EPA/600/R-17/1381 October 2017 | www.epa.gov/research
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Using Ecosystem Function
in the Clean Water Act
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
-------
-------
Using Ecosystem Function
the Clean Water Act
Prepared by
Joan L. Aron1, Robert K. Hall2, Daniel T. Heggem3, John Lin3,
Michael J. Philbin4, Robin J. Schafer5, Sherman Swanson6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
'Aron Environmental Consulting, Columbia, MD
2USEPA Region IX, WTR2, San Francisco, CA
3USEPA Office of Research and Development, NERL, SED, EIB, Las Vegas, NV
4Bureau of Land Management, Montana/Dakotas State Office, Billings, MT
5University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, San Juan, PR
6Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Nevada, Reno, NV
111
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
iv
-------
Notice
The information in this document has been funded in part by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency under contract number EP-14-Z-000030 to Joan Aron. It has been subjected to the
Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication as a USEPA
document.
v
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
vi
-------
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to recognize the good people who helped us with this report: Kevin
Broadnax, Tad Harris, Pam Grossmann, May Fong, Maria Gregorio and Howard Kahan. We are also
grateful to Robert J. Miltner, Chris O. Yoder, Brian Schumacher and Megan Mehaffey who peer
reviewed this report.
vii
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
viii
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures xi
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations xiii
Executive Summary xv
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Widespread Impairments of Water Quality 2
1.2 Ecosystem Function for Sustainability of Water Quality 6
1.3 How Ecosystem Function Can Be Used with the Clean Water Act 10
2.0 Assessments 13
2.1 Alternative to Total Maximum Daily Loads for Restoring Water Quality 16
2.2 Conserving and Restoring Ecosystem Services 18
2.3 Protecting the Source 20
3.0 Comparison with other Ecosystem Protection and Restoration Approaches 23
4.0 Monitoring and Adaptive Management 25
5.0 Scientific and Technological Developments 27
6.0 Partnerships Needed 29
7.0 Conclusion 31
8.0 References 33
9.0 Quality Assurance Summary 43
IX
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
x
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Satellite Image of
Lake Erie on October 9, 2011. This image shows the algae bloom occurring
within Lake Erie. Source: http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/ 4
Figure 2a. Bear Creek - Central Oregon, May 1977. Source: National Riparian Service Team
[NRST] (2009). Introduction to Riparian Function: Bear Creek Example. BLM
USDOI. Slide 33 - Photograph on the left-hand side. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/pfcassess.php
(accessed April 27, 2014) 8
Figure 2b. Bear Creek - Central Oregon, May 2007. Source: NRST (2009). Introduction to
Riparian Function: Bear Creek Example. BLM USDOI. Slide 33 - Photograph
on the right-hand side. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/pfcassess.php
(accessed April 27, 2014) 8
Figure 3a. Difference in air and water temperatures, Bear Creek - Central Oregon, August
1976. Source: NRST (2009). Introduction to Riparian Function: Bear Creek
Example. BLM USDOI. Slide 29 - Graph on the left-hand side. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/pfcassess.php
(accessed April 27, 2014) 9
Figure 3b. Difference in air and water temperatures, Bear Creek - Central Oregon, August
1998. Source: NRST (2009). Introduction to Riparian Function: Bear Creek
Example. BLM USDOI. Slide 30 - Graph on the left-hand side. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/pfcassess.php
(accessed April 27, 2014) 9
Figure 4. The three functional rating determinations from the Riparian PFC assessment 14
Figure 5. Location map of Upper Reese River Basin assessment reaches (RR-1, RR-2,
RR-3 and RR-4). Diversion dams are marked (DD-A, DD-C and DD-F). Center
box designates the US Forest Service property. Landsat image is from July 2000.
Reaches RR-1 and RR-3 were assessed as Nonfunctional. Reaches RR-2 and
RR-4 were assessed as Functional at Risk. Source: Hall et al., 2014 17
Figure 6. Map showing Colquitz River - Vancouver Island in British Columbia (Canada)
with the lower reach breaks used for the PFC assessment. Source: Buchanan et
al., 2009 19
XI
-------
List of Figures (cont)
Figure 7. Satellite Image of the Lotic (Stream) Field Study Site, Cold Creek Nevada,
2014. Source: Hall et al., 2014b 21
Figure 8. Cold Creek Upstream view - Nevada, 2014. This reach of Cold Creek was
determined to be nonfunctional using PFC. Source: Hall et al., 2014b 22
Xll
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
BLM
US Bureau of Land Management
CBF
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
CEC
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
CWA
US Clean Water Act
HAB
Harmful Algal Bloom
IJC
International Joint Commission
LIDAR
Light Detection and Radar
LUMCON
Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium
LVWCC
Las Vegas Wash Coordination Committee
I A W AY P
Las Vegas Wash Weed Partnership
MODIS
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer
NO A A
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS
Nonpoint Source
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRC
US National Research Council
NRCS
US Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRST
US National Riparian Service Team
PFC
Proper Functioning Condition
PNC
Potential Natural Condition
SHCRP
Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
STAC
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
TEK
Traditional Ecological Knowledge
TMDL
Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS
Total Suspended Solids
-------
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations (cont)
USACE
US Army Corps of Engineers
USD A
US Department of Agriculture
USDOI
US Department of the Interior
USGAO
US Government Accountability Office
USEPA
US Environmental Protection Agency
WQS
Water Quality Standards
XIV
-------
Executive Summary
Clean, fresh water is one of our most precious natural resources. The Clean Water Act was
enacted to control pollution. It has been highly successful in controlling pollution at the point of
contamination. Yet, there are still areas where vast improvements need to be made. Environmental
monitoring for water quality results indicates pollution from nonpoint sources needs to be
controlled. Water quality improvements will depend on solutions requiring a different way of
thinking. This report gives examples, by way of case studies, showing how monitoring the drivers
of ecosystem function physical processes will identify problems and target solutions for water
quality and aquatic community improvements. Monitoring the drivers of ecosystem function
physical processes can be an integral component of Clean Water Act activities by assisting
communities to manage their natural resources to make a difference in the control of nonpoint
source pollution.
