monitoring
to the use of complex watershed loading models and empirical analyses of the relationship between
landscape characteristics and water quality As part of the National Wadeable Streams Assessment and
National Lakes Assessment, EPA has specified ecoregional water quality criteria for identifying least-disturbed
sites throughout the United States (Herlihy, et al. 2008; in-review manuscript by Herlihy, A., Banks Sobota,
J., McDonell, ^., Sullivan, ^., Lehmann, S., and Tarquinio, E. "An a priori process for selecting candidate
reference lakes for a national survey")- For the Vermont example, these criteria were used to identify streams
and lakes that are likely to be in reference condition based on total phosphorus, total nitrogen, turbidity, and
chloride concentrations (Table 4-4; Figure 4-8). The water quality metric was calculated as follows:
Water quality metric =
(Number of sites with all parameters less than reference criteria)
(Total number of sites assessed in watershed)
Table 4-4 Ecoregional water quality criteria used to screen for reference sites in Vermont (Herlihy, et al. 2008;
in-review manuscript by Herlihy, A., Banks Sobota, J., McDonell, T., Sullivan, T., Lehmann, S., and Tarquinio, E. "An
a priori process for selecting candidate reference lakes for a national survey").
Ecoregion/Ecoarea Total Phosphorus (ug/L) Total Nitrogen (ug/L) Turbidity (NTU) Chloride (ue/L)
Northern Appalachian
Ecoregion (Streams)
New England Highlands
Ecoarea (Lakes)
New York Lowlands
Ecoarea (Lakes)
20
10
20
750
250
20
100
Evaluate Biological Condition
In areas where IBIs have been developed, these data can be overlain in GIS to identify healthy instream
conditions in the context of the other healthy watersheds attributes. Healthy watersheds should have
IBI scores close to reference conditions. Where such indices have not been developed, biological data
can be used to create them. Examples of approaches for developing IBIs are summarized in Chapter 3-
The Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation uses the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) to
characterize biological condition statewide (See Chapter 3). Each assessed stream is placed into one of six tiers
(biological condition categories) based upon the IBI scores from fish and/or macroinvertebrate assessments.
Tiers I and II can be considered to be least or minimally disturbed. Where the fish and macroinvertebrate
scores differ for the same stream, the lower score is used to represent biological condition. This is a conservative
approach for estimating overall biological condition. For the Vermont example, the percent of Tier I and Tier
II sites in each watershed was used as a metric to represent overall biological condition (Figure 4-9). The
biological condition metric was calculated as follows:
Biological condition metric =
(Number of Tier I and Tier II sites)
(Total number of sites assessed in watershed)
4-15
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Water Quality Sampling Locations
• Non-reference
• Reference
Streams
Lakes
HUC 12 Watersheds
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-8 Reference and non-reference water quality sites in Vermont (courtesy of Vermont
Department of Environmental Conservation).
4-16
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Biological Condition Gradient
• Tier 6
o Tier 5
o Tier 4
Tier 3
o Tier 2
• Tier 1
Streams
Lakes
HUC 12 Watersheds
Miles
20
Figure 4-9 Combined results of fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment scores at stream monitoring
sites in Vermont (courtesy of Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation).
4-17
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Evaluate Overall Watershed Health
Watershed health was evaluated by normalizing the metric scores to integrate the data on multiple healthy
watershed attributes into a composite score. Normalization converts indicator scores into a common scale in
order to avoid potential bias introduced by the units in which each variable is measured. Normalization can be
as simple as defining a threshold for the indicator score that is considered healthy. Scores above this threshold
may receive a one and scores below it, a score of zero. Defining "healthy" thresholds for each indicator can
be a difficult process that may require input from multiple programs or agencies. Alternatively, the indicator
scores may be scaled to a value between zero and one by dividing the observed value for a given watershed by
the reference value or maximum value for all watersheds in a state, essentially representing the condition as a
percentage. The indicator scores must also be directionally aligned, meaning that higher scores should equate to
"better" ecological conditions for each metric. For metrics that are not directionally aligned (e.g., dam storage
ratio) in their original units, the inverse (1/X) of each value can be taken.
For the Vermont example, a composite index of watershed health was constructed by averaging the normalized
indicator scores for each attribute (Figure 4-10). For attributes with more than one indicator, a sub-index was
first calculated. The sub-indices were then averaged to obtain the overall health index score. Depending on
the specific management objectives, it may be appropriate to place more weight on some ecological attributes
than on others. At that point, the process becomes subjective and a logical decision framework can be used for
soliciting and documenting expert opinion (see Smith, Tran, & O'Neill, 2003). Weighting was not used in the
Vermont assessment. The normalized metrics and sub-index were calculated as follows:
(Observed metric for watershed x)
Normalized metric value =
(Maximum metric value for all watersheds in state)
(Normalized metric 1 + Normalized metric 2 + ... + Normalized metric x)
Sub-index =
Watershed health index =
(Total number of metrics)
(Sub-index 1 + Sub-index 2 + ... + Sub-index x)
(Total number of Sub-indices)
The final sub-index and watershed health scores for the Vermont HUC12s span varying ranges. For example,
the habitat condition scores range from a minimum value of 0.001 to a maximum value of 0.516. For
communication purposes, it can be useful to normalize the final sub-index and watershed health index scores
to range from 0 to 1. This allows for comparison of attribute scores between different HUC12s, as well as
allows for direct comparison of one attribute score to another. Figure 4-11 displays the normalized scores for
each of the six attribute sub-indices and the normalized score for watershed health in three example HUC12s.
4-18
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
N
A
Miles
0 10 20
Figure 4-10 Relative watershed health scores for Vermont.
4-19
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
N
A
HUC12
Landscape Condition
Habitat
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Water Quality
Biological Condition
010801050102
0.938
0.958
0.381
0.988
0.595
0.862
Watershed Health
1.000
Watershed Health
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-11 Normalized watershed health scores for Vermont, with normalized attribute scores displayed for
select HUC12s. To facilitate communication of the results, all scores were normalized to range from 0 to 1.
The final watershed health index scores, for example, were transformed from a minimum value of 0.071 and a
maximum value of 0.598 to a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of 1.
4-20
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Assess Vulnerability
Though not essential to identifying healthy watersheds and their intact components, a vulnerability assessment
facilitates the prioritization of protection and restoration strategies. Future projections of impervious surface
cover for the year 2050 from EPA's Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) project (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2010) were compared with current impervious surface cover in the same
dataset to calculate a percent change metric for each watershed. The threats may include expected population
growth and urban and suburban development, impacts from climate change, increased water withdrawals,
industrialization, agriculture, etc. Vulnerability assessments can be conducted based on urban growth models,
climate change predictive models, water use forecasts, invasive species threats, pollutant threats and models,
best professional judgment, and other methods.
Areas of vulnerability can be identified on a map, and the healthy areas that fall within those "vulnerable
boundaries" can be prioritized for protection. For example, a build-out analysis is a mapping method for
assessing vulnerability to future growth. Build-out analyses identify areas of potential development based
on current zoning regulations and can be instructive to the public and local governments. Many people are
unaware of the potential risks that their local zoning regulations (or lack thereof) create. Build-out analyses
and the predicted ecological and social effects of complete development can prompt action to revise zoning
regulations and implement other environmental protection ordinances. Some of these potential actions are
discussed in Chapter 5. To complete a build-out analysis, a GIS layer(s) of current zoning for the watershed(s)
is required. Zoning designates legally allowable land uses for districts within a community. A copy of the land
cover layer used in the landscape condition evaluation can be modified using GIS to reflect these potential
future land uses.
For the Vermont example, vulnerability was calculated using data for future projections of impervious cover,
climate change projections, future water use, and recent changes in anthropogenic cover (Figure 4-12). Future
projections of impervious surface cover for the year 2050 were obtained from EPA's Integrated Climate and
Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS) project (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010). The projected values of
impervious surface cover were compared with current impervious surface cover in the same dataset to calculate
a percent change metric for each watershed. The impervious change metric was calculated as follows:
(Impervious area in 2050 - Impervious area in 2010)
Impervious change metric =
(Impervious surface acres in 2010)
Similarly, the percent change between current temperature and precipitation and projected temperature and
precipitation for the year 2050 were also calculated for each watershed in Vermont. These climate projections
are available for download from climatewizard.org (Maurer, Brekke, Pruitt, & Duffy, 2007). The temperature
and precipitation change metrics were calculated as follows:
Temp, change metric = Avg. annual temp.in 2050 - Avg. annual temp, for period of 1961 to 1990
Precip. change metric = Avg. annual precip.in 2050 - Avg. annual precip. for period of 1961 to 1990
Projected water use estimates are available for Vermont from the USGS for the year 2020 (Medalie &
Horn, 2010). In cases where detailed water use projections are not available, population growth estimates
can be obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. Future water use can be estimated based on these population
projections and a per capita water use rate. Projected water use estimates from USGS were used to calculate the
water use change metric as follows:
(Water use in 2020 - Water use in 2005)
Water use change metric =
(Water use in 2005)
4-21
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The percent change in anthropogenic (e.g., urban and agricultural) land cover between 2001 and 2006 was
also calculated for each watershed. This metric represents recent landscape alteration, an important indicator
of aquatic ecosystem degradation (Schueler, 1994; King, Baker, Kazyak & Weller, 2011). While impervious
surface cover is projected to decrease in many watersheds throughout Vermont by 2050, recent land cover
data indicate that anthropogenic land uses have continued to increase throughout Vermont in recent years.
Therefore, this metric was included to provide a more balanced representation of landscape threats to aquatic
ecosystem health. The recent land cover change metric was calculated as follows:
(Anthropogenic land cover in 2006 - Anthropogenic land cover in 2001)
Recent land cover change metric =
(Anthropogenic land cover in 2001)
Similar to the method used to calculate the watershed health index, the vulnerability index was calculated by
normalizing and combining the individual metric scores as follows:
(Observed metric value for watershed x)
Normalized metric value =
Vulnerability index =
(Maximum metric value for all watersheds in the state)
(Normalized metric 1 + Normalized metric 2 + ... + Normalized metric x)
(Total number of metrics)
Three additional examples of vulnerability assessment approaches include Virginia's Vulnerability Assessment
Model, EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA), and Wyoming's Ground Water Vulnerability
Assessment. Case studies of these examples are provided on pages 4-26 through 4-30.
4-22
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
N
A
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-12 Relative watershed vulnerability scores for Vermont.
4-23
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Set Strategic Management Priorities
The results of watershed health and vulnerability assessments can be used to set strategic management
priorities at the watershed scale. Figure 4-13 illustrates one way to assign relative priorities statewide. The
median watershed health score for the state splits the X-axis in half and the median watershed vulnerability
score for the state splits the Y-axis in half. These two median lines create four quadrants that can be used
to classify watersheds according to their relative restoration and protection needs. Other quantiles or break
points (e.g., 90%) can also be used for classifying the watersheds as healthy or vulnerable. These break points
should be carefully defined, and may require input from multiple programs or agencies. Healthy watersheds
with high vulnerability can be considered a priority for protection actions before they become degraded.
Healthy watersheds with low vulnerability should still be protected, but the need may not be as urgent.
Degraded watersheds with low vulnerability can be considered a priority for restoration due to their high
potential for recovery while degraded watersheds with high vulnerability can be considered less of a priority
when the emphasis is on achieving results and demonstrating management effectiveness. In all of these cases,
but especially when health and vulnerability scores are within intermediate ranges, site-specific determinations
should be used to verify that the management action is appropriate for the watershed. Figure 4-14 displays the
results of this management prioritization process for the State of Vermont. The individual scores for each of the
metrics and sub-indices can also help guide the selection of specific management actions for a given watershed.
For example, a watershed identified as a protection priority might have a high geomorphology score, but a
relatively low water quality score. This indicates the need for both protection (e.g., river corridor easements)
and restoration (e.g., TMDL implementation) actions.
High
Restore
Protection
Priority
£
cu
c
Site-specific
Determination
Restoration
Priority
Protect
Low
Low
Watershed Health
High
Figure 4-13 Example of a management priorities matrix for setting protection and restoration
priorities using watershed health and vulnerability scores.
4-24
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
N
A
HUC 12 Watersheds
Management Guidance
| Protection Priority
| Protect
| Restoration Priority
~| Restore
Miles
10 20
Figure 4-14 Example of potential management guidance based on combined watershed health and
vulnerability scores for Vermont.
4-25
-------
Case Study
Virginia Conservation Lands Needs
Assessment Vulnerability Model
More Information: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnavulnerable.shtml
The Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment
(VCLNA) is a flexible, widely applicable CIS
tool for integrated and coordinated modeling and
mapping of land conservation priorities and actions
in Virginia. The VCLNA is currently composed of
seven separate, but interrelated models: 1) Natural
Landscape Assessment Model, 2) Cultural Model,
3) Vulnerability Model, 4) Forest Economics Model,
5) Agricultural Model, 6) Recreation Model, and 7)
Watershed Integrity Model. Together, these models
are used to identify and assess the condition of
Virginia's green infrastructure. Additional models
can be built to analyze other green infrastructure and
natural resource-related issues. The Natural Landscape
Assessment Model is described in Chapter 3 and the
Watershed Integrity Model is described in Chapter 4.
The Vulnerability Model informs land conservation
priorities in the Virginia Conservation Lands Needs
Assessment by identifying those areas most at risk
from development pressures and other factors. The
Vulnerability Model uses three submodels to evaluate
growth pressures in urban, urban fringe, and suburban
or rural areas. A composite model integrates all three
of the submodels to provide a complete picture of
potential growth areas.
Based on the Chesapeake Bay Program's model, the
Vulnerability Model used Rural Area Community
Codes (U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic
Research Service, 2005) to distinguish between urban,
urban fringe, and suburban areas. The model used
land cover, slope, census (housing and population),
roads, travel time, and parcel data to predict future
growth across the state.
The outputs of the Vulnerability Model provide an
opportunity for local communities to proactively
plan for growth. The results of the assessment can be
used to guide a community's master planning process
and can be combined with any of the other models
in the VCLNA program, such as the Landscape
Assessment Model or Watershed Integrity Model for
use in determining priority conservation areas. GIS
data, hardcopy, and digital maps are available for the
Vulnerability Model's results in the Commonwealth
of Virginia and can be combined with other data or
analyses. The Vulnerability Model can be used for
targeting and prioritization of conservation sites,
guiding local planning and growth assessment, land
management, and public education. Figure 4-15
shows how the vulnerability assessment results can
be combined with a healthy waters assessment to
identify high quality streams for protection priorities
at a regional scale.
4-26
-------
Virginia Healthy Waters Vulnerable
to Potential Growth
Healthy Waters
• Exceptional Stream, Highest Growth Threat
• Exceptional Stream, High Growth Threat
Healthy Stream, Highest Growth Threat
Healthy Stream, High Growth Threat
Virginia County Boundaries
Predicted Growth Threat
^^| Highest Growth Threat
High Growth Threat
^"flr"
fX.
0 10 20 40
Virginia Coastal Zone
This map was produced by the CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES at Virginia Commonwealth University. *
For more information about Virginia's Healthy Waters Initiative. •
visit http://instarvcu.edu.
For more information on the VCLNA Growth Prediction Model.visit
the OCR Division of Natural Heritage website at
http://www.dcr. virginia.gov/natural_herrtage/vclnavulnerable.shtrnl.
Figure 4-15 Regional results of the VCLNA Vulnerability Model overlain with results from Virginia's
Healthy Waters program (Greg Garman, Virginia Commonwealth University, Personal Communication).
4-27
-------
Case Study
EPA Regional Vulnerability Assessment
Program
More Information: http://www.epa.gov/reva/
The goal of EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment
(ReVA) Program is to develop and demonstrate an
approach to comprehensive, regional-scale assessments
that effectively inform decision makers as to the
magnitude, extent, distribution, and uncertainty of
current and anticipated environmental vulnerabilities.
By identifying ecosystems within a region that are
most vulnerable to being lost or harmed in the next
five to 25 years, and determining which stressors are
likely to pose the greatest risks, ReVA serves as an
early warning system for identifying environmental
changes that can be expected over the next few
decades. The objectives of the ReVA program are to:
1. Provide regional scale, spatially
explicit information on the extent and
distribution of stressors and sensitive
resources.
2. Develop and evaluate techniques to
integrate information on exposure and
effects so that decision makers can
better assess relative risk and prioritize
management actions.
3- Predict potential consequences of
environmental changes under alternative
future scenarios.
4. Effectively communicate economic and
quality of life trade-offs associated with
alternative environmental policies.
5. Develop techniques to prioritize areas for
ecological restoration.
6. Identify information gaps and
recommend actions to improve
monitoring and focus research.
Current science indicates that future environmental
protection efforts must address problems that are
just emerging or are on the horizon. Many of these
problems are subtle and cumulative, with widespread,
regional effects and poorly understood implications.
The research approach advocated by ReVA differs
from typical ecological research in that it seeks to
integrate many different types of information from
many different sources into a cohesive product.
Much of the last 100 years of ecological research has
focused on examining the effects of single components
of ecosystems one by one. Many of the issues facing
the environment are chronic conditions such as the
impairment of our nation's waters being affected by
point sources (e.g., waste water treatment facilities),
nonpoint sources (pollution generated by activities
such as agriculture), water usage, and climate.
ReVA uses four interacting functions to develop
regional assessments that address current and future
(projected) chronic environmental problems:
1. Landscape: Data on stressors and effects
from many sources must be placed into
spatial context and synthesized using
GIS techniques.
2. Research Gaps: Research must fill critical
gaps in our ability to apply the data at
landscape and regional scales, and to
understand how socioeconomic factors
affect environmental conditions.
3- Real World: An assessment component
must keep the project grounded in the
"real world" by applying the data and
risk assessment techniques to specific
regions.
4. Data and Analytical Tools: This final step
is critical to ensuring that the results of
the research can be applied to continuing
regional assessments. The data and
analytical tools must be transferred into
the hands of regional managers; ReVA
accomplishes this final step by developing
web based demonstration projects.
4-28
-------
ReVA developed a web-based environmental
decision toolkit for the Mid-Atlantic region that
allows decision makers to evaluate potential changes
to ecosystems in response to various management
decisions under various future development scenarios
(e.g., population increase, land-use change, climate
change, intensity of resource extraction) out to
the year 2020. The toolkit is now being used by
states and EPA Region 3 to develop integrated
management decisions. For example, ReVA has
tailored the environmental decision toolkit to fit
the local conditions found within the 15 counties of
the Charlotte/Gastonia/Rock Hill region in North
and South Carolina. This region is projected to see
an 85% growth in its population by 2030, with
concomitant increases in sprawl, air quality problems,
and associated concerns of decreased quality of life
if the growth is not carefully managed. ReVA has
helped to integrate the pieces and provide insights
into cumulative impacts associated with alternative
patterns of growth and land development by explicitly
considering factors such as air quality, amenities,
water quality, infrastructure costs, and human health
factors. Economic impacts of alternative growth
scenarios were evaluated, along with the effects on
health and natural resources. Many of the region's
environmental concerns, such as air quality, will be
driven by options chosen for future transportation
needs. Thus, partners envisioned an alternative future
scenario that would encourage both mass transit and
distributed economic development built around city
centers (Figure 4-16). ReVA worked closely with
its partners to develop a spatially detailed model of
land use change that reflected realistic challenges and
options. At the same time, local leaders have formed
an alliance to allow strategic planning to take place
across regional boundaries. Individual jurisdictions
are now able to consider land use and other issues on
a more regional basis, not just by each locality. Now,
questions of land use and other issues that impact the
environment are being looked at on a broader scale.
6. -V
! tt .' ''
Figure 4-16 Business as usual development pattern (left) and compact center scenario (right) used for the
alternative growth scenario evaluations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2011e).
4-29
-------
Case Study
Wyoming Aquifer Sensitivity and Ground
Water Vulnerability Assessment
More Information: http://waterplan.state.wv.us/plan/areen/techmemos/swaualitv.html
The threat of ground water contamination is a major
concern for Wyoming citizens, as well as local, state,
tribal, and federal water management agencies.
Use of industrial and agricultural chemicals,
resource development activities (mining and oil
and gas development), and urban development
can potentially cause contamination of underlying
ground water resources. In 1998, the University
of Wyoming Water Resources Research Center,
in partnership with the Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality and EPA, completed
a statewide assessment of aquifer sensitivity and
ground water vulnerability for the shallow aquifers
in Wyoming. Aquifer sensitivity is defined as the
relative ease with which contaminants can move
from the land surface to the water table based on
hydrogeologic characteristics of the land surface,
the vadose zone, and the aquifer. Ground water
vulnerability is defined as the relative ease with
which contaminants can move from the land surface
to the water table based on aquifer sensitivity
and the physical and chemical properties of the
contaminant.
The Wyoming statewide aquifer sensitivity/ground
water vulnerability assessment was developed using
the EPA DRASTIC model. The DRASTIC model
uses seven environmental parameters (Depth to
water, net Recharge, Aquifer media, Soil media,
Topography, Impact of vadose zone, and hydraulic
Conductivity) to characterize the hydrogeologic
setting and evaluate aquifer vulnerability. For the
Wyoming Assessments, detailed statewide datasets
were developed for the hydrogeologic (bedrock
geology, surficial geology, well locations and
logging information, elevation, and precipitation)
and land use parameters used for the assessment
(agricultural, urban, oil and gas exploration areas,
etc.). GIS software was used to generate a statewide
aquifer sensitivity map and individual county level
aquifer sensitivity and ground water vulnerability
maps. These maps are used for a variety of ground
water management activities, including prioritizing
ground water monitoring and land use planning
and management of agricultural chemicals. Aquifer
sensitivity and ground water vulnerability maps can
be used to assess the vulnerability of ground water
dependent ecosystems.
4-30
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
4.2 Moving Towards Integrated Assessments
The following assessment approaches represent state and EPA efforts to move towards integrated evaluations
of watershed health. A summary of each approach is provided in the subsequent pages. Table 4-5 lists the
healthy watersheds assessment components addressed by each approach, and pages 4-55 through 4-64 contain
tables listing the indicators used in each assessment approach. These tables can be useful for identifying
similarities and differences between approaches. States, tribes, and other organizations may also find these
useful in developing their own lists of indicators for assessing watershed health. For example, the tables can
form the basis of a "scorecard" for evaluating: a) which components to include in an integrated assessment, b)
an appropriate classification system, c) indicators for which there are available data, and d) indicators that may
require additional monitoring.
Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
The Virginia Watershed Integrity Model uses a green infrastructure approach to evaluate landscape condition
across the watershed and in the riparian corridor specifically. It incorporates a terrestrial habitat evaluation
and a modified IBI for identifying ecologically important catchments across the landscape. Although it does
not address hydrology, geomorphology, or water quality directly, the IBI serves as an integrating indicator of
the condition of these attributes, and the landscape condition is a characteristic that has a large effect on the
condition of these attributes.
Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool is an online map viewer that lets users evaluate landscape, habitat,
biology, water quality, hydrology, and geomorphology in an integrated context. Currently, it only supports
online overlay analyses. However, efforts are underway to create a watershed health index that will use these
data to evaluate the condition of Minnesota's watersheds.
Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual addresses landscape, habitat, biology, water quality, hydrology, and
geomorphology through field assessments and follow-up analyses based on a classification and condition
assessment of channel habitat types. The classification system is based on the expected biota of a stream and its
surrounding land uses. Management opportunities are prioritized to protect, restore, or collect additional data
based on the condition evaluation.
California Watershed Assessment Manual
The California Watershed Assessment Manual presents an organizational framework for integrated assessments
of California watersheds. The framework is based on recommendations from EPA's Science Advisory Board
to evaluate the six essential ecological attributes of landscape condition, hydrology/geomorphology, biotic
condition, chemical/physical condition, natural disturbance regimes, and ecological condition. A variety of
assessment approaches and management options are presented.
Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
The Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification approach is based on biological and environmental
variables that categorize watersheds across Pennsylvania to identify the least disturbed streams and set watershed
conservation, restoration, and enhancement priorities.
4-31
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
Connecticut's Least Disturbed Watersheds approach identified the least disturbed watersheds in Connecticut
based on an impervious surface and natural land cover analysis, an IBI approach, water quality, flow
modifications, and water withdrawals. The assessment identified watersheds of exceptional quality that can
be used as reference sites in the development of a biological condition gradient for the state and that can be
prioritized for protection.
Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
Kansas' Least Disturbed Watersheds approach identified the least disturbed watersheds in Kansas using a
landscape alteration index and taxonomic richness data. The assessment identified candidate reference streams
in each of Kansas' five ecoregions and condition ratings for all other streams.
EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
EPA's Recovery Potential Screening Tool uses a wide variety of landscape datasets, impaired waters attributes
reported by states to EPA, and monitoring data to evaluate ecological, stressor, and social indicators to prioritize
watersheds for protection or restoration. This approach allows for targeting of limited resources to protect
those watersheds that are of the highest ecological integrity and restore watersheds with highest ecological
capacity for recovery.
Table 4-5 Healthy watersheds assessment components addressed in each of the eight assessments
summarized in this section.
Healthy Watersheds Assessment Component
Landscape Condition
Habitat
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Water Quality
Biological Condition
VA
WIM
y
y
MN
WAT
y
y
y
y
y
y
OR
WAM
y
y
^
Y
y
y
CA
WAM
y
y
y
y
y
y
PA
ACC
y
y
y
y
y
y
CT
LOW
y
y
y
y
KS
LOW
y
y
y
y
y
EPA
RPST
y
y
y
y
y
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LOW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LOW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-32
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
Author or Lead Agency: Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation - Division of Natural Heritage
More Information: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnawater.shtml
The Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment (VCLNA) is a flexible, widely applicable GIS tool for
integrated and coordinated modeling and mapping of land conservation priorities and actions in Virginia. The
VCLNA is currently composed of seven separate, but interrelated models: 1) Natural Landscape Assessment
Model, 2) Cultural Model, 3) Vulnerability Model, 4) Forest Economics Model, 5) Agricultural Model, 6)
Recreation Model, and 7) Watershed Integrity Model. Together, these models are used to identify and
assess the condition of Virginia's green infrastructure. Additional models can be built to analyze other green
infrastructure and natural resource-related issues. The Natural Landscape Assessment is described in Chapter 3
and the Vulnerability Model is described in Section 4.3-
The VCLNA Watershed Integrity Model identifies the terrestrial resources that should be conserved to
maintain watershed integrity and water quality. The relationship between land use and aquatic health is well
documented. For example, it is well-known that as the area of impervious surface in a watershed increases,
water quality declines. This is due to the decreased infiltration capacity of the land and the rapid accumulation
of pollutants, such as heavy metals and salts, on these impervious surfaces. When it rains, these pollutants are
rapidly washed off of the roads and parking lots directly into the nearest stream or storm drain, which often
empties into a stream some distance away. Other examples of land use characteristics that affect water quality
include erosion and sediment loading from decreased forest cover in a watershed, nutrient loading as a result of
intensive agriculture, and decreased water quality as a result of loss of riparian vegetation.
The Watershed Integrity Model combines GIS layers representing a modified Index of Biotic Integrity (mlBI),
an Index of Terrestrial Integrity (ITI), slope, source water protection zones, ecological cores, and riparian areas
to derive a final weighted overlay grid that identifies the relative value of land in the watershed as it relates to
water quality. The relative weights for the overlay analysis are as follows:
• mlBI — 25% • Source water protection zones — 10%
• ITI-30% • Ecological cores-15%
• Slope-10% • Riparian areas-10%
The mlBI was developed by Virginia Commonwealth University Center for Environmental Studies (Virginia
Commonwealth University, 2009) to evaluate aquatic health and is computed from six metrics:
1. Number of intolerant species.
2. Species richness.
3. Number of rare, threatened, or endangered species.
4. Number of non-indigenous species.
5. Number of critical/significant species.
6. Number of tolerant species.
The ITI is calculated based on the percent natural cover of the watershed, percent riparian corridor vegetation
remaining, proportion of habitat fragmentation due to roads, and percent impervious surface cover in the
watershed. Areas with steep slopes are included in the model as an indicator of where small headwater streams
are likely to occur. Riparian areas and source water protection zones are also identified and included in the
Watershed Integrity Model. Ecological cores are large patches of natural land cover that provide significant
interior habitat and are an output of the VCLNA Natural Landscape Assessment Model. Inclusion of these
large forested areas provides the Watershed Integrity Model with a method for prioritizing forested lands that
provide water quality benefits in addition to critical wildlife habitat.
4-33
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The final output of the Watershed Integrity Model is a weighted overlay grid identifying areas most critical
for maintaining watershed health (Figure 4-17)- Lands with a watershed integrity value of 5 are the most
important areas for maintaining water quality, while lands with a value of 1 do not have a significant impact
on maintaining water quality. The Watershed Integrity Model can be used alone or with other models, such
as the VCLNA Vulnerability Model to identify those lands most important for water quality and most at risk
from development pressures. The Virginia DCR identifies the following as potential uses of the Watershed
Integrity Model:
• Targeting — to identify areas important for maintaining or improving water quality.
• Prioritizing — to provide justification for key conservation land purchases and other
protection activities.
• Local planning — guidance for comprehensive planning and local ordinance and
zoning development.
• Assessment — to review proposed projects for potential impacts.
• Land management — to guide property owners and public and private land managers
in making land management decisions.
• Public education — to inform citizens about the importance of land use and the effect
on water quality and watershed integrity.
A number of municipalities, counties, land trusts, and other organizations are beginning to use the methods
and results from the Watershed Integrity Model to identify and prioritize conservation and preservation
opportunities. For example, the Richmond Regional Planning District Commission and the Crater Planning
District Commission are using the results of the Watershed Integrity Model and other VCLNA models in their
planning process. Combined with an intensive public involvement process, these maps are being used by the
Commissions to guide land use planning and conservation actions.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREATION
Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment
Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
Watershed Integrity Value
Hh
J Giunty Huuiuhr y
'llw.- \ViUtT\hvil tntt^n^ Model rqiri^enlN I In
rvbrn-e importance/ i-^u*; of lanj .is it c< mcribuio
tn \ratcr fjualih- or v.itersht'ij integrity. Valuci
•ire UiM.-d on rookl mpu[ par-ami: ten r.uii^. from
ECpMtnm a Ontr^an I KettJlian
£rw.M,ra«M44t.(KB«riM.i!
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Minnesota Watershed Assessment Tool
Author or Lead Agency: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
More Information: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed tool/index.html
Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool (WAT) is an online mapping program with pre-loaded data layers
displaying information relevant to the health of the state's watersheds. Important concepts are explained in
detail throughout the web site, and connections among the components of watershed health are emphasized.
The program is based around five components that Minnesota considers essential to an understanding of
watershed health:
1. Hydrology
2. Connectivity
3. Geomorphology
4. Biology
5. Water quality
Resource managers and other users can explore the myriad issues affecting natural resources at the watershed
scale by viewing these components and the connections between them. Table 4-6 lists the data layers available
for viewing with this tool. In addition to viewing the various data layers, the user has the option of downloading
most layers for use in a GIS to perform original analyses at a variety of scales and for a variety of purposes.
Table 4-6 Data layers in Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool.
Well index
Hydrology Component
Lakes
"ater Quality Component
Water quality stations
LakeTMDL
USGS gages
Wetlands
Stream assessments
Potential contaminant sites
Water use permits
Major river centerline
Lake assessments
Superfund sites
Precipitation
Border watersheds
Stream TMDL
Waste water plants
Minor watersheds
Streams
Biology Component
Connectivity Component
Mussel survey
Designated trout streams
Municipal boundaries
Public lands
Biodiversity significance
Ecological Classification
System subsections
National Inventory of Dams
Bridges/culverts
Native plant communities
FEMA floodway
Road/stream intersections
Geomorphology Componen
Base Layers
Soils
Ground water recharge
Counties in Minnesota
Land use land cover 1990s
% change in population
Karst features
Roads
2001 national land cover
Depth to bedrock
2003 air photos
USGS topo map 250K
Shaded relief
4-35
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The WAT has also been used to calculate watershed health assessment scores for Minnesota's major watersheds
based on index values that compare the relative health of the five components. The steps taken to create the
watershed health index include:
1. Review scientific literature to inform the selection of significant and well-supported
ecological relationships.
2. Review availability of statewide GIS data that support the selected relationship.
3- Discuss index development approaches with subject matter experts.
4. Compute results by applying an appropriate GIS method.
5. Rank and score results.
The indicators used to develop the statewide index are listed in Figure 4-18. Scores for each indicator must
first be normalized to a 0-100 scale by dividing threshold values and/or the maximum value in the range.
The average of indicator scores for each of the five components is then calculated to arrive at a component
score. The five component scores are then averaged to arrive at a watershed health score. Figure 4-19 displays
the results for each of Minnesota's major watersheds and Figure 4-20 displays the detailed component scores
for two example watersheds. By viewing and comparing the health scores for each of the components, an
understanding of the relative condition of the assessment components can be used to direct resources to
protection and restoration. Minnesota plans to recalculate all index scores every five years, incorporating
enhanced methods and data as available. This will allow for refinements in the watershed health assessment as
well as tracking of trends in watershed health over time.
HEALTH INDEX BY COMPONENT
Terrestrial Habitat
Connectivity
QW Contamination
Susceptibility
Stream Type /
Valley Type
(future)
Index scores are combined into a component score:
HYDROLOGY GEOMORPHOLOGY
i;
CONNECTIVITY WATER QUALITY
-J
Component scores are combined into a watershed health score:
WATERSHED HEALTH SCORE
Figure 4-18 Indicators used by the Watershed Assessment Tool for calculating watershed health scores
(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 2011).
4-36
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
fcl .1 I
II
A
N
Legond
Watershed Mean Score
80-100
60-80
40-60
20-40
M 0-20
Component Health Scores
_« 50
IB Hydrology
^H Geomorphology
••Biology
|H Connectivity
,^B Water Quality
Max. Possible (100)
;.'.',!,; Si
I\\l> A ur«»i«»a*ti
December 2011
Figure 4-19 Results of the statewide watershed health assessment conducted with the Watershed Assessment
Tool (Beth Knudsen, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Personal Communication).