This report provides a review of research and examples where ecosystem function physical
processes are used to support the sustainability of water quality. The aim is to transfer experience
from using ecosystem function physical processes for ecosystem restoration and apply it to the
control of stressors, particularly nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. The assessment methodology
adopted from monitoring restoration projects is well-suited to make a substantial and sustainable
contribution to the control of persistent water quality problems. Before turning to a presentation
of assessment methodology and examples, we establish the continuing concerns about the quality
of US waters, explain how ecosystem function relates to these concerns about water quality, and
outline how ecosystem function can be used as a viable tool within the CWA.
Ecosystem function provides a means of managing ecological processes, but what are these
processes? The central concept is an ordering of five stream functions so that each stratum depends
on the function immediately below it (Harman et al., 2012). The first level is hydrology, which
describes how water moves from the watershed to the stream channel. The second level
characterizes the movement of water in the channel, on the floodplain and through sediments. The
third level is geomorphology for the formation of streambeds from woody material and sediment.
The fourth level is physicochemical, including temperature, oxygen and organic matter. The fifth
level of biology refers to aquatic (Karr, 1998) and riparian biodiversity (Winward, 2000), whose
function depends on all the other physical processes.
XV
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
xvi
-------
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to show how the assessment and management of ecosystem
function in healthy watersheds can be an integral component of Clean Water Act (CWA) activities.
Since the nation has more than four decades of experience in pollution control under the CWA,
including a Healthy Watersheds Initiative, a natural question is: Aren 'twe already doing this? The
short answer is: no.
The CWA establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the
waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The CWA made it
unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was
obtained through USEPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program controls discharges, (source https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-
water-act). USEPA programs focused on using permits and chemical centric emphasis has been
successful in diminishing point source (PS) stressors but has been lacking in dealing with NPS
pollutants (Hall et al., 2014a; Karr and Yoder 2004). This chemical centric process (Karr and
Yoder, 2004) ignores ecologically toxic effects of altered flows, excess/depleted sediment supply,
groundwater withdrawals, invasive plant and aquatic species, stream channel incision, and release
of pollutants long stored in riparian areas (Swanson et al., 2017; Kozlowski et al., 2013). Improved
assessment methods have outpaced the pollutant focused administration of the CWA for water
quality standards (WQS) and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of beneficial uses. Therefore,
the objective is to modernize the CWA by incorporating new tools such as measuring the drivers
(vegetation, hydrology, soil and landform) of ecosystem function physical processes (Burton et
al., 2011; Dickard et al., 2015; Kozlowski et al., 2013; Swanson et al., 2017) to determine essential
response indicators and establish plant (Winward 2000) and aquatic biological criteria (Davies and
Jackson, 2006; Barbour et al., 2000; Courtemanch 1995; Davis 1995). An ecosystem function
approach represents a fundamental (and needed) change in how the core of USEPA water programs
have historically implemented the CWA (C. Yoder, pers. comm.; Aron et al., 2013; Hall et al.,
2014a; Harman et al., 2012; Hughes et al., 2006; Swanson et al., 2017).
Ecosystem function is notably distinct from other water quality management tools because
it provides a means of managing the very ecological physical processes underlying natural,
properly functioning watersheds. The science of ecosystem function includes methods leading to
early detection of potential water quality problems based on the identification of current ecological
condition at risk of losing functions. The use of ecosystem function in water quality control is
through targeting ecological physical processes for assessment and remediation. These ecological
processes are critical for the sustainability of water quality, which depends on ecosystem
resilience. Sustainable ecosystems exhibit resilience, which is the capacity to withstand, respond
to and recover rapidly from disturbances (Chaffin et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2015; Walker et al.,
2004; de Groot, 2006; Executive Order No. 13653, 2013). For example, CWA 303(d) total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) focus on quantitative water quality measurements and their
1
-------
impacts to aquatic communities (Aron et al., 2013). When dealing with NPS pollution, water
quality and aquatic indicators are response (lagging) indicators (Swanson et al., 2012; Aron et al.,
2013). To address the aquatic impacts from environmental stressors it is important to understand
the drivers of riparian and other ecosystem functions, and recognize their role in capture, storage
and safe release of water sediment, nutrients, and organic materials. Also, the aquatic and terrestrial
ecology and stream form and function needed for locally relevant attributes, processes and
resilience. By identifying the condition of a watershed and/or ecoregion to determine whether
streams and wetland riparian areas are functioning properly, managers can make the connection
between form, function, management and monitoring to address the underlying causative factors
behind restoration of biological values and ecosystems.
1.1 Widespread Impairments of Water Quality.
The nation is not fully achieving the CWA objective of restoring and maintaining the
integrity of its waters (US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], 2012c; Karr and Yoder,
2004). The most recent national assessment of river and stream miles concluded that more than
half are in poor condition (USEPA, 2012a; USEPA, 2013a). The early focus of the CWA on
pollutants from point sources, such as factories and sewage treatment plants, led to strong
regulation of point sources and major reductions in pollution from those sources. In contrast, water
quality impairments are now caused more often by diffuse NPS pollutants, such as sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens. A recent national review of the implementation of the CWA
found that NPS pollutants caused most of the impairments in water bodies with formal pollution
control targets (US Government Accountability Office [USGAO], 2013).
Four examples of large-scale water quality problems illustrate how these impairments
affect different parts of the country. A common theme is the need to consider dynamic situations
and continue to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of solutions. That is, successful
outcomes incorporate both the achievement of water quality criteria and the sustainability of water
quality associated with resilient ecosystems.
Mississippi River
Hypoxia is an environmental condition in the water column where living aquatic organisms
cannot thrive because of low concentrations of dissolved oxygen (Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium [LUMCON], 2014). The largest hypoxic zone affecting the nation appears every year
in late summer where the Mississippi River flows into the northern Gulf of Mexico, principally
because of high levels of nitrate causing excessive growth of algae (algal blooms) resulting in
oxygen depletion (LUMCON, 2014). Although some hypoxic conditions occur naturally, the Gulf
of Mexico hypoxic zone developed since the 1940s because of an increase in nitrates from
industrial fertilizers, animal manure, urban areas and wastewater treatment in the Mississippi River
basin (Howard, 2014).
2
-------
A recent study of trends in water quality from 1980 to 2010 in the Mississippi River basin
found an increase in nitrate levels in most sampling sites, including the lower sections of the
Mississippi River (Murphy et al., 2013). This increase in nitrates occurred despite many
conservation efforts, such as reducing agricultural fertilizer use and improving wastewater
treatment (Howard, 2014). A contribution to the trend may be a loss of soil microbial activity
from the loss of carbon resulting from changes in agricultural practices (Zheng et al., 2017; Wang
et al., 2017; van Leeuwen et al., 2017). Other factors may be the replacement of soy production
with corn production, which uses more fertilizer (Howard, 2014), and nitrates left in groundwater
from decades of pollution (Murphy et al., 2013). A possible solution is an ecosystem function
assessment to understand the connection between ecosystem physical processes, natural resources,
land management, and sources of nitrates in the Mississippi River basin to guide the formulation
of more effective and sustainable policies.
In 2007, the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) developed an ecosystem restoration
program with the objective "7o conserve, restore, and maintain the ecological structure and
function of the Upper Mississippi River System" (USACE, 2011). USACE planning emphasized
that restoration activities must restore ecosystem physical processes and functions to increase
aquatic productivity, and become more resilient to human and natural disturbances (i.e., system-
wide sustainable ecosystem). In 2017, there has been over 90 restoration projects complete or in
process to restore the river system (USACE, 2017).
Lake Erie
As the smallest and shallowest of the five North American Great Lakes in a watershed of
big cities and farmland (Figure 1), Lake Erie is very much affected by human activities
(International Joint Commission [UC], 2014). The problem of excessive nutrients, especially
phosphorus, has been recognized as the cause of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in Lake Erie for
more than 50 years (UC, 2014). HABs adversely impact the ecosystem, drinking water supplies,
fisheries, recreation, and tourism. Phosphorus from municipal sewage plants was the principal
concern in the 1960s and 1970s. Policies to upgrade municipal sewage treatment and reduce
phosphorus in detergents resulted in much better water quality as established through standard
water quality measures. By the 1980s, the problem appeared to be solved but vulnerabilities
remained undetected.
In the early 2000s (Figure 1), the problem of HABs re-emerged (IJC, 2014). The largest
HAB recorded in Lake Erie in the UC report occurred in 2011 and Carroll Township in Ohio shut
down its water treatment plant in the summer of 2013 due to high levels of the HAB toxin
microcystin (UC, 2014). Drinking water for Toledo, Ohio was similarly affected in the summer of
2014 (Beauvais, 2015). Although phosphorus remains the principal culprit, NPS pollution rather
than municipal sewage discharge (point sources) is cited as the cause of the problem (UC, 2014).
Phosphorus flows into Lake Erie from a variety of sources - agricultural use of fertilizer and
manure, urban storm water and combined sewer overflow discharges. Atmospheric deposition
3
-------
adds to the total load. Assessment of ecosystem function in the stream and wetland riparian areas
and uplands is essential in understanding soil dynamics and fate and transport of nutrients.
Ecosystem function assessment in addition to the ongoing measures to improve water quality in
Lake Erie can prevent us from being caught by surprise in this way.
Figure 1. Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite Image of Lake Erie on October 9,
2011. This image shows the algae bloom occurring within Lake Erie. Source: http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-todav/.
Chesapeake Bay
The Chesapeake Bay and many of its tributaries are listed as impaired waters under the
CWA because of hypoxia and pollution (Chesapeake Bay Foundation [CBF], 2014a). Agricultural
and urban runoff along with wastewater discharges and atmospheric deposition load excessive
nitrogen and phosphorus into the Chesapeake Bay, causing algal growth that depletes oxygen
needed by other aquatic species (CBF, 2014a). Erosion and construction sites release silt, sand,
and clay producing excessive sediment in the water column, blocking sunlight from grasses and
smothering oysters and other species at the bottom of the bay (CBF, 2014a). Agricultural
conservation practices to prevent soil erosion and reduce runoff of nutrients and sediments in the
4
-------
Chesapeake Bay watershed have been implemented with success in the Bay (US Department of
Agriculture [USDA] Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS], 2013).