4-37
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Rapid River
WATERSHED HEALTH ASSESSMENT SCORES
Mean {average) Health Score Sd
Minimum Hearth Index Score 36
Minimum Health Index: &Gtogy - Al-Risk Species
Watershed Assessment Tool
waeish^d Health Scores eorwpaf* and rank va/isus $spftd& ct e
acicis Mirme&obi index values ate based oo a v^t.ery ot data sources calculations
and scientific approaches Each index is scored on a state fromGlo 100. wrtftQbemg
the least des--3bl£ f*5Utt o*r rontfto" to 100 being the besi existing eondftan or mosl
desirable it-Suit MiijOf w9ie**h*d SCal* rgnVingt may mas* the *3nge Of condition*
iftal occur at me*e focal tales A high *«xe may indicate the least imparted condition
m Minnesota rut neces&arity a healthy condition
COMPONENT SCORES
f b- A i* jj
HYDROLOGY
Mean (Ave.) 81
Minimum Index 50
INDEX SCORES
Pefenmal Cover 99
Impervious Cover 1 00*
Withdrawal 100*
Storage 50
Flow Variability 58
Metric Sub-Scores
Storage
StreanVDrtch Ratio 0
Surface storage 100
GEOMORPHOLOGY
Mean (Ave } 94
Minimum Index 88
INDEX SCORES
Sort Erosion 95
Susceptibility
&oundwater QQ
Susceptibility
Climate 10Q
BIOLOGY
Mean (Ave.J 66
Minimum Index 36
INDEX SCORES
Terrestrial Habrtat
Quality
Stream Species 78
Specjes Rermess 67
At-Ri&k Species •«
CONNECTIVITY
Mean (Ave.) 98
Minimum Index 96
INDEX SCORES
Terrestrial Katxtat gs
Connectivity
Aquatic Connectivity 100
Metric Sub-Scores
Aquatic Connectivity
Bridges/Curverts 100
Darre 100
WATER QUALITY
Mean (Ave.) 82
Minimum Index 54
INDEX SCORES
Non-Point Source 93
Assessments 54
Metric Sub-Scores
Non-Potrrt Source
Nutrient Application 99
Riparian Impervious 36
Redwood River
WATERSHED HEALTH ASSESSMENT SCORES
Mean {average) Health Score 43
Minimum Hearth Index Score .'.
Minimum Hearth Index: &C>!DQV - Kabtal
Watershed Assessment Tool
•
Wntei&hed Health Scores compar* and tank, vatous, asspscss, ot ecoio^tca.) health
aacss Minnesota irtdex values are based oc a variety ot data sources calculations
and science apPfoachcs Each index is scored on a scate fnsm 0 to 100. wrtti 0 be»ng
the least desoble result o« condbcn to 100 tomg the bcs! f^simg conctitcxn or most
desirable- Scores
Aquatic Carmectrvrty
Bridg&yCurverts 5
Dams B
WATER QUALITY
Mean (Ave ) 46
Minimum Index 23
INDEX SCORES
Non-Point Sourc* 25
Assessments 23
Meinc Sub-Scores
Non-Potrrt Source
NcSrient Application 3D
Riparian Impervious 20
Nouemcer 2011
Figure 4-20 Minnesota's watershed health assessment results for the Rapid River (top) and
Redwood River (bottom) watersheds.
4-38
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
Author or Lead Agency: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
More Information: http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/OR wsassess manuals. shtml#OR Watershed
Assessment Manual
The Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual was created in 1999 to help the state's watershed councils and other
local groups to conduct holistic, screening-level watershed assessments. The assessment manual addresses
hydrology, geomorphology, biological condition, chemical and physical water quality, land use, and natural
disturbances. The assessment results in a watershed condition evaluation that prioritizes sites for protection or
restoration actions and provides direction for additional monitoring and assessment activities.
The assessment process contains a number of steps, many of which can be completed concurrently (Figure
4-21). The initial project startup involves the identification of stakeholders, creation of an assessment team, and
gathering of data. Following the initial project startup, an evaluation of historical conditions in the watershed
is completed. This evaluation provides clues as to the condition of the watershed before European settlement,
the history of development and resource use, and natural and human disturbances. A channel habitat type
(CHT) classification is also completed at this stage of the assessment. Drawing on several established stream
classification systems, these CRTs were developed by Oregon to describe stream channels in the context of
their expected biota and the surrounding land uses. This step of the assessment results in a channel habitat
map with different CRTs identified based on their landscape position, channel slope, confinement, and size.
Following the historical condition evaluation and CHT classification, watershed hydrology and water use are
evaluated. This component examines the precipitation type that causes peak flows in the watershed (rain, rain
on snow, or spring snowmelt), the types and quantities of different land uses, and water uses in the watershed.
These analyses result in an assessment of flow alteration. The analysis provides guidance on prioritization of
potential flow restoration activities. Riparian conditions are also evaluated based on the CHT and ecoregion
maps to determine the expected vegetation of a riparian area, resulting in a map of riparian condition units
and areas of large woody debris recruitment potential. A wetland characterization and optional functional
assessment is also conducted to identify the locations of wetlands in the watershed and potential opportunities
for restoration based on field and aerial photo observations.
Watershed
Description
^ Start-Up and
f Identification of
Watershed issues
Watershed
Characterization
f —v.
•*« Hydrology and 1^.
V— Wntor- I lea ^"
Watershed
Assessment
Channel
Modification
Sg£&S£g
Water Quality _
Fish and
^: teg. Fish Habitat gftr'
--ti-tir3!r%-%-^^>-5--
Figure 4-21 The Watershed Assessment Manual methodology framework (Watershed
Professionals Network, 1999).
Watershed Condition |
y Evaluation
^^^S^l
.(
4-39
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
A sediment source assessment is conducted, in which eight potential sources of sediment are evaluated using
maps of roads, peak flow, debris flow, landslides, forest road hazards, soils, stormwater, and fire locations. The
purpose of this step is to identify areas of human-caused erosion with a priority for restoration or protection
measures. A channel modification assessment is also completed, which identifies dams, artificial impoundments,
stream bank protection (riprap), roads next to streams, sand or gravel mining near channels, etc. The affected
CRTs are then identified and an evaluation of low, moderate, or high impact is assigned to the modified areas.
A water quality assessment, using chemical and biological data available from relevant agencies, is conducted
to determine areas of impairment or at risk of impairment. Maps offish distribution and habitat condition are
created using available data from relevant fish and wildlife agencies. These maps are also used to identify areas
of impairment or at risk of impairment. A survey of stream crossings and migration barriers also contributes to
the habitat condition maps.
The final product of all of the individual assessment components is the watershed condition evaluation. This is
the stage where all of the information is compiled to create a channel habitat — fish use map that also identifies
threats to water quality and aquatic life. A summary of historical and current watershed conditions will also
help in the creation of a list and map of watershed protection and restoration opportunities. One of three
action opportunities is assigned to each item on the list and map:
1. Protect stream reaches that are in relatively good condition.
2. Restore stream reaches with habitat or fish populations that are currently in
degraded condition but have the potential to support high-quality habitat and fish
populations.
3. Survey stream reaches where there are insufficient data to assess stream habitat quality
or fish population status.
A number of watershed councils and soil and water conservation districts throughout Oregon have used the
Watershed Assessment Manual to conduct their own analyses. Sometimes these analyses enlist the assistance of
technical specialists, but typically they are conducted by the local organization and its volunteers.
4-40
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
California Watershed Assessment Manual
Author or Lead Agency: University of California, Davis
More Information: http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/
The California Watershed Assessment Manual (CWAM) was written for local watershed groups, local and
state agencies, and others to use in performing assessments of rural California watersheds between 10,000
— 1,000,000 acres in size. Building on ideas and techniques outlined in other manuals, including the Oregon
Watershed Assessment Manual, the CWAM was designed to meet the specific needs of California's extraordinary
hydrological, geological, and biological diversity. The CWAM was developed by an interdisciplinary team of
scientists from the University of California Davis and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(within the California Environmental Protection Agency) with assistance from the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection.
The CWAM contains two volumes, with the first focusing on the overall process of watershed assessment,
reporting, and planning. The second volume focuses on specific assessment techniques and methodologies that
can be used in an integrative watershed assessment. Key steps covered in the first volume include:
• Planning of the assessment (team building, defining purpose, etc.).
• Basic watershed concepts.
• Collection and organization of existing data.
• Data analysis and presentation.
• Information integration.
• Development of the assessment report.
• Decision making.
Beginning with the identification of environmental indicators and conceptual modeling, the second volume
of the CWAM provides a framework and covers the technical aspects of conducting an integrative watershed
assessment. Without prescribing specific techniques, approaches for assessing water quality, hydrology and
geomorphology, biotic condition, fire ecology (natural disturbance), and cumulative effects are discussed. In
its discussion of environmental indicators, the manual discusses the importance of basing indicators around
a framework such as the EPA SAB's Essential Ecological Attributes. The indicators chosen should inform
environmental decision making.
Indicators for the different system components can be aggregated into an index that represents the overall
condition of the watershed. This is accomplished by rescaling each indicator to a unitless scoring system (e.g.,
1-100) and combining the scores to create an index of overall watershed condition. This process requires some
knowledge of statistics and should include a validation phase to determine if the index is accurately conveying
the intended information.
The CWAM promotes the use of conceptual modeling in the watershed assessment and adaptive management
process. Conceptual models can help in the process of selecting indicators, as shown in Figure 4-22. An
appendix on the construction and use of conceptual models is provided in the CWAM.
The CWAM is an example of a statewide effort to provide a framework and explanation of tools and methods
for conducting holistic watershed assessments to local watershed groups, local and state agencies, and others.
Rather than focus solely on chemical/physical water quality or aquatic biology, the manual outlines approaches
for all of the components of an integrated watershed assessment. The second volume of the CWAM remains
to be completed, although most of the chapters are available for download from the web site. As resources
become available, the remaining chapters will be completed.
4-41
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Ecosystem Indicators
,-
Native bird diversity
Restoration Actions
Riparian Forest
Growth,
Regeneration, and
Habitat Value
Ecosystem
Function
Figure 4-22 Example conceptual model for riparian forest indicator selection (Shilling, 2007).
4-42
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification and Watershed Conservation
Prioritization
Author or Lead Agency: Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program
More Information: http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/aquaticslntro.aspx
The Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification was conducted for the State of Pennsylvania to identify
stream community types and habitat types for freshwater mussels, macroinvertebrates, and fish. A condition
assessment was then conducted to identify the least disturbed streams and set watershed conservation,
restoration, and enhancement priorities. Various conservation planning and watershed management projects
are already applying this classification system throughout Pennsylvania.
One of the objectives identified in Pennsylvania's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Wildlife
Habitat Action Plan) is the development of a standardized community/habitat classification system (The
Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 2005). In addition, the
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resource's Biodiversity Workgroup Report and State
Forest Resource Management Plan also identify a standardized classification system as a priority. In response
to this need, the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program created the Aquatic Community Classification.
Classification of aquatic community types and the physical habitat upon which they depend is important for
assessing the condition of freshwater ecosystems. Through a common classification system, reference conditions
can be determined for similar community types. The degree of a disturbance can then be assessed through an
evaluation of disturbance indicators. In addition to Pennsylvania's Wildlife Habitat Action Plan, The Nature
Conservancy's Lower New England Ecoregional Plan was a key resource in the development of the project, as
the classification procedure is very similar to TNC's macrohabitat classification approach. The National Fish
Habitat Assessment also uses a similar approach, and Pennsylvania plans on incorporating their results into
such national and regional scale classifications.
The primary steps in the analysis are as follows:
• Develop a study approach.
• Mine and manage data.
• Create biological classifications.
• Associate environmental data with communities and develop a physical stream
classification.
• Evaluate and refine biological classifications.
• Model community habitats.
• Identify high quality streams and watersheds.
• Select poor quality watersheds for restoration prioritization.
Multivariate ordination and cluster analysis were used to classify biological communities. This classification
was then refined through an expert review and indicator species analysis. The classification resulted in 13
mussel communities, 11 fish communities, 12 macro invertebrate communities at the genus level, and eight
macroinvertebrate communities at the family level. Watershed, stream channel, and water chemistry data were
then used to describe community habitats, and a model of physical stream types was developed to predict
community occurrence based on these channel and watershed attributes. Watershed and riparian land cover,
mines and point sources, stream crossings, and dams were used to assess the condition of each stream reach.
Least disturbed streams were identified and prioritized for watershed conservation actions (Figure 4-23), and
the results are being used in a variety of conservation and watershed management projects in Pennsylvania.
4-43
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The results of the least disturbed streams analysis were combined with fish, mussel, and macroinvertebrate
data to prioritize streams based on their ecological integrity. Tier 1 streams are of the highest quality (>90th
percentile, or the best 10%) and are the highest priority for conservation, Tier 2 streams are still high quality
(80th—90th percentile) and considered for conservation, and streams that do not contain high quality biological
communities (<80th percentile) are considered a non-priority for conservation. The analysis was completed
region-wide and for specific unique areas including large rivers, watersheds with calcareous geology, and specific
physiographic provinces. Figure 4-24 shows the watershed conservation priorities in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania
Aquatic Community
Classification
Penim Kiinia's
I i-iisl-DiMirlii-tl MIV.MII
(LDS) Rt-iichfs
I t.i-l-,li-unliol stream (U)S) reaches
ueie dm.vi.-ii ID iilemir'y areas; for aiaser-
vation protection. LDS reaches can
also be used to select aquatic habitats
that can senv V • i Im < ! for restor-
ation of degraded streams. HKSC high
t|ii;ihtv stream s^niertts rcleaUy have
, . I 'l H'l '. '.I. !|.. II !l> II I I lllllllcltCL'S
.irtil AB&Mtt&9t9 n;illlral ccolocical
[uncliulk
Stream null lor Ittc analysis are the
stream scgincnk itelmetl by EPA Reach
Ftics I ^ ers inn 3.0). Each stream reach
uas assi^ncd iiilorniation about its
position in Ihc watershed, local cnyif(>n~
mental characteristics and landscape
infomiation >ib(nil the uaicrshed tli.n
diain^ to theixaeh, tire\ streams arc
oknin
l.uul use JilLl. These streams M ere
ili : '"i. oniittcil troni the LDS .m, I
".HP LegenU
i f.r.t DiNiiM i>.->] Stream
Sizrl -»»—SS»J
Olhtr Hlvira & Slrrumi
! ^J rrnnsylvaniii Ai *'o«ntic»
| | Iliinlrrlnt! Stalw
Figure 4-23 Map of Pennsylvania's least disturbed streams (Walsh, Deeds, & Nightingale, 2007).
4-44
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Pennsylvania
Aquatic Community
Classification
Priority Cotisen sitiim Areas
'il :in.J hhto(uf k"iil Jiiia were used
i. • -eKx t w.ikTsheds nnd m-cr readies tiia( MC
n!" grtulest consm'nltuu priority in the region
Although difci xv ere used fn>m the emtre stud\
area, this anaksis ccm«n,tralcs miia|>- on
pennsj- Iv aniiVs rjvt'FsajiJ
metric set-res M fie iists.1 1,-. Jelcrmnn: sedinns
wn tcrslicJs xviCh high quality
-• iili .ihii'li'iriciil J;iUi which rchlcJ jnlonniilhi
,)Kiii Urulsciipe lI(im$jlUBtfXDttQB in c.K'h
ivalcrshcJ B\ L'xunnnjng Knh hioli-gic^l and
ithu'lojjittfil inii >mialii m. we were aWc l<-
Jctcrminc W!IK-!I watersheds he LI high, ijiulitv
h.»hi:its bigh levels oflnokigieal dimsA) unJ
low levels iiMuuniin Jtsliaiiiincc See U-\l |uf
i 'I iUt;i uscj iiinl GOtcutttKWI mclh-
' compaimon
Legend
n Prinritj I
tiun Prinrity Rivi-r
fYrnch C'n-tfc
Lirge River Tier 1 Se
'Non-lViurih,'
f-i Frenrli Cm-k \Yutcrthnl
2-^ (.x»'r I mull < m'k Miipl
| | IVnmylviinia & Cnunlit*
czi«
Figure 4-24 Watershed conservation priorities in Pennsylvania (Walsh, Deeds, & Nightingale, 2007).
4-45
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
Author or Lead Agency: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
More Information: http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water/water quality management/ic studies/least disturbed
rpt.pdf
Using GIS to evaluate watershed characteristics for the State of Connecticut, the Department of Environmental
Protection identified the 30 watersheds considered least disturbed based on Stoddard's (2006) definition of
"best available physical, chemical, and biological habitat conditions given today's state of the landscape."
This analysis expands upon the Connecticut Impervious Cover (1C) Model that was developed for use in the
TMDL program (Figure 4-25)- Macroinvertebrates and fish were sampled in the 30 least disturbed watersheds,
as identified by the 1C model and other watershed stressors.
The negative effects of 1C on aquatic biota are numerous (Schueler, 1994) and include altered hydrology,
increased erosion, and degraded water quality, all of which impact the biological communities present in these
urban watersheds. Connecticut has modeled the aggregate effects of 1C on macroinvertebrate communities
in the state and uses this 1C Model in its TMDL program. The low end of the 1C gradient in this model
(<4%) was used to identify small watersheds with streams that fall into the "best" stream class. Locations of
dams, diversions, and salmonid fry stocking were used to further refine the selection of these least disturbed
watersheds. Table 4-7 describes these parameters and the thresholds used.
Table 4-7 Parameters and criteria used to identify least disturbed watersheds in Connecticut
Parameter
Impervious cover
Natural land cover
Developed land
Diversions
Reservoirs/large Class C dams
Sample site distance below a dam
Streams stocked with salmonid fry
Watershed size
Criterion
> 80%
< 10%
None
None
> 0.5 mile downstream from dam
No known stocking
> 1 square mile
Macroinvertebrates and fish were then sampled at the identified least disturbed sites to determine the health of
the biological community. An IBI approach, borrowed from Vermont, was used to evaluate the fish community
at all sites. A macroinvertebrate multimetric index (MMI) score was also calculated for each site based on the
following seven metrics:
• Ephemeroptera taxa.
• Plecoptera taxa.
• Percent Sensitive EPT.
• Trichoptera taxa.
Scraper Taxa.
BCG Taxa Biotic Index.
Percent Dominant Genus.
Temperature, water chemistry, and nutrient samples were also collected at each site. Results from the biological
and water quality sampling confirmed minimally impacted conditions in all but one of the 30 watersheds
identified through the GIS-based screening process. This suggests that the 1C Model is able to predict the
locations of the "best" stream classes that should be prioritized for "preservation" strategies. Figure 4-26 shows
the results of the statewide assessment of least disturbed watersheds.
Applications of the Connecticut Least Disturbed watersheds assessment include refinement of Tiered Aquatic
Life Uses (TALUs) based on a new BCG for fish species, identification of BCG Level 1 sites, providing
information to local land use planners on locations of sensitive areas, development of nutrient criteria, and
development of minimum stream flow regulations.
4-46
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Poor
Low
Stream Classes
Medium
High
Excellent
Management Strategies
Poor
Low
Medium
Watershed Percent Impervious Cover
High
Figure 4-25 Conceptual model of the effect of impervious cover on stream quality.
Watershed percent impervious cover is used to identify stream classes (top) and
potential management strategies (bottom) (Bellucci, Beauchene, & Becker, 2009).
l.cgcnd
H Best-Preservation
IB Streams of Hope-Active Management
| Urban-Mitigation
Figure 4-26 Map of Connecticut showing stream classes and management classes by watershed
(Bellucci, Beauchene, & Becker, 2009).
4-47
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds Approach
Author or Lead Agency: Kansas Department of Health and Environment
More Information: http://www.kdheks.gov/befs/download/bibliography/Kansas reference stream report.pdf
The streams selected to represent reference condition, the highest attainable quality in a given environment,
are an important factor in stream water quality assessments. Reference streams are used to characterize baseline
conditions, establish surface water quality criteria, identify impaired streams, interpret the findings of statewide
water quality assessments, and set restoration goals. Because stream ecosystems are dynamic and the interactions
between their biological, chemical, and physical components are poorly understood, reference streams provide
the context needed for determining when stream ecosystem conditions are healthy or unhealthy. The types
of streams chosen to represent reference conditions are often found in healthy watersheds. Recognizing
the influence that the reference stream selection process has on its state water quality program, the Kansas
Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) has begun to assess how a set of reference streams can be
best selected and protected.
KDHE began this assessment by compiling a database of geospatial watershed data. NHDPlus data were used to
delineate stream reaches, allocated and accumulated watersheds, and 90-meter riparian corridors. An allocated
watershed in the NHDPlus is the immediate drainage area to a single stream reach whereas an accumulated
watershed is the entire upstream drainage area for that stream reach. Watershed attributes, such as land cover
composition, can be tracked as allocated or accumulated values. Annual average flow was also estimated for
each reach using the unit runoff method in NHDPlus. In order to ensure that the set of candidate reference
streams identified was representative of the variety of environments found in Kansas, all streams were first
sorted into ecoregions. Principal components analysis (PCA) and non-hierarchical clustering analysis were used
to group watersheds by ecoregion (Figure 4-27). Scores for the first three principal components, pertaining
largely to elevation and climate, topographical relief, and soil water retention capacity, were converted to a
color intensity scale, and average values were calculated and mapped for each ecoregion.
Once environmental variability had been analyzed, KDHE incorporated variability in human disturbance
levels into the assessment. Arithmetic means were calculated and normalized to a zero to one scale for twenty
variable measures of landscape alteration for all watersheds (Table 4-8). A PCA was performed on the watershed
disturbance data, and principal components accounting for most of the variability in the data were retained
for further analysis. Component scores were converted to absolute values and used as weighting coefficients for
their respective disturbance indicators. The weighted sum of all indicators was calculated for each component
and the average of these weighted sums was used as an integrated disturbance index to sort watersheds
into seven equally-sized groups (septiles) of watersheds. Groups were mapped in colors corresponding to
their integrated disturbance index scores, in a spectrum ranging from green (low disturbance) to red (high
disturbance). A summation of the normalized means of landscape alteration variables for each watershed was
used to check the watersheds' integrated disturbance classifications.
4-48
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
r.-fi-
. • ..
« •:
;£
\ 4
ER1
>
ER3
ER4
ER5
Statewide
Figure 4-27 Location of least disturbed watersheds within individual quantitative ecoregions (ER) (k = 5)
(Angelo, Knight, Olson, & Stiles, 2010). Rankings are based on the disturbance index derived via principal
components analysis. Highlighted watersheds rank in the lowest (best) 10th percentile within their
respective ecoregions. The statewide (10th percentile) map is shown for comparison.
Table 4-8 Landscape alteration variables used in KDHE's reference stream assessment (Angelo et al., 2010).
Density of:
Active and inactive Superfund sites
Active and inactive permitted landfills
Active and inactive permitted mines and quarries
Confined livestock (animal units)
Grazing cattle
Human residents
Permitted ground water diversions
Permitted surface water diversions
Registered active and inactive oil and natural gas wells
Registered and unregistered dams
Stream/industrial pipeline intersections
Stream/railroad intersections
Stream/road intersections
Ratio of:
Cropland area to total land area
Cropland area to total land area within 90-meter riparian corridor
Inundated land area to total land area
Urban area to total land area
Urban area to total land area within 90-meter riparian corridor
Combined annual application rate for all pesticides
Total permitted wastewater output divided by catchment area
4-49
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
KDHE also evaluated the association between human disturbance level and an important indicator of
watershed health: stream taxonomic richness. Richness data were drawn from state-sponsored biological surveys
of native fish species, freshwater mussel species, and aquatic insects of the EPT orders conducted between
1990 and 2007- Taxonomic richness data were then merged with the integrated disturbance index dataset.
Separate models were developed for each ecoregion and for the state overall, incorporating all five ecoregions.
The ability to accurately predict responses to new observations, as measured by the predicted R2 statistic, was
used to select the final models.
Governmental planning documents, statistical abstracts, permit applications, unpublished databases, and
various reports were reviewed to evaluate potential future threats to candidate reference streams in Kansas.
Data pertaining to the following potential sources of degradation were extracted from these resources: urban
and residential sprawl; transportation and utility infrastructure development; mineral resource development;
development of new dams and reservoirs; growing anthropogenic water demand; conversion of grassland to
other uses; industrialization of livestock production; and introduction and spread of non-native species. This
literature review was used to identify the most serious threats to stream integrity and the regions of the state
most vulnerable to those threats.
KDHE intends to sort watersheds in the tenth percentile by ecoregion and stream flow and assess them
with computer-assisted desktop reconnaissance. Final reference stream selections will be based on four
primary factors: watershed disturbance score, field assessment results, site accessibility (i.e., permission from
the landowner), and perceived future disturbance risk. The physical habitat, water chemistry, and biological
communities of the selected reference streams will be monitored every four to eight years. As a database of
reference stream conditions is developed over time, it can be used to inform regulatory, incentive-based, and
interagency efforts to protect reference streams and their watersheds from degradation.
4-50
-------
Case Study
National Fish Habitat Assessment
More Information: Esselman et al., 2011
Similar to the way in which KDHE used NHDPlus
and an integrated index of human disturbance to
analyze watershed condition, scientists working on the
National Fish Habitat Assessment (NFHA) have also
assessed landscape disturbance for stream catchments
using NHDPlus (Figure 4-28). The NFHA cumulative
disturbance index uses five environmental variables
and 15 human disturbance variables quantified at
local and network catchment levels to assess landscape
disturbance. The local and network catchments
are comparable to the allocated and accumulated
watersheds that KDHE used in their analysis. Means
for elevation, slope, and soil permeability were
calculated for each network catchment. Mean annual
precipitation and air temperature were calculated
for each local catchment. Human disturbance
variables were calculated for both catchment types.
Catchment means were calculated for water use
estimates and cattle density. Catchment percentages
were generated for each land use type: low, medium,
and high intensity development; impervious cover;
pasture; and cultivated crops. Catchment densities
were calculated for point data (road crossings, dams,
mines, superfund sites, toxic release inventory sites,
and national pollutant discharge elimination system
sites), and road densities were represented as total
road length per square kilometer of catchment area.
Using principal components analysis, the human
disturbance variables were combined into a few
composite disturbance axes that describe most of
the variation in these variables at the stream reach
level. Individual disturbance axes were then weighted
according to their influence on freshwater fishes
using canonical correlation analysis and summed into
indices of local and network catchment disturbance.
Local and network disturbance indices were
weighted using canonical correspondence analysis
to reflect the different impacts disturbances have on
communities in streams of different sizes. They were
then combined to determine a cumulative landscape
disturbance index score for each stream reach. The
cumulative disturbance index was scaled from zero to
100 with high scores indicating greater disturbance.
A national fish community dataset was used to
calibrate the landscape disturbance index. The NFHA
team identified vulnerability to future threats as an
information gap in their landscape disturbance index,
a factor that KDHE found a way to address in concert
with its integrated human disturbance index.
| 5 Best Condition
| 36001-49999
2 3334 - 3 6000
1.00Q1 -23333
| 1 Powest Condition
Unscored Reach
Figure 4-28 Reach cumulative landscape disturbance scores summarized by
local catchments for the United States. Scores are presented in five percentile
categories, each containing 20% of the reaches (Esselman et al., 2011).
4-51
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Recovery Potential Screening
Author or Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
More Information: www.epa.gov/recoverypotential/ and http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/
upload/recovery empub-2.pdf
The Recovery Potential Screening method provides a systematic approach for comparing waters or watersheds
and identifying differences in how well they may respond to restoration. Recovery potential is defined as the
likelihood of an impaired water to attain water quality standards or other valued attributes given its ecological
capacity to regain function, its exposure to stressors, and the social context affecting efforts to improve its
condition.
Although originally developed as a tool to help states set restoration priorities among the impaired waters
on their CWA Section 303(d) lists, this method can also be used to assess healthy waters or watersheds for
protection (Norton, Wickham, Wade, Kunert, Thomas, & Zeph, 2009; Wickham & Norton, 2008). The
screening process is based on ecological, stressor, or social indicators measured from a wide variety of landscape
datasets, impaired waters attributes reported by states to EPA, and monitoring data sources. The user's control
over assessment purpose and selection of relevant indicators and weights makes this flexible method adaptable
to numerous uses and differences in locality. The method prioritizes watersheds for restoration through a
transparent and consistent comparison process.
Examples of the 130 indicators developed for use in the recovery potential screening are provided in Table
4-9. Five to eight metrics in each of three different classes are chosen for an individual assessment. Ecological
capacity, stressor exposure, and social context represent three gradients, or axes, along which watersheds are
rated using the selected indicators. The user's objective is to choose indicators that collectively estimate the
influence of each of the three classes on a watershed's overall recovery potential. Within each class, raw scores
for each selected indicator are normalized to a maximum score of one, weighted if desired, then compiled into
a summary score normalized to 100 across all the scored watersheds. Higher ecological and social scores signify
better recovery potential, and higher stressor scores imply lower recovery potential.
Scoring the three classes of metrics ensures that ecological condition, stressor scenarios, and the influence of
social factors are all addressed, and they can be considered together or separately. It is particularly valuable to
distinguish the influence of social variables from the influence of watershed condition, as social variables are
often the dominant variable determining restoration success. Although it is useful to distinguish the ecological,
stressor, and social summary scores of each watershed, it is also desirable to have the scores in an integrated
form. This is accomplished in two ways. If a single score per watershed is desired (e.g., for rank ordering,
or developing a mapped representation of watersheds color-coded by relative recovery potential scores), the
formula is as follows:
(Ecological summary score + Social summary score)
Stressor summary score
A second method for integrating the three summary scores uses three-dimensional "bubble-plotting" (Figure
4-29). In this approach, the X and Y axes represent the stressor and ecological summary scores, and this
determines the position of each watershed bubble on the graph. The social summary score determines the size
of the bubble (the larger the better). While more a visualization than quantitative method, this display method
is effective at producing 'at a glance' understanding of the basic differences among a population of watersheds
considering all three classes. As a starting point, the watersheds that fall in the upper left quadrant of the bubble
plot have higher ecological summary scores and lower stressor summary scores, and are initially assumed to
have high recovery potential. The user, however, may choose to elevate the importance of ecological score in
both upper quadrants to select priorities, or may consider social score as the primary factor. This flexibility
allows expert judgment to play a more interactive role. For example, a watershed with moderate ecological and
stressor scores but an exceptionally strong social score could be prioritized along with watersheds that meet the
initial high-ecological and low-stressor scoring criterion.
4-52
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Table 4-9 Example Recovery Potential Indicators. The user selects five to eight minimally correlated metrics from
each class that are most relevant to the place and purpose of the screening, selects the measurement technique
for each metric given available data, and weights the indicators if desired before calculating ecological, stressor,
and social summary scores. Yellow-highlighted metrics are potentially appropriate for healthy watersheds
protection and priority-setting as well as restoration planning.
Ecological Capacity Metrics Stressor Exposure Metrics Social Context Metrics
Natural channel form
Recolonization access
Strahler stream order
Rare taxa presence
Historical species occurrence
Species range factor
Elevation
Corridor % forest
Corridor % woody vegetation
Corridor slope
Bank stability/soils
Bank stability/woody vegetation
Watershed shape
Watershed size
Watershed % forest
Proximity to green infrastructure hub
Contiguity w/green infrastructure corridor
Biotic community integrity
Soil resilience properties
Invasive species risk
Channelization
Hydrologic alteration
Aquatic barriers
Corridor road crossings
Corridor road density
Corridor % u-index
Corridor % agriculture
Corridor % urban
Corridor % impervious surface
Watershed % u-index
Watershed road density
Watershed % agriculture
Watershed % tile-drained cropland
Watershed % urban
Watershed % impervious surface
Severity of 303(d) listed causes
Severity of loading
Land use change trajectory
Watershed % protected land
Applicable regulation
Funding eligibility
303(d) schedule priority
Estimated restoration cost
Certainty of causal linkages
Plan existence
University proximity
Certainty of restoration practices
Watershed organizational leadership
Watershed collaboration
Large watershed management potential
Government agency involvement
Local socio-economic stress
Landownership complexity
Jurisdictional complexity
Valued ecological attribute
Human health and safety
Recreational resource
U)
£
o
u
w
I
w
o
S
^o
c
(B
U
'ro
_o
o
u
UJ
Stressor Indicator Summary Scores
Figure 4-29 Three-dimensional bubble plot comparing recovery potential among subwatersheds. Dots
represent subwatersheds plotted by summary score relative to the ecological and stressor axes. Social context
scores (higher = better) are incorporated as dot size and color. Median values for ecological and stressor
scores statewide (dashed lines) are added to enable a coarse sorting by quadrant that initially targets high
ecological/low stressor subwatersheds (upper left, shaded), with selected subwatersheds (arrows) added where
special information warrants. This example screening flagged 11 of 30 subwatersheds as more restorable
(Norton et al., 2009). Reprinted with permission of Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
4-53
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The recovery potential screening data formats contain flexibility for further analyses. Indicator scores are
managed in spreadsheets and, once completed, alternate combinations or weights of indicators can be selected
and plotted to verify consistency of high-scoring watersheds under alternate scoring approaches. Large (e.g.,
statewide) datasets can often be re-assessed in a matter of hours. The "R" script used for bubble plotting (Figure
4-30) also allows for varying color assignment based on any attribute in the spreadsheet.
Recovery potential screening in Maryland demonstrates how a restoration-oriented screening can easily be
adapted for protection screening purposes. The goal was to identify which impaired watersheds are the strongest
prospects for successful restoration, but all of the state's healthy watersheds were also screened with the same
indicators (Table 4-10). Despite the main focus on impaired watersheds, the screening secondarily revealed
many patterns about the healthy watersheds that may also be relevant to their management. For example,
the watersheds that passed bioassessment but still show elevated stressor scores may be at risk. Further, wide
differences in social score imply that some of the healthy watersheds have far better social context for continued
protection than others. In addition, several of the impaired watersheds that scored as well as the healthy
watersheds (see upper left quadrant, Figure 4-30) may be strong prospects for protection in time. Assessing
watersheds specifically for protection purposes is feasible given the many protection-relevant metrics that can
be considered (Table 4-10) or developed.
Table 4-10 Recovery potential indicators used to screen Maryland watersheds.
Ecological Metrics (5)
Stressor Metrics (5)
Social Metrics (5)
Biotic condition: benthic IBI score Proportion of degraded sites per watershed Protected landownership % by watershed
Biotic condition: fish IBI score Corridor % impervious cover per watershed *°P°r!io" °f feam mileS With StreSS°r
Recolonization: density of
confluences
Bank stability: MBSS buffer
vegetation
Attributed Risk
Watershed % cropland and pasture Complexity: watershed # of local jurisdictions
Tier 2 waters % per watershed
Housing counts per corridor length in
watershed
Natural channel form and condition Watershed 2006* of impairment causes Watershed % targeted by DNRfor protection
£• O _
E
E
£2
3
&
-
T3
10 ~
o
o ^^
Qp ^ Q. .
o
o o
0
0
O c
STATEWIDE
O
00° °
O ®
o ef op
o° OP
0
I i 1 i i
10 20 30 40 50
Pass
Fan
0
O
i
60
Stressor Indicators Summary Score
Circle size increases with Social Context summary score value
Figure 4-30 Bubble plot of recovery potential screening of 94 non-tidal watersheds in Maryland. Colors
signify whether watersheds passed the state's watershed bio-assessment. Although indicators were selected to
compare recovery potential of impaired waters, the output also contrasts healthy watershed differences (e.g.,
social context and stressor levels) that have implications for protection priority-setting.
4-54
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Classification Systems and Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
Indicator
Hydrologic Unit Code •1 mi2
>2,000 mi2
Biological Communities
Mussels
Fish
Macroinvertebrates
Ecological Classification System
Subsections
Climate
Geology
Topography
Soils
Hydrology
Vegetation
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
MN OR CA
WAT WAM WAM
CT KS EPA
LOW LOW RPST
r r
V
v'
v'
4-55
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Landscape Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
.. VA MN OR CA PA CT KS EPA
indicator WIM WAT WAM WAM ACC LDW LDW RpST
Index of Terrestrial Integrity
% Watershed Natural Land Cover
>80% Natural Land Cover
% River Corridor Natural
Land Cover
Proportion of habitat fragmentation due
to roads
% Impervious Cover
<4% Impervious Cover
Catchment % Forested (>75%)
Watershed % Developed Land
<10% Developed
Catchment % Urbanization (<1.5%)
Ratio of urban land area to total land
area
Watershed % Urban
Watershed % Forestry
Watershed % Agriculture/Rangeland
Density of Confined Livestock
Density of Grazing Cattle
Ratio of Cropland to Total Land Area
Annual Pesticide Application Rate
Catchment Non Row Crop Agriculture
Catchment Row Crop Agriculture <3.5%
Corridor % Impervious Surface
Corridor % Urban
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-56
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Landscape Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments (cont.)
Indicator
VA MN OR CA PA CT KS EPA
WIM WAT WAM WAM ACC LDW LDW RPST
Stream Crossings
< 11,500 for watersheds larger than
2,000 mi2
# Road Stream Crossings (all streams
and first order streams)
Density of Stream/ Pipeline Intersections
Density of Stream/ Railroad Intersections
Corridor Road Density
Corridor % Agriculture
Corridor % Woody Vegetation
Location of FEMA Floodplain
Locations of Headwaters •/
Steep Slopes •/
Green Infrastructure (GI) V
Watershed % Forested
Locations of Ecological Cores V
Contiguity with GI Corridors
Proximity to GI Hub
Locations of Riparian Areas •/
Locations of Source Water Protection >
Zones
Remaining High Quality Native Plant
Communities
Wetland Locations
Wetland Attributes (size, connectivity,
buffer, watershed position)
Locations of Fires
Fire Regime Condition Class
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
V *
4-57
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Habitat Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
Indicator
VA MN OR CA PA CT KS EPA
WIM WAT WAM WAM ACC LOW LOW RPST
Designated Trout Streams
Karst Features
Springs
Stream Sink
Sinkhole
Species Range Factor
Domestic Predators
Habitat Diversity
RTE Species Habitat
Stream Crossing Density
Recolonization Access
Migration Barriers
Culverts Passable
Water Velocity <2 fps
Outlet perching <6 in.
Flow Depth >12 in.
Outlet Drop less than 6 in.
Slope <0.5%
Diameter >0.5 X bankful channel width
Length < 100 feet
Substrate Complexity and Embeddedness
Riffles with >35% Gravel
Riffles with <8% Silt, Sand, Organics
Ratio of Fine Sediment Volume In Pools To
Total Pool Volume
Large Woody Debris Recruitment Potential
>20 Pieces of Large Woody Debris per 100
Meters
Expected Riparian Vegetation by Ecoregion
Stream Shading by Riparian Vegetation
Shade > 70% of reach
Pool Area > 35% of stream area
Pool Frequency (every 5-8 channel widths)
>300 Conifers within 30 M of Stream per
1,000 ft
Corridor % Woody Vegetation
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-58
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Hydrologic Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
Indicator
VA MN OR CA PA
WIM WAT WAM WAM ACC
CT KS EPA
LOW LOW RPST
Average Annual Precipitation
Precipitation Type that Causes Peak
Flows
Rain
Rain on Snow
Spring Snowmelt
Discharge
Peak Flow
Dams and Impoundments
No Reservoirs
<160 for watersheds >2,000 mi2
No large Class C Dams
< 11,500 Road Crossings for Watersheds
>2,000 mi2
Water Use Permits (> 10,000 GPD)
Consumptive Use
No Diversions
Number of Permitted Water Diversions
Permitted Wastewater Relative to
Catchment Size
Dry Season Artificial Discharges
Average Annual Ground Water Recharge
Well Index
Floodplain Connection
Hydrologic Alteration
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-59
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Geomorphology Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
Roads Next to Streams V
Locations of Stream Bank Protection *
(riprap)
Channelization •/"
Bank Erosion i^
Bank Stability/Soils -/
Bank Stability/Woody Vegetation •/
Soil Resilience Properties V
Locations of Debris Flows J
Locations of Landslides •/*
Sand or Gravel Mining Locations -f
Sinuosity •2%) •/
Watershed Size •/
Headwaters (0-2 mi2) •/
Small (3-10 mi2) -/
Mid-Reach (11-100 mi2) V
Large (> 100 mi2) •/
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-60
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Water Quality Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
Indicator
VA MN OR CA PA CT KS EPA
WIM WAT WAM WAM ACC LOW LOW RPST
Locations of Unimpaired Streams
Potential Contaminant Sites (e.g., Superfund,
landfills, mines, oil or gas wells, etc.)
Point Sources
<200 for watersheds >2,000 mi2
Dissolved Organic Carbon
Dissolved Organic Carbon Export Downstream
Bromide Reactive Compounds
Temperature
Daily Maximum of64°F
Dissolved Oxygen
8.0 mg/l
>7.0 mg/l for coldwater streams
>3.5 mg/l for warm water streams
Nitrogen
Nitrate
0.30 mg/l
Total Phosphorus
0.05 mg/l
Suspended Solids
Turbidity
50 ntu maximum above background
Conductivity
Between 150 and 500 ^mhos/cm
pH
6.5 to 8.5 units
Chloride
Hardness
Alkalinity
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
s
s
V
V
4-61
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Biological Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
.. VA MN OR CA PA CT KS EPA
indicator WIM WAT WAM WAM ACC LDW LDW RpST
Observed/Expected
Modified Index of Biotic Integrity
Number of Intolerant Species
Species Richness
Number of RTE Species
Number of Non-Indigenous Species
Number of Critical/Significant Species
Number of Tolerant Species
Mussel Catch per Unit Effort
Areas of Biodiversity Significance
Rare Taxa Presence
Biotic Community Integrity
Fish State or Federally Listed as Endangered
Fish Stocking History
Streams Stocked with Salmonid Fry (No Known
Stocking)
Fish Species Distribution
Salmonid Species Distribution, Abundance, and
Population Status
Brook Trout Density
Fluvial Specialists
Fluvial Dependants
Macrohabitat Generalists
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-62
-------
: Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
Biological Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments (cont.)
.. VA MN OR CA PA CT KS EPA
indicator ^^ WA]. WAM WAM ACC LDW LDW RpST
Periphyton Dry Biomass
<5 mg/cm2
Periphyton Chl-a Mass
Between 2 and 6 \ig chl-a/cm2
Periphyton Community Succession
Periphyton % Cover
Shannon Diversity Index for Diatoms
Pollution Tolerance Index for Diatoms
Percent Sensitive Diatoms
Abundance Achnanthes minutissima (<25%)
Taxa Richness (Total # of Taxa)
# Intolerant Taxa
# Tolerant Taxa
Native Taxa
Non-Native Taxa
Darter + Perch
Minnow
Sucker
Sunfish
% Similarity to Reference Reach (of fish taxa
metrics above)
EPT Index (Total # of Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, Trichoptera Taxa)
% Sensitive EPT
% Collector
% Filterers
% Scrapers
% Predators
% Shredders
% Dominant Taxa
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-63
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Vulnerability Indicators Used in Integrated Assessments
Indicator
VA MN OR CA
WIM WAT WAM WAM
CT KS EPA
LDW LDW RPST
Population Density
Change in Population
Modeled Erosion Potential
Land Use Trajectory
Watershed % Protected Land
Location of Public Lands or
Protected Areas
Expanding Transportation and
Utility Infrastructure
Escalating Mineral Resource
Extraction
Proliferation of Dams and
Reservoirs
Industrialization of Livestock
Industry
Growing Anthropogenic Demand
for Water
Introduction and Spread of
Nonnative Species
VA WIM: Virginia Watershed Integrity Model
MN WAT: Minnesota's Watershed Assessment Tool
OR WAM: Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
CA WAM: California Watershed Assessment Manual
PA ACC: Pennsylvania Aquatic Community Classification
CT LDW: Connecticut Least Disturbed Watersheds
KS LDW: Kansas Least Disturbed Watersheds
EPA RPST: EPA Recovery Potential Screening Tool
4-64
-------
5. Management Approaches
Introduction
This chapter introduces the Healthy Watersheds Initiative, discusses the
characteristics of a healthy watershed, and reviews the benefits of protecting
healthy watersheds. This chapter also describes the purpose, target audience, and
intended use of this document.
Overview of Key Concepts
This chapter describes the healthy watersheds conceptual framework. It then
discusses, in detail, each of the six assessment components- landscape condition,
habitat, hydrology, geomorphology, water quality, and biological condition.
A sound understanding of these concepts is necessary for the appropriate
application of the methods described in later chapters. This chapter concludes
with a discussion of watershed resilience.
Examples of Assessment Approaches
This chapter summarizes a range of assessment approaches currently being used
to assess the health of watersheds. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all
possible approaches, nor is this a critical review of the approaches included. These
are provided solely as examples of different assessment methods that can be used
as part of a healthy watersheds integrated assessment. Discussions of how the
assessments were applied are provided for some approaches. Table 3-1 lists all of
the assessment approaches included in this chapter.
—'
Healthy Watersheds Integrated Assessments
This chapter presents two examples for conducting screening level healthy
watersheds integrated assessments. The first example relies on the results of a
national assessment. The second example demonstrates a methodology using
state-specific data for Vermont. This chapter also includes examples of state
efforts to move towards integrated assessments.
Management Approaches
This chapter includes examples of state healthy watersheds programs and
summarizes a variety of management approaches for protecting healthy
watersheds at different geographic scales. The chapter also includes a brief
discussion of restoration strategies, with focus on targeting restoration towards
degraded systems that have high ecological capacity for recovery. The results of
healthy watersheds integrated assessments can be used to guide decisions on
protection strategies and inform priorities for restoration.
5-1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Table 5-1 Management approaches and case studies summarized in Chapter 5.
The Nature Conservancy: Setting Freshwater Conservation Priorities
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wildlife Action Plans
The National Flood Insurance Program
The U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program
The Trust for Public Land's Center for Land and Water
State/Interstate
Minnesota Healthy Watersheds Program
Virginia Healthy Waters Program
California Healthy Streams Partnership
NatureServe's Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Antidegradation
Instream Flow Protection
Using Antidegradation to Protect Instream Flows in Tennessee
Source Water Protection
Growth Management
State River and Habitat Protection Programs
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Fen Protection Program
Delaware River Basin Commission's Use of Antidegradation
Washington's Critical Areas Growth Management Act
Michigan's Water Withdrawal Assessment
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources River Corridor Protection Program
Michigan's Natural Rivers Program
Wyoming Wetlands Conservation Strategy
Maryland's GreenPrint Program
Enabling Source Water Protection in Maine
5-5
5-9
5-9
5-10
5-10
5-10
s
5-3
5-4
5-4
5-7
5-12
5-12
5-14
5-14
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-16
5-18
5-19
5-21
5-23
5-24
5-25
5-27
National Wild and Scenic Rivers: Lumber River, North Carolina
Land Protection
The Central Texas Greenprint for Growth: A Regional Action Plan for Conservation and Economic Opportunity
Land Protection and Climate Change
Land Use Planning
Green Infrastructure and Master Plans Alachua County, Florida
Watershed-Based Zoning in James City County, Virginia
River Corridor and Headwaters Protection
Headwaters: A Collaborative Conservation Plan for the Town of Sanford, Maine
Lower Meramec Drinking Water Source Protection Project
Cecil County, Maryland Green Infrastructure Plan
Sustainable Agriculture
Sustainable Forestry
Invasive Species Control
Ground Water Protection
5-11
5-28
5-28
5-28
5-29
5-29
5-31
5-32
5-33
5-35
5-37
5-39
5-39
5-40
5-40
5-2
-------
5 Management Approaches
5.1 Implementing Healthy Watersheds Programs in States
A number of states are making protection of healthy watersheds, especially using a systems approach,
an important part of their state programs. The restoration of impaired water bodies has long been a focus
of many state water quality programs. This is due to the fact that 40-50% of the nation's assessed waters
are listed as impaired (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008a). However, successful restoration
and protection efforts work hand in hand. As important as restoration of impaired water bodies is, success
in restoring ecological integrity will largely depend on pollution prevention and the protection of healthy
aquatic ecosystems that provide the ecological infrastructure that supports restoration. The goal of the Healthy
Watersheds Initiative is to help interested states and other partners identify and protect this critical natural
infrastructure and inform restoration priorities, and increase awareness of how these states and other partners
are using these approaches and techniques to improve aquatic ecosystems.
Interested states are now using Healthy Watershed Programs that complement the traditional focus on single
problem management by utilizing a systems-based approach to meet the cross-disciplinary, cross-agency
demands and challenges of aquatic ecosystem protection. This integrated approach to protecting aquatic
ecosystems can help to achieve environmental results quickly and cost-effectively. This technical document and
the complementary Healthy Watersheds Initiative website (www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds) are two resources
that EPA has developed to help states accomplish this.
The following are examples of the efforts that three states (Minnesota, Virginia, and California) are taking to
develop and implement state-specific Healthy Watersheds Programs.
Minnesota Healthy Watersheds Program
" What happens on our lands impacts our waters; what happens to our waters impacts our habitats, ecosystems, and
biodiversity."
Recognizing the need to connect management of the state's land and water resources, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) made a significant change to their organizational structure, which
transformed their programs, operations, and research in order to increase focus on, and enhance support for,
healthy watersheds throughout the state. Specifically, Minnesota DNR created a new Division of Ecological
and Water Resources by integrating its former Division of Ecological Resources and Division of Waters.
Integration of the two divisions into one will foster and accelerate the development of integrated approaches
for improving the health of Minnesota's land and water at local, watershed, and landscape scales. Minnesota
DNR recognizes that an integrated approach to resource management is necessary to effectively address
multiple resource issues at multiple scales. This new division will better position Minnesota DNR to address
the multiple pressures facing the state's land, water, fish and wildlife, and ecological resources, by leveraging
existing systems of analysis and frameworks in complementary, rather than competing ways.
The new Division of Ecological and Water Resources is not just a merger of the work by the former Division
of Ecological Resources and Division of Waters. Minnesota DNR's intention from the onset was to use this
new division to facilitate "systems-oriented natural resources management" throughout the entire department.
To initiate this department-wide transformation toward systems management, the new division is focusing its
attention on their most threatened natural resources: water, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. By focusing
their work around the central vision of "Healthy Watersheds," DNR believes it can deliver even stronger
protections for biodiversity and water resources (both ground and surface) than they were previously structured
to provide. With this new division, Minnesota DNR will be able to better shape their management goals and
strategies around protection and maintenance of vital ecosystem services—the natural processes that provide
benefits to humans, such as water purification, biodiversity maintenance, flood mitigation, and soil fertility.
More information: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/legislative/2010 healthy watersheds.pdf
5-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Virginia Healthy Waters Program
"At a time when so much of the news about the environment is negative, some biologists have been wading through
Virginia's streams in search of some positive information. What they've found suggests that there is another very
important story."
Virginia's Healthy Waters Initiative was designed to raise awareness about the need to maintain ecological
balance and protect the state's critical healthy waters before they become impaired. Healthy Waters broadens
existing conservation efforts to include the nearly 200 ecologically healthy streams, creeks, and rivers identified
throughout the state thus far, as well as the many more expected to be identified in the future (streams
throughout the state will continue to be assessed and added to the list as resources become available).
Healthy waters in Virginia are generally defined as those having the following characteristics: high number
of native species and a broad diversity of species; few or no non-native species; few generalist species that
are tolerant of degraded water quality; high number of native predators; migratory species whose presence
indicates that river or stream systems are not blocked by dams or other impediments; low incidence of disease
or parasites; and intact buffers of vegetation in the riparian zone. The current list of about 200 healthy waters
in Virginia were identified and ranked (as "exceptionally healthy," "healthy," or "restoration candidate")
based on these and other characteristics, using a stream ecological integrity assessment method known as the
Interactive Stream Assessment Resource, or InSTAR (see Section 3-6).
The Healthy Waters Initiative expands the existing water quality programs' focus on restoring degraded water
quality to protecting everything from aquatic insect larvae and bugs hidden in gravelly stream bottoms, to
fish and amphibians, to forested buffers alongside streams, to natural stream flow, to the water that people
drink. The identification and protection of healthy waters is expected to reduce the number of waters that will
become degraded in the future.
More information: www.dcr.virginia.gov/healthywaters
California Healthy Streams Partnership
Led by the California State Water Board's Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program, the Healthy
Streams Partnership seeks to promote improved ecological conditions of California's streams by encouraging
a paradigm shift from concern about impaired streams to an understanding of healthy stream systems and
their ecological characteristics. By expanding this understanding, the Healthy Streams Partnership hopes to
contribute to a change in perspective and thinking about natural resource management. With a strong focus
on connecting science and policy, the Healthy Streams Partnership supports hypothesis driven data collection,
analysis, and reporting to provide more useful and more integrated information to decision makers.
The Healthy Streams Partnership consists of representatives from the State and Regional Water Boards, the
Department of Fish and Game, the State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, and the Coast Keeper
Alliance. Coordination among these water quality data generating organizations is expected to increase the
rigor of the state's assessment capacity and to provide more contextual information to managers and decision-
makers who may have an impact on stream conditions. They are currently working to gather various data
sources into a "web portal" and online application for developing indices that translate various data types into
a report card format that provides an assessment of overall stream condition. The effort focuses on including
and synchronizing as many monitoring efforts as possible, striving for compatibility and comparability, and
emphasizing the need for monitoring to be hypothesis driven, in support of statewide adaptive management
effectiveness.
More information: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/mywaterquality/monitoring council/meetings/2011iun/hsp
outreach.pdf
5-4
-------
5 Management Approaches
5.2 Protection Programs
The following are examples of some of the many programs and strategies available for protecting healthy
watersheds. The strategies and programs are identified as national, regional, state, or local scale approaches.
These categories should not be considered rigid or constraining. They merely serve to organize the diversity of
techniques that can be used to maintain and improve watershed health at different geographic scales.
5.2.1 National
Freshwater Conservation Priorities
Creating a set of freshwater conservation priorities helps to develop a common vision for galvanizing partners
and stakeholders to implement a wide range of strategies in many places, allowing those with specific
capacities, expertise, geographic, and programmatic responsibilities to contribute to that vision of success. The
Nature Conservancy works with others to develop and implement approaches and tools to identify regional
and basin-wide freshwater conservation priorities (Higgins J. V., 2003; Higgins, Bryer, Khoury, & Fitzhugh,
2005; Higgins & Esselman, 2006). These and similar approaches and tools have been applied across parts of
five continents (Nel et al., 2009), including the vast majority of the United States (Higgins & Duigan, 2009).
Examples from the United States include Smith et al. (2003), Weitzell et al. (2003), and Khoury et al. (2010)
(see http://www.conservationgateway.org/content/ecoregional-reports for access to all currently available
reports and data).
The Nature Conservancy has generally used a six-step conservation planning process to identify priorities for
conserving the full range of freshwater habitats, processes, and biodiversity in a given region or basin. The first
step is to define the assessment region. The region is defined using units that delineate environmental patterns
and processes that result in freshwater ecological patterns. The region may be a collection of catchments within
an ongoing terrestrial-focused assessment, a freshwater ecoregion, or a basin of a large freshwater system. Abell
et al. (2008) provide a global coverage of freshwater ecoregions for conservation planning that is useful for
defining assessment regions, or subregions within very large assessment regions.
The second step is to define and spatially represent the variety of biodiversity elements or ecosystems, which
characterize environmental patterns, processes, and habitats that support the broad range of biodiversity in the
region of interest. A subset of species and natural communities that require focused attention to ensure that
rare, endangered, declining, keystone, and migratory species are appropriately represented in the plan are also
identified in this step. Ecosystems are defined and mapped using a freshwater ecosystem classification approach
(Appendix A).
Goals are set for defining the numerical redundancy and environmental stratification of elements thought to
be necessary to maintain ecological and evolutionary potential across the region of interest. Most regions that
are evaluated are large and contain subregions that differ in broad patterns of environmental characteristics
(e.g., climate, geology, drainage density, presence of lakes) and species composition. Therefore, subregions are
often delineated, and goals are set for each subregion using additional criteria such as conservation status and
range of elements. Often, different sets of goals are created, generating different risk scenarios for sustaining
biodiversity, where higher numerical goals represent lower risks to extirpation.
All of the occurrences of the biodiversity elements are then evaluated for their relative condition/integrity.
Condition is assessed using best available information, commonly using abundance, density, or spatial extent
of freshwater species, and the condition of the ecosystems, including: the intactness of species composition,
ecological processes, physical processes, habitat ratings, and landscape context (includes but not limited to:
degree of connectivity of habitats, locations and densities of dams, stream crossings, catchment and local
contributing area, patterns of current and future land use/cover, and protected and managed areas).
5-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Through working with partners and stakeholders to review and refine analytical products, priority catchments
and connectivity corridors are selected to represent the areas of biodiversity significance (the best examples
of each type of biodiversity element in each stratification unit) to best achieve goals in a comprehensive, yet
efficient solution. Connectivity is especially important in aquatic systems, where connectivity of habitats is
vital to maintain many ecological processes, species, and ecosystem services. The Active River Area approach
described in Chapter 4 explicitly identifies areas important for processes and sources of water and material
inputs for freshwater ecosystems. These areas include headwaters, riparian corridors, and floodplain wetlands.
The Active River Area approach has been applied to many areas in the northeastern and southeastern United
States (Contact The Nature Conservancy's Freshwater program for more information: http://www.nature.
org/ourinitiatives/habitats/riverslakes/index.htm). Additional criteria considered in assessments include
existing conservation opportunities, potential return on investments, ecosystem services, and climate change
adaptation.
The last step of the conservation planning process defines the major threats that occur regionally and in each
of those areas of significance, and develops strategies to address them. This process can be conducted on a
regional scale and/or at the scale of each area. Regional strategy development is becoming more common, and
defining strategies to address large scale threats and opportunities to leverage successful interventions requires
a regional perspective. The selection of a subset of high priority areas based on risks of conditional change,
opportunities to implement strategies, or leverage efforts to broaden their impact is recommended. Strategies
can include managing dams for environmental flows and other water resource management activities, best
management practices (BMPs), purchasing and/or reconnecting floodplain habitats to rivers, protection and
rehabilitation of natural land cover, etc. Using this framework, The Nature Conservancy and its partners have
developed regional freshwater conservation plans that cover the majority of the United States. Many GIS tools
are available to use to define a suite of priorities. Priorities exist for the majority of the United States, and these
provide a good place to start (http://www.conservationgateway.org/topic/setting-freshwater-priorities).
5-6
-------
Conservation Priorities for Freshwater
Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin
More Information: Weitzell, Khoury, Gagnon, Schreurs, Grossman, & Higgins, 2003 (http://
www.natureserve.org/library/uppermsriverbasin.pdf)
The Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB) is
home to approximately 25% of the freshwater fish
species in the United States and 20% of the mussel
species found in the United States and Canada.
NatureServe ranks 69 of these species as at-risk. Using
the freshwater ecosystem classification approach
described in Appendix A, the UMRB was divided
into 22 subregions (Ecological Drainage Units).
There were 153 species and 36 ecological systems
defined and mapped as conservation elements. Goals
were set for each species based on its proportional
range representation and spatial distribution. The
minimum goal for aquatic ecological systems was to
conserve at least one of each unique system type in
each ecological drainage unit it occurred in.
Relative condition/ecological integrity of the
ecosystems was evaluated using land cover/use,
impervious cover, road density, stream crossing
density, dams, point sources, mines, and impaired
stream designations. Local scientists and resource
managers were consulted to provide additional
information for use in the assessment and to review
and adapt the examples that were chosen to best
represent each biodiversity element.
The network of Areas of Biodiversity Significance
was then constructed (Figure 5-1). Priority for
inclusion was given to those ecological systems that
captured species elements, had the highest relative
ecological integrity, and were expert recommended
and/or included in already existing conservation
plans. Inclusion of additional ecological systems and
connectivity to support environmental processes
was conducted by including all headwater ecological
systems upstream of areas of biodiversity significance
in the network. The medium rivers immediately
downstream of each selected small river system were
also included in the network. Finally, ecological
system types that had not yet been included were
added to ensure representation of all types. Goals were
met for all ecological system types. The areas that were
selected included representation of 102 of the species
elements. Goals were met or exceeded for 45% of
these species elements, including for 71% of the fish
species and 55% of the mussel species. A subset of 47
areas that overlapped with terrestrial priorities were
mapped to identify areas where conservation resources
may be used more efficiently and outcomes may be
more effective through cooperative and synergistic
freshwater and terrestrial conservation actions.
A variety of strategies are being implemented across
the UMRB by a range of partners and stakeholders.
These strategies include demonstrations of floodplain
protection and restoration, flow/water level
management, alternative land use management and
agricultural BMPs, restoring natural wetlands and
creating artificial wetlands for processing land-based
sources of nutrients, and retiling agricultural lands
to manage soil moisture and nutrient applications,
among others.
Continued on page 5-8
5-7
-------
Expert or ecoregion priority
Big River
ABS
Stale Line
CX3
C3
Upper Mississippi River Basin ?t,
(Region 7> 22 O"*'1"'*'
Ecoiogical Drainage Unit (EDO)
Figure 5-1 Areas of Freshwater Biodiversity Significance in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
(Weitzell et al., 2003).
5-8
-------
5 Management Approaches
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Enacted in 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects free-flowing rivers from new hydropower projects,
federal water resource development projects, and other federally assisted water resource projects (Interagency
Wild and Scenic Rivers Council, 2009)- Among other factors, to qualify for designation, a river must be free-
flowing and have one or more "outstandingly remarkable" values. Outstandingly remarkable values are defined
loosely, but typically include scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar
values (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council, 2009)- Rivers have traditionally been designated as a
wild, scenic, or recreational river area through congressional designation. However, Section 2(a)(ii) of the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to include a river already protected by a state
river protection program in the National System upon the request of that state's governor. Many states already
have their own river protection programs in place. Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System
ensures that (American Rivers, 2009b):
• A river's "outstandingly remarkable" values and free-flowing character are protected.
• Existing uses of the river are protected.
• Federally licensed dams and any other federally assisted water resource projects are
prohibited if they would negatively impact the river's outstanding values.
• A quarter mile protected corridor on both sides of the river is established.
• A cooperative river management plan that addresses resource protection, development
of lands and facilities, user capacities, etc. is developed.
Outside of federal lands, the federal government has little or no control over certain river resource threats, such
as land use. Thus, it is critical that state and local organizations have a clear and effective plan for managing
the protected river area. Floodplain zoning and wetlands protection laws are examples of state and local
management actions that can be used to protect designated river areas.
Wildlife Action Plans
Two programs created by Congress in 2000, the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the
State Wildlife Grants Program, require the development of Wildlife Action Plans for all 50 states. These plans
are meant to protect states' wildlife before it becomes endangered or threatened. The plans evaluate wildlife
habitat at the landscape level and target conservation actions at the local level. Many of these plans include
aquatic resource protection. The plans are being implemented in all 50 states and receive funding from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Information from these plans can be used in the development of strategies
to protect healthy watersheds. Partnerships with the many organizations involved in the development and
implementation of wildlife action plans can be formed to the mutual benefit of both programs. Wildlife action
plans can be used by local land use agencies and sewer and water utilities in facility siting determinations (to
prevent habitat loss), land maintenance (to prevent the spread of invasive species), and other infrastructure
decisions, including water withdrawal and discharge decisions (to prevent pollution) (Environmental Law
Institute, 2007b). Some strategies that utilities have pursued include acquiring land to protect water recharge
areas, putting land into conservation easements, initiating stream clean-ups, carrying out environmental
education, and conducting biological research (Environmental Law Institute, 2007b).
5-9
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The National Flood Insurance Program
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) can contribute significantly toward protecting healthy
watersheds. The program is intended primarily to protect human life and property through requiring
participating communities to adopt certain standards in their floodplain development ordinances. By
participating in the program and complying with the standards, the communities receive insurance and
assistance for flood-related disasters. The minimum requirements of the NFIP serve the purpose of protecting
human life and property. However, through the Community Rating System, communities can implement
floodplain management policies that exceed the NFIP minimum requirements and receive a significant
discount in their flood insurance premiums. Many strategies using the No Adverse Impact approach promoted
by the Association of State Floodplain Mangers qualify for credit under the Community Rating System.
Adverse impacts can be defined as increases in flood stages, velocity, or flows, the potential for erosion and
sedimentation, degradation of water quality, or increased cost of public services (Vermont Law School Land
Use Institute, 2009). The No Adverse Impact approach extends development management beyond the
floodplain to include managing development in any area within the watershed that may have an adverse impact
on downstream property owners. For example, it promotes limiting the amount of impervious surfaces allowed
on new development sites or requiring mitigation strategies such as infiltration basins to capture the increased
runoff from new impervious surfaces. Another example is the Vermont Stream Geomorphic Assessments
discussed in Chapter 3, through which a fluvial erosion hazard (FEH) zone is defined. Using this approach,
the state has begun assisting communities in developing and implementing FEH districts, which have qualified
under the Community Rating System program for providing additional protections not provided for in the
NFIP minimum requirements, which do not address fluvial erosion.
The U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program
The U.S. Forest Service's Forest Legacy Program purchases conservation easements to protect tracts of forest
lands greater than 100 acres that are vulnerable to development and growth pressures. Thirty seven state forest
legacy programs have identified water quality, wetland, and riparian buffer protection as goals of their program.
The program is administered in cooperation with state partners. For example, the Forest Service worked with
the State of Montana and a number of other partners to protect nearly 8,000 acres in the North Swan River
Valley, the most intact biological ecosystem remaining in the lower 48 states. Forest Legacy Program funding
was leveraged with other funding to complete the protection of 66,000 acres in Swan Valley. Landowners must
prepare a multiple resource management plan with project costs of which at least 25% must be funded by
private, state, or local sources. Landowners benefit from the sale of the property rights and also from reduced
taxes on the preserved open space once the sale is complete.
The Trust for Public Land's Center for Land and Water
The Trust for Public Land's Center for Land and Water works in partnership with communities across the
nation to identify and protect the most critical watershed lands for maintaining healthy aquatic resources. The
Center protects these lands by designing networks of conservation lands, facilitating conservation transactions,
and supporting funding and legislation for land protection. Much of the Center's efforts are focused on
protecting lands surrounding drinking water sources. By assisting with land acquisition or conservation
easements in the watersheds of source waters, the Center helps to minimize nonpoint sources of pollution that
can threaten water supplies. The Enabling Source Water Protection in Maine and Lower Meramec Drinking
Water Source Protection Project case studies at the end of this section describe specific examples of the Center's
work.
5-10
-------
Case Study
Wild and Scenic Rivers: Lumber River, North
Carolina
More Information: http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-lumber.html
The Lumber River is located in south-central North
Carolina, and although most of the river corridor
is in private ownership, it is virtually unmodified.
In 1996, North Carolina's governor petitioned the
Secretary of the Interior to add 115 miles of the river
to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The
river had previously received protection under the
North Carolina Natural and Scenic Rivers Act, and
a State Park Master Plan had recently been developed
for the river corridor. This plan outlined a strategy for
the state to work with local governments on future
land use and zoning regulations and acquire riparian
lands through fee simple purchase and conservation
easements.
As part of the national designation process, an
examination of existing zoning was conducted to
determine if the river would receive adequate local
protection while the master plan strategy was being
implemented. The City of Lumberton amended
its land use ordinance by adding the Lumber River
Protection Overlay District to ensure that the river
received designation as a National Wild and Scenic
River, a source of pride for the community. The river
was successfully designated as a result of local river
protection interests, key political leaders, scientists,
and the National Park Service working together
throughout the process.
The Lumber River, North Carolina (The Lumber River Conservancy, 2009).
5-11
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
5.2.2 State and Interstate
Antidegradation
In addition to defining designated uses and identifying water quality criteria, states and authorized tribes are
required to develop and adopt statewide antidegradation policies that protect and maintain: existing instream
uses and their associated water quality; high quality waters, unless the state or tribe finds that allowing lower
water quality is necessary to accomodate important economic or social development; and outstanding national
resource waters (ONRW), as designated by the state or tribe. They are also required to identify implementation
methods for the antidegradation policy These implementation methods typically define how the high quality
waters will be identified, what activities will trigger the antidegradation review process, and the components of
an antidegradation review. All waters of a state should be categorized into one of three protection Tiers. Tier 1
is the minimum baseline of protection afforded to all waters of a state and requires that existing uses and their
associated water quality be maintained and protected. Tier 2, high quality waters, are those waters that exceed
the minimum quality necessary to support the CWA's "fishable/swimmable" goals and can only have their
water quality lowered when the state or tribe finds the lowering to be "necessary to accommodate important
economic or social development," as determined through the antidegradation review process. No degradation
is allowed in Tier 3 waters, ONRWs, except on a short-term, temporary basis, as identified by the state's or
tribe's policies and procedures. Antidegradation applies when an activity lowers water quality and is, therefore,
an attractive option for states or tribes to pursue in the protection of healthy watersheds. Healthy watersheds
assessments can help strengthen and inform Tier 2 and Tier 3 designations.