Unfortunately, existing control measures have failed to address the growing levels of urban
and suburban storm water runoff in this region (CBF, 2014b). More than 17 million people live
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed where fields and forests are being converted to hardened surfaces
at a rate that is roughly equivalent to producing another Washington DC every four years (CBF,
2014b). In addition to nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, runoff contains trash, fecal bacteria, oil
and other petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, road salt, copper, lead, zinc and other toxic
metals (CBF, 2014b). The impacts include mortality of fish and amphibians, swimming beach
closures, restrictions on oyster harvesting, millions of dollars annually for dredging runoff
sediment, and higher costs of filtering nitrates and other pollutants from drinking water (CBF,
2014b). The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) for USEPA's Chesapeake
Bay Program has criticized the current system of accountability measures that set numeric targets,
such as a number of acres of wetlands; these measures cannot be easily altered as conditions change
(Blankenship, 2014). The STAC would like to see accountability measures based more directly
on observations that the Bay is getting better in supporting its use for drinking, swimming, and
fishing (Blankenship, 2014). Managing for ecosystem function can contribute to a flexible system
that would allow for measures supporting water quality that can be adjusted as conditions change.
Las Vegas Wash
The Las Vegas Wash drains storm water runoff and highly treated effluent from Las Vegas
Valley to Las Vegas Bay, an arm of Lake Mead (USEPA, 2012d). Lake Mead is the largest
artificial reservoir in the country, serving as a source of drinking water for millions of people in
three states (USEPA, 2012d). Over the past few decades, the Las Vegas Valley has seen rapid
population growth and development associated with an increase in impervious surfaces and
volume of wastewater. As a result, sediment load in the lower reach of the Las Vegas Wash has at
times been in excess of Nevada water quality standards for total suspended solids (TSS) (USEPA,
2012d). Las Vegas community leaders worked with government agencies on a plan to improve
water quality in the lower reach by incorporating low dams (weirs) to control erosion, restoring
wetlands, and limiting the advance of invasive plant species (Las Vegas Wash Coordination
Committee [LVWCC], 2000; USEPA, 2012d). Priorities for invasive plant management include
re-introducing native plant communities and other management objectives (LVWCC and Las
Vegas Wash Weed Partnership [LVWWP], 2003). Work on the plan continued after the reach was
taken off the impaired list in 2004 after being designated two years earlier. By 2006, the
implementation of the LVWCC plan had cost $33 million (USEPA, 2012d). As of 2014, the
LVWCC plan is still being implemented and the Las Vegas Wash remains off the list of impaired
waters.
However, water quality management must/should address both water quality criteria and
resilience. Despite the current success in meeting Nevada water quality criteria for TSS, questions
5
-------
about the resilience of the Las Vegas Wash raise great concern. Las Vegas Valley has a history of
large storm events that trigger runoff causing massive erosion and leading to loss of habitat and
infrastructure (LVWCC, 2000). Flooding may become more unpredictable as storm events occur
against a backdrop of population growth generating more wastewater and development increasing
impervious surface area (USEPA, 2012d). Year-round flow from lawn irrigation permits
vegetation to grow in and block storm drainage areas. The water management system also relies
heavily on an engineered water intake that moves water from the Las Vegas Wash in a tunnel
under Las Vegas Lake to Lake Mead. A failure of this structure in a major storm event would be
catastrophic and require millions of dollars to repair. Active monitoring of watershed function
would help to prevent this type of costly damage and insure water quality for all users.
1.2 Ecosystem Function for Sustainability of Water Quality.
Ecological function concepts and approaches are not new, but are when trying to integrate
these concepts into CWA activities. Introducing proper functioning condition (PFC) assessment
and managing ecosystems to improve function as part of CWA activities has the potential to reduce
stressors, particularly NPS pollution. The objective of introducing PFC and resource management
is to provide an ecosystem approach to meet the latest challenges of restoring and maintaining
clean water (USEPA, 2011; USEPA, 2010b; USEPA, 2012a).
Sustainability associated with resilient ecosystems is linked to the control of NPS pollution.
Properly functioning physical processes in upland and riparian areas around water bodies allow
the assimilation of stressors (Swanson et al., 2017). In aquatic environments, not all water pollution
is from an external input. Pollution can come from the materials stored in riparian areas and
wetlands. Wetlands are used for water quality remediation because of their ability to sequester
pollutants by dissipating energy and allowing sediment deposition leading to the creation of
aquatic and riparian habitat complexity. Loss of ecological function and physical form unravels
the assimilation processes. In most streams, loss of functions causes a significant portion of NPS
pollution. This connection can be elucidated by comparing scenarios of erosion and sediment
mobilization before and after the loss of functions (Hall et al., 2009; Kozlowski et al., 2013;
Kozlowski et al., 2016).
Good water quality supports USEPA's strategic plan to protect public health, watersheds
and aquatic resources (USEPA, 2010a). Ecosystem restoration for water quality builds on the
scientific study of ecological functions of lotic (running water) (Prichard et al., 1998; Dickard et
al., 2015) and lentic (standing water) (Pritchard et al., 1996) riparian areas. For example, in May
of 1977, the vegetation along Bear Creek, central Oregon, was mostly absent (Figure 2a). Through
restoration efforts (i.e., introduction of stabilizing riparian vegetation) the vegetation was thriving
in May of 2007 (Figure 2b). Restoring vegetation allowed the channel to trap sediment and build
a new riparian area within the incised channel (Figures 2a and b). Restoration of riparian functions
also moderates a stream's temperature extremes by increasing recharge of aquifers, extending base
flow discharges into the stream during late summer and early fall (Swanson et al., 2017).