Instream Flow Protection
With the ever increasing demands that humans place on freshwater resources for drinking water, power
generation, and industrial and agricultural uses, aquatic biota are experiencing not only lower flows, but a loss
of the natural variability in flows. Historical methods for determining instream flow needs focused on single
species, often leading to decreased health of the larger ecosystem (Poff N., 2009). Scientists now understand
that the natural flow regime must be maintained to ensure aquatic ecological integrity. This understanding
is beginning to be integrated into flow management by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, who have been
working with The Nature Conservancy on pilot projects like those on the Savannah River in Georgia (Richter,
Warner, Meyer, & Lutz, 2006), and utilities like the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, also working with
The Nature Conservancy on developing environmental flow management practices (Richter B., 2007).
Both projects defined flow prescriptions for a river segment by evaluating ecological and social needs. More
information on managing instream flows for humans and ecosystems can be found in Postel and Richter
(2003).
Some states, such as Washington, Massachusetts, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Michigan have begun
developing flow management and water allocation policies to ensure protection of instream flows. For example,
Michigan uses its Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool, described in Chapter 3, to develop flow alteration-
ecological response curves for various classes of rivers, and the effects of proposed surface water and ground
water withdrawals can be estimated with an online user interface. Use of this tool is required for all new
> 100,000 gallons per day withdrawal applications as part of the implementation of a variety of Michigan
water allocation policies intended to protect and restore instream flows. Similarly, Connecticut has developed
draft stream flow regulations based on expert consensus and best available science to set flow standards for
six seasonal bioperiods. The regulations apply to surface water withdrawals and reservoir releases. The
Massachusetts Water Policy is a comprehensive approach to water management that seeks to maintain sufficient
quantity and quality of water for aquatic life and human use. It leverages the benefits of Smart Growth to
"keep water local" by: allowing for infiltration of precipitation onsite, instead of sending it across impervious
surfaces and down storm drains; encouraging municipalities to live within their water budgets and not import
water from other basins; and increasing treated wastewater recharge and reuse. These actions help to maintain
natural river flow conditions. South Carolina passed the Surface Water Withdrawal and Reporting Act in 2010
5-12
-------
5 Management Approaches
that sets water-permitting requirements for withdrawals greater than 3 million gallons per month; establishes
statewide, seasonally variable minimum flows to protect aquatic life, recreation, and water supply; and requires
new users to have contingency plans so that they can cease their consumptive use of water when stream flows
get too low.
The Columbia Basin Water Transactions Program uses a variety of mechanisms to ensure sufficient instream
flows throughout the basin in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho. Some of the tools used include
(National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Bonneville Power Administration, 2004):
• Water Acquisitions:
o Short and long-term leases.
o Permanent purchase.
o Split Season — A portion of a water right is used for irrigation in the spring
and the remainder is left instream in late summer/fall.
o Dry Year Option — An opportunity to lease a water right during a
particularly dry year.
o Forbearance agreement.
o Diversion reduction agreement.
• Boosting Efficiency:
o Switching from a flood to sprinkler irrigation system.
o Modernizing headgates.
o Improving ditch efficiency.
• Conserving Habitat:
o Protecting/restoring stream habitat and changing a portion of the associated
water right.
• Rethinking the Source:
o Changing the point of diversion from a tributary to a main stem in order to
improve stream flows.
o Switching from surface to ground water source.
• Pools:
o Rotational pool — A group of irrigators take turns leaving a portion of their
water in stream.
• Banks:
o Water Banking — Producers in an irrigation district "bank" water they may
not need so it can be available for other uses.
5-13
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Using Antidegradation to Protect Instream Flows
The Tennessee Division of Water Pollution Control regulates water withdrawals that can lower water quality or affect
designated use support in waters of the state. Most regulated water withdrawals in the state are for public water
supply. Tennessee's permit process under antidegradation requires an alternatives analysis, which includes social,
economic, and environmental considerations. Regional water supply planning conducted by the community is an
important tool to help identify water supply alternatives that avoid or minimize degradation. From the regulatory
perspective, an environmental review should seek to avoid and minimize degradation. From the community's
perspective, an environmental review should include the affected public and represent their interests. The
alternatives analysis helps encourage avoidance and minimization, while the intergovernmental coordination and
public participation provisions help ensure that the community has input on potentially important economic or
social development.
The alternatives analysis process has led to the development of regional, coordinated water supply planning to
address permit application requirements and the Division of Water Pollution Control has assisted in the completion
of two such pilot efforts. In one case, the regional plan showed that the raising of an existing dam would serve
as a regional supply for the stated planning horizon and was therefore justified under antidegradation; and that
other water supply development proposals within the region were therefore not justified. In the other case, the
impoundment and lowering of water quality of a tier two stream was shown to be unjustified; and that purchase of
treated water from a nearby utility who obtained their raw water from the Cumberland River was feasible.
Other innovations in water supply planning are occurring throughout Tennessee. For example, the Huntsville utility
district operates an existing withdrawal on a tier two stream, the New River, a tributary of the Big South Fork National
Recreational River. The Huntsville utility district has recently applied for a permit to increase their withdrawal rate
and volume from the New River. However, they propose to change their operation to harvest water based on the
amount of flow in the river and subsequently withdraw no more than 5% of the flow at any time. This minimization
of impact was driven, in part, by Tennessee's de-minimis flow reduction standard, serving as a presumptive flow
standard.
Source Water Protection
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 require states to develop and implement source
water assessment programs (SWAPs) to analyze existing and potential threats to the safety of public drinking
water sources throughout the state. States have completed source water assessments for virtually every public
water system in the nation, from major metropolitan areas to the smallest towns. A source water assessment
is a water system-specific study and report that provides basic information about the source water used to
provide drinking water. Many of the biggest threats to source waters identified in SWAPs are related to land
use practices. These include stormwater and nonpoint source runoff (e.g., from fertilized crop lands), septic
systems, and chemical storage tanks at commercial and industrial sites. Drawing from resources such as EPA's
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), states can
assist local water suppliers with source water protection measures, including a variety of land use management
tools, to address the threats identified in the SWAP These two EPA financing programs are administered by
each of the states and may provide funding to projects that support compliance with SDWA drinking water
standards (DWSRF) or protect, enhance, or restore water quality (CWSRF). The interest rates on loans under
these programs are typically well below market rates and have flexible repayment terms that can be extended
up to 20 years.
Land trusts have also taken advantage of both the DWSRF and CWSRF for land acquisition. Aligning State
Land Use and Water Protection Programs is an EPA-funded initiative that will have strategies and lessons
learned to share with other states. Initiative partners (The Trust for Public Land, Smart Growth Leadership
Institute, River Network, and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators) are working with a
small group of states to identify opportunities to work across political and programmatic boundaries to better
align planning, economic development, regulation, and conservation to protect drinking water sources at the
local and watershed level (see www.landuseandwater.org).
5-14
-------
5 Management Approaches
Growth Management
Some states have growth management laws, which typically provide more specific guidance to localities in
the development of land use plans than do the more typical land use planning enabling laws. In addition to
providing specific guidance and requirements, growth management laws also sometimes include a state land use
plan to guide local land use planning (Environmental Law Institute; Defenders of Wildlife, 2003)- However,
the primary authority to regulate land use remains with the local government. Some growth management laws
establish mechanisms for adjoining jurisdictions to coordinate their planning activities (Environmental Law
Institute; Defenders of Wildlife, 2003)- The State of Washington is protecting "critical areas" through the use
of its Growth Management Act (see case study at end of section).
State River and Habitat Protection Programs
Many state agencies maintain habitat protection programs and river protection programs that seek to protect
riparian areas and river corridors. Some examples include: Vermont's integrated river corridor protection
program, which is used to protect riverine and riparian habitat, in addition to protecting human infrastructure
from flood and fluvial erosion hazards; Michigan's Natural Rivers Program that protects riverine and riparian
habitats; Wyoming's statewide planning process to protect wetland-associated habitats; Maryland's GreenPrint
Program; and Minnesota's state legislation for fen protection.
Both voluntary and regulatory techniques are frequently used to implement these programs, and collaboration
with local governments and organizations is key to their success. For example, the New Hampshire River
Management and Protection Program is administered by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services and a statewide River Management Advisory Committee. However, protection hinges upon
partnerships between the state and local municipalities. Local individuals or organizations nominate rivers
when sufficient local support is demonstrated. Once approved by the state, designated rivers receive protection
from potential threats according to the classification they were given at the time of designation: natural,
rural, rural community, or community. Protection measures consider channel alterations, dams, hydroelectric
energy facilities, interbasin water transfers, protected instream flows, siting of solid and hazardous waste
facilities, recreational river use, and water quality. A local advisory committee consisting of representatives
from all riverfront municipalities develops and implements a management plan for the designated river with
assistance from the Department of Environmental Services. Local advisory committees also comment on
activities requiring state or federal permits that may impact the river. The intent of the River Management and
Protection Program is to balance competing demands for river resources for the benefit of present and future
generations.
The Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act takes a somewhat different approach to river protection. The Act
protects the 200 feet of land adjacent to either
bank of every perennial river, stream, or brook,
with
a few exceptions in densely populated
urban areas, where only 25 feet on either side of
the perennially flowing water body is protected.
These tracts of land, referred to as riverfront
areas, are protected from any new development
unless the developer can prove to the local
conservation commission or the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
that there is no practicable alternative for the
development or that the development will not
have a significant adverse impact on the river.
As a result, the Rivers Protection Act protects
a seamless network of the state's perennially
flowing water bodies.
Minnesota Fen Protection
i://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/index.l
Calcareous Tens are a wetiana type cnaraaenzea oy a non-
acidic peat substrate and dependent on a constant supply of
cold, oxygen-rich ground water with high concentrations of
calcium and magnesium bicarbonates. Calcareous fens are
some of the rarest natural communities in the United States
and are highly susceptible to disturbance. The Minnesota
Wetlands Conservation Act protects calcareous seepage fens
from being "filled, drained, or otherwise degraded, wholly or
partially, by any activity, unless the commissioner of natural
resources, under an approved management plan, decides
some alteration is necessary" (Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, 2008). In addition, any state-threatened
plants occurring on a calcareous fen are protected under
Minnesota's endangered species law.
5-15
-------
Case Study
Antidegradation: Delaware River Basin
Commission Special Protection Waters
More Information: http://www.state.ni.us/drbc/spw.htm
The Delaware River Basin Commission adopted
Special Protection Waters regulations in 1992, 1994,
and 2005 to protect existing high quality waters in
areas of the Delaware River Basin deemed "to have
exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological and/
or water supply values."
The Special Protection Waters regulations adopted
in 1992 and 1994 initially applied to a 121-mile
stretch of the Delaware River from Hancock, NY
downstream to the Delaware Water Gap, and its
drainage area. This corridor includes the two sections
of the river federally designated as "Wild and Scenic"
in 1978, as well as an eight-mile reach between Milrift
and Milford, PA which is not federally designated.
In 2000, federal legislation was enacted adding
key segments of the Lower Delaware and selected
tributaries to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System. This designation was followed in April
2001 with a petition from the Delaware Riverkeeper
Network to the Delaware River Basin Commission
to classify the Lower Delaware as a Special Protection
Water. Extensive water quality data were collected
from 2000 through 2004 at over 26 tributary and
main-stem Delaware River locations. The resulting
water quality data confirmed that existing water
quality in this stretch of river exceeded most state
and federal standards, making it a worthy candidate
for the Delaware River Basin Commission's anti-
degradation program.
Based in part upon these findings, in 2008 the
Delaware River Basin Commission permanently
designated the 76-mile stretch of the non-tidal lower
Delaware River between the Delaware Water Gap and
the head of tide at Trenton, NJ as Special Protection
Waters (Figure 5-2). The entire 197-mile non-tidal
Delaware River is now protected by Special Protection
Waters anti-degradation regulations.
The primary focus for the Special Protection Waters
Program is to ensure that the existing high quality
waters are not measurably changed as a result of
point source discharges and to mitigate the impacts
of nonpoint source pollution from new service areas.
In order to evaluate point source discharge projects
for conformance with the Special Protection Waters
Program, Commission staff prioritized water quality
model development in those watersheds that have
a high number of existing point source discharges
as well as in those watersheds that were expected to
have new growth and associated wastewater discharge
needs.
The water quality models are used to predict changes
to water quality as all of the existing and proposed
point source discharges reach their permitted flow/
loads. These cumulative impact models are then
utilized to identify effluent limitations for the point
source discharges to prevent a measurable water
quality change to Special Protection Waters.
5-16
-------
Neversink River
Watershed
Brodhead Creek
Watershed
Lower Lehigh
River Watershed
,>-*5DelawareTWater Gap
Lower
Delaware River
& Tributaries
PENNSYLVANIA
NEW JERSEY ,4
Delaware
Miford
DRB Basin Outline
Q3 Water Quality Modd Watershed
Q DRBC - SPW
E~2
' DELAWARE
1 ' ioL. ' '
Figure 5-2 The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) permanently designated
the entire 197-mile non-tidal Delaware River as a Special Protection Water (SPW)
subject to anti-degradation regulations (image courtesy of Robert Tudor, DRBC).
5-17
-------
Case Study
Washington Critical Areas Growth
Management Act
More Information: http://www.commerce.wa.aov/site/418/default.aspx
The State of Washington adopted its Growth
Management Act (GMA) in 1990 in response to
rapid, uncoordinated, and unplanned growth that was
threatening the environment, sustainable economic
development, and the health, safety, and high quality
of life afforded to its citizens. The Act requires all
Washington counties and cities to designate and
protect critical areas and natural resource areas. Critical
areas include wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat
conservation areas, aquifer recharge areas, frequently
flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
Natural resource areas include forest, agricultural,
and mineral lands. The Act has 14 goals that include
reducing sprawl by focusing growth in urban areas,
maintenance of natural resource based industries and
encouragement of sustainable economic development,
and protection of the environment by retaining open
space and habitat areas. Based on county population
and growth rate, some counties (and all cities within
them) are required to fully plan under the GMA,
while others can choose to plan. However, all cities
and counties are required to designate and protect
critical areas.
Although each city and county is required to designate
and protect critical areas, functions, and values under
the GMA, they are given wide latitude in how they
do so. The State of Washington provides guidance
and technical assistance, including example codes and
ordinances, but continues the tradition of allowing
local government to control its own land use decisions
by allowing them to choose the particular strategies
and tools they will use. However, designation and
protection of critical areas must include the "best
available science" and must give special consideration
to protection of anadromous fish habitat. A variety of
regulatory and non-regulatory tools are available to
communities for protection of critical areas, including
zoning, subdivision codes, clearing and grading
ordinances, critical areas regulations, conservation
easements, public education, and transfer of
development rights. The focus is on performance
measures designed to protect the functions and
values of each critical area. Although critical areas
can be protected with a number of regulations, many
communities in Washington include a separate critical
areas chapter in their development regulations. The
State Environmental Policy Act, Shoreline Master
Program, Storm Water Management, and Clearing
and Grading Ordinances are also useful for protecting
critical areas, and any critical areas regulations should
be consistent with these programs.
In 2008, Snohomish County conducted an
effectiveness monitoring study to determine how
well it was protecting the functions and values of
critical areas. The county uses regulatory (critical
areas regulations), non-regulatory (best management
practices), and monitoring and adaptive management
to protect its critical areas. The critical areas regulations
have science-based standards for techniques such
as buffer widths around wetlands and streams.
Alternative and innovative approaches are permitted
when they can be shown to achieve the same level
of protection as the regulations. A combination
of permit tracking, enhancement project tracking,
remote sensing, shoreline inventories, and intensive
catchment studies are being used to determine the
impacts of development on critical areas, with a focus
on fish and wildlife habitat (Haas, Ahn, Rustay, &
Dittbrenner, 2009).
5-18
-------
Case Study
Michigan Water Withdrawal Assessment
Process
More Information: http://web2.msue.msu.edu/bulletins/Bulletin/PDF/W060.pdf
In response to the Great Lakes — St. Lawrence
River Basin Water Resources Compact of 2005,
the Michigan State Legislature enacted new laws to
manage large-quantity water withdrawals based on
hydroecological principles. Public Act 179 of 2008
defines a large-quantity water withdrawal as an average
of 100,000 gpd over any consecutive 30 day period.
Using a process that parallels the Ecological Limits of
Hydrologic Alteration, Michigan has classified river
segments, determined flow-ecology relationships, and
identified environmental flow targets based on socially
acceptable ecological conditions. To implement
its policy, Michigan has created a statewide water
withdrawal assessment tool (Chapter 3).
The water withdrawal assessment tool uses "fish
response curves" to evaluate the impact of a water
withdrawal on fish populations in the 11 different
stream types defined for Michigan (Figure 5-3).
The stream types are defined based on habitat
characteristics such as catchment size, base flow yield,
and July mean water temperature. The fish response
curves were developed using fish abundance and
stream flow data to determine relationships between
flow reduction and change in fish populations for
all 11 stream types. Using the water withdrawal
assessment tool, the user inputs the proposed
location and quantity of their withdrawal, and the
tool estimates the level of impact. Depending on the
Continued on page 5-20
Zone A Zone B
~ 0.4
!
Increasing user involvement
Adverse Resource Impact
and responsibility
Proportion of index now removed
Figure 5-3 Example fish response curves. The dark curve represents "thriving species still thriving" at
incremental reductions in index flow. The light curve represents "characteristic species still present and
abundant." (TroyZorn, MI DNR, Personal Communication).
5-19
-------
proportion of the index flow removed for a given
stream type, the proportion of the fish population
remaining can be determined through the use of
the fish response curves. Four zones of index flow
reduction have been defined for each stream type.
These zones represent different policy actions as
shown in Figure 5-4.
The water withdrawal assessment tool is considered
a screening tool. When appropriate, site-specific
analyses can be conducted to determine the
appropriate zone and consequent action. A new
Water Resources Conservation Advisory Council
was created to evaluate and oversee the state's
water management programs, including the Water
Withdrawal Assessment Process. The council ensures
that the process is inclusive and collaborative and that
it is based on the best available science.
User
Can
Enter.
Either
Process Component Process Result
-1
Screening
Tool
And possibly
1
1 Zones C&D
• And p ^ssibly Zone B
J *
1
1
I
1
1
I
L
Site
Specific
Analysis
1
X,™, 1
r *•
j J
7oner^
V /7
^ * K
User Group
or
Legal Options
Action
Withdrawal authorized
Undetermined; some increased
degree of engagement &
responsibility is intended
Withdrawal authorized
Undetermined; some increased
degree of engagement &
responsibility is intended
•*. Withdrawal denied
New site-specific analysis
MDEQ Administrative decision
Judicial decision
Figure 5-4 Illustration of the water withdrawal assessment process and resulting actions. (Troy Zorn, MI
DNR, Personal Communication).
5-20
-------
Case Study
Vermont River Corridor Protection Program
More Information: Kline, 2010 (http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv
restoration.htm)
The Vermont River Corridor Protection Program
is a program of the Department of Environmental
Conservation, within the Agency of Natural
Resources (ANR), that seeks to restore and protect the
natural values of rivers and minimize flood damage.
Achieving natural stream stability over time through a
reduction in riparian infrastructure can minimize cost
from flood damage and improve aquatic and riparian
ecological integrity. Vermont ANR provides technical
assistance to communities throughout the state to
help delineate river corridors, develop municipal
fluvial erosion hazard zoning districts, and implement
river corridor easements. Delineation of the river
corridor is carried out using the stream geomorphic
assessment protocols described in Chapter 3- The
primary purpose of this delineation, with respect to
river corridor planning, is to capture the meander
belt and other active areas of the river that are likely
to be inundated or erode under flooding flows. As
part of the stream geomorphic assessment, a stream
sensitivity rating is assigned to each reach based on
existing stream type and geomorphic condition.
Based on the river corridor delineations, Vermont
ANR works with communities to develop river
corridor plans that analyze geomorphic condition,
identify stressors and constraints to stream
equilibrium, and prioritize management strategies
such as:
• Protecting river corridors.
• Planting stream buffers.
• Stabilizing stream banks.
• Arresting head cuts and nick points.
• Removing berms and other constraints
to flood and sediment load attenuation.
• Removing/replacing/retrofitting
structures (e.g., undersized culverts,
constrictions, low dams).
• Restoring incised reaches.
• Restoring aggraded reaches.
By focusing on "key attenuation assets," flood and
fluvial erosion hazards, water quality, and habitat
are improved at minimum cost. Attenuation areas
are captured in the corridor delineation process
and include Active River Area components such as
floodplains, wetlands, and riparian vegetation that
store flood flows and sediments and reduce watershed
nutrient and organic matter inputs.
The river corridor plans are incorporated into
existing watershed plans, and ANR also works with
municipalities to develop Fluvial Erosion Hazard Area
Districts in their bylaws or zoning ordinances. A River
Corridor Easement Program has also been established
to purchase river channel management rights (Figure
5-5). This prevents land owners from dredging and
armoring the channel and gives the easement holder
the right to establish vegetated buffers in the river
corridor.
The Town of Hinesburg, Vermont developed a stream
corridor plan for the LaPlatte River in 2007 to take
advantage of the stream geomorphic assessments that
had already been completed and to develop river
corridor protection projects. The plan development
process began with outreach and education activities
including landowner contact through direct mailing
of informative letters followed up by telephone calls
to each landowner. Meetings were scheduled with
each landowner to discuss the planning process and
reach condition details specific to each landowner's
parcel. Presentations were also given to the Select
Board, Conservation Commission, and Planning
Commission at the beginning and end of the planning
process.
Continued on page 5-22
5-21
-------
The LaPlatte Watershed Partnership used the stream
geomorphic assessment results and conducted
a stressor, departure, and sensitivity analysis to
prioritize planning and management strategies for
each reach. They identified strategies such as properly
sizing stream crossings (i.e., bridges and culverts)
when these structures are up for replacements
or repairs, implementation of a Water Resources
Overlay District (which encompasses the FEH
zone), planting of stream buffers, and restoration
of incised reaches. The Town of Hinesburg adopted
stream buffers and setback requirements in its
zoning regulations that prevent encroachment into
the stream corridor, protecting property and the
ecological integrity of the LaPlatte River.
Figure 5-5 Map and orthophoto depicting the meander belt width-based river corridor being considered
for protection in the Town of Cabot, Vermont to help restore water quality, aquatic habitat, and natural
channel stability of the Winooski River. The belt width corridor is designed to accommodate the
geomorphology and fluvial processes associated with the river's dynamic equilibrium condition (Mike
Kline, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Personal Communication).
5-22
-------
Case Study
Michigan's Natural Rivers Program
More Information: http://www.michiaan.aov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301 31431 31442-.00.html
The State of Michigan's Natural Rivers Act, passed
in 1970, established The Natural Rivers Program as
part of the Habitat Management Unit in the Fisheries
Division of the state's Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). Since the program's establishment,
2,091 miles on 16 rivers have been designated as part
of Michigan's Natural Rivers System. The system
serves to preserve and enhance a variety of values
each river provides for current and future generations,
including: aesthetics, free-flowing condition,
recreation, boating, historic value, water conservation,
floodplain, ecological, fisheries and other aquatic life,
and wildlife habitat. In this way, the Program focuses
on protecting natural river ecosystem conditions so
that rivers can continue to provide ecosystem services
to their local communities for many years to come.
In order to be considered for designation in the
program, stakeholders must form an advisory
group to develop a comprehensive management
plan for a river. Management plans include baseline
data describing the river's condition, defined river
segments proposed for designation, and proposed
standards for land development in the river's Natural
River District, defined as the land area extending 400
feet from either side of the river's edge. Standards
typically include structural and septic system setbacks
(100-200 feet from the water's edge), natural riparian
buffers (25-100 feet from the water's edge), minimum
lot size and frontage requirements (one acre with 100-
200 feet of frontage), and prohibitions on filling or
building in the 100-year floodplain or wetlands. The
standards also restrict use of the Natural River District
to residential development and limit timber harvest,
oil and gas activity, bank stabilization activities,
intensive habitat management of fisheries and public
lands, and public access. Because the Natural River
District applies to both public and private lands, a
river's designation into Michigan's Natural Rivers
System incorporates uniform standards across all land
ownerships and multiple jurisdictions, resulting in
a seamlessly protected green infrastructure corridor
along the river's banks.
Once a river has been designated as part of the Natural
Rivers System, a permit process is used to oversee
development in the Natural River District. Property
owners wishing to conduct activities in Natural River
Districts apply for Natural River zoning permits
from the Program administrators for their districts.
Program staff conduct site inspections with applicants
and issue permits once it has been determined that
the applicant's activity complies with development
standards. The Zoning Review Board, a seven-
member board consisting of representatives from
each affected County and Township, NRCS, local
citizens, and the DNR may grant variances in cases
where standards cannot be met. Local governments
may become Natural Rivers Program administrators
on private lands in their jurisdictions by adopting
Natural River zoning standards into a county or town
ordinance. Natural Rivers Program staff support local
government program administrators by reviewing
ordinance language amendments, commenting on
variance requests, and monitoring to ensure uniform
Program administration within each river system. In
addition to local governments, watershed councils,
Resource Conservation and Development programs,
the U.S. Forest Service, Trout Unlimited chapters,
canoe livery owners, and the Michigan Department
of Environmental Quality have also collaborated with
the DNR to contribute to the success of Michigan's
Natural Rivers Program.
5-23
-------
Case Study
Wyoming Wetlands Conservation Strategy
More Information: http://gf.state.wy.us/habitat/WetlandConservation/Wyoming%20
Wetlands%20Conservation%20Strateav%20September%207.%202010.pdf
The Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee
has developed a statewide wetlands conservation
strategy to meet seven goals: 1) delineate important
wetland and riparian habitat areas and assess their
condition, 2) identify threats to the functional
integrity of wetlands and riparian habitats, 3) set
state and regional conservation goals and priorities,
4) develop conservation and management strategies
for wetlands and riparian habitats, 5) promote
partnerships among existing conservation initiatives,
6) connect with non-conservation-based funding and
planning resources, and 7) build technical support
for the wetland component of the Wyoming State
Wildlife Action Plan. The Committee identified nine
wetland complexes to be prioritized for conservation
in the next 10-year planning horizon. Six of these
complexes were selected for meeting two criteria: 1)
a Shannon diversity rank no greater than five, and 2)
"high" project opportunity. The other three complexes
were selected due to their ecological uniqueness and/
or a high level of public interest. Data from a 1995
Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan and an assessment conducted by The Nature
Conservancy in 2010 support these selections.
The first step in implementing this conservation
strategy is to build the state's capacity to support
wetlands conservation projects. A pooled state agency
and non-governmental organization approach, a
state wetlands coordinator position, and/or new
funding sources may be developed to provide needed
technical resources that have been historically lacking
to write grant proposals and plan, permit, and oversee
projects. Local and regional wetlands and riparian
habitat conservation priorities will be identified
in "step-down" plans for the following four areas:
protection, restoration, creation and enhancement,
and recreation. Priority conservation projects for each
of the four areas will be identified and made publicly
known through a Wyoming Wetlands Web site. In
addition, the "step-down" plans will be used to set
statewide objectives and priorities for the same four
areas. Protection priorities will focus on acquisitions
and conservation easements.
The state's highest conservation priority at this time
is to ensure "no net loss" of existing wetlands and
riparian habitats. This requires enforcing existing
protections, effective mitigation of unavoidable
losses, strategic use of federal financial incentives,
and negotiating land and water use rights to protect
high-risk areas. The committee is considering a
variety of approaches to foster land and water
use that is protective of wetlands in the private
sphere. These approaches include: management and
stewardship agreements, property leases (including
water rights), managing the timing of when water
rights are exercised, temporary water transfers,
rehabilitation and improvement of irrigation systems,
the development of ground water wells to supply
constructed wetlands, and potentially reintroducing
beaver populations. The establishment of minimum
stream flows that mimic natural hydrographs, removal
of barriers to stream connectivity, and discouraging
floodplain development are other tactics that may
become a part of Wyoming's wetlands conservation
strategy. Lastly, the Committee also proposes that an
effort be made to incorporate wildlife habitat creation,
enhancement, maintenance or management into the
state's legal definition of beneficial uses of water to
expand the set of water sources that can potentially be
used to support wetlands.
Wyoming's wetlands conservation strategy
incorporates several prioritization techniques that can
be similarly applied to prioritize healthy watersheds
for protection. Wetlands identified as conservation
priorities are likely to be found in healthy watersheds
that would be identified as protection priorities. In
these and other ways, wetlands conservation and
healthy watersheds protection strategies can be
developed synergistically to preserve the integrity of
healthy watersheds.
5-24
-------
Case Stu
Maryland's GreenPrint Program
More Information: www.greenprint.maryland.gov
The State of Maryland has identified fragmentation
and development of its natural and working lands as
its biggest future conservation challenge. To address
this challenge, Maryland's Program Open Space
developed a tool known as GreenPrint (Figure 5-6)
to identify the state's most ecologically valuable
areas and track their conservation. The tool uses GIS
data layers to identify overlap between areas that are
priorities for the following four conservation foci:
green infrastructure, water quality protection, rare
species habitat, and aquatic biodiversity hotspots
(Figure 5-7). Areas that are conservation priorities
for several of these purposes are then designated as
targeted ecological areas (TEA). It is likely that there
will be overlap between areas that should be protected
as healthy watersheds and TEAs because both are
landscape-level approaches to protecting the integrity
of freshwater systems.
Continued on page 5-25
Unprotected Targeted
Ecological^feas
Lands Protected
from Development
Military Installations
Tributary Strategy
GreenPrint
Taraeted Ecoloaical Areas
; and watersheds of high ecological value that have
identified as conservation priorities by the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.
Click on any county to gel
that county's statistics.
How many acres have been identified as
Targeted Ecological Areas, and how
much is protected?
Since 2007, which state conservation
programs are protecting the Targeted
Ecological Areas?
2007-2010 Land Conservation in and
Out of Targeted Ecological Areas
Protected and Unprotected Targeted
Ecological Areas
in Ft,
I I Unprotected
Other
I Program Open Space
| Rural Legacy
I Maryland Environmental Trust Easements Martin O'Malley
| Maryland ^rioultural Land Preservation Foundation Governor
Anthony G. Browi
Lt. Governor
0 5 10
20
1 Miles
r*
v-dfc-l
Figure 5-6 Maryland's GreenPrint map of targeted ecological areas (Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 2011).
5-25
-------
Green Infrastructure
Rare Species Habitats
/
Water Quality Protection
Aquatic Life Hotspots
Targeted Ecological Areas
.
rtmrca*ie. .*
Figure 5-7 Identification of targeted ecological areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 2011).
Maryland's Board of Public Works uses an ecological
ranking protocol to measure how conservation projects
contribute to the protection of TEAs. The protocol
requires that each conservation project be evaluated
using a standard scorecard. The scorecard asks
project managers to address the four aforementioned
conservation priority areas used by GreenPrint in both
a landscape score and a parcel ecological characteristic
score. Other components that contribute to the
project's final score include recreational or cultural
value, restoration value, consistency with local
land use, and provisions for future management of
the land. The Board of Public Works also uses the
scorecards to track how many projects are located in
GreenPrint TEAs as a key performance measure for
Program Open Space. The goal of the GreenPrint
Program is to channel conservation resources into
protecting TEAs, thus supporting both the green and
blue infrastructure needed to maintain a complete
ecological network across the state.
5-26
-------
Case Study
Enabling Source Water Protection in Maine
More Information: http://www.landuseandwater.org/index.htm
Maine's landscape is home to an abundance of lakes,
ponds, and rivers. Many of these surface waters, and
associated ground waters, serve as sources of drinking
water for local residents. Unlike most states, utilities
in Maine are often able to provide only minimal
treatment to their source waters before distribution
to customers. This is due to the high quality of these
source waters in their natural condition. Although
Maine has already taken a number of measures to
ensure that its aquifers and surface sources continue
to provide clean drinking water into the future, the
state decided to participate in the Enabling Source
Water Protection initiative, an EPA-funded project to
integrate state land and water programs. The project
is a partnership among the Trust for Public Land,
the Smart Growth Leadership Institute, the River
Network, and the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators. The Enabling Source Water Protection
project assesses state programs to recommend the best
opportunities for program alignment that will support
local communities in their source protection efforts.
Working with a diverse group of state agency
representatives, public water systems, non-profit
organizations, and other interested stakeholders, the
national project team identified key opportunities for
improved collaboration in the areas of smart growth,
conservation, and water quality. After soliciting
stakeholder input and feedback on the identified
opportunities, the project team identified successful
implementation efforts from other states and created
a draft action plan for Maine. Using an online survey,
stakeholders were asked to read the document to
further refine and prioritize action items. Those
steps rated as low impact, high investment and low
chance of success were eliminated from consideration.
Developing a dedicated statewide funding source
for drinking water source protection was identified
as the action that would have the highest positive
impact, but that would require long-term planning
and implementation. The final action plan focuses on
those action steps where the majority of respondents
rated them as: having high impact on drinking
water source protection; requiring low-to-moderate
investment of public resources; demanding high
urgency for implementation; having a short-to-
medium time frame for implementation; having a
moderate-to-high chance for implementation; and
requiring low-to-moderate (primarily administrative)
effort to implement.
In-depth analysis of existing programs and listening
sessions with representatives from across the state
revealed that three key short-term actions can assist
with better synergy between land use and drinking
water source protection: 1) Employing the State
of Maine's Quality of Place Investment Strategy to
strengthen drinking water source protection, using
the state's ability to direct funding for infrastructure
and economic development. 2) Continuing a
phased investment in on-line mapping resources
and information sharing to provide critical data to
local governments and developers so they can make
more informed land-use decisions. 3) Developing
guidelines for compatible recreational opportunities
in and around sensitive protection areas to provide
greater access to conservation funding and a broader
constituency to preserve lands and waters important
for drinking water. Maine's Drinking Water Program
has initiated implementation efforts in all of these
areas.
5-27
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
5.2.3 Local
Land Protection
Land trusts are typically non-profit entities that coordinate the acquisition of land, or easements that limit
development on land, for the purpose of protecting open space and conserving natural resources. Land can
be donated, sold at a discount, or sold at market price to local, state, or federal government, or to land trusts
that will typically then serve as the stewards of that land or entrust stewardship to a local or state government
agency. A conservation easement is a tool that allows the landowner to maintain ownership of the land while
entering into a legal arrangement to limit the uses of the land. For example, a farmer may own a large tract of
land that can be sold on the private market and be developed, or they can work with a land trust to place an
easement on the property whereby the land is permitted to remain in agricultural use or to remain idle but is
not permitted to be developed. Organizations such as The Trust for Public Land, American Farmland Trust,
and The Land Trust Alliance can provide information and assistance on land protection issues. Conservation
easements and other types of development restrictions can be pursued by state and local governments as well.
Many states provide income or other tax credits to landowners who donate land or easements for conservation
purposes. This can be a useful mechanism for increasing voluntary participation in conservation.
Green infrastructure assessments, such as
those described in Chapter 3, are increasingly
being used as an overarching conservation
framework in the comprehensive planning
process of municipalities and counties.
Some maintain their approach within the
strict definition of green infrastructure,
while others have expanded their programs
to consider "working lands" such as
agricultural areas, historic lands, and
cultural resources. Identification of a
community's green infrastructure is the
first step in preserving it. The community's
zoning and comprehensive plan (or master
plan) can then be revised to plan for
growth around the green infrastructure
(see sidebar). Chapter 3 contains additional
examples of green infrastructure assessments
and the role that they play in local land use
planning.
The Central Texas Greenprint for Growth:
A Regional Action Plan for Conservation
and Economic Opportunity, Texas
http://envisioncentraltexas.ora/resources/GreenprintMkt.pdf
,
n
1998 after years ot advocacy surrounding watershed protection
and parks. The most sensitive third of the region's land drains
into the Edwards Aquifer in Texas. This area was designated as a
"Drinking Water Protection Zone" by the city's residents, and the
remaining two thirds were designated a "Desired Development
Zone." Since then, Travis County and surrounding counties that are
part of the Austin metropolitan area have been growing quickly.
The Greenprint that the Trust for Public Land, the Capitol Area
Council of Governments, and Envision Central Texas developed
in partnership with Travis, Hays, Bastrop, and Caldwell County
residents suggests directing development towards areas with
existing infrastructure and away from the sensitive lands draining
to the aquifers. The Greenprint's opportunity maps identify
lands that are most important for regional water quality and
quantity protection for each of the counties. It includes maps for
conservation lands to achieve other goals that residents identified
as well. Travis County, Hays County, and City of Austin voters
have repeatedly approved tax increases to purchase land and
development rights in order to protect critical lands in the region.
The Protected Areas Database of the United
States partnership is creating a national
inventory of all public and private protected
lands. The draft data layer is available for download and online viewing and can be used to identify lands
already in conservation easements or some other kind of protection status (Protected Areas Database of the
United States Partnership, 2009). This resource can be helpful in further prioritizing adjacent lands for
protection or restoration.
Land Protection and Climate Change
Land protection and stewardship are critical components of protecting healthy watersheds. They are especially
important in a changing climate. EPA recently evaluated the decision-making strategies of land protection
programs across the country in the context of climate change impacts. Programs that focus on wildlife and
watersheds were chosen for the evaluation due to the impacts that climate change is expected to have on these
elements. The authors used the Trust for Public Land's LandVote database (2009), which compiles information
5-28
-------
5 Management Approaches
on land protection activities across the nation, to analyze these management trends. The large majority of
land protection programs evaluated did not consider climate change in their decision making process (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b). However, the report identified strategies that might be useful for
land protection programs on how to consider climate change in future transactions. These include decision
support tools for advisory committees, promulgation of different land protection models (e.g., purchase, as
opposed to transfer, of development rights), and educational outreach for elected officials (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2009b). Land protection strategies should consider both the mitigation potential of the
land through carbon sequestration and the adaptation potential of the land for protecting water resources
and wildlife migration routes, as well as the potential to buffer infrastructure from storm events (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b).
Carbon markets are an emerging approach for mitigation of climate change and conservation of forested lands,
and may play an important role in land protection strategies in the coming years. Deforestation is responsible
for 20% of all carbon emissions worldwide. Since forests sequester large amounts of carbon, protection of
these lands is a critical element in addressing climate change. Carbon markets provide a mechanism whereby
an emitter of carbon dioxide can purchase carbon credits from sellers to offset their own emissions below a
"cap," usually determined by a government or international body. The sellers must be emitting less than the
cap to have any credits to sell. Credits can also be determined through the use of a baseline, as opposed to a
government imposed cap. By helping to prevent deforestation, land protection can generate credits based on
the amount of carbon emissions avoided.
As the effects of climate change increasingly manifest themselves, adaptation strategies will become more and
more important. A certain amount of climate change will occur regardless of the actions taken to reduce future
greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, adaptation strategies are an important component to addressing
climate change. An important component of these strategies can be to protect the remaining natural areas.
Wetlands and headwater streams, for example, regulate the downstream flow of water, retaining water in wet
conditions and releasing it in dry conditions. They thereby serve as important components for protection
against both floods and droughts. Riparian vegetation protects streams from the effects of increased runoff
expected in many parts of the country due to increased intensity and frequency of extreme storm events. Also,
vegetated riparian areas provide habitat and corridors for migration.
Land Use Planning
From a big picture perspective, protecting
healthy watersheds has a lot to do with land use,
sprawl, and development. River banks are often
armored to "protect" riparian development,
but this practice typically exacerbates erosion
downstream. Increased impervious surfaces
associated with development often increase
runoff volumes and the build-up and wash-
off of pollutants into surface waters. Wildlife
habitat and valuable plant communities
are lost when natural land cover is removed
to make way for new development. The
natural disturbance regime is disrupted when
the natural fire regime is suppressed, large
withdrawals are made from rivers or ground
water, or dams are constructed to generate
electricity to satisfy the ever increasing demands
of residential and industrial growth.
Green Infrastructure and Master
Plans Alachua County, Florida
(Alachua County, 2008)
Alachua County, Florida updated their master plan in 2005 to
include specific policies that require or incentivize protection
of wetlands, surface waters, floodplains, listed species habitat,
significant geologic features, and the highest category of
protection, "strategic ecosystems." Strategic ecosystems are
specific mapped areas in Alachua County that are the 47 most
significant natural communities, both upland and wetland,
remaining in private ownership. Minimum conservation
standards for this green infrastructure include protection of all
wetlands and surface waters, protection of at least 50 percent
of all upland within the strategic ecosystems, conservation
easements, management plans, and environmentally friendly
designs. Development rights are preserved through increased
allowable densities on buildable areas or by transfer of
development rights to other properties.
5-29
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
One of the greatest contributions to protecting healthy watersheds may come from ecologically-based land
use planning. Land use regulation is primarily a local authority, with the state responsible for establishing the
laws and regulations that enable local land use planning. These laws vary considerably from state to state, but
generally provide guidance to localities (sometimes mandatory, sometimes voluntary) in the development of
comprehensive plans (sometimes referred to as master plans). Some state land use planning laws require that
natural resources are taken into account in comprehensive plans (Environmental Law Institute; Defenders of
Wildlife, 2003). Others require provisions for protection of open space or require consideration of wildlife
habitat (Environmental Law Institute; Defenders of Wildlife, 2003). Some states may not require these
issues to be considered in the development of comprehensive plans, but may suggest it. Some state land use
planning laws require the state to develop a statewide land use plan or policy (Environmental Law Institute;
Defenders of Wildlife, 2003). Other states are authorized to provide support or assistance in the development
or implementation of local land use plans (Environmental Law Institute; Defenders of Wildlife, 2003).
In an evaluation of the role of conservation in land use planning, the Environmental Law Institute (2007a)
made six general recommendations for how to advance conservation planning:
1. Develop communications tools that convey the value of ecological knowledge and
conservation planning to decision makers.
2. Develop requirements and incentives for proactive conservation planning.
3. Measure the effectiveness of conservation planning and implement adaptive
management where needed.
4. Find ways to overcome the disconnect between the different scales at which land use
planning and conservation are carried out.
5. Define specific conservation thresholds (e.g., minimum riparian buffer width) based
on the best available science.
6. Provide a technical support infrastructure and interdisciplinary training for planners
and conservation scientists.
Smart Growth is a land use planning concept that can contribute significantly towards protecting healthy
watersheds. Smart Growth refers to a land use strategy to prevent sprawl and create communities with diverse
transportation, employment, and housing options. It focuses on minimizing the development of natural
and rural areas by directing growth within cities through rehabilitation and reuse of existing infrastructure,
improving public transit and bicycling or walking options, and making urban environments more desirable
places to live. The Smart Growth Network (2009) identifies 10 principles of smart growth:
1. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices.
2. Create walkable neighborhoods.
3. Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration.
4. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place.
5. Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective.
6. Mix land uses.
7- Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas.
8. Provide a variety of transportation choices.
9. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities.
10. Take advantage of compact building design.
These principles have been adopted by numerous states in their own smart growth programs intended to assist
communities in developing local strategies to prevent sprawl and minimize the loss of remaining natural areas.
Transportation and land use are two closely related issues. Traditional zoning practices encourage separation of
land uses, requiring motorized transport for people to travel to work, go grocery shopping, etc. Public transit
5-30
-------
5 Management Approaches
options have virtually disappeared in all but the largest cities, leaving people with no choice but to purchase
automobiles, exacerbating the problem even further.
By encouraging mixed land uses, increasing public
transit and bicycling/walking options, and directing
development towards existing communities, the
pressures that create sprawl can be reduced, and
of our remaining natural places can be
Watershed-Based Zoning in
James City County, Virginia
http://www.jccegov.com/environmental/index.html
more
preserved.
Higher density development has recently been
recognized as a strategy that can help prevent
the spread of impervious surfaces, landscape
fragmentation, and overall ecological degradation
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006b).
Although high density development may have
higher proportions of impervious surfaces per
acre, it can actually reduce the total amount of
impervious surfaces in the watershed. This is
partly because high density development decreases
need for roads and parking lots. High density
development is compatible with the 10 principles of
Smart Growth.
the rapid development experienced in the previous two
decades, the county decided to pursue a watershed-
based zoning approach to protect its high quality streams
from future development impacts. An impervious cover
and instream/riparian habitat assessment categorized
each of the county's subwatersheds as Excellent, Good,
Fair, or Poor. Using a combination of innovative land use
planning techniques, including transfer of development
rights, conservation development, rezoning, and resource
protection overlay districts, the county has directed growth
away from its most sensitive and ecologically valuable
subwatershed and developed strategies to minimize
further impacts in those degraded subwatersheds
designated for growth. Each subwatershed was also
targeted for other specific management measures to
either conserve, protect, or restore streams according to
the level of threat imposed on each.
Conservation Development (sometimes referred to as cluster design) is a zoning strategy that decreases
residential lot sizes and clusters the developed areas together, protecting the remaining areas as shared
open space. This prevents large lot development, which has contributed to suburban sprawl and habitat
fragmentation. By clustering development together, whether in rural cluster designs, or by taking advantage
of infill development of cities, sprawl, and excessive spread of impervious surfaces are reduced. Additional
information on conservation development can be found in Arendt (1999).
Watershed-based zoning is a land use planning strategy based on the boundaries of small watersheds. By
directing future development towards watersheds where it will have the least negative impact, this strategy
can protect watersheds with high ecological integrity. This strategy involves significant collaboration between
adjacent municipalities, as watershed boundaries rarely coincide with political boundaries. A watershed-based
zoning approach should include the following nine steps (Schueler, 2000):
1. Conduct a comprehensive stream inventory.
2. Measure current levels of impervious cover.
3. Verify impervious cover/stream quality relationships.
4. Project future levels of impervious cover.
5. Classify subwatersheds based on stream management "templates" and current
impervious cover.
6. Modify master plans/zoning to correspond to subwatershed impervious cover
targets and other management strategies identified in Subwatershed Management
Templates.
7- Incorporate management priorities from larger watershed management units such as
river basins or larger watersheds.
8. Adopt specific watershed protection strategies for each subwatershed.
9- Conduct long-term monitoring over a prescribed cycle to assess watershed status.
5-31
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Revision of zoning regulations and/or the use of transfer of development rights are usually necessary in
implementing watershed based zoning. Transfer of development rights is a technique that allows a land owner
in an area designated as a priority for protection by local government to sell their development rights to another
land owner in an area designated for higher density development.
In addition to zoning strategies, counties and municipalities have the ability to create a variety of other
ordinances that can serve to protect valuable natural resources. The Center for Watershed Protection (2008a)
and EPA (2006a) both have web sites with model ordinances available for communities to use in developing
their own local ordinances to protect natural resources and ecologically valuable areas. These include ordinances
to protect aquatic buffers, open space, wetlands, etc.
Low Impact Development (LID) is a stormwater management approach that focuses on managing runoff at the
source through the use of design practices that allow for infiltration, storage, and evaporation. Rain gardens,
pervious pavements, tree box planters, green roofs, and disconnected downspouts are all examples of LID
practices. These practices have been shown to be less expensive and more environmentally friendly than more
traditional stormwater management practices, such as conveyance systems (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2007b). LID practices help to reduce stormwater runoff from urban areas, which can improve water
quality, ground water recharge, and the biological condition of stream habitats. However, the potential for
ground water contamination must also be considered, especially in areas with contaminated soils.
River Corridor and Headwaters Protection
As discussed in Chapter 2, natural river corridors are important
for maintaining dynamic equilibrium of the river channel,
providing valuable wildlife habitat, and regulating floodwaters.
When designing river corridor protection strategies, it is
important to remember that river channels can migrate laterally
over time. When possible, the entire river corridor should be
protected from development through the use of fluvial erosion
hazard area districts, river corridor easements, and other local
programs (Kline & Dolan, 2009). The State of Vermont is
in the process of implementing a statewide river corridor
protection program. Using the results of their statewide stream
geomorphic assessments (Chapter 3), state staff are working
with local stakeholders to identify river corridor protection
options such as easements and zoning overlay districts. These
strategies are designed to protect the dynamic nature of the
riparian area. Simple riparian buffer protection ordinances and
overlay districts are certainly beneficial for water quality and
wildlife, yet they often fail to address all of the requirements
of the riverine system as it meanders over time and experiences
flood events. River corridor protection benefits not only water
quality and wildlife, but also public safety (Kline & Cahoon,
2010).
As described in the River Continuum Concept (Vannote, Minshall, Cummins, Sedell, & Gushing, 1980),
headwater streams contain unique assemblages of organisms that begin the processing of coarse particulate
organic matter, providing the energy required by other assemblages of organisms downstream. Healthy
headwater stream areas provide valuable wildlife habitat and corridors for migration of wildlife. They also
provide sediment, nutrient, and flood control in much the same way that wetlands do. Headwater streams
also help to maintain base flow in larger rivers downstream. Fundamental to a healthy watershed, properly
functioning headwater streams are one of the primary determinants of downstream flow, water quality, and
biological communities. Protection of these areas through land use planning and protection is particularly
important.
5-32
-------
Headwaters: A Collaborative Conservation
Plan for the Town of Sanford, Maine
More Information: http://swim.wellsreserve.org/results.php?article=828Conservation%20
Strategy%20September%207.%202010.pdf
The Town of Sanford, Maine is located at the
headwaters of five critically important watersheds
in southern Maine and New Hampshire. Using
community input and science-based conservation
principles to implement the conservation goals
of its comprehensive plan, the town is protecting
these regional resources. Over the course of three
stakeholder workshops, and using innovative GIS and
keypad polling techniques, the community developed
the following core conservation values:
• Water quality protection.
• Conserving productive land for
agriculture.
• Conserving significant wildlife habitat
and biodiversity.
• Protecting human health and safety
through conservation of floodplains,
water supply buffers and wetlands.
• Conserving scenic, cultural and
recreational resources.
The community recognizes that these values are
provided by Sanford's green infrastructure. Using a
GIS software program called Community Viz (www.
communityviz.com). the community mapped the
green infrastructure that is important for protecting
each of these values (Figure 5-8). Once this
community-based assessment phase was completed,
the town developed recommendations and strategies
for protecting each of the five conservation values.
One of these strategies was to identify "focus areas"
by considering the relative importance placed on each
conservation value by community members. Keypad
polling techniques, which use electronic keypads
(similar to television remote controls) to allow large
numbers of community members to place their vote
on which conservation values are most important to
them, were critical for ensuring participatory decision-
making without slowing down the process. The focus
areas were identified from the polling results, which
are automatically tallied by a computer and displayed
through a projector. These high-priority conservation
sites were evaluated for the amount of protected land
that they currently contain and the specific threats
posed to each focus area by human activities. These
focus areas are considered the priorities for action.
Outside of the focus areas, there are additional
locations that contain one or more of the five
conservation values. These areas were prioritized
for protection based on a ranking of land parcels
according to their relative value. For example, a
parcel containing both exemplary wildlife habitat and
water resources would receive a higher priority for
protection than a parcel that only contains wildlife
habitat.
The following strategies were identified as options to
implement the Sanford conservation plan:
• Fee simple purchase.
• Conservation easements.
• Conservation subdivisions.
• Current use program.
• Land use ordinances.
• Community education and outreach.
Responsibilities for implementation of the plan were
assigned to each participating stakeholder group,
funding sources were identified, and a monitoring
and evaluation process was put in place to ensure
effectiveness of the plan.
Continued on page 5-34
5-33
-------
Conservation Resources: Water
Shapleigh
Town of Sanford, Maine
Legend
j^l Water Supply Parcels
|f National Wetlands Inventory
Stream Buffers
50-100 ft
^| 0 - 50 ft
Highly erodible land
Aquifers
| 10 - 50 gpm
| > 50 gpm
Figure 5-8 Green infrastructure identified for water quality protection (Wells National Estuarine Research
Reserve; Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, 2009)
5-34
-------
Case Stud
Lower Meramec Drinking Water Source
Protection Project
More Information: http://cloud.tpl.ora/pubs/landwater-lowermer-swp-brochure.pdf
The U.S. Forest Service and the Trust for Public Land
(TPL) initiated the Lower Meramec Drinking Water
Source Protection Project to expand the reach of forest
protection projects in drinking supply watersheds
in the northeastern United States to the Midwest
region. The Meramec River is a drinking water source
for the City of St. Louis, Missouri and its suburbs.
Although the river's water is currently high-quality,
the watershed is highly susceptible to degradation
due to development pressures. Preserving the natural
land that drains into drinking water supplies is an
ecosystem-level strategy for protecting water quality.
In addition to providing drinking water, the Meramec
River provides wildlife habitat and recreational
opportunities.
The Meramec River Tributary Alliance, a partnership
of more than 30 organizations interested in protecting
the river, provided local knowledge over the course of
the project. In the first phase of the project, the U.S.
Forest Service, TPL, and the Meramec River Tributary
Alliance refined the project area to focus on the Fox-
Hamilton-Brush Creek watersheds. GIS data layers
were used to score 30 meter landscape cells for their
physical characteristics, such as proximity to water
features, and current land use. Raw scores were used
to produce a conservation priority index map (Figure
5-9) and a restoration priority index map. Local
units of government and real estate experts use these
maps to identify opportunities for land protection,
restoration, and implementation of stormwater
best management practices. The project steering
committee also developed a brochure describing the
project for local governments, water suppliers, and
conservation groups to use and distribute.
The project's second phase, referred to as the strategy
exchange, took place over the course of five days.
The strategy exchange was a discussion of drinking
water source education, stormwater best management
practices, septic system improvements, and land
conservation with state and local governments, as well
as other local actors. As an outcome of the exchange,
regional and national experts contributed strategy
recommendations to a report addressing these four
topics.
In the project's third and final phase, subcommittees
of the Meramec River Tributary Alliance incorporated
the exchange team's recommendations for each of
the four topics into action plans for immediate
implementation that included both voluntary and
regulatory or enforcement tactics. Although low-
budget tactics were identified, some tactics will require
additional funding for implementation. The land
conservation subcommittee has started to implement
recommendations from TPL's conservation finance
team to attract and retain funding for land acquisition.
Successful implementation of the action plans will
protect the ecological integrity of the Lower Meramec
so that it can provide not only clean drinking water,
but also all of the diverse services Meramec River
Tributary Alliance member groups have individually
set out to protect.
Continued on page 5-36
5-35
-------
Lower Meramec Drinking Water Source Protection Project
Conservation Priority Index (CPI) Areas
3 = Deciduous Forest, Evergreen
Forest, Deciduous
Woody/Herbaceous, Wood-
Dominated Wetland, Herbaceous-
Dominated Wetland
May 5, 2009
Scotsdale
o
Legend
CPI 90th percentile
!• 13-21
CPI 70th percentile
• 12-21
collaboration with UMASS, USFS, and TPL
Protected Land
I I Meramec River
^jCity Boundary
— i County Boundary
— Rivers and Streams
= Interstate
= Highway
Local Road
A
Figure 5-9 Map of Lower Meramec Drinking Water Source Protection Project Conservation Priority Index
Areas (Trust for Public Land, 2010).
5-36
-------
Cecil County, Maryland Green Infrastructure
Plan
More Information: http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/
CecilCountv01.22.08.pdf
The Conservation Fund is a national organization
that partners with local communities to help them
fulfill their conservation priorities. In 2007, The
Conservation Fund partnered with Cecil County,
Maryland to develop a green infrastructure plan. This
plan includes a green infrastructure network design,
water quality maintenance and enhancement analysis,
ecosystem services assessment, and implementation
quilt analysis. As described in Chapter 3, a green
infrastructure assessment identifies a network
of lands, composed of ecological core areas and
corridors connecting these hubs. The water quality
and ecosystem service assessments demonstrate the
importance of protecting the green infrastructure
network. For example, 81% of the value of the
county's ecosystem services ($1.7 billion/year) are
contained within the network. The implementation
quilt analysis outlines a comprehensive approach to
protection of Cecil County's green infrastructure
network. Specific protection strategies were identified
to address the county's tremendous growth rate and
land use change and the fact that only 23% of the
network is in some form of protected status.
Based on the assessment, a number of strategies for
protecting water quality were identified. Sixteen
Conservation Focus Watersheds were identified where
existing land cover is greater than 50% forest and
wetland (Figure 5-10). Natural land cover in these
priority watersheds could be maintained through
comprehensive plan objectives, performance zoning
standards, and other land use planning programs. Ten
Reforestation Focus watersheds were also identified.
These watersheds have between 30-40% forest and
wetland cover and thus have high ecological capacity
for recovery. Agricultural BMPs such as riparian
fencing, nutrient management, reduced phosphorus
in animal feed, and conservation tillage were also
identified as management measures for improving
water quality. A comprehensive zoning program
using performance standards for site plan review was
recommended for improving development site design.
The performance zoning code would reward projects
using LID techniques.
In addition to the management strategies already
identified, the implementation quilt analysis identified
additional opportunities for protection. These include
use of Program Open Space funds for acquisition of
high priority properties in the green infrastructure
network; purchase of conservation easements
through the Rural Legacy Program; participation
in the Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation
Foundation's Agricultural Preservation District
program; donation of conservation easements through
the Maryland Environmental Trust program, which
provides tax credits and other incentives to donors
of easements; and a number of federal programs.
The County also recently implemented a Transfer of
Development Rights and Purchase of Development
Rights program to protect ecologically valuable
lands from development. The Conservation Fund
specifically recommended that Cecil County enhance
its cluster development option and create a Green
Infrastructure Network Overlay with performance
standards in its zoning. The County is now using the
Green Infrastructure Plan as an advisory document in
its comprehensive planning process.
Continued on page 5-38
5-37
-------
WESTERN
GATEWAY
Aberdeen Proving Ground
A
Cecil County Green Infrastructure Plan
December 2007 - The Conservation Fund
Conserved and Managed Lands
| Fed, DNR. Forest Legacy, MET/Co Parks, ESLC. Subdivision OS
Agricultural Easements
, MALPF, MET, PDR, Rural Legacy
Updated Green Infrastructure Network
• Hubs and Corridors
1.200.000
Cecil County Watershed Boundaries
| | 14-DigilHUCs
Reforestation Focus Watersheds (10)
^] 30-40% Forest/Wetland, <7% Impervious
Conservation Focus Watersheds (16)
~~| >AO% Forest/Wetland, <7% Impervious
Figure 5-10 Map of Cecil County Green Infrastructure Plan (Will Allen, The Conservation Fund,
Personal Communication).
5-38
-------
5 Management Approaches
5.2.4 Other Protection
Sustainable Agriculture
Agriculture is an important
economic and cultural activity
in many communities across
the United States. Similar to
residential development, careful
management of agricultural
areas can ensure that the aquatic
ecosystem is not degraded
and that terrestrial habitat is
maintained. Designing a green
infrastructure network is one
method of identifying the most
critical lands to protect from
conversion to agriculture and can
also include certain appropriate
agricultural lands as cultural
protection priorities. The USDA
National Organic Program
develops and implements
standards for organic agricultural
products in the United States. Organic agriculture avoids the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, both of
which impact water quality. It also reduces erosion and sequesters carbon dioxide in the soil. Individual growers
and producers can contact accredited certifying agents in their states to become certified (U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 2009). Participation in certification programs can help to ensure that agricultural activities are
conducted in an ecologically sensitive manner.
Sustainable agricultural management practices include nutrient management, which refers to the application
of fertilizers in appropriate amounts and at appropriate times; conservation tillage or continuous no-till; cover
crops to reduce erosion and keep nutrients in the field; and vegetative buffers, which protect aquatic ecosystems
from agricultural runoff and provide wildlife habitat. The Conservation Effects Assessment Project is a multi-
agency effort to evaluate and quantify the effects of these and other agricultural conservation techniques on the
environment. The USDA leads this effort, which focuses on watersheds, wetlands, and wildlife. The USDA
also leads the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve
Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Conservation Security Program, and Grassland Reserve
Program, all of which are described under Section 5-3-
Sustainable Forestry
Forestry is an important economic and cultural activity in many parts of the country. Organizations such as
the Forest Stewardship Council provide certification of sustainable forestry practices in the United States and
abroad. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative is an independent organization, originally developed as a program
of the American Forest and Paper Association, which works to improve sustainable forest management
practices through third-party certification audits. The principles of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative include
requirements for sustainable forestry practices, long-term forest health and productivity, prompt reforestation,
protection of water quality and the promotion of sustainable forestry on private nonindustrial lands
(Barneycastle, 2001).
5-39
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Invasive Species Control
When a non-native species is introduced into an ecosystem, it can cause a tremendous amount of damage
to native species. This is because the native species evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to compete
with the unique combination of other species native to its ecosystem. When a non-native species is suddenly
introduced (i.e., through human intervention), the native species do not have time to evolve strategies to
compete. Additionally, if ecosystems are degraded, it is easier for non-native species to take hold. Many such
introductions do not cause significant harm. However, a number of introduced species become invasive,
which means that they are directly harming or outcompeting native species. Invasive species can decrease
biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. Many of these species, such as Salt Cedar, replace native vegetation and
form monocultures (stands of only one tree species). Salt Cedar specifically replaces native riparian vegetation
such as willows and cottonwoods and also uses a tremendous amount of water. It uses so much water in fact,
that it can lower ground water levels to such a degree that instream flows are affected and native vegetation is
unable to reach the subsurface water for its own nourishment. The best strategy for controlling invasive species
is prevention. Education campaigns about invasive species are key to prevention. Even simple signs at public
boat landings can help. Once an invasive species becomes established, it is difficult to eradicate. Early detection
and action is critical. Chemical, mechanical, and biological control techniques exist for eradication. The most
extreme cases may require restoration actions, such as controlled burning to remove the non-native species,
followed by reintroduction of the native species.
Ground Water Protection
Any approach to healthy watershed management should incorporate ground water in addition to surface water
components. In the case of ground water dependent ecosystems (GDE), direct habitat protection, ground
water discharge to the GDE, and the temperature and chemistry requirements of ground water supplying the
GDE must be considered. Specific management strategies can be identified to protect each of these attributes.
GDE habitats can be protected by establishing buffer zones to separate them from resource extraction and
trampling. Ground water discharge to GDEs can be protected by establishing maximum limits for ground
water extraction or establishing minimum distances from GDEs from which ground water wells could be
sited. Ground water quality can be protected by limiting or eliminating land use activities in recharge zones
that could impact water quality. To date, most ground water management in the United States has largely been
developed and implemented with the objective of protecting ground water supplies for human consumption.
Additional focus is needed to ensure protection for GDEs.
In many regions, focused discharge of ground water to the surface supports critical biodiversity. On at least a
seasonal basis, in the semi-arid western United States, these GDEs may have the only available water. When located
on range land, the water and associated wetland vegetation make GDEs very inviting to livestock and can result in
the damage or destruction of these features.
In order to protect the integrity of GDEs on range land, the Forest Service and others have developed techniques
to limit the effects of grazing. Since the availability of water is critical to the success of ranching in many areas, any
approach to protecting GDEs should address the need for livestock to access water. One approach the Forest Service
has used with some success involves the development of a small-scale water diversion or withdrawal from the GDE,
the siting of a stock tank or trough at a distance outside the GDE, and the development of an exclosure fence
surrounding the GDE to exclude livestock from the GDE itself.
This approach accomplishes several key range management goals, including: discouraging livestock use of the GDE
by providing a consistent, readily available source of water away from the spring; allowing for a better distribution
of livestock across the allotment by reducing the incentive to congregate at the GDE; taking pressure off of the
sensitive soils and vegetation adjacent to the water and improving overall GDE conditions by limiting grazing effects;
improving water quality by improving soil and vegetation conditions within the GDE and eliminating livestock
excrement from the water; and improving water availability to wildlife.
5-40
-------
5 Management Approaches
5.3 Restoration Programs
Restoration strategies are an essential component of managing healthy watersheds. As development pressures
have expanded their reach to more and more pristine landscapes, entire healthy watersheds are less common. In
addition, even the watersheds that can be classified as healthy often have room for improvement. For example,
a healthy watershed may contain culverts. Replacing a dropped or undersized culvert with a larger, open-
bottom culvert will enhance fish and wildlife passage along the stream. When planning restoration efforts, it
is generally helpful to consider the "protect the best first" strategy. This strategy prioritizes restoration of the
systems that are most likely to maintain their health post-restoration (as in improving healthy watersheds)
before investing resources in systems that may be degraded beyond their recovery potential.
Much of aquatic ecosystem restoration to date has focused on the symptoms, rather than the causes, of
ecosystem degradation. Altered geomorphology, impaired water quality, and degraded biotic communities are
typically the result of processes occurring in the watershed. Restoration of stream channel form must begin
at the watershed scale, focusing on processes such as watershed hydrology and sediment supply. Restoration of
water quality must focus on the landscape condition that is affected by the socioeconomic drivers of land use.
Restoration of biotic communities must focus on the natural flow regime necessary for the different life stages
of the aquatic biota, the physical habitat determined by the geomorphic condition, and the water quality that
is largely determined by the landscape condition.
Ecological restoration is a new and growing field that, broadly defined, seeks to return degraded ecosystems to
a state closer to their original, natural conditions. EPA's Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic
Resources (2007a) emphasize, amongst other things, working within a watershed or landscape context,
restoring ecological integrity based on a system's natural potential, and the use of passive restoration and natural
fixes. A system's natural potential can be determined in a number of ways, including the use of appropriate
reference sites for the ecoregional setting. Passive restoration refers to a reduction or elimination in the sources
of degradation, as opposed to active approaches such as alum treatment. There are cases when active restoration
is necessary, but passive restoration is often sufficient and more cost-effective. In addition, active restoration
can sometimes have unintended and unforeseen effects on other system components. A small sampling of
national, state, and local restoration programs are described below.
5.3.1 National
The National Fish Habitat Action Plan is a nationally linked, yet locally driven effort to improve fish habitat
across the country (www.fishhabitat.org). Fish habitat partnerships are formed voluntarily and collaborate to
protect, restore, and enhance fish habitat through, federal, state, and locally funded projects.
The National Fish Passage Program was initiated by the USFWS to reconnect aquatic species with their
historic habitats. Through the National Fish Passage Program USFWS leverages federal funds to secure
donations from partners and provides technical assistance to remove or bypass artificial barriers to fish
movement.
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program provides technical and financial assistance to private landowners
and tribes who agree to work with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other partners on a voluntary basis
to help meet the habitat needs of Federal Trust Species (migratory birds; threatened and endangered species;
inter-jurisdictional fish; certain marine mammals; and species of international concern).
The Restoration Center is the only office within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) devoted solely to restoring the nation's coastal, marine, and migratory fish habitat. They fund and
implement restoration projects to ensure healthy, productive, sustainable fisheries; employ technical staff to
help improve project design, ensure environmental compliance, and advance restoration techniques; engage
the local community and encourage stewardship of the nation's coastal habitat; fund projects that engage
local people and resources, supporting the economy through restoration activities, expertise, and materials;
collaborate with public, private, and government partners to prioritize projects and leverage resources; use
5-41
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
scientific monitoring to evaluate restoration project success and maximize the use of tax dollars; and conduct
socioeconomic research that demonstrates the benefits of coastal restoration for community and environmental
purposes.
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) are a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water
body can receive and still meet water quality standards. They are watershed assessments that are conducted for
impaired water bodies as designated under section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act. TMDLs are required for all
pollutant-impaired water bodies and can be considered the beginning of a watershed restoration plan focused
on water quality. Most TMDLs now use a watershed approach for assessment and implementation. However,
implementation of a TMDL and watershed restoration plan is critical if water quality is to be restored.
The Nonpoint Source Management Program was established under section 319 of the Clean Water Act to
support a variety of activities including technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology
transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring to design and assess the success of nonpoint source programs
and projects. In particular, the program provides funding for the implementation of TMDLs and watershed
management plans. The watershed management plans, though federally funded, are implemented at the state
and local level, typically by county governments, conservation districts, and watershed councils.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program is a USDA program that protects ecologically sensitive
land, wildlife habitat, and aquatic ecosystems through retirement of agricultural lands. The program provides
payments to farmers and ranchers who agree to keep their land out of agricultural production for at least 10-
15 years. The program has been used to establish riparian buffers, restore wetlands, and create wildlife habitat
through reforestation.
The Wetlands Reserve Program, another US DA program, assists landowners in restoring agricultural wetlands.
NRCS may fund 75-100% of project costs on lands that are under a permanent conservation easement, and
50-75% of restoration costs on lands under temporary easements or cost-share agreements.
The USDA Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program assists private landowners in creating and improving wildlife
habitat through cost-share assistance up to 75% of project costs.