6
-------
As a result, a comparison of temperatures of water and the surrounding air revealed that
Bear Creek habitat became more suitable to support a cold-water fishery. I n August of 1976, water
temperature was not much different from air temperature (Figure 3a), but by August of 1998 water
temperature considerably cooler than the air temperature (Figures 3b). An associated beneficial
effect of restoration was an increase in the amount of water storage in the riparian area from less
than half a million gallons per mile in 1976 to nearly four million gallons per mile in 1989 (Elmore,
1998). The experience with Bear Creek reflects how the US Department of the Interior (USDOI)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) changed its management strategy from the exclusion of
livestock to maintenance of riparian functions that can support grazing with careful controls on its
timing, intensity, and duration (Elmore, 1998; Borman et al., 1999; Swanson et al. 2015).
Ecosystem function approaches support USEPA's initiative for sustainability (NRC, 2011;
NRC, 2014b). Ecosystem function research is part of USEPA's research program for sustainable
and healthy communities (USEPA, 2012b). Although there has been some progress in many cases
of NPS control (USEPA, 2014a), greater advancement requires a systems perspective. Ecosystem
function in healthy watersheds can provide sustainable production of high-quality waters.
Sustainability in this context refers to a condition of resiliency for linked watersheds, riparian
areas, and aquatic and coastal ecosystems. When these ecosystems are resilient, they remain intact
and improve their ecosystem functions after a 25-year or 30-year flow event.
Erosion and Sediment Mobilization before Loss of Functions
Experience using ecological function approaches in many watersheds reveals key
generalizations about what to expect when the watershed has properly functioning physical
processes in upland and riparian areas (Swanson et al., 2015). A functioning watershed keeps water
on the land longer with multiple processes whose effects are evident in flow events.
In low to moderate flow events, overland and stream load is primarily finer grained
sediment originating from the uplands, which is transported into streambeds and riparian areas
(Wang et al., 2015). In larger events, streams mobilize larger substrate and upland soils. Under
these conditions, energy is dissipated as the stream accesses its well-vegetated floodplain.
Floodplains with abundant vegetation and roughness permit storage of deposited sediment for long
durations. The shift from "short duration" and "moderate duration" to "long duration" storage
improves water quality by removing sediment from the water column and channel. Hancock et al.,
2017, found that appropriate land management practices can have a long-term impact on sediment
transport into fluvial ecosystems.
7
-------
Figure 2a. Bear Creek - Central Oregon, May 1977. Source: National Riparian Service Team [NRST] (2009).
Introduction to Riparian Function: Bear Creek Example. BLM USDOI. Slide 33 - Photograph on the left-hand
side. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/pfcassess.php (accessed April 27, 2014).
Figure 2b. Bear Creek - Central Oregon, May 2007. Source: NRST (2009). Introduction to Riparian Function:
Bear Creek Example. BLM USDOI. Slide 33 - Photograph on the right-hand side. Available at
http://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/pfcassess.php (accessed April 27, 2014).
8
-------
100t
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
*
-------
Erosion and Sediment Mobilization after Loss of Functions
Watersheds reveal a different pattern after losing properly functioning physical processes
in upland and riparian areas. Loss of functions leads to loss of much moderate-term and long-term
storage capacity for sediment, leaving these watersheds subject to greater ecological impacts
during flow events.
During small flow events, the impacts are similar to those in the Bear Creek scenario before
the loss of functions but major differences begin to show up as larger events occur. More un-
vegetated bars within the channel become mobilized in moderate events, leading to pool filling
and impacts to habitat features, such as destruction of spawning nests for fish (redds). These
changes reflect a shift from "moderate duration" storage to "short duration" storage, which affects
beneficial uses of the aquatic environment.
Much larger flow events are less frequent but have a greater impact. Under these
conditions, the energy is forced upon the banks as the stream is more confined and cannot leave
the channel to dissipate energy. Since these banks are not protected by wetland/riparian stabilizers,
excessive bank erosion begins (Dickard et al. 2015). The water that does reach the floodplain
erodes the floodplain and terraces due to a lack of vegetation and roughness elements. In this case,
the stream is not putting sediment into "long duration" storage but rather moving it from the
floodplain to the channel and eventually putting it into "short duration" storage (being deposited
on the stream bed). During large flow events, the uplands start experiencing erosion through rilling
and gullying (formation of channels) although not all sediment reaches a stream (efficiency of
delivery is less than 100%) (Wang et al., 2015). In very large events, these problems are intensified.
Mass wasting in the uplands can result in extreme sediment production.
1.3 How Ecosystem Function Can Be Used with the Clean Water Act.
Using ecosystem function as a tool for water quality assessment leads to more effective
decisions to target best management practices, particularly for NPS pollution. The science of
ecosystem function can help with finding early warning signs to protect and devise remediation to
restore water quality. An assessment of functional condition in upland and riparian ecosystems
considers hydrology, vegetation and soil/landform attributes. This information provides the
context for monitoring data used for decisions to support water quality in healthy watersheds.