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program is a USDA program that provides cost-share assistance
to farmers in implementing various conservation measures including erosion control, forest management,
comprehensive nutrient management plans, etc.
The USDA Conservation Security Program provides technical and financial assistance for conservation
purposes on working lands, including cropland, grassland, prairies, pasture and range land, and incidental
forest lands on agricultural properties.
The Grasslands Reserve Program is a voluntary program to limit future development and cropping uses on
grazing lands to support protection of these areas. This USDA program establishes grazing management plans
for all participants.
5.3.2 State and Interstate
Restoration of Flow and Connectivity
Historically, straightening and armoring of stream channels was a common practice to protect floodplain
development from a meandering river and for navigation purposes. Unfortunately, this practice increases a
stream's energy, which is sent to a downstream reach where significant erosion of the stream channel can occur.
Depending on the current riparian land uses, it may be possible to remove the bank armoring and allow
the stream channel to reclaim some of its original floodplain. Similarly, many dams have been built across
the United States over the past 200 years. While many of these dams are essential for providing drinking
water, hydroelectric power generation, and agricultural irrigation water, a large number of them have been
5-42
-------
5 Management Approaches
Meeting Urban Water Demands
While Protecting Rivers: Rivanna
River, Virginia (Richter B., 2007)
workin
developed a new water supply plan that
meets growing water demands and improves
river ecosystem health. The new plan mimics
natural flow regimes through controlled
dam releases while ensuring adequate water
supplies during drought. The releases are
calculated as varying percentages of the
inflow to the reservoir.
decommissioned or abandoned. These dams are often prime
candidates for removal to restore the natural flow regime and
improve aquatic habitat connectivity. Dam removal projects
are a significant undertaking and involve physical, chemical,
hydrological, ecological, social, and economic considerations
(American Rivers, 2009a). Where it is not feasible to remove a
dam, reservoir release rules that mimic the natural flow regime
can improve the ecological function of the river (Richter et al.,
2006). However, when working in riverine ecosystems that have
been highly modified, managers must often rely on site-specific
flow-ecology relationships to inform restoration decisions. Some
possible strategies identified by The Nature Conservancy for
flow restoration include:
• Dam reoperation.
• Conjunctive ground-water/surface-water management.
• Drought management planning.
• Demand management (conservation).
• Water transactions (exchangeable water rights).
• Diversion point relocation.
Aquatic ecosystems are dependent on sufficient instream flows for maintaining their vitality. For example, Pacific
Salmon require specific gravels, water depths, and velocities during spawning to build their nests. Alteration
of the natural flow regime can change water depth, velocity, and the substrate on which the spawning salmon
depend. Anadromous fish, such as Pacific Salmon, also require stream connectivity for migration between the
headwaters streams, where they are born, to the ocean, where they live out most of their lives. Where dams and
other structures disrupt aquatic habitat connectivity and removal of these structures is not feasible or desirable,
fish ladders and other upstream or downstream passage facilities can be used to ensure that fish retain access to
habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009). This is especially important for anadromous fish species (e.g.,
salmon, alewife). States such as Oregon, Washington, and Pennsylvania have created fish passage rules that
require stream crossings and other artificial obstructions to allow for the passage of migratory fish.
5.3.3 Local
Greenways, discussed in Chapter 2, are recreational corridors of natural vegetation that can be fit into existing
developed areas to create or improve wildlife habitat, scenic and aesthetic values, and outdoor activities such as
walking, running, and cycling (American Trails, 2009).
Wetland construction and restoration is typically a site-based restoration approach. However, when viewed
in its landscape context, wetland restoration can improve wildlife habitat and connectivity, nutrient retention,
hydrologic regulation, and pollutant removal. The benefits of wetland restoration are maximized when
conducted in a landscape context (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007c).
Reforestation is a technique that can be conducted at a stand (site) or landscape scale and improves wildlife
habitat and connectivity, infiltration of rainfall, and regulation of surface temperatures. Riparian reforestation
can be especially beneficial to aquatic ecosystems, as riparian forests are important components of the Active
River Area. Riparian forests in headwater catchments provide coarse particulate organic matter and large
woody debris that supply the unique assemblage of organisms in headwater streams with the food and habitat
they require. Organisms in lower reaches of the watershed depend on this upstream supply of energy as well.
Floodplain forests in the lower reaches of the watershed provide valuable spawning grounds for some aquatic
species during floods, provide habitat to terrestrial and semi-aquatic species, serve as buffers to attenuate
nutrient delivery to the streams, and provide shading to the aquatic habitat which regulates water temperatures
(Center for Watershed Protection; U.S. Forest Service, 2008b).
5-43
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
5.4 Education, Outreach, and Collaboration
Outreach and education are two protection strategies whose importance cannot be overstated. Efforts to
protect healthy watersheds are more likely to succeed if understood and supported by the local community.
Communicating the results of healthy watersheds integrated assessments using plain language and graphical
elements, such as watershed report cards or simple maps, facilitates the outreach and education process. Most
community members will not be interested in fluvial geomorphology or flow duration curves. However, they
will be interested in maintaining local fish populations and protecting their properties from flooding. Examples
of outreach and education activities include:
• Presentations to local governments and to the general public.
• Newspaper articles describing the benefits of protecting healthy watersheds, and
alerting the public to the sensitivity of healthy watersheds to degradation.
• Development and distribution of informative fact sheets or flyers.
• Development of a slide show and script for stakeholders to present with.
• Field trips (e.g., fishing, hiking, canoeing) that enable the public to see and appreciate
examples of healthy watersheds firsthand.
Reaching out to the local community and educating stakeholders early in the process can lead to increased
support for environmental protection as a result of an increased understanding of the resource and threats,
a sense of shared responsibility for maintaining the resource, and cooperation in the implementation of
management measures. Examples of actions that communities can take to protect healthy watersheds include
integrating green infrastructure and habitat protection into comprehensive plans, protecting the Active River
Area from development through zoning, preventing landscape fragmentation through the use of conservation
subdivisions, and many other techniques discussed in this chapter. Collaborating with local watershed groups
or land trusts can be an effective way to reach community members and share resources in outreach and
education campaigns. These groups also often have the capacity and willingness to organize volunteers in
performing field monitoring and assessment of water quality, biological condition, habitat condition, etc.
Heal the Bay is a non-profit organization in California that uses a report card approach for communicating
the health status of the state's beaches, giving each beach a grade representing the relative risk of fecal coliform
exposure posed to beachgoers (Heal the Bay, 2009). A report card approach is also used to communicate
the health of the Chesapeake Bay to stakeholders and watershed residents and to increase their awareness of
aquatic ecological health (University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 2009). The report card results are also displayed on a map (Figure 5-11). Another
example is the Vermont Lake Score Card that rates the condition of Vermont's lakes with regards to water
quality, aquatic invasive species, atmospheric pollution, and shoreland and lake habitat. A similar technique
can be used to rate watersheds across a state, county, or region.
A report card, or another format for communicating monitoring and assessment results, can also include
information on how local land owners and other stakeholders can help protect or improve the health of their
watershed. Providing stakeholders with the knowledge necessary for
appreciating the importance of aquatic ecosystems and their watersheds,
and tools for protecting those resources, is an important component
of healthy watersheds protection. Establishing a local volunteer
monitoring network is another potential approach for getting more
people involved and concerned about protecting these ecosystems. Such
a network could involve training on, and participation in, shoreline
monitoring surveys, biomonitoring, water quality monitoring, etc.
Annual river cleanups, environmental education campaigns, and
meetings or presentations with local communities can all help to
increase public awareness and understanding of healthy watersheds.
e Score
Answers to lire Question "How are Vermont fakes doing?
5-44
-------
5 Management Approaches
Bay health scale
Very poor Very good
0 20 40 60 80100%
J D C B A|
Onsufficient data M
Upper Bay (C+
Upper Western
Shore
Patapsco and
Back Rivers
flower Western
Shore (MD) '
Potomac
River
Upper Eastern
Shore
Rappahannock
River
U«nt.r-.,!v or Maryland
ClNTf It TOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
Elizabeth
River
Lower Eastern
Shore (Tangier)
Miles
0 ' 10 20
Figure 5-11 Chesapeake Bay report card results for 2007 (University of Maryland Center for
Environmental Science; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2009).
5-45
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
The various outreach and education options should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Success in outreach
campaigns can be determined by the number of people that hear your message and the number of times they
hear it. Exposing people to your message through multiple types of media will help ensure that the message
sticks. Tools such as EPA's Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach Campaigns (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 2003) and Ohio's Watershed Toolshed (Ohio Watershed Network, 2009)
provide practitioners with the resources needed to get started on some of these approaches. The Conservation
Campaign Toolkit (http://www.conservationcampaign.org/wizard/index.cfm?ID=125) provides a free online
space for communities and citizen groups to organize their campaign to protect land and water resources.
Millions of Americans are outdoor enthusiasts, and many belong to organizations that provide substantial
protection to natural resources. Collaboration with outdoor recreation organizations has been shown to
increase support for conservation time and time again. For example, Trout Unlimited is a national organization
that supports the protection and restoration of coldwater fisheries and their supporting ecosystems. Members
belong to local chapters and are often, though not always, recreational anglers. By promoting responsible
stewardship of the resource, Trout Unlimited and similar organizations provide recreational and educational
opportunities for individuals to participate in the protection of healthy aquatic ecosystems. Recreational use
of ecologically intact aquatic systems and their watersheds is an important consideration in the management
of healthy watersheds. Encouraging compatible recreational uses often enhances public acceptance and
understanding of the conservation process.
Partnerships with less traditional groups can be just as rewarding as outreach to groups that have historically
supported environmental protection. For example, the community and public health benefits of protecting
healthy watersheds are often valued by groups such as community service clubs, chambers of commerce,
religious organizations, and public health advocacy groups. These nontraditional partners can provide access
to new audiences and bring new resources to watershed protection efforts. Furthermore, unconventional
partnerships can be effective in garnering media attention. When individuals who do not necessarily align
themselves with community organizations see the breadth of interests represented by watershed protection
efforts, they may be more likely to deem the efforts worthy of their individual support as well. The greater the
diversity of groups that collaborate on these efforts, the less likely that the momentum will be lost.
5-46
-------
References
Abell, R., Theime, M. L, Revenga, C., Bryer, M., Kottelat, M., Bogutskaya, N., et al. (2008). Freshwater
Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Biogeographic Units for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation,
BioScience, 403-414.
Aber, J., Christensen, N., Fernandez, I., Franklin, J., Hidinger, L., Hunter, M., et al. (2000). Applying
Ecological Principles to Management of the U.S. National Forests. Issues in Ecology, Number 6.
Alachua County. (2008). Alachua County Green Infrastructure Investment Program. Retrieved October 7,
2009, from http://www.alachuacounty.us/Pages/AlachuaCounty.aspx
Alley, W., Reilly, T, & Franke, O. (1999). Sustainability of Ground Water Resources, USGS Circular 1186.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
Almendinger, J., & Leete, J. (1998). Regional and local hydrogeology of calcareous fens in the Minnesota
River basin. Wetlands, 184-202.
American Rivers. (2009a). Dams and Dam Removal. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Restoring Rivers:
http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoring-rivers/dams/
American Rivers. (2009b). What Does it Mean to be a Wild and Scenic River? Retrieved October 6, 2009,
from American Rivers: http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/protecting-rivers/wild-and-scenic/
American Trails. (2009). Greenways and Community Trails. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Resources:
http://www.americantrails.org/resources/greenways/index.html
Angelo, R., Knight, G., Olson, K., & Stiles, T. (2010). Kansas Reference Streams. Kansas Department of
Health and the Environment.
Anne Arundel County. (2002). Anne Arundel County Greenways Master Plan. Anne Arundel County.
Annear, T, Chisholm, L, Beecher, H., Locke, A, Aarrestad, P., Coomer, C., et al. (2004). Instream Flows for
Riverine Resource Stewardship. Instream Flow Council.
Annis, G., Sowa, S., Diamond, D., Combes, M., Doisy, K., Garringer, A, & Hanberry, P. (2010). Developing
Synoptic Human Threat Indices for Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Freshwater Ecosystems in EPA Region
7- Missouri Resource Assessment Partnership: http://morap.missouri.edu/Proiects.aspx?ProiectId=44
Archfield, S.A, Vogel, R.M., Steeves, PA, Brandt, S.L., Weiskel, P.K., and Garabedian, S.P (2010). The
Massachusetts Sustainable-Yield Estimator: A decision-support tool to assess water availability at ungaged
stream locations in Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009—5227, 41 p.
plus CD-ROM.
Arendt, R. (1999). Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances. Island Press.
Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Poff, N. L., & Naiman, R. J. (2006). The Challenge of Providing
Environmental Flow Rules to Sustain River Ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 1311-1318.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. (2006). The National Fish Habitat Action Plan. Washington D.C.:
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
R-l
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Barneycastle, C. (2001). The Sustainable Forestry Initiative of the American Forest & Paper Association. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Baron, J. S., Poff, N. L, Angermeier, P. L, Dahm, C. N., Gleick, P. H., Hairston, N. G., et al. (2002). Meeting
Ecological and Societal Needs for Freshwater. Ecological Applications, 1247-1260.
Bayley, P. B. (1995). Understanding Large River: Floodplain Ecosystems. BioScience, 153-158.
Bedford, B. (1999). Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States
and southern Canada. Wetlands, 775-788.
Bedford, B., & Godwin, K. (2003). Fens of the United States: distribution, characteristics, and scientific
connection versus legal isolation. Wetlands, 608-629-
Beechie, T., Sear, D., Olden, J., Pess, G., Buffington, J., Moir, H., et al. (2010). Process-based Principles for
Restoring River Ecosystems. BioScience, 209-222.
Bellucci, C., Beauchene, M., & Becker, M. (2009). Physical, Chemical, and Biological Attributes of Least
Disturbed Watersheds in Connecticut. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2002). Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century.
Washington, D.C.: Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse.
Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities.
Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Berkes, F. (2007). Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from resilience thinking. Nat
Hazards, 41:283-295-
Berkes, F. & Folke, C. (2000). Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social
Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bierwagen, B., Theobald, D., Pyke, C., Choate, A., & Groth, P. (2010). National housing and impervious
surface scenarios for integrated climate impact assessments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America.
Brooks, J., Meinzer, F, Coulombe, R., & Gregg, J. (2002). Hydraulic redistribution of soil water during
summer drought in two contrasting Pacific Northwest coniferous forests. Tree Physiology, 1107-1117-
Brown, J., Wyers, A., Aldous, A., & Bach, L. (2007). Groundwater and Biodiversity Conservation: A methods
guide for integrating groundwater needs of ecosystems and species into conservation plans in the Pacific
Northwest. The Nature Conservancy.
Brown, J., Wyers, A., Bach, L., & Aldous, A. (2009a). Groundwater-Dependent Biodiversity and Associated
Threats: A statewide screening methodology and spatial assessment of Oregon. The Nature Conservancy.
Brown, J., Wyers, A., Bach, L., & Aldous, A. (2009b). Groundwater-Dependent Biodiversity and Associated
Threats: Oregon Atlas. The Nature Conservancy.
Brown, J., Bach, L., Aldous, A., Wyers, A., DeGagne, J. (2011). Groundwater-dependent ecosystems in
Oregon: an assessment of their distribution and associated threats. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
9(2): 97-102.
R-2
-------
References
Bunch, M. J., Morrison, K. E., Parkes, M. W, & Venema, H. D. (2011). Promoting health and well-being
by managing for social—ecological resilience: the potential of integrating ecohealth and water resources
management approaches. Ecology and Society 16 (1): 6. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
voll6/issl/art6/
Bunn, S., & Arthington, A. H. (2002). Basic principles and consequences of altered hydrological regimes for
aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management, 492-507-
Bureau of Land Management. (1998). Riparian Area Management: Process for Assessing Proper Functioning
Condition. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of the Interior.
Carter, V. (1996). Technical Aspects of Wetlands: Wetland Hydrology, Water Quality, and Associated
Functions. In National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. U.S. Geological Survey.
Center for Watershed Protection. (2008a). Model Ordinances. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from Center for
Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.org/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=128:free-
downloads-intro&catid= 1 &Itemid= 116
Center for Watershed Protection; U.S. Forest Service. (2008b). Watershed Forestry Resource Guide. Retrieved
December 3, 2009, from Forests for Watersheds: http://www.forestsforwatersheds.org/
Center for Watershed Protection. (2008c). Wetlands and Watersheds. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from Center
for Watershed Protection: http://www.cwp.org/index.php?option=com content&view=article&id=128:free-
downloads-intro&catid= 1 &Itemid= 116
Chicago Wilderness. (2009). Chicago Wilderness. Retrieved January 23, 2009, from http://www.
chicagowilderness.org/
Cohen, R. (1997). The Importance of Protecting Riparian Areas along Smaller Brooks and Streams. Retrieved
January 23, 2011, from Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/der/
riverways/pdf/riparian factsheet 9.pdf
Collins, J., Stein, E., Sutula, M., Clark, R., Fetscher, A., Grenier, L., Grosso, C, & Wiskind, A. (2008)
California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands and Riparian Areas (website), www.cramwetlands.
org
Collins, J., Stein, E., Sutula, M., Clark, R., Fetscher, A., Grenier, L., Grosso, C., & Wiskind, A. (2008)
California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) for Wetlands, v. 5-0.2. 157 pp.
Committee on Hydrologic Impacts of Forest Management, National Research Council. (2008). Hydrologic
Effects of a Changing Forest Landscape. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.
Copeland, H., Tessman, S., Girvetz, E., Roberts, L., Enquist, C., Orabona, A., et al. (2010). A geospatial
assessment on the distribution, condition, and vulnerability of Wyoming's wetlands. Ecological Indicators,
869-879-
Cox, K. M. (2006). Batten Kill Trout Management Plan. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Daily, G.C., Alexander, S., Ehrlich, PR., Goulder, L., Lubchenco, J., Matson, PA., Mooney, H.A., Postel,
S., Schneider, S.H., Tilman, D., Woodwell, G.M. (1997). Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human
Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, Number 2.
Davies, S.P and S.K. Jackson. (2006). The Biological Condition Gradient: A descriptive model for interpreting
change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications and Ecological Archives 16(4)1251-1266.
R-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Davies, S. and D. Courtemanch. (2012). A History of Biological Assessment and the Development ofTiered
Aquatic Life Uses in Maine. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, http://www.maine.gov/dep/
water/monitoring/biomonitoring/material.htm
Dingham, S. L. (2002). Physical Hydrology. Prentice Hall.
Doppelt, B., Scurlock, M., Frissell, C., & Karr, J. (1993). Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Save
America's River Ecosystems. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Dunne, T., & Leopold, L. (1978). Water in Environmental Planning. New York: WH. Freeman and
Company.
Eamus, D. and R. Froend. (2006). Groundwater-Dependent ecosystems: The where, what and why of GDEs.
Australian Journal of Botany, 54, 91-96.
Environmental Law Institute; Defenders of Wildlife. (2003). Planning for Biodiversity: Authorities in State
Land Use Laws. Washington D.C.: Environmental Law Institute.
Environmental Law Institute. (2007a). Lasting Landscapes: Reflections on the Role of Conservation Science
in Land Use Planning. Washington D.C.: The Environmental Law Institute.
Environmental Law Institute. (2007b). State Wildlife Action Plans and Utilities: New Conservation
Opportunities for America's Wildlife. Environmental Law Institute.
Ernst, C. (2004). Protecting the Source: Land Conservation and the Future of America's Drinking Water. The
Trust for Public Land.
Esselman, P., Infante, D. M., Wang, L., Cooper, A., Taylor, W W, Tingley, R., et al. (2011). A landscape
assessment of fish habitat conditions in United States rivers and their watersheds. Retrieved from www.
fishhabitat.org
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. (1998). Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles,
Processes, and Practices.
Frey, D. (1977). Biological Integrity of Water: An Historical Approach. The Integrity ofWater. Proceedings of
a Symposium, March 10-12, 1975 (pp. 127-140). Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Frissel, C., Poff, N. L., & Jensen, M. (2001). Assessment of Biotic Patterns in Freshwater Ecosystems. In
M. Jensen, & P. Bourgeron, A Guidebook for Integrated Ecological Assessments (pp. 390-403). New York:
Springer.
Gao, Y, Vogel, R., Kroll, C., Poff, N., & Olden, J. (2009). Development of Representative Indicators of
Hydrologic Alteration. Journal of Hydrology, 136—147-
GSA BBEST (Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas, and San
Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Expert Science Team). (2011). Environmental Flows Recommendations Report
Final Submission to the Guadalupe, San Antonio, Mission, and Aransas Rivers and Mission, Copano, Aransas,
and San Antonio Bays Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committee, Environmental Flows Advisory Group,
and Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
Gilbert, J. (1996). Do Ground Water Ecosystems Really Matter? Ground Water and Land Use Planning
Conference. Perth: CSIRO Division of Water Resources Centre for Ground Water Studies.
Gilbert, J., Danielopol, D., & Stanford, J. (1998). Groundwater Ecology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
R-4
-------
References
Goldscheider, N., Hunkeler, D., Pronk, M., Rossi, P., Kozel, R., & Zopfi, J. (2007)- Heterogeneous aquifers as
habitats for microbial biocenoses. XXXV International Association of Hydrogeologists Congress Groundwater
and Ecosystems. Lisbon, Portugal: International Association of Hydrogeologists.
Grimm, N., Gergel, S., McDowell, W, Boyer, E., Dent, C., Groffman, P., et al. (2003). Merging aquatic and
terrestrial perspectives of nutrient biogeochemistry. Oecologia, 485-501.
Groves, C., Klein, M., & Breden, T. (1995). Public-Private Partnerships for Biodiversity Conservation. Wildlife
Society Bulletin, 784-790.
H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment. (2008). The State of the Nations
Ecosystems. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Haas, A, Ahn, G.-C., Rustay, M., & Dittbrenner, B. (2009). Critical Areas Monitoring 2008 Status Report.
Snohomish County Public Works.
Habich, E. E (2001). Ecological Site Inventory. Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Land Management.
Hancock, P., Boulton, A, & Humphreys, W (2005). Aquifers and hyporheic zones: Towards an ecological
understanding of groundwater. Hydrogeology Journal, 98-111.
Hann, W, Shlisky, A., Havlina, D., Schon, K., Barrett, S., DeMeo, T., et al. (2008). Interagency Fire Regime
Condition Class Guidebook. National Biological Information Infrastructure.
Hayashi, M., & Rosenberry, D. (2002). Effects of groundwater exchange on the hydrology and ecology of
surface water. Ground Water, 309-316.
Heal the Bay. (2009, October 27). Beach Report Card. Retrieved November 4, 2009, from Heal the Bay:
http://www.healthebay.org/brcv2/
Healy, R., Winter, T., LaBaugh, J., & Franke, O. (2007). Water Budgets: Foundations for Effective Water
Resource and Environmental Management, USGS Circular 1308. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Henriksen, J., Heasley, J., Kennen, J., & Nieswand, S. (2006). Users' Manual for the Hydroecological Integrity
Assessment Process Software (including the New Jersey Assessment Tools). Reston, VA: U.S. Geological
Survey.
Herlihy, A., Paulsen, S., Van Sickle, J., Stoddard, J., Hawkins, C., Yuan, L. (2008). Striving for consistency in
a national assessment: the challenges of applying a reference-condition approach at a continental scale. Journal
of the North American Benthological Society, 860—877-
Higgins, V. J. (2003). Maintaining the Ebbs and Flows of the Landscape - Conservation Planning for
Freshwater Ecosystems. In C. R. Groves, Drafting a Conservation Blueprint: a Practitioner's Guide to Regional
Planning for Biodiversity. Washington D.C.: Island Press.
Higgins, J., Bryer, M., Khoury, M., & Fitzhugh, T. (2005). A Freshwater Classification Approach for
Biodiversity Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology, 432-445-
Higgins, V. J., & Esselman, R. (2006). Ecoregional Assessment and Biodiversity Vision Toolbox. Retrieved
January 14, 2011, from The Nature Conservancy: http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/era/
index html
R-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Higgins, J. V., & Duigan, C. (2009)- So Much to Do, So Little Time: Identifying Priorities for Freshwater
Biodiversity Conservation in the United States and Britain. In P. J. Boon, & C. M. Pringle, Assessing the
Conservation Value of Freshwaters (pp. 61-90). New York, NY USA: Cambridge University Press.
Hubert, W (2004). Ecological processes of riverine wetland habitats. In M. McKinstry, W Hubert, & S.
Anderson, Wetland and Riparian Areas of the Intermountain West (pp. 52—73). Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Hugget, R. (2011). Fundamentals of Geomorphology New York, NY. Routledge.
Humphreys, W (2006). Aquifers: The ultimate groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Australian Journal of
Botany, 115-132.
Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Council. (2009, October 6). Retrieved October 6, 2009, from National
Wild and Scenic Rivers: www.rivers.gov
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning (eds.)].
Jaquith, S., Kline, M., Field, J., & Henderson, J. (2004). Phase 1 Geomorphic Assessment of the Batten Kill
Main-Stem and Major Tributaries. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation.
Jelks, H. L, Walsh, S. J., Burkhead, N. M., Contreras-Balderas, S., Diaz-Pardo, E., Hendrickson, D. A., et
al. (2008). Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes. Fisheries,
33(8): 372-407-
Jennings, M. (2000). Gap Analysis: Concepts, Methods, and Recent Results. Landscape Ecology, 15:5-20.
Junk, W, & Wantzen, K. (2004). The Flood Pulse Concept: New Aspects, Approaches, and Applications.
Max-Planck-Institute for Limnology, Working Group Tropical Ecology.
Karr, J. R. (1981). Assessment of Biotic Integrity Using Fish Communities. Fisheries, 6: 21-27-
Karr, J., & Dudley, D. (1981). Ecological Perspectives on Water Quality Goals. Environmental Management,
55-68.
Karr, J. R., Fausch, K. D., Angermeier, P L., Yant, P. R., & Schlosser, I. J. (1986). Assessment of Biological
Integrity in Running Waters: A Method and its Rationale. Champaign, Illinois: Illinois Natural History Survey
Special Publication 5-
Karr, J., & Yoder, C. (2004). Biological assessment and criteria improve total maximum daily load decision
making. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 594-604.
Kenny, J.F., Barber, N.L., Hutson, S.S., Linsey, K.S., Lovelace, J.K., and Maupin, M.A. (2009). Estimated use
of water in the United States in 2005: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1344, 52 p.
Khoury, M., Higgins, J., & Weitzell, R. (2010). A Freshwater Conservation Assessment of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Using a Coarse and Fine Filter Approach. Freshwater Biology, 1365-2427-
Kidd, S., McFarlane, B., & Walberg, E. (2010). A Green Infrastructure Plan for the Hampton Roads Region.
Chesapeake, VA: Hampton Roads Planning District Commission.
King, R., Baker, M., Kazyak, P., Weller, D. (2011). How novel is too novel? Stream community thresholds at
exceptionally low levels of catchment urbanization. Ecological Applications, 1659—1678.
R-6
-------
References
King County Department of Natural Resources. (2000). Literature Review and Recommended Sampling
Protocol for Bull Trout in King County . Seattle, WA: King County Department of Natural Resources.
Kline, M., Alexander, C., Pytlik, S., Jaquith, S., & Pomeroy, S. (2009). Vermont Stream Geomorphic
Assessment Protocol Handbooks and Appendices. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Kline, M., & Dolan, K. (2009). River Corridor Protection Guide. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Agency of Natural
Resources.
Kline, M. (2010). VT ANR River Corridor Planning Guide: to Identify and Develop River Corridor Protection
and Restoration Projects. Waterbury, VT: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Kline, M., & Cahoon, B. (2010). Protecting River Corridors in Vermont. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association , 227-236.
Komor, S. (1994). Geochemistry and hydrology of a calcareous fen within the Savage fen wetlands complex,
Minnesota, U.S.A. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 3353-3367-
Kraemer, S. R., Schroer, K, Chesney, C., Bonds, J., Ryan, W, & Melgin, W (2000). Ground Water,
Watersheds and Environment. Unpublished US EPA Issue paper.
Leopold, L., Wolman, M., & Miller, J. (1964). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. WH. Freeman. San
Francisco, CA.
Leopold, L. (1994). A View of the River. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
MacDonald, L. H., Smart, A. W, & Wissmar, R. C. (1991). Monitoring Guidelines to Evaluate Effects of
Forestry Activities on Streams in the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. Seattle: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region 10.
Mack, John J., Mick Micacchion, Lauren D. Augusta, and Gregg R. Sablak. 2000. Vegetation Indices of Bio tic
Integrity (VIBI) for Wetlands and Calibration of the Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands v. 5-0.
Final Report to U.S. EPA Grant No. CD985276, Interim Report to U.S. EPA Grant No. CD985875, Volume
1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus,
Ohio.
Mack, John J. 2001. Ohio Rapid Assessment Method for Wetlands, Manual for Using Version 5-0. Ohio EPA
Technical Bulletin Wetland/2001-1-1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Surface Water, 401
Wetland Ecology Unit, Columbus, Ohio.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2003). A Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable
Streams in Maryland. Annapolis: Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. (2011). GreenPrint. Retrieved January 23, 2011, from Maryland
Department of Natural Resources: http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/
Maryland Biological Stream Survey. (2005). Statewide and Basin Conditions 2000-2004. Annapolis: Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.
Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game and The Nature Conservancy. (2010). BioMap2: Conserving the
Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World. MA Department of Fish & Game.
Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game. (2011). River Continuity Data Sheets. Retrieved January 11,
2011, from Division of Ecological Restoration: http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/der/freshwater/rivercontinuity/
datasheets.htm
R-7
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Matthews, R., & Richter, B. (2007)- Application of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration software in
environmental flow-setting. Journal of the American Water Resources Association , 1400-1413-
Maurer, E. P, Brekke, L., Pruitt, T., & Duffy, P. B. (2007)- Fine-resolution climate projections enhance regional
climate change impact studies. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union. 88(47), 504.
Medalie, L., & Horn, M.A. (2010) Estimated water withdrawals and return flows in Vermont in 2005 and
2020: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010—5053- Available from: http://pubs.usgs.
gov/sir/2010/5053
Meyer, J. L., Wallace, J. B., Eggert, S. L., Helfman, G. S., & Leonard, N. E. (2007). The Contribution of
Headwater Streams in Biodiversity Networks. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 86-103-
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington D.C.: Island
Press.
Miller, W, Johnson, D., Loupe, T, Sedinger, J., Carroll, E., Murphy, J., et al. (2006). Nutrients Flow From
Runoff at Burned Forest Site in LakeTahoe Basin. Restoring Clarity, 65-71.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2008, February). What is a Calcareous Seepage Fen? Retrieved
January 10, 2011, from Wetlands: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/Calc fen-factsheet.pdf
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (2011). Watershed Assessment Tool. Retrieved November 29,
2011, from http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed tool/index.html
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2010). Minnesota National Lakes Assessment Project: An overview of
water chemistry in Minnesota lakes. Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division. Saint Paul, MN. Mitsch,
W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2007). Wetlands. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2007). Wetlands. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Moir-McClean, T, & DeKay, M. (2006). Beaver Creek Watershed Green Infrastructure Plan. University of
Tennessee College of Architecture and Design.
Montgomery, D. R., & Buffington, J. M. (1998). Channel Processes, Classification, and Response. River
Ecology and Management, 13-42.
Murray, B., Hose, G., Eamus, D., & Licari, D. (2006). Valuation of groundwater-dependent ecosystems: a
functional methodology incorporating ecosystem services. Australian Journal of Botany , 221-229-
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation; Bonneville Power Administration. (2004). Finding Balance. Retrieved
July 24, 2009, from Columbia Basin Water Transactions Program: http://www.cbwtp.org/jsp/cbwtp/index.jsp
National Fish Habitat Board. (2010). Through a Fish's Eye: The Status of Fish Habitats in the United States
2010. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington D.C.
NatureServe. (2008). Natural Heritage Methodology. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from Products and Services:
http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/heritagemethodology.jsp
Nel, J. L., Roux, D. J., Cowling, R. M., Abell, R., Thieme, M., Higgins, J. V, et al. (2009). Progress and
Challenges in Freshwater Conservation Planning. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,
474-485.
Nicholoff, S. (2003). Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0. Lander, WY: Wyoming Game and Fish
Department.
R-8
-------
References
Norton, D., Wickham, ]., Wade, T., Kunert, K., Thomas, J., & Zeph, a. P. (2009). A Method for Comparative
Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning. Environmental Management, 356-
368.
Noss, R. E, LaRoe III, E. T., & Scott, J. M. (1995). Endangered Ecosystems of the United States: A Preliminary
Assessment of Loss and Degradation. Washington D.C.: National Biological Service; U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Ohio Watershed Network. (2009). Watershed Toolshed. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from Ohio Watersheds:
http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu/
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2008). Oregon Water Quality Index Summary Report Water
Years 1998-2007- Hillsboro, Oregon.
Oregon Institute for Natural Resources. (2009). Oregon Biodiversity Information Center. Retrieved September
24, 2011, from Oregon State: http://orbic.pdx.edu/
Perry, J. A, & Vanderklein, E. (1996). Water Quality: Management of a Natural Resource. Wiley-Blackwell.
Poff, N. L. (1996). A Hydrogeography of Unregulated Streams in the United States and an Examination of
Scale Dependence in Some Hydrological Descriptors. Freshwater Biology, 71-91.
Poff, N. L., Allan, D. J., Bain, M. B., Karr, J. R., Prestegaard, K. L., Richter, B. D., et al. (1997). The Natural
Flow Regime: A Paradigm for River Conservation and Restoration. BioScience, 47(11) 769-784.
Poff, N. (2009). Managing for Variability to Sustain Freshwater Ecosystems. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management.
Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Naiman, R. J., Kendy, E., et al. (2010). The
ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new framework for developing regional environmental
flow standards. Freshwater Biology, 147-170.
Poiani, K., Richter, B., Anderson, M., & Richter, H. (2000). Biodiversity Conservation at Multiple Scales.
BioScience, 133-146.
Postel, S., & Richter, B. (2003). Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. Island Press.
Postel, S., & Thompson, B. (2005). Watershed protection: Capturing the benefits of nature's water supply
services. Natural Resources Forum, 98-108.
Power, G., Brown, R., & Imhof, J. (1999). Groundwater and fish- insights from northern North America.
Hydrologic Processes, 401-422.
Protected Areas Database of the United States Partnership. (2009). Retrieved November 11, 2009, from
Protected Lands: http://www.protectedlands.net/padus/
Reidy Liermann, C.A. Olden, J.D., Beechie, T.J., Kennard, M.J., Skidmore, P.B., Konrad, C.P and H. Imaki.
(2011). Hydrogeomorphic classification of Washington State rivers to support emerging environmental flow
management strategies. River Research and Applications, doi: 10.1002/rra. 1541
Richter, B. D., Baumgartner, J. V., Powell, J., & Braun, D. P. (1996). A Method for Assessing Hydrologic
Alteration Within Ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 10(4) 1163-1174.
R-9
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Richter, B., Mathews, R., Harrison, D., & Wigington, R. (2003)- Ecologically Sustainable Water Management:
Managing River Flows for Ecological Integrity. Ecological Applications , 206-224.
Richter, B., Warner, A., Meyer, J., & Lutz, K. (2006). A Collaborative and Adaptive Process for Developing
Environmental Flow Recommendations. River Research and Applications, 297-318.
Richter, B. (2007, June). Meeting Urban Water Demands While Protecting Rivers: A Case Study from the
Rivanna River in Georgia. Journal of the American Water Works Association, pp. 24-26.
Riera, J., Magnuson, J., Kratz, T., & Webster, K. (2000). A geomorphic template for the analysis of lake
districts applied to the Northern Highland Lake District. Freshwater Biology, 301-318.
Roni, P., Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M., & Pess, G.R. (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.
Rosgen, D. (1994). A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 169-199-
Rosgen, D. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Sada, D., Williams, J., Silvey, J., Halford, A, Ramakka, J., Summers, P., et al. (2001). Riparian Area
Management: A guide to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the Western United States. Technical
Reference 1737-17- Denver, Colorado: Bureau of Land Management.
Schiff, R., Kline, M., & Clark, J. (2008). The Vermont Reach Habitat Assessment Protocol. Waterbury, VT:
Prepared by Milone and MacBroom, Inc. for the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.
Schueler, T. (1994). The Importance of Imperviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques, 100-111.
Schueler, T. (2000). The Tools of Watershed Protection. In T. Schueler, & H. Holland, The Practice of
Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD: Center for Watershed Protection.
Schumm, S. A. (1977). The Fluvial System. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Shilling, F. (2007). California Watershed Assessment Manual. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from University of
California Davis: http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/
Simon, A., Doyle, M., Kondolf, M., Shields, F. J., Rhoads, B., McPhillips, M., et al. (2007). Critical
Evaluation of How The Rosgen Classification and Associated "Natural Channel Design" Methods Fail to
Integrate And Quantify Fluvial Processes and Channel Response. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 1117-1131-
Smart Growth Network. (2009). Principles of Smart Growth. Retrieved July 27, 2009, from Smart Growth
Online: http://www.smartgrowth.org/engine/index.php/principles/
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability. Global Environmental
Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 282-292.
Smith, D. R., Ammann, A, Bartoldus, C., and Brinson, M. M. (1995). An approach for assessing wetland
functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Technical Report
WRP-DE-9- U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. NTIS No. AD A307 121.
Smith, E., Tran, L., & O'Neill, R. (2003). Regional Vulnerability Assessment for the Mid-Atlantic Region:
Evaluation of Integration Methods and Assessments Results. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
R-10
-------
References
Smith, M., de Groot, D., Perrot-Maite, D., & Bergkamp, G. (2006). Pay — Establishing payments for
watershed services. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Smith, M. P., Schiff, R., Olivero, A., & MacBroom, J. (2008). The Active River Area: A Conservation
Framework for Protecting Rivers and Streams. Boston: The Nature Conservancy.
Sowa, S., Annis, G., Morey, M., & Diamond, D. (2007). A GAP Analysis and Comprehensive Conservation
Strategy for Riverine Ecosystems of Missouri. Ecological Monographs, 301-334.
Springer, A, Stevens, L., Anderson, D., Parnell, R., Kreamer, D., & Flora, S. (2008). A comprehensive springs
classification system: integrating geomorphic, hydrogeochemical, and ecological criteria. In L. Stevens, & V.
Meretsky, Aridland Springs in North America: Ecology and Conservation. Tucson, Arizona: University of
Arizona.
Stacey, P.B., A. Jones and J. Catlin. (2007). A User's Guide for the Rapid Assessment of the Functional
Condition of Stream-Riparian Ecosystems in the American Southwest. Wild Utah Project, Salt Lake City, UT.
Stalnaker, C., Lamb, B., Henriksen, J., Bovee, K., & Bartholow, J. (1995). The Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology. Washington D.C.: National Biological Service; U.S. Department of the Interior.
State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring
& Assessment. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Monitoring and Assessment Section; Division of Surface
Water: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.aspx
Stein, E., A. Fetscher, R. Clark, A. Wiskind, J. Grenier, M. Sutula, J. Collins, and C. Grosso. (2009). Validation
of a wetland rapid assessment method: use of EPA'S level 1-2-3 framework for method testing and refinement.
Wetlands, 29(2): 648-665-
Stevens, L.E., Stacey, PB., Jones, A.L., Duff, D., Gourley, C., and J.C. Catlin. (2005). A protocol for rapid
assessment of southwestern stream-riparian ecosystems. Proceedings of the Seventh Biennial Conference of
Research on the Colorado Plateau titled The Colorado Plateau II, Biophysical, Socioeconomic, and Cultural
Research. Charles van Riper III and David J. Mattsen Ed.s. pp. 397-420. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona
Press.
Stoddard, J., Larsen, D., Hawkins, C., Johnson, R., & Norris, R. (2006). Setting Expectations for the
Ecological Condition of Streams: The Concept of Reference Condition. Ecological Applications, 1267-1276.
Strager, J., Yuill, C., & Wood, P. (2000). Landscape-based Riparian Habitat Modeling for Amphibians and
Reptiles using ARC/INFO GRID and ArcView CIS. 2000 ESRI International User Conference. Redlands,
California: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI).
Striegl, R. G., & Michmerhuizen, C. M. (1998). Hydrologic influence on methane and carbon dioxide
dynamics at two north-central Minnesota lakes. Limnology and Oceanography, 1519—1529-
Sundermann, A., Stoll, S., Haase, P. (2011). River restoration success depends on the species pool of the
immediate surroundings. Ecological Applications, 1962—1971.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; Texas Water Development
Board. (2008). Texas Instream Flow Studies: Technical Overview. Texas Water Development Board. Report
369- Retrieved September 20, 2011, from Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: http://www.tceq.
texas.gov/assets/public/permitting/watersupply/water rights/eflows/resourcesisftechnicaloverview.pdf
R-ll
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Tharme, R. (2003)- A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development
and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Research and Applications, 397-441.
The Lumber River Conservancy. (2009). Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.
lumberriverconservancy.org/lumber river.html
The Nature Conservancy. (2003). Guidelines for Designing and Selecting Conservation Strategies. The Nature
Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy. (201 la). Conservation by Design. Retrieved December 12, 2011, from The Nature
Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/ourscience/conservationbydesign/index.htm
The Nature Conservancy. (201 Ib). ELOHA Toolbox. Retrieved January 27, 2011, from ConserveOnline:
http://www.conserveonline.org/workspaces/eloha/documents/hydrologic-foundation-0
The Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. (2005). Pennsylvania
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.
Thorp, J., Thorns, M., & DeLong, M. (2006). The Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis: Biocomplexity in River
Networks Across Space and Time. River Research and Applications, 123-147-
Thorp, J., Thorns, M., & Delong, M. (2008). The Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis: Toward Conceptual
Cohesiveness in Riverine Science. Elsevier.
Tiner, R. (2004). Remotely Sensed Indicators for Monitoring the General Condition of "Natural Habitat" in
Watersheds: An Application for Delaware's Nanticoke River Watershed. Ecological Indicators, 227—243-
Tomlinson, M., & Boulton, A. (2008). Subsurface groundwater dependent ecosystems: A review of their
biodiversity, ecological processes and ecosystem services. Waterlines Occasional Paper Number 8.
Trout Unlimited and Northstar Economics. (2008). The Economic Impact of Recreational Trout Angling in
the Driftless Area. Trout Unlimited.
Trust for Public Land. (2009). LandVote. Retrieved July 28, 2009, from LandVote: http://www.tpl.org/what-
we-do/policy-legislation/landvote.html
Trust for Public Land. (2010, January). Lower Meramec River Source Water Demonstration Project. Retrieved
February 16, 2011, from Center for Land and Water: http://www.tpl.org/tier3 cd.cfm?content item
id=23278&folder id=1885
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2005, September 2). Rural-Urban Commuting
Area Codes. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from Measuring Rurality: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/
Rural UrbanCommutingAreaCodes/
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2009, October 27). National Organic Program. Retrieved November 2,
2009, from Agricultural Marketing Service: http://www.ams.usda.goV/AMSvl.0/NOP
U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior. (2009). LandFire. Retrieved May 21, 2009,
from LandFire: http://www.landfire.gov
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1987). Handbook: Ground Water. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Number EPA/625/6-87/016.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990). Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Number EPA 440-5-90-004.
R-12
-------
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Number 4502E
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1997). The Index of Watershed Indicators. Washington D.C.: Office
of Water. EPA Number EPA-841-R-97-010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Summary of Biological Assessment Programs and Biocriteria
Development for States, Tribes, Territories, and Interstate Commissions: Streams and Wadeable Rivers.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Number EPA-822-R-02-048.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Getting in Step: A Guide for Conducting Watershed Outreach
Campaigns. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Number 841-B-03-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006a, November 27). Model Ordinances to Protect Local Resources.
Retrieved July 28, 2009, from Nonpoint Source Pollution: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/ordinance/.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006b). Protecting Water Resources with Higher Density
Development. Washington D.C. EPA Number 231-R-06-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006c). Wadeable Streams Assessment. Washington D.C.: Office of
Water. EPA Number 841-B-04-005-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007a, August 14). Principles for the Ecological Restoration of
Aquatic Resources. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from Office of Wetlands Oceans and Watersheds: http://
www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/principles.html#l. EPA Number 841-F-00-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007b). Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies and Practices. Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA
Number 841-F-07-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007c, August 14). River Corridor and Wetland Restoration.
Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
restore/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a). Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and
Protect Our Waters. Washington, DC: Office of Water. EPA Number 841-B-08-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b, December 19). National Aquatic Resource Surveys. Retrieved
January 23, 2009, from Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality: http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/
monitoring/nationalsurveys.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008c, November 17). The Wadeable Streams Assessment: A
Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams. Retrieved January 20, 2010, from Monitoring and Assessing
Water Quality: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/streamsurvey/index.cfm. EPA Number 841-B-06-
002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009a). National Lakes Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the
Nation's Lakes. Washington D.C.: Office of Water and Office of Research and Development. EPA Number
841-R-09-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009b). An Assessment of Decision-Making Processes: The Feasibility
of Incorporating Climate Change Information into Land Protection Planning. Global Change Research
Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, DC; EPA Number EPA/600/R-
09/142a.
R-13
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). ICLUS VI.3 User's Manual: ARCGIS Tools for Modeling US
Housing Density Growth. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC; EPA Number EPA/600/
R-09/143F. http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/global/recordisplay.cfm?deid=205305
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (201 la). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990-2009- Washington D.C.; Office of Air. EPA Number 430-R-l 1-005-
U.S. Environmental protection Agency (201 Ib). Biological assessments: Key Terms and Concepts. Washington
D.C.; Office of Water. EPA Number EPA 820-F-l 1-006.
U.S. Environmental protection Agency (201 Ic). A Primer on Using Biological Assessments to Support Water
Quality Management. Washington D.C.; Office of Water. EPA Number EPA 810-R-11-01.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (201 Id). National River and Streams Assessment Fact Sheet.
Washington D.C.; Office of Water. EPA Number EPA 941-F-l 1-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (201 le, February 15). Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program.
Retrieved February 15, 2011, from www.epa.gov/reva
U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board. (2002). A Framework for Assessing and Reporting on Ecological Condition.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2002). Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2009, September 4). National Fish Passage Program. Retrieved December 3,
2009, from http://www.fws.gov/fisheries/fwco/fishpassage/
U.S. Forest Service (2011). Watershed Condition Framework. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Publication
Number FS-977-
U.S. Geological Survey. (1999). National Water Summary on Wetland Resources. U.S. Geological Survey.
U.S. Geological Survey. (2006). Ohio Aquatic Gap Analysis-An Assessment of the Biodiversity and
Conservation Status of Native Aquatic Animal Species. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Publications
Warehouse: http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr20061385
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009a, May 21). National Hydrologic Assessment Tool. Retrieved May 21, 2009,
from Fort Collins Science Center: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/Software/NATHAT/
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009b, May 21). National Water Information System. Retrieved May 21, 2009, from
Water Resources: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009c, April 19). National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA). Retrieved
April 26, 2009, from Water Resources of the United States: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/about.html
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009d, April 17). SPARROW Surface Water Quality Modeling. Retrieved April 26,
2009, from National Water Quality Assessment Program: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/
U.S. Geological Survey. (2009e, October 13). StreamStats. Retrieved December 1, 2009, from Office of
Surface Water: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/
U.S. Government Printing Office. (1972). Report for the Committee on Public Works — Unites States House
of Representatives with additional and supplemental views of H.R. 11896 to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. House Report 92-911. 92 Congress, 2nd Session, 11 March 1972, p. 149-
R-14
-------
References
University of Connecticut Center for Land Use Education and Research. (2009)- Landscape Fragmentation
Tool. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://clear.uconn.edu/tools/lft/lft2/index.htm
University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science; National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. (2009). EcoCheck. Retrieved October 28, 2009, from http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/
chesapeake/2008/
Vannote, R. L, Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Gushing, C. E. (1980). The River
Continuum Concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37: 130-137-
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. (2007, July). Geomorphic Assessment. Retrieved April
27, 2009, from Water Quality Division: http://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv geoassess.htm
Vermont Law School Land Use Institute. (2009). Preparing for the Next Flood: Vermont Floodplain
Management. Vermont Law School.
Virginia Commonwealth University. (2009, May 13). Center for Environmental Studies. Retrieved May 21,
2009, from Virginia Commonwealth University: http://www.vcu.edu/cesweb/
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2008, July). Virginia Conservation Lands Needs
Assessment. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from Natural Heritage: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/
vclna.shtml
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. (2009). Land Conservation Data Explorer. Retrieved
May 21, 2009, from Virginia Natural Heritage Program: http://www.vaconservedlands.org/gis.aspx
Vogel, R., Sieber, J., Archfield, S., Smith, M. A, & Huber-Lee, A. (2007). Relations Among Storage, Yield
and Instream Flow. Water Resources Research, 43-
Walsh, M., Deeds, J., & Nightingale, B. (2007). User's Manual and Data Guide to the Pennsylvania Aquatic
Community Classification. Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program.
Wang, X., & Yin, Z. (1997). Using GIS to Assess the Relationship Between Land Use and Water Quality at a
Watershed Level. Environment International, 103-114.
Watershed Professionals Network. (1999). Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual. Salem, Oregon: Governor's
Watershed Enhancement Board.
Weber, T (2003). Maryland's Green Infrastructure Assessment. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Department of
Natural Resources.
Weitzell, R. E., Khoury, M., Gagnon, P., Schreurs, B., Grossman, D., & Higgins, J. (2003). Conservation
Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Nature Serve and The Nature
Conservancy.
Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve; Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. (2009).
Headwaters: A Collaborative Conservation Plan for the Town of Sanford.
Wheeler, B., Gowing, D., Shaw, S., Mountford, J., & Money, R. (2004). Ecohydrological guidelines for
lowland wetland plant communities. Environment Agency.
Wickham, J., & Norton, D. (2008). Recovery Potential as a Means of Prioritizing Restoration of Waters
Identified as Impaired Under the Clean Water Act . Water Practice, 1-11.
R-15
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Wiens, J. A. (2002). Riverine Landscapes: Taking Landscape Ecology into the Water. Freshwater Biology, 501-
515.
Williams, D., & Williams, N. (1998). Invertebrate communities from freshwater springs: What can they
contribute to pure and applied ecology? In L.Botosaneanu, Studies in Chrenobiology. Leiden: Backhuys
Publishers.
Winter, T. (1978). Ground-water component of lake water and nutrient budgets. Verhandlungen des
Internationalen Verein Limnologie, 438-444.
Winter, T., Labaugh, J., & Rosenberry, D. (1988). The design and use of a hydraulic potentiomanometer for
direct measurement of differences in hydraulic head between groundwater and surface water. Limnology and
Oceanography, 1209-1214.
Winter, T. (1995). Recent advances in understanding the interaction of groundwater and surface water.
Reviews of Geophysics Supplement, 985-994.
Winter, T, Harvey, J., Franke, O., & Alley, W (1998). Ground Water and Surface Water: A Single Resource.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Younger, P. (2006). Groundwater in the Environment. Blackwell Publishing.
Zencich, S., & Froend, R. (2001). Guidelines for identification and monitoring of terrestrial vegetation water
requirements. Terrestrial Phreatophytic Vegetation Research Review Report Number 2001-16.
Zganjar, C., Girvetz, E., & G., R. (2009). Retrieved October 28, 2009, from Climate Wizard: http://www.
climatewizard. org/
Zorn, T. G., Seelbach, P. W, Rutherford, E. S., Willis, T. C., Cheng, S. T, & Wiley, M. J. (2008). A Regional-
scale Habitat Suitability Model to Assess the Effects of Flow Reduction on Fish Assemblages in Michigan
Streams. Ann Arbor: Michigan Department of Natural Resources; Fisheries Division.
R-16
-------
Acronyms & Abbreviations
AES
ANR
BBASC
BBEST
BASINS
BCG
BMP
CADDIS
CRT
CRAM
CREP
CRP
CSP
CWA
CWAM
CWSRF
OCR
DEM
DEP
DEQ
DES
DNR
DWSRF
EDU
EEA
ELOHA
EMAP
EMDS
EPA
EPT
EQIP
ESRI
FDC
Aquatic Ecological System
Agency of Natural Resources
Basin and Bay Area Stakeholder Committee
Basin and Bay Expert Science Team
Better Assessment Science Integrating point & Nonpoint Sources
Biological Condition Gradient
Best Management Practice
Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System
Channel Habitat Type
California Rapid Assessment Method
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Conservation Reserve Program
Conservation Security Program
Clean Water Act
California Watershed Assessment Manual
Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Department of Conservation and Recreation
Department of Environmental Management or Digital Elevation Model
Department of Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Services
Department of Natural Resources
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Ecological Drainage Unit
Essential Ecological Attribute
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Ecosystem Management Decision Support System
Environmental Protection Agency
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera
Environmental Quality Incentive Program
Environmental Systems Research Group
Flow Duration Curve
AA-1
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
FEH
FEMA
FPZ
FRCC
FWS
GAP
GDE
CIS
GMA
GPD
GPS
GRP
HAT
HEFR
HHEI
HIP
HIT
HSPF
HUG
IBI
1C
ICLUS
IFIM
IHA
ILWIS
INSTAR
IIPCC
ITI
KDHE
LID
L-THIA
MBSS
mlBI
MMI
MRB
NARS
NAWQA
Fluvial Erosion Hazard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Functional Process Zone
Fire Regime Condition Class
Fish and Wildlife Service
Gap Analysis Program
Ground water Dependent Ecosystem
Geographic Information System
Growth Management Act
Gallons Per Day
Global Positioning System
Grassland Reserve Program
Hydrologic Assessment Tool
Hydrology-based Environmental Flow Regimes
Headwaters Habitat Evaluation Index
Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process
Hydrologic Index Tool
Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran
Hydrologic Unit Code
Index of Biotic Integrity
Impervious Cover
Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
Integrated Land and Water Information System
Interactive Stream Assessment Resource
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Index of Terrestrial Integrity
Kansas Department of Health and the Environment
Low Impact Development
Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment
Maryland Biological Stream Survey
Modified Index of Biotic Integrity
Macroinvertebrate Multimetric Index
Major River Basins
National Aquatic Resource Surveys
National Water Quality Assessment
AA-2
-------
Acronyms & Abbreviations
NCDC
NED
NEMO
NFHA
NFIP
NFPP
NHD
NLA
NLCD
NOAA
NPDES
NRCS
NRSA
NSPECT
NWI
NWIS
ONRW
ORAM
ORBIC
OWED
OWOW
PAD
PCA
PFC
PHI
PHWH
PRISM
RASCAL
RCC
RES
ReVA
RIVPACS
RPST
RPT
RSRA
RTE
SAB
National Climatic Data Center
National Elevation Dataset
Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials
National Fish Habitat Assessment
National Flood Insurance Program
National Fish Passage Program
National Hydrography Dataset
National Lakes Assessment
National Land Cover Database
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Rivers and Streams Assessment
Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool
National Wetlands Inventory
National Water Information System
Outstanding National Resource Water
Oregon Rapid Assessment Method
Oregon Biodiversity Information Center
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Protected Areas Database
Principal Components Analysis
Proper Functioning Condition
Physical Habitat Index
Primary Headwaters Habitat
Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model
Rapid Assessment of Stream Conditions Along Length
River Continuum Concept
Riverine Ecosystem Synthesis
Regional Vulnerability Assessment
River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System
Recovery Potential Screening Tool
Regime Prescription Tool
Rapid Stream and Riparian Assessment
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered
Science Advisory Board
AA-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
SABS
SGA
SDWA
SPARROW
SSURGO
STORET
SWAP
SWMM
SYE
TCEQ
TALU
TDR
TEA
TIFP
TMDL
TNC
TPL
UMRB
USA
USDA
USFWS
USGS
VCLNA
VSP
VST
WAM
WAT
WATERS
WHIP
WQI
WQS
WQX
WRP
WSA
WWF
Suspended and Bedded Sediments
Stream Geomorphic Assessment
Safe Drinking Water Act
Spatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes
Soil Survey Geographic Database
STOrage and RETrieval
Source Water Assessment Program
Storm Water Management Model
Sustainable Yield Estimator
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Tiered Aquatic Life Use
Transfer of Development Rights
Targeted Ecological Area
Texas Instream Flow Program
Total Maximum Daily Load
The Nature Conservancy
Trust for Public Land
Upper Mississippi River Basin
United States of America
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
United States Geological Survey
Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment
Visual Sample Plan
Valley Segment Types
Watershed Assessment Manual
Watershed Assessment Tool
Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental ResultS
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
Water Quality Index
Water Quality Standards
Water Quality Exchange
Wetlands Reserve Program
Wadeable Streams Assessment
World Wildlife Fund
AA-4
-------
Appendix A. Examples of
Assessment Tools
Classifying Freshwater Ecosystems
Developer: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: http://www.conservationgateway.org/topic/ecoregional-assessment
Freshwater systems are comprised of a variety of ecosystems that differ in geophysical, hydrological and
ecological characteristics. Classifying and mapping these distinctions is critical to defining the variety of
habitats and processes that comprise a large and complex freshwater system. Classification products are used
in biodiversity planning as "coarse-filter" conservation elements to "capture" many common, untracked, and
unknown species, and to identify the variety of environments and processes that support species and natural
communities across a region of interest. They can also be used to identify specific ecosystem attributes for
targeting strategies to protect and restore watershed health, such as identifying areas of high ground water
potential, or areas that provide high water yields from surface runoff and are sensitive to a variety of land uses.
a. On* Aquatic Zoogeography Urwl
t>. Ecological Drainage Units within
one Aquatic ZoogBograpnlc Unit
r Aquatic Ecological Systems wi:hr,
one Ecological Drainage Uffll
d. MacrofrtaMals wlhin one
Aquatic Ecological Syslem
The Nature Conservancy's Freshwater Classification System (Weitzell et al., 2003).
A-l
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
MapWindow
Developer: Idaho State University Geospatial Software Lab
More Information: http://www.mapwindow.org/
The MapWindow application is a free GIS that can be used for the following:
• As an alternative desktop GIS.
• To distribute data to others.
• To develop and distribute custom spatial data analyses.
MapWindow is free to use and redistribute to other users. Unlike other free tools, MapWindow is more than
just a data viewer; it is an extensible geographic information system. This means that plug-ins can be created to
add additional functionality (e.g., models, special viewers, hot-link handlers, data editors, etc.) and these can
be passed along to other users.
ArcGIS
Developer: Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)
More Information: http://www.esri.com/index.html
ArcGIS is software for visualizing, managing, creating, and analyzing geographic data. Using ArcGIS, one can
understand the geographic context of data, allowing the user to see relationships and identify patterns.
IDRISI Taiga
Developer: Clark Labs
More Information: http://www.clarklabs.org/products/product-features.cfm
IDRISI Taiga is an integrated GIS and Image Processing software solution
providing nearly 300 modules for the analysis and display of digital spatial
information. IDRISI offers an extensive set of GIS and Image Processing tools
in a single package. With IDRISI, all analytical features come standard—
there is no need to buy add-ons to extend research capabilities.
Integrated Land and Water Information System (ILWIS)
Developer: World Institute for Conservation and Environment
More Information: http://52north.org/
ILWIS is free remote sensing and GIS software, which integrates image, vector, and thematic data in one unique
and powerful desktop package. ILWIS delivers a wide range of features including import/export, digitizing,
editing, analysis and display of data, as well as production of quality maps. ILWIS software is renowned for its
functionality, user-friendliness and low cost, and has established a wide user community over the years of its
development.
Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS)
Developer: U.S. Forest Service, InfoHarvest, Rules of Thumb, The Redlands Institute (University of
Redlands)
More Information: http://www.institute.redlands.edu/emds/
The EMDS system is an application framework for knowledge-based decision support of environmental
analysis and planning at any geographic scale. EMDS integrates state-of-the-art GIS, as well as knowledge-
based reasoning and decision modeling technologies to provide decision support for the adaptive management
process of ecosystem management.
A-2
-------
Appendix A
NetMap
Developer: Earth Systems Institute
More Information: http://www.netmaptools.org/
NetMap is a community based watershed science system comprised of a digital
watershed database, analysis tools, and forums. The state-of-the-art desktop GIS analysis
tools, containing approximately 50 functions and 60 parameters, address watershed m.* . • •
attributes and processes such as fluvial geomorphology, fish habitat, erosion, watershed | NwllVlCtD
disturbance, road networks, wildfire, hydrology, and large woody debris, among others.
NetMap is designed to integrate with ESRI ArcMap 9.2. Key features include:
• Decision support. NetMap can inform fish habitat management, forestry, pre and
post fire planning, restoration, monitoring, research, and education.
• Uniform data structure. Channel segments (and tributary confluence nodes) are
defined as the spatial relationship between segments and hillsides. All watershed
information is routed downstream revealing patterns of watershed attributes at any
spatial scale defined by stream networks.
• Universal, region-wide database. A large and expanding region-wide watershed
database allows users easy access to hundreds of watersheds for rapid analyses and to
facilitate comparative analyses across landscapes, states and regions.
• A new analysis paradigm and methods framework. In the context of watershed
analysis, software tools are distributed with the analysis allowing stakeholders to
conduct custom analyses as new questions arise, as new data becomes available (or as
more accurate data becomes available), or as watershed conditions change (wildfires
or land use activities).
• A "living analysis." NetMap watershed databases do not become dated over time
because "field link" tools allow rapid validation of predicted attributes and thus
databases are made more accurate with use.
• NetMap is community based. As new watershed databases are developed and new
tools are created, they become immediately available to all users.
Analytical Tools Interface for Landscape Assessments (ATtlLA)
Developer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://www.epa.gov/esd/land-sci/attila/index.htm
ATtlLA is an easy to use ArcView extension that calculates many commonly used landscape metrics. By
providing an intuitive interface, the extension provides the ability to generate landscape metrics to a wide
audience, regardless of their GIS knowledge level. ATtlLA is a robust, flexible program. It accepts data from a
broad range of sources and is equally suitable for use across all landscapes, from deserts to rain forests to urban
areas, and may be used at local, regional, and national scales.
Impervious Surface Analysis Tool
Developer: NOAA Coastal Services Center and the University of Connecticut Nonpoint Education for
Municipal Officials (NEMO) Program
More Information: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/isat/
The Impervious Surface Analysis Tool is used to calculate the percentage of impervious surface area of user-
selected geographic areas (e.g., watersheds, municipalities, subdivisions). The tool is available as an ArcView
3.x, ArcGIS 8.x, or ArcGIS 9.x extension.
A-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Land Change Modeler
Developer: Clark Labs
More Information: http://www.clarklabs.org/products/Land-Change-Modeler-Overview.cfm
The Land Change Modeler is land cover change analysis and prediction software that also incorporates tools
that allows one to analyze, measure, and project the impacts on habitat and biodiversity. Land Change Modeler
includes a suite of tools that address the complexities of change analysis, resource management, and habitat
assessment while maintaining a simple and automated workflow. The Land Change Modeler is included within
the IDRISI GIS and Image Processing software and is available as a software extension for use with ESRI's
ArcGIS product.
CommunityViz
Developer: Placeways
More Information: www.placeways.com/communityviz
CommunityViz planning software is an extension for ArcGIS Desktop. Planners, resource managers, local
and regional governments, and many others use CommunityViz to help make planning decisions about
development, land use, transportation, and conservation. A GIS-based decision-support tool, CommunityViz
"shows" the implications of different plans and choices. Both flexible and robust, it supports scenario planning,
sketch planning, 3-D visualization, suitability analysis, impact assessment, growth modeling, and other popular
techniques. Its many layers of functionality make it useful for a wide range of skill levels and applications.
NatureServe Vista
Developer: NatureServe
More Information: http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/vista/overview.isp
NatureServe Vista is a powerful, flexible, and free decision support system that helps users integrate conservation
with land use and resource planning of all types. Planners, resource managers, scientists, and conservationists
can use NatureServe Vista to:
• Conduct conservation planning and assessments.
• Integrate conservation values with other planning and assessment activities, such as
land use, transportation, energy, natural resource, and ecosystem-based management.
• Evaluate, create, implement, and monitor land use and resource management
scenarios designed to achieve conservation goals within existing economic, social,
and political contexts.
as •
Version 2.5 of NatureServe Vista now integrates interoperability with NOAA's Nonpoint Source Pollution
and Erosion Comparison Tool (NSPECT), as well
other hydrologic models to support integrated land-water
assessment and planning. NatureServe Vista operates on
the ESRI ArcGIS platform. NatureServe Vista supports
quantitative and defensible planning approaches that
incorporate science, expert opinion, community values,
and GIS. It works with a number of other useful software
tools to incorporate land use, economics, and ecological
and geophysical modeling. The flexible approach and
structure of Vista is suitable for planning and GIS experts,
as well as those with minimal training and support.
A-4
-------
Appendix A
Miradi
Developer: Conservation Measures Partnership
More Information: http://www.miradi.org
Miradi is a user-friendly program that allows nature conservation practitioners to design, manage, monitor, and
learn from their projects to more effectively meet their conservation goals. The program guides users through
a series of step-by-step interview wizards, based on the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. As
practitioners go through these steps, Miradi helps them to define their project scope, and design conceptual
models and spatial maps of their project site. The software helps users to prioritize threats, develop objectives
and actions, and select monitoring indicators to assess the effectiveness of their strategies. Miradi also supports
the development of workplans, budgets, and other tools to help practitioners implement and manage their
project. Users can export Miradi project data to reports or, in the future, to a central database to share their
information with other practitioners.
Habitat Priority Planner
Developer: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
More Information: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/hpp/
The Habitat Priority Planner is a spatial decision-support tool (for ArcGIS) designed to assist users in
identifying high-priority areas in the landscape or seascape for land use, conservation, climate change
adaptation, or restoration action. The Habitat Priority Planner packages several landscape-based spatial analyses
for the intermediate GIS user. Scenarios can be easily displayed and changed, making this a helpful companion
tool when working with a group. In addition to the scenarios, the tool also generates reports, maps, and data
tables.
Causal Analysis/Diagnosis Decision Information System (CADDIS)
Developer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://cfpub.epa.gov/caddis/
CADDIS is an online application that helps scientists and engineers find, access, organize, use, and share
information to conduct causal evaluations in aquatic systems. It is based on EPA's Stressor Identification
process, which is a formal method for identifying causes of impairments in aquatic systems.
Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS)
Developer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/basins/index.cfm
BASINS is a desktop-based, multipurpose environmental analysis system designed for use by regional, state,
and local agencies in performing watershed and water quality-based studies. This system makes it possible
to quickly assess large amounts of point source and nonpoint source data in a format that is easy to use and
understand. BASINS allows the user to assess water quality at selected stream sites or throughout an entire
watershed. This tool integrates environmental data, analytical tools, and modeling programs to support
development of cost-effective approaches to watershed management and environmental protection.
Visual Sample Pkn (VSP)
Developer: U.S. Department of Energy
More Information: http://vsp.pnl.gov/index.stm
VSP is a software tool that supports the development of a defensible sampling plan based on statistical
sampling theory and the statistical analysis of sample results to support confident decision making. VSP
couples visualization capabilities with optimal sampling design and statistical analysis strategies.
A-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (NSPECT)
Developer: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
More Information: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/nspect/
NSPECT helps predict potential water quality impacts to rivers and streams from nonpoint source pollution
and erosion. Users first enter information about their study area (land cover, elevation, precipitation, and soil
characteristics) to create the base data layer. They can then add different land cover change scenarios (such as
a new developed area) to obtain information about potential changes in surface water runoff, nonpoint source
pollution, and erosion.
Spatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes (SPARROW)
Developer: U.S. Geological Survey Monitoring Data *+ Qe°9raPhlLD!taLjyer5
More Information: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/
Predpitat
O£?^;vv
SPARROW is a modeling tool for the regional interpretation of water
quality monitoring data. The model relates instream water quality
measurements to spatially referenced characteristics of watersheds,
including contaminant sources and factors influencing terrestrial and
aquatic transport. SPARROW empirically estimates the origin and fate
of contaminants in river networks and quantifies uncertainties in model
predictions.
ArcHydro
Developer: University of Texas at Austin Center for Research in Water Resources
More Information: http://resources.arcgis.com/content/hydro-data-model
The ArcHydro Data Model can be defined as a geographic database containing a GIS representation of a
Hydrological Information System under a case-specific database design, which is extensible, flexible, and
adaptable to user requirements. It takes advantage of the next generation of spatial data in Relational Database
Management Systems, the geodatabase model. Conceptually, it is a combination of GIS objects enhanced
with the capabilities of a relational database to allow for relationships, topologies, and geometric networks.
ArcHydro facilitates a variety of GIS-based hydrologic analyses including watershed delineation, stream
network mapping, and watershed modeling.
Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration
Developer: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/conservationtools/artl7004.html
IHA is a software program that provides useful information for those trying to understand the hydrologic
impacts of human activities or trying to develop environmental flow recommendations for water managers.
This software program assesses 67 ecologically-relevant statistics derived from daily hydrologic data. For
instance, IHA can calculate the timing and maximum flow of each year's largest flood event or lowest flows,
then calculate the mean and variance of these values over a selected period of time. IHA's comparative analysis
can then help statistically describe how these patterns have changed for a particular river or lake, due to abrupt
impacts such as dam construction, or more gradual trends associated with land and water use changes.
A-6
-------
Appendix A
Water Budget Tools
A water budget is a conceptual model for understanding different water inflows and outflows of any given
system. It can be developed in order to evaluate the relative importance of surface water and ground water
inflows and outflows to a particular aquatic ecosystem or a conservation area as a whole. The relationships
between the system and its inflows and outflows are depicted using a figure to represent the system and arrows
pointed toward or away from the figure and scaled in size to match their direction and magnitude, respectively.
Where flow values have not been measured, estimates can be developed from sources such as local climate
stations, flow gaging stations, the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM),
or monthly average reference evapotranspiration values from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. In the case of
wetland water budgets, for example, there are four potential water inputs, each of which has a corresponding
potential output:
Surface water outflow (SWO).
Ground water outflow (GWO).
Tidal outflow (TO).
Surface water inflow (SWI).
Ground water inflow (GWI).
Tidal inflow (TI).
Precipitation (P). 4. Evapotranspiration (ET).
Although a water budget alone typically does not incorporate enough detail to form the basis for management
plans or policy decisions, a water budget can be a helpful tool for identifying data gaps and research needs and
planning future directions for resource management (Brown J., Wyers, Aldous, & Bach, 2007).
High water
table
Components of the wetland water budget. (P+SWI+GWI=ET+SWO+GWO+AS, where P is precipitation, SWI is
surface water inflow, SWO is surface water outflow, GWI is ground water inflow, GWO is ground water outflow,
ET is evapotranspiration, and AS is change in storage (Carter, 1996).
Hydrologic Engineering Center Regime Prescription Tool (HEC-RPT)
Developer: The Nature Conservatory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
More Information: http://www.nature.org/initiatives/freshwater/conservationtools/hecrpt.html
HEC-RPT is a visualization tool that is designed to complement existing software packages by facilitating
entry, viewing, and documentation of flow recommendations in real-time, public settings. The software was
developed in support of the Sustainable Rivers Project, a national partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and TNC to improve the health of rivers by changing the operations of Corps dams.
A-7
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Hydrologic Engineering Center Geospatial Hydrologic Modeling Extension (HEC-GeoHMS)
Developer: Army Corps of Engineers
More Information: http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/hec-geohms/
The HEC-GeoHMS has been developed as a geospatial hydrology toolkit for engineers and hydrologists with
limited GIS experience. HEC-GeoHMS uses ArcView and the Spatial Analyst extension to develop a number
of hydrologic modeling inputs for the Hydrologic Engineering Center's Hydrologic Modeling System, HEC-
HMS. Analyzing digital terrain data, HEC-GeoHMS transforms the drainage paths and watershed boundaries
into a hydrologic data structure that represents the drainage network. The program allows users to visualize
spatial information, document watershed characteristics, perform spatial analysis, and delineate subbasins and
streams. HEC-GeoHMS' interfaces, menus, tools, buttons, and context-sensitive online help allow the user to
expediently create hydrologic inputs for HEC-HMS.
The Hydroecological Integrity Assessment Process (HIP) Tools
Developer: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Resources/Research Briefs/HIP.asp
USGS scientists developed the HIP and a suite of tools for conducting a hydrologic classification of
streams, addressing instream flow needs, and assessing past and proposed hydrologic alterations on stream
flow and/or other ecosystem components. The HIP recognizes that stream flow is strongly related to many
critical physiochemical components of rivers, such as dissolved oxygen, channel geomorphology, and water
temperature, and can be considered a "master variable" that limits the disturbance, abundance, and diversity of
many aquatic plant and animal species.
The HIP is intended for use by any federal or state agency, institution, private firm, or nongovernmental entity
that has responsibility for or interest in managing and/or regulating streams to restore or maintain ecological
integrity. In addition, the HIP can assist researchers by identifying ecologically relevant, stream-class-specific
hydrologic indices that adequately characterize the five major components of the flow regime (magnitude,
frequency, duration, timing, and rate of change) by using 10 nonredundant indices. The HIP is developed at a
state or other large geographical area scale but is applied at the stream reach level.
StreamStats
Developer: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/
StreamStats is a web-based GIS that provides users with access to an assortment of analytical tools that are
useful for water resources planning and management, and for engineering design applications, such as the
design of bridges. StreamStats allows users to easily obtain monthly stream flow statistics, drainage basin
characteristics, and other information for user-selected sites on streams. StreamStats users can choose locations
of interest from an interactive map and obtain information for these locations. If a user selects the location of
a USGS data collection station, the user will be provided with a list of previously published information for
the station. If a user selects a location where no data are available (an ungaged site), StreamStats will delineate
the drainage basin boundary, measure basin characteristics and estimate monthly stream flow statistics for the
site. These estimates assume natural flow conditions at the site. StreamStats also allows users to identify stream
reaches that are upstream or downstream from user-selected sites, and to identify and obtain information for
locations along the streams where activities that may affect stream flow conditions are occurring.
-------
Appendix A
Massachusetts Sustainable Yield Estimator
Developer: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5227/pdf/sir2009-5227-508.pdf; http://ma.water.usgs.gov/
sarch/software/sye mainpage.htm
The Massachusetts Sustainable-Yield Estimator is a decision-support tool that calculates a screening-level
approximation of a basin's sustainable yield, defined as the difference between natural stream flow and the flow
regime required to support desired uses, such as aquatic habitat. A spatially-referenced database of permitted
surface water and ground water withdrawals and discharges is used to calculate daily stream flows at ungaged
sites; however, impacts from septic-system discharge, impervious area, non-public water-supply withdrawals
less than 100,000 gpd, and impounded surface water bodies are not accounted for in these stream flow
estimates. Because this tool was developed with considerations specific to the hydrology of Massachusetts,
it can potentially be adapted for use in other New England states, but may not be applicable outside this
geographic region.
Tools for Understanding Ground Water and Biodiversity
Developer: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: http://www.srnr.arizona.edu/nemo/WebDocs/Groundwater%20Methods%20Guide%20
TNC%201an08.pdf
This appendix offers a brief discussion of several tools that can be used with the assistance of experts in the field
to develop an understanding of the relationship between ground water and biodiversity. The tools discussed
address the following topics: modeling recharge areas, seepage runs, base flow as a percentage of annual stream
flow, water table data, Forward Looking Infrared Remote Sensing, water chemistry analysis, and environmental
tracer analysis. Both motivations and data requirements for using these tools as well as the limitations of the
tools are considered.
Long-Term Hydrologic Impact Assessment (L-THIA)
Developer: Local Government Environmental Assistance Network
More Information: http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/runoff/lthianew/
The L-THIA model was developed as an online tool to support the assessment of land use changes on water
quality. Based on community-specific climate data, L-THIA estimates changes in recharge, runoff, and
nonpoint source pollution resulting from past or proposed development. As a quick and easy-to-use approach,
L-THIA's results can be used to generate community awareness of potential long-term problems and to support
planning aimed at minimizing disturbance of critical areas. L-THIA assists in the evaluation of potential effects
of land use change and identifies the best location of a particular land use so as to have minimum impact on a
community's natural environment.
Low Impact Development (LID) Urban Design Tools Web site
Developer: Low Impact Development Center (through a cooperative assistance agreement with EPA)
More Information: http://www.lid-stormwater.net/index.html
The LID Urban Design Tools website was developed to provide guidance to local governments, planners,
and engineers for developing, administering, and incorporating LID into their aquatic resource protection
programs. LID technology is an alternative comprehensive approach to stormwater management. It can be
used to address a wide range of wet weather flow issues, including combined sewer overflows, stormwater
runoff, and pollutant loading.
A-9
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
GeoTools
Developer: Brian Bledsoe
More Information: http://www.engr.colostate.edu/^bbledsoe/GeoTool/
To improve watershed management in the context of changing land uses, GeoTools estimates long-term
changes in stream erosion potential, channel processes, and instream disturbance regime. The models include
a suite of stream/land use management modules designed to operate with either continuous or single event
hydrologic input in a variety of formats. The tools can also be used as a post-processor for the Storm Water
Management Model (SWMM) and Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF) model (included in EPA's
BASINS), as well as for any general time series of discharges. Based on the two input channel geometry and
flow series, the various modules can provide users with estimates of the following characteristics for pre and
post land use change conditions: (1) the temporal distribution of hydraulic parameters including shear stress,
specific stream power, and potential mobility of various particle sizes; (2) effective discharge/sediment yield;
(3) potential changes in sediment transport and yield as a result of altered flow and sedimentation regimes;
(4) frequency, depth, and duration of bed scour; and (5) several geomorphically relevant hydrologic metrics
relating to channel form, flow effectiveness, and "flashiness."
Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) Environmental Decision Toolkit
Developer: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://amethyst.epa.gov/revatoolkit/Welcome.isp
EPA's ReVA program is designed to produce the methods needed to understand
a region's environmental quality and its spatial pattern. The objective is to assist
decision makers in making better-informed decisions and in estimating the large-
scale changes that might result from their actions.
A-10
-------
Appendix B. Sources of National
Data
Watershed Boundary Dataset
Source: U.S. Geological Survey and Natural Resources Conservation Service
More Information: http://www.ncgc.nrcs.usda.gov/products/datasets/watershed/
Watershed boundaries define the aerial extent of surface water drainage to a point. Hydrologic Unit Codes
(HUCs) are used to identify each hydrologic unit and are organized in a hierarchical fashion. The first level of
classification divides the nation into 21 major geographic areas, or regions. The second level of classification
divides the 21 regions into 221 subregions. The third level of classification subdivides the subregions into
378 hydrologic accounting units. The fourth level of classification subdivides the hydrologic accounting units
into 2,264 cataloging units. The fifth level of classification subdivides these into watersheds and the sixth
level subdivides watersheds into sub-watersheds. A hydrologic unit has a single flow outlet except in coastal
or lakefront areas. However, multiple hydrologic units must be combined to represent the true hydrologic
watershed in many instances.
National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://nhd.usgs.gov/
The NHD is a comprehensive set of spatial data representing the surface water
of the United States using common features such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers,
canals, and oceans. These data are designed to be used in general mapping and in £"""»"™™ro>™«ri»!*.,»„,»„re
the analysis of surface water systems using GIS.
National Elevation Dataset (NED)
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://ned.usgs.gov/
The NED replaces Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) as the primary elevation data product of the USGS.
The NED is a seamless dataset with the best available raster elevation
data of the conterminous United States, Alaska, Hawaii, and territorial
islands. The NED is updated on a nominal two month cycle to integrate
newly available, improved elevation source data. All NED data are public
domain. The NED is derived from diverse source data that are processed to
a common coordinate system and unit of vertical measure. NED data are
available nationally (except for Alaska) at resolutions of 1 arc-second (about
30 meters) and 1/3 arc-second (about 10 meters), and in limited areas at
1/9 arc-second (about 3 meters).
Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO)
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service
More Information: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/
SSURGO is the most detailed level of soil mapping performed by the NRCS. The soil maps in SSURGO are
created using field mapping methods based on national standards. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original
soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships, and county natural
resource planning and management. The user should be knowledgeable of soils data and their characteristics.
B-l
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
National Land Cover Database (NLCD)
Source: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
More Information: http://www.mrlc.gov/
NLCD is a national land cover database with several independent data layers, which allow users a wide variety
of potential applications. The data are provided at a resolution of 30 meters and include 21 classes of land
cover, estimates of impervious cover, and tree canopy cover.
Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior
More Information: http://frcc.gov/
LANDFIRE Rapid Assessment FRCC delineates a standardized index to measure the departure of current
conditions from reference conditions. FRCC is defined as a relative measure describing the degree of departure
from the reference fire regime. This departure results in changes to one (or more) of the following ecological
components: vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other
associated disturbances. These data can be downloaded for any region of the country to evaluate the degree of
departure from the natural fire regime.
National Climate Data Center (NCDC)
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
More Information: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
NCDC is the world's largest active archive of weather data. NCDC produces numerous climate publications
and responds to data requests from all over the world. Accurate weather data are required by many watershed
modeling programs and can be obtained from NCDC.
Climate Wizard
Source: The Nature Conservancy, University of Washington, University of Southern Mississippi
More Information: http://www.climatewizard.org/
ClimateWizard enables technical and non-technical audiences alike to access leading climate change
information and visualize the impacts anywhere on Earth. The first generation of this web-based program
allows the user to choose a state or country and both assess how climate has changed over time and to project
what future changes are predicted to occur in a given area. ClimateWizard represents the first time ever the full
range of climate history and impacts for a landscape have been brought together in a user-friendly format.
Integrated Climate and Land Use Scenarios (ICLUS)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=205305
ICLUS is an ArcGIS extension that derives land use change projections that are consistent with Special Report
on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) driving global circulation models and other land-use change modeling efforts.
The residential housing and impervious surface datasets provide a substantial first step toward comprehensive
national land use/land cover scenarios, which have broad applicability for integrated assessments as these data
and tools are publicly available.
B-2
-------
Appendix B
Water Quality Exchange (WQX)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://www.epa.gov/storet/wqx/index.html
EPA developed the National STOrage and RETrieval (STORET) Data Warehouse in 2001 to store and make
available water quality data collected by federal agencies, states, tribes, watershed organizations and universities.
A chief goal of the national data warehouse has always been to encourage data sharing and to support national,
regional, and local analyses of water quality data collected around the country. Until now, to upload water
quality data into STORET, users needed to operate the Oracle-based STORET database. This was cumbersome
and difficult for many users. The Water Quality Exchange (WQX) is a new framework that makes it easier to
submit and share water quality monitoring data over the Internet. EPA will continue to maintain STORET
to ensure that data of documented quality are available across jurisdictional and organizational boundaries.
However, with WQX, groups who collect water quality data no longer need to use STORET to submit their
information to the National STORET Data Warehouse. Ease of use will encourage more groups to transfer
their data to the Warehouse, where it will be of value to federal, state, and local water quality managers as well
as the public.
National Water Information System (NWIS)
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
More Information: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/help?nwisweb overview
The USGS maintains a distributed network of computers and fileservers for the acquisition, processing, review,
dissemination, and long-term storage of water data collected at over 1.5 million sites around the country
and at some border and territorial sites. This distributed network of computers is called the National Water
Information System (NWIS). Many types of data are stored in NWIS, including comprehensive information
for site characteristics, well construction details, time-series data for gage height, stream flow, ground water
level, precipitation, and physical and chemical properties of water. Additionally, peak flows, chemical analyses
for discrete samples of water, sediment, and biological media are accessible within NWIS. NWISWeb provides
a framework to obtain data on the basis of category, such as surface water, ground water, or water quality, and
by geographic area. Further refinement is possible by choosing specific site-selection criteria and by defining
the output desired. NWIS includes data from as early as 1899 to present.
Distribution of Native U.S. Fishes by Watershed
Source: NatureServe
More Information: http://www.natureserve.org/getData/dataSets/watershedHucs/index.isp
NatureServe has compiled detailed data on the current and historic distributions of the native freshwater fishes
of the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii. Lists of the native fish species of each small watershed
(8-digit cataloging unit) are provided to facilitate biological assessments and interpretation.
Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US)
Source: National Biological Information Infrastructure
More Information: http://www.protectedlands.net/padus/
The PAD-US is a national database of federal and state conservation lands. The protected areas included in
the PAD-US include lands that are dedicated to the preservation of biological diversity and to other natural,
recreational and cultural uses, and managed for these purposes through legal or other effective means. These
lands are essential for conserving species and habitat. The lands in PAD-US also include other types of
publicly owned open space areas, whether used for recreational, managed resource development, water quality
protection, or other uses.
B-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds:
NatureServe Data
Source: NatureServe
More Information: http://www.natureserve.org/getData/index.isp
NatureServe and its network of member programs are a leading source for reliable scientific information about
species and ecosystems of the Western Hemisphere. This site serves as a portal for accessing several types of
publicly available biodiversity data including the Natural Heritage data for all states.
The Nature Conservancy's Spatial Data Resources
Source: The Nature Conservancy
More Information: http://maps.tnc.org/
Spatial data and related information plays a vital role in conservation at The Nature Conservancy. A wealth
of data are generated across the organization throughout various parts of the process from setting priorities
through ecoregional assessments to developing strategies, taking action and tracking results as part of
conservation projects to managing information on properties they purchase to protect. The primary purpose
of this site is to make this core conservation data publically available through easy-to-use web map viewers for
non-GIS users, as well as in raw form via map services for more experienced GIS professionals.
FactFinder
Source: United States Census Bureau
More Information: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html? lang=en
American FactFinder is an online source for population, housing, economic and geographic data that presents
the results from four key data programs:
• Decennial Census of Housing and Population - 1990 and 2000.
• Economic Census 1997 and 2002.
• American Community Survey - 2005-2007-
• Population Estimates Program - July 1, 2003 to July 1, 2007-
Results from each of these data programs are provided in the form of datasets, tables, thematic maps, and
reference maps. These data can be useful for identifying threats to watershed ecosystems.
Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental ResultS (WATERS)
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
More Information: http://www.epa.gov/waters/
WATERS is an integrated information system for the nation's surface waters. The EPA Office of Water manages
numerous programs in support of the Agency's water quality efforts. Many of these programs collect and store
water quality related data in databases. These databases are managed by the individual Water Programs and
this separation often inhibits the integrated application of the data they contain. Under WATERS, the Water
Program databases are connected to a larger framework. This framework is a digital network of surface water
features, known as the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). By linking to the NHD, one Water Program
database can reach another, and information can be shared across programs.
B-4
-------
Appendix B
LandScope
Source: NatureServe, National Geographic
More Information: http://www.landscope.org/
LandScope America is an online resource for the land protection community and the public. By bringing
together maps, data, photos, and stories about America's natural places and open spaces, LandScope's goal is
to inform and inspire conservation of land and water.
National Adas
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior
More Information: http://www.nationalatlas.gov/index.html
The National Atlas is an online map containing data layers available for viewing and download for the entire
United States. These data layers include agricultural, biological, climate, political, economic, environmental,
geological, historical, and other major categories. It is a convenient source of data for many watershed
assessment applications.
National Fish Habitat Action Plan Spatial Framework K^ NATIONAL
Source: National Fish Habitat Action Plan ^E 3 FISH HABITAT
More Information: http://fishhabitat.org ^J J- ACTION PLAN
The Science and Data Team of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan ^ ^
has developed a national spatial framework to facilitate summary and sharing of available national datasets in
support of conservation and management offish habitats in the conterminous United States. The framework
is based upon the National Hydrography Dataset Plus (NHDPlus), and data are summarized for local and
network catchments of individual stream reaches. Currently, 17 natural and anthropogenic disturbance
variables have been attributed to local catchments and aggregated for network catchments and are available
across various geographic extents incorporated into the spatial framework.
B-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds:
B-6
-------
Appendix C. Cited Assessment
and Management Examples
Assessment and Management Examples Organized Nationally and by State
http://water.epa.gov/healthywatersheds
Biological Condition Gradient and Tiered Aquatic Life Uses
http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/htm l/bcg.htm I
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
http://www.conserveonline.org/workspaces/eloha
Enabling Source Water Protection
www.landuseandwater.org
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
http://www.epa.gov/bioiwebl/htm l/ibi history.htm I
Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class
http://f ram es.nbii.gov/docu ments/frcc/documents/FRCC+Guidebook2008.10.30.pdf
Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition
ftp://ftp.blm.gov/pub/nstc/techrefs/Final%20TR%201737-9.pdf
National Fish Habitat Assessment
www.fishhabitat.org
NatureServe's Natural Heritage Program Biodiversity Assessments
http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/network.Jsp
The Nature Conservancy's Approach to Setting Freshwater Conservation Priorities
http://www.conservationgateway.org/topic/setting-freshwater-priorities
Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
http://www.natureserve.org/library/uppermsriverbasin.pdf
The Nature Conservancy's Active River Area
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/freshwaterbooks/documents/active-river-area-a-conservation-framework-for/view.html
The Nature Conservancy's Ground Water Dependent Ecosystem Assessment
http://tinyurl.com/GDE-Workspace
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Lakes Assessment
http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/lakessurvey index.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA)
http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/riverssurvey index.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Recovery Potential Screening Tools
http://www.epa.gov/recoverypotential
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program
http://www.epa.gov/reva/
U.S. Geological Survey's Aquatic GAP Analysis Program
http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/projects/aquatic/default.htm
U.S. Geological Survey's Regional and National Monitoring and Assessments of Streams and Rivers
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/studies/mrb/
C-l
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
California Healthy Streams Partnership
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/mywaterquality/monitoring council/meetings/2011Jun/hsp outreach.pdf
California Rapid Assessment Method
http://www.cramwetlands.org/
California Watershed Assessment Manual
http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/
Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Least Disturbed Watersheds
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water/water quality management/ic studies/least disturbed rpt.pdf
^^^^H
Delaware River Basin Commission's use of Antidegradation
http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/spw.htm
Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Least Disturbed Watersheds Approach
http://www.kdheks.gov/befs/download/bibliography/Kansas reference stream report.pdf
Enabling Source Water Protection in Maine
http://www.landuseandwater.org/index.htm
Headwaters: A Collaborative Conservation Plan for the Town of Sanford, Maine
http://swim.wellsreserve.org/resu lts.php?article=828Conservation%20Strategy%20September%207,%202010.pdf
Maine Department of Environmental Protection's Tiered Aquatic Life Uses
http://www.maine.aov/dep/water/monitorina/biomonitorinq/index.html
Maryland
Anne Arundel County's Greenways Master Plan
http://www.aacounty.org/PlanZone/MasterPlans/Greenways/Index.cfm
Cecil County, Maryland Green Infrastructure Plan
http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/CecilCounty01.22.08.pdf
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Green Infrastructure Assessment
http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/
Maryland Department of Natural Resources' Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00014357.pdf
Michigan
Michigan's Natural Rivers Program
http://www.rn ichigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301 31431 31442—.OO.html
Michigan's Regional Scale Habitat Suitability Model to Assess the Effects of Flow Reduction on Fish Assemblages in Michigan
Streams
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/RR2089 268570 7.pdf
Michigan's Water Withdrawal Assessment
http://web2.msue.msu.edu/bulletins/Bulletin/PDF/WO60.pdf
C-2
-------
Appendix C
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Fen Protection Program
http://www.dnr.state.rn n.us/eco/wetlands/index.htm I
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Watershed Assessment Tool
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed tool/index.htm I
Minnesota Healthy Watersheds Program
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/legislative/2010 healthy watersheds.pdf
Minnesota National Lakes Assessment
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/surface-water/lakes/lake-water-quality/national-lakes-
assessment-proiect-nlap.html?menuid = &redirect=l
The U.S. Forest Service and Trust for Public Land's Lower Meramec Drinking Water Source Protection Project
http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/landwater-lowermer-swp-brochure.pdf
North Carolina
National Wild and Scenic Rivers: Lumber River, North Carolina
http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-lumber.html
IM^^^|
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwaters Habitat Assessment
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/index.aspx
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.aspx
Ohio Rapid Assessment Method
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wetlands/WetlandEcologySection.aspxffORAM
U.S. Geological Survey's Ohio Aquatic GAP Analysis: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native
Aquatic Animal Species
http://pubs.er.usqs.qov/usqspubs/ofr/ofr20061385
Oklahoma
Oklahoma National Rivers and Streams Assessment
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports pdf/REMAP-OKStream River ProbMonitorNetwork.pdf
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Identifying GDEs and Characterizing their Ground Water Resources in the Whychus Creek Watershed
http://tinyurl.com/GDE-Workspace
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's Oregon Water Quality Index
http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/wqimain.htm
Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center
http://orbic.pdx.edu/
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual
http://www.oreaon.aov/OWEB/docs/pubs/OR wsassess manuals.shtml#OR Watershed Assessment Manual
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program's Aquatic Community Classification and Watershed Conservation Prioritization
http://www.naturalheritaae.state.pa.us/aauaticslntro.aspx
Tennessee
Beaver Creek Green Infrastructure Plan (Knox County, TN)
http://ww2.tdot.state.tn.us/sr475/library/bcgitdot.pdf
C-3
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
San Antonio River Basin Instream Flow Assessment
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/instreamflows/sanantonioriverbasin.html
Texas Instream Flow Program
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water supply/water rights/eflows/resources.html
The Central Texas Greenprint for Growth: A Regional Action Plan for Conservation and Economic Opportunity
http://envisioncentraltexas.org/resources/GreenprintMkt.pdf
Rapid Stream Riparian Assessment
http://wildutahproject.org/files/images/rsra-ug2010v2 wcover.pdf
Geomorphic Assessment and River Corridor Planning of the Batten Kill Main-Stem and Major Tributaries, Vermont
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv geoassess.htm
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources River Corridor Protection Program
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv restoration.htm
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources' Stream Geomorphic and Reach Habitat Assessment Protocols
http://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv geoassess.htm
^Q^^^^^^^^^^^^^J
Green Infrastructure in Hampton Roads, Virginia
http://www.hrpdc.org/PEP/PEP Green InfraPlan2010.asp
Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment Vulnerability Model
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnavulnerable.shtm I
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Healthy Waters Program
www.dcr.virginia.gov/healthywaters
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Interactive Stream Assessment Resource (INSTAR)
http://instar.vcu.edu
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Natural Landscape Assessment
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnavnla.shtml
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Watershed Integrity Model
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnawater.shtml
Virginia Land Conservation Data Explorer
www.vaconservedlands.org
Watershed-Based Zoning in James City County, Virginia
http://www.jccegov.com/environmental/index.html
Washington
Washington's Critical Areas Growth Management Act
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/418/default.aspx
Wyoming
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality's Aquifer Sensitivity and Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment
http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/techmemos/swquality.html
The Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee's Wetlands Conservation Strategy
http://gf.state.w
7,%202010.pdf
C-4
-------
Appendix C
Assessment Examples
Landscape Condition
Anne Arundel County's Greenways Master Plan
http://www.aacounty.org/PlanZone/MasterPlans/Greenways/Index.cfm
Beaver Creek Green Infrastructure Plan (Knox County, TN)
http://ww2.tdot.state.tn.us/sr475/library/bcgitdot.pdf
Green Infrastructure in Hampton Roads, Virginia
http://www.hrpdc.org/PEP/PEP Green InfraPlan2010.asp
Interagency Fire Regime Condition Class
http://f ram es.nbii.gov/docu ments/frcc/documents/FRCC+Guidebook2008.10.30.pdf
Maryland Department of Natural Resources Green Infrastructure Assessment
http://www.greenprint.maryland.gov/
The Nature Conservancy's Active River Area
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/freshwaterbooks/documents/active-river-area-a-conservation-framework-for/view.html
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Natural Landscape Assessment
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnavnla.shtm I
Virginia Land Conservation Data Explorer
www.vaconservedlands.org
California Rapid Assessment Method
http://www.cramwetlands.org/
Maryland Department of Natural Resources' Physical Habitat Index for Freshwater Wadeable Streams
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/irc/docs/00014357.pdf
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Primary Headwaters Habitat Assessment
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/wqs/headwaters/index.aspx
Ohio Rapid Assessment Method
http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dsw/wetlands/WetlandEcologySection.aspxffORAM
Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition
ftp://ftp.blm.gov/pub/nstc/techrefs/Final%20TR%201737-9.pdf
Rapid Stream Riparian Assessment
http://wildutahproiect.ora/files/imaaes/rsra-ua2010v2 wcover.pdf
C-5
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Hydrology
Ecological Limits of Hydrologic Alteration
http://www.conserveonline.org/workspaces/eloha
Identifying GDEs and Characterizing their Ground Water Resources in the Whychus Creek Watershed
http://tinyurl.com/GDE-Workspace
Michigan's Regional Scale Habitat Suitability Model to Assess the Effects of Flow Reduction on Fish Assemblages in Michigan
Streams
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/RR2089 268570 7.pdf
San Antonio River Basin Instream Flow Assessment
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/instreamflows/sanantonioriverbasin.html
Texas Instream Flow Program
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water supply/water rights/eflows/resources.html
The Nature Conservancy's Ground Water Dependent Ecosystem Assessment
http://tinvurl.com/GDE-Workspace
Geomorphology
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources' Stream Geomorphic and Reach Habitat Assessment Protocols
http://www.vtwaterquality.org/rivers/htm/rv geoassess.htm
Geomorphic Assessment and River Corridor Planning of the Batten Kill Main-Stem and Major Tributaries, Vermont
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/docs/rv battenkillreport.pdf
Water Quality
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's Oregon Water Quality Index
http://www.dea.state.or.us/lab/wam/wgimain.htm
Biological Condition
Biological Condition Gradient and Tiered Aquatic Life Uses
http://www.epa.gov/bioindicators/html/bcg.html
Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI)
http://www.epa.gov/bioiwebl/htm l/ibi history.htm I
Maine Department of Environmental Protection's Tiered Aquatic Life Uses
http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonitoring/index.html
Natural Heritage Program Biodiversity Assessments
http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/network.Jsp
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency's Statewide Biological and Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment
http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/bioassess/ohstrat.aspx
Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center
http://orbic.pdx.edu/
U.S. Geological Survey's Aquatic GAP Analysis Program
http://www.gap.uidaho.edu/projects/aquatic/default.htm
U.S. Geological Survey's Ohio Aquatic GAP Analysis: An Assessment of the Biodiversity and Conservation Status of Native
Aquatic Animal Species
http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/ofr/ofr20061385
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Interactive Stream Assessment Resource (INSTAR)
http://instar.vcu.edu
C-6
-------
Appendix C
National Aquatic Resource Assessments
Minnesota National Lakes Assessment
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-programs/surface-water/lakes/lake-water-quality/national-
lakesassessm ent-proiect-nlap.htm l?menuid = &redirect=l
Oklahoma National Rivers and Streams Assessment
http://www.owrb.ok.gov/studies/reports/reports pdf/REMAP-OKStreamRiver ProbMonitorNetwork.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Lakes Assessment
http://water.epa.gov/type/lakes/lakessurvey index.cfm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National River and Streams Assessment (NRSA)
http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/riverssurvey/riverssurvey index.cfm
U.S.Geological Survey's Regional and National Monitoring and Assessments of Streams and Rivers
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/studies/mrb/
Integrated Assessments
California Watershed Assessment Manual
http://cwam.ucdavis.edu/
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Least Disturbed Watersheds
http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/water/water quality management/ic studies/least disturbed rpt.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Recovery Potential Screening Tool
www.epa.gov/recoverypotential/
Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Least Disturbed Watersheds Approach
http://www.kdheks.gov/befs/download/bibliography/Kansas reference stream report.pdf
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Watershed Assessment Tool
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/watershed tool/index.html
National Fish Habitat Assessment
http://fishhabitat.org/
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's Watershed Assessment Manual
http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/OR wassess manuals.shtml#OR Watershed Assessment Manual
Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program's Aquatic Community Classification and Watershed Conservation Prioritization
http://www.naturalheritage.state.pa.us/aquaticslntro.aspx
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Watershed Integrity Model
http://www.dcr.virainia.gov/natural heritage/vclnawater.shtml
Vulnerability
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Regional Vulnerability Assessment Program
http://www.epa.gov/reva/
Virginia Conservation Lands Needs Assessment Vulnerability Model
http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural heritage/vclnavulnerable.shtml
Wyoming Department of Envrionmental Quality's Aquifer Sensitivity and Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment
http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/techmemos/swquality.html
C-7
-------
Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds
Management Examples
Enabling Drinking Water Source Protection
http://www.landuseandwater.org/
The Nature Conservancy's Approach to Setting Freshwater Conservation Priorities
http://www.conservationgateway.org/topic/setting-freshwater-priorities
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Healthy Watersheds Initiative Website
http://water.epa.gov/healthvwatersheds
State/Interstate
California Healthy Streams Partnership
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/mywaterquality/monitoring council/meetings/2011Jun/hsp outreach.pdf
Delaware River Basin Commission's use of Antidegradation
http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/spw.htm
Enabling Source Water Protection in Maine
http://www.landuseandwater.org/maine.html
Maryland's GreenPrint Program
www.greenprint.maryland.gov
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources' Fen Protection Program
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/wetlands/index.html
Minnesota Healthy Watersheds Program
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/reports/legislative/2010 healthy watersheds.pdf
NatureServe's Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Biodiversity in the Upper Mississippi River Basin
http://www.natureserve.org/library/uppermsriverbasin.pdf
Michigan's Natural Rivers Program
http://www.rn ichigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301 31431 31442—.OO.htm I
Michigan's Water Withdrawal Assessment
http://web2.msue.msu.edu/bulletins/Bulletin/PDF/WO60.pdf
The Wyoming Joint Ventures Steering Committee's Wetlands Conservation Strategy
http://gf.state.w
7,%202010.pdf
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources River Corridor Protection Program
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/rivers/htm/rv restoration.htm
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation's Healthy Waters Program
www.dcr.virginia.gov/healthywaters
Washington's Critical Areas Growth Management Act
http://www.commerce.wa.gov/site/418/default.aspx
-------
Appendix C
Cecil County, Maryland Green Infrastructure Plan
http://www.conservationfund.org/sites/default/files/CecilCounty01.22.08.pdf
Headwaters: A Collaborative Conservation Plan for the Town of Sanford, Maine
http://www.wellsreserve.org/blog/63-headwaters a collaborative conservation plan for the town of sanford
National Wild and Scenic Rivers: Lumber River, North Carolina
http://www.rivers.gov/wsr-lumber.html
The Central Texas Greenprint for Growth: A Regional Action Plan for Conservation and Economic Opportunity
http://envisioncentraltexas.org/resources/GreenprintMkt.pdf
The U.S. Forest Service and Trust for Public Land's Lower Meramec Drinking Water Source Protection Project
http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/landwater-lowermer-swp-brochure.pdf
Watershed-Based Zoning in James City County, Virginia
http://www.icceaov.com/environmental/index.html
C-9
-------
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W (4503T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Healthy
Watersheds
------- |