Riparian vegetation, whose loss typically results in excessive sediment washing into water
bodies, provides a focus to illustrate the approach. Stream banks with proper riparian function,
which reduces shear stress, facilitate the deposition of sediment. Riparian vegetation provides
roughness to slow floodwater and root binding to armor stream banks. An assessment of ecosystem
function may note the poor condition of vegetation causing the loss of the riparian function of
sediment deposition, which slows and dissipates flood energy and protects stream banks. In this
situation, the affected stream might eventually be listed as an impaired water body due to sediment
input from sources on the floodplain out of the channel; sediment input from stream banks
10
-------
(experiencing high shear stress against weakened banks); and excessive water temperature
fluctuations due to excessive stream width. Information about the condition of vegetation and other
indicators of riparian function can be used to set priority locations for restoring riparian vegetation,
a driver for restoring riparian function, with multiple objectives: 1) reduced NPS pollution from
sediment and thermal loading; 2) improved assimilation of nutrients; and 3) better quality of
riparian and aquatic habitats.
The timing of ecosystem function information is important for practical use. An assessment
of ecosystem function in watersheds can provide early (leading) indicators of water quality trends
in areas where NPS pollution is, or should be, the major concern (Aron et al., 2013). The loss of
functional condition in upland and riparian ecosystems points to a potential for reduced water
quality earlier than traditional in-stream measures. If a riparian area does not function properly, it
may not retain the same general geometry over time and may be out of balance regarding sediment
transport (Kozlowski et al., 2013). If the riparian zone is functioning but stressed or "at risk"
because one or more attributes makes it susceptible to degradation, it may be prone to excess
channel changes during major disturbances such as flooding or fire (Swanson et al., 2015). Water
quality or biological community assessments (USEPA, 2009) cannot predict if an ecosystem is
crossing an ecological or geomorphic threshold causing devastating changes to the riparian and
aquatic ecosystems (Hall et al., 2014a; Kozlowski et al., 2013). For example, a study in Nevada's
Maggie Creek watershed showed that indicators of riparian function, including vegetation and
channel form, were more effective than water chemistry indicators in providing early identification
of changes in aquatic habitat (Kozlowski et al., 2013). Kozlowski et al. (2013) explain how a focus
on riparian functionality led to significant improvements in water quality and habitat for cold-
water fish. Kozlowski et al. (2013) found that changes in channel form modified habitats, chemical
concentrations, temperatures, and affected various beneficial uses.
The implication is that assessments of ecosystem function can lead to more timely
decisions about water quality and associated aquatic habitat. Leading indicators must focus on the
drivers of physical functions so they can lead to early interventions to prevent the progression of
water quality deterioration. A strategy of waiting to respond to excessive erosion and sediment
transport increases the adverse impacts. For example, Hall et al. (2014a), in an assessment of
riparian function along the Reese River in central Nevada, demonstrated that water quality
monitoring is ineffective for timely recognition of developing ecological problems. Water quality
managers can reduce harmful effects caused by NPS pollution by making sure that ecosystem
function is on a path of restoration and maintenance. Function assessments can be used to empower
resource managers in adaptive management alternatives, prioritize resource allocations, and
identify parameters to be monitored (Swanson et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2014a; Kozlowski et al.,
2013; Aron et al., 2013; Swanson et al., 2012; Swanson et al., 1996).
11
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
12
-------
2.0 Assessments
A review of assessment methods would have to cover a broad range of qualitative and
quantitative techniques, such as monitoring of improved water quality, the growth of fish
populations and greater quality of recreational activities. Such a review is beyond the scope of
this report. Instead, the focus is on a single method to provide examples of the use of ecosystem
function showing how it could be a component of CWA activities.
Riparian Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment is a qualitative methodology for
assessing the physical functionality of riparian and wetland areas. PFC assessment has an extensive
history of research and application starting in 1992 and has been adopted by BLM as a local and
national standard for riparian-wetland management (Prichard et al., 1993; Prichard et al., 1998;
Dickard et al., 2015). PFC assessment has recently generated interest in its use to manage water
quality under the CWA (Kozlowski et al., 2013; Swanson et al., 2017). As a qualitative tool, PFC
is not appropriate for detailed monitoring of riparian-wetland systems but it is extremely useful in
identifying where to monitor and what systems need for a management foundation. PFC
assessment provides information about the drivers of trends in water quality, which can reveal
early warning signs of deterioration and early indicators of improvement.
The examples in this report use PFC assessment to address attributes and processes
required to maintain a functioning riparian ecosystem. Riparian functionality affects base flow,
sediments, nutrients, temperature and dissolved oxygen (Wyman et al., 2006; Kozlowski et al.,
2013; Kozlowski et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2015). The PFC assessment checklist covers
hydrologic items, vegetation items and geomorphology items, such as sinuosity of the stream,
stabilizing riparian vegetation and vertical stability of the stream system (lack of incising),
respectively.
PFC ratings, while qualitative, are based on quantitative science (Prichard et al., 1998). If
a stream reach is functioning in PFC (Figure 4), it is resilient to disturbances and has adequate
vegetation, landform or large woody debris to (Prichard et al., 1996; Prichard et al., 1998):
dissipate stream energy associated with high water flow, thereby reducing erosion and
improving water quality;
filter sediment, capture bed load (sediment carried immediately above the stream bed),
and aid floodplain development;
improve floodwater retention and groundwater recharge;
develop root masses that stabilize stream banks against cutting action; and
develop diverse ponding and channel characteristics to provide the habitat and the
water depth, duration, and temperature necessary for fauna, greater biodiversity, and
various uses.
13
-------
If a stream reach is functional but vulnerable to degradation, it is deemed Functional - At
Risk (Figure 4). A stream reach may also be Nonfunctional if it is unable to perform PFC functions
(dissipate energy from high flows, etc.).
Proper Functioning Condition
Functional At Risk
Nonfunctional
Figure 4. The three functional rating determinations from the Riparian PFC assessement.
The PFC rating of a stream reach must be viewed in the context of its potential natural
condition (PNC), which is the highest ecological status a riparian area can achieve in the absence
of political, social or economic constraints due to human actions (Prichard et al., 1996; Dickard et
al., 2015). An interdisciplinary team can learn about the potential of an area from relict sites in a
similar setting, similar areas under differing management, historical records, species lists, soils,
knowledge of the watershed and watershed hydrology, plant communities that are in the
bioclimatic region that express in similar settings, and observations of the plant community that
identify conditions for establishment and continued survival (including geologic setting and soils
determining whether or not the site is capable of producing certain types of vegetation). Some
possible sources are (Dickard et al., 2015):
relict species no longer in the study area but living in preserves;
historic photos revealing historic conditions;
the presence of animal and plant species noted in current and historical records; and
cross-sections of soil showing the frequency and duration of flooding.
14
-------
An area in PFC has reached the point at which the system is physically sustainable and can
support multiple desired services, such as water quality, forage, and wildlife habitat. PFC is
characterized by a range of conditions whose upper boundary is the natural potential.
Analyzing data in the context of potential is an essential element of the assessment process
(Swanson et al., 2017). In an analysis of areas of varying potential, in-stream water quality
measures are likely to reflect both differences in potential and the drivers of functionality. For
example, a comparison of the natural potential of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon and
high mountain streams reveals different water quality characteristics in terms of sediment and
temperature. The Grand Canyon at potential is highly sediment laden and much warmer than
currently with cold clear water coming from Lake Powell. In contrast, clear and cold high mountain
streams in mountain meadows become very sediment-laden when incised and widening through
gully bank erosion.
Data on PFC ratings averaged across many locations without the context of potential are
difficult to interpret directly regarding water quality standards. A reach might not support desired
beneficial uses of the water body because of limited potential rather than ineffective pollution
management. Conversely, streams managed for riparian functionality often far exceed the water
quality needed to meet minimum standards or not exceed maximum pollution levels (Figure 3a
and 3b; Kozlowski et al., 2016; Swanson et al., 2017). Furthermore, each reach should be
understood as a component of a larger watershed system in which the characteristics of one reach
may influence the potential of another.
The methodology for PFC could be used to address the problem of natural condition that
arises in developing water quality standards. Under the CWA, the general process is to establish
designated uses (drinking water, recreation, aquatic life, etc.), criteria to preserve those uses
(numeric pollutant concentration or a narrative description) and provisions to protect against
further impairments to water quality and aquatic life. In some cases, a surface water body does not
meet water quality standards even though it has not been affected by human-caused disturbance
and is considered to be in its natural condition (e.g., natural hot springs with distinctive chemical
and temperature characteristics). The natural condition provision must include a procedure for
calculating or determining a natural condition, which is typically based on using a less disturbed
condition of a neighboring or similar watershed as a reference condition (USEPA, 2005). In
practice, however, it is difficult to establish a reference condition. The search for a reference water
body that is cleaner or less disturbed may result in an area with a different potential, especially if
the potential natural condition (PNC) has been altered (e.g., interim land management practice).
As defined by Schumm (1977), a watershed can be divided into erosional, transportation and
depositional reaches, each of which would have different potential given its natural condition and
uses. Therefore, all reaches may have different classification types (Rosgen 1994), different
potentials, and, subsequently, biological and chemical differences. A more appropriate approach
15
-------
would be to use PFC's potential natural condition (PNC) to set water quality standards (Swanson
et al., 2017; Swanson et al., 2015; Harman et al., 2012).
Assessment of ecosystem function is also relevant to the identification and protection of
healthy watersheds. The components of assessment for healthy watersheds have been classified as
landscape condition, habitat, hydrology, fluvial geomorphology, water quality and biological
condition (Swanson et al., 2017; Dickard et al., 2015; Kozlowski et al., 2013; Prichard et al., 1998;
Karr, 1998). These components are combined into an integrated assessment to inform watershed
management (USEPA, 2012a). PFC is listed in this compendium as an assessment for habitat
(USEPA, 2012a), but PFC should be compared with approaches for integrated assessment as a
combination of hydrology, vegetation, and geomorphology for ecosystem functions and a diversity
of ecosystem services, including aquifer recharge, water quality, forage, and habitat.
2.1 Alternative to Total Maximum Daily Loads for Restoring Water Quality.
Under the CWA, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) of pollutants are estimated as part
of a standard approach for pollution control to restore water quality. In principle, TMDLs identify
the maximum levels of pollutants that water bodies can receive before the designated uses of the
water bodies are compromised (e.g., drinking water or aquatic habitat). A management plan for
restoring water quality can use TMDLs by allocating the permitted load among sources of
pollutants. The USGAO is critical of the TMDL program, citing its lack of effectiveness in the
control of NPS pollution (USGAO, 2013). The US water policy community considers this issue to
be of vital importance (e.g., American Water Blog, 2014). Karr and Yoder (2004) believe an
integrated view of ecosystem stressors combined with a focus on biological endpoints will improve
TMDLs. Swanson et al. (2017) show that focusing on the drivers of ecosystem function is more
encompassing and can identify the causes of impairment.
Hall et al. (2014a) demonstrated an alternative approach to NPS pollution control using the
restoration of ecosystem function. They investigated water quality impairment in Nevada's Upper
Reese River (Figure 5) with the PFC protocol, water quality data, and remotely-sensed imagery.
These tools and data permit an analysis of sediment in terms of its sources, transport, distribution,
and impact on water quality and aquatic resources. Managers in the Upper Reese River watershed
are concerned about water quality and loss of fish habitat in conjunction with increases in sediment
and temperature extremes. One benefit of riparian functionality is quality habitat for local
populations of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout and Sage Grouse.
TMDL-based management goals for the Upper Reese River and its tributaries are to estimate
how much sediment, nutrients, and heat can be delivered into these waters while they remain within
the bounds of Nevada's water quality standards. Even if exceeding ecological thresholds is a concern
only because of pollution loads, then management focus on the traditional TMDL approach would
not have been effective. However, because meeting water quality objectives often depends on
integrated riparian management, water quality management should address ecosystem function.
16
-------
The structure of the Upper Reese River watershed reflects the history of the western
expansion of US settlement since the 1880s. Grazing and farming without controls led to the losses
of upland and wetland plant populations and the invasion of shrubs into wetland areas. As the river
channel became incised, the addition of diversion dams resulted in straightening of the river,
concentrating flows through a smaller opening, and accelerating channel erosion. Four sample
reaches were selected for PFC assessment to represent different ecological conditions (Figure 5).
Two reaches were Nonfunctional and two reaches were Functional - At Risk. Recovery of this
watershed and many others depends on floodplain access, dissipation of flood energy, and aquifer
recharge to maintain soil water needed for vegetation stabilizing stream banks. In 2007,
stakeholders and managers in the Upper Reese River watershed used this PFC assessment (Hall et
al., 2014a) to begin planning to reconnect the river to the original floodplain surface with the goal
of recovering its ecological goods and services.
DD-A
Figure 5. Location map of Upper Reese River Basin assessment reaches (RR-1, RR-2, RR-3 and RR-4). Diversion
dams are marked (DD-A, DD-C and DD-F). Center box designates the US Forest Service property. Landsat image is
from July 2000. Reaches RR-1 and RR-3 were assessed as Nonfunctional. Reaches RR-2 and RR-4 were assessed
as Functional at Risk. Source: Hall et al., 2014a.
17
-------
2.2 Conserving and Restoring Ecosystem Services.
The PFC protocol is useful for identifying and protecting healthy watersheds with the aim
of conserving and restoring ecosystem services. The PFC assessment of the Colquitz River
watershed on Vancouver Island in British Columbia (Canada) provides an example (Buchanan et
al., 2009) (Figure 6). This watershed in the District of Saanich is affected by encroaching
urbanization as well as by some agriculture and industry. The District of Saanich began a program
of land acquisition and protection in the 1970s but that was not sufficient to restore Colquitz River
to its functional status. The District of Saanich wants to rehabilitate the stream with an interest in
restoring salmon runs where possible. The purposes of the PFC assessment were to generate
information for setting priorities for different stages of the restoration and to establish a baseline
for measuring progress.
Over 18 kilometers of stream channel in 59 reaches were assessed in the summer of 2007
(Buchanan et al., 2009). About 37% were Nonfunctional and 45% were in PFC (Figure 6). The
remaining 18% were Functional - At Risk, some with a downward trend, some with an upward
trend and some with no apparent trend. The Functional - At Risk category has the highest priority
for restoration because functions could be lost or could help with remediation processes. Two of
the most critical recommendations were to deal with head cuts (abrupt changes in the profile of
the stream channel) from stream incision and remove specific invasive plant species (Buchanan et
al., 2009). The incision from headward migration of head cuts suddenly removes existing functions
and sets in motion a long process of accelerated bed and bank erosion, sedimentation, and eventual
recovery through the gully evolution process (Schumm et al., 1984; Simon and Rinaldi, 2006).
General recommendations include integrated watershed management for multiple land-use values
and best management practices for storm water to reduce the volume of runoff.
18
-------
Colquitz River 1 of 2
>
Southern Vancouver Island
Lotic Reach Condition
FVoper Functioning Condition
Functional at R sic
Nonfunctional
Lentic Reach Condition
n Proper Functioning Condition
0 250 500 1.000
Scale: 1:10000 '
Projection: NAD83 LITM Zone 10 Meters
Figure 6. Map showing Colquitz River - Vancouver Island in British Columbia (Canada) with the lower reach breaks
used for the PFC assessment. Source: Buchanan et al.. 2009.
PFC assessments are also being used by US agencies for water quality management.
Financial assistance from the USDA NRCS National Water Quality Initiative supported a riparian
function assessment of the South Fork of the Flumboldt River in Nevada that identified source
areas of NPS pollution and prioritized areas for remediation (Aron et al., 2013). The joint effort
was conducted by NRCS, the University of Nevada at Reno, Nevada Department of Wildlife,
private and tribal ranchers, BLM, and USEPA Region IX (Pacific Southwest).
A new proposed agreement among Klamath tribes, USDOI, Oregon officials and Upper
Klamath irrigators provides solutions for water use that support a stable agricultural economy as
well as healthy fisheries and riparian areas (Klamath Basin Task Force, 2014). The use of PFC and
riparian restoration played a role in the agreement.
19
-------
2.3 Protecting the Source.
The general approach for protecting drinking water is one of using multiple barriers.
USEPA's manual on assessing source water protection aims at protecting raw sources of drinking
water from potential stressors in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and state laws
(USEPA, 2006). USEPA supported the development of a handbook on using land conservation to
protect drinking water supplies (Trust for Public Land, 2005), elements of which were brought
into a subsequent report on healthy watersheds (USEPA, 2012a). Key aspects are building
cooperative partnerships, selecting lands to protect and managing those lands. The handbook's
recommendations incorporate some concepts of ecosystem function in its section on pollutant
mitigation potential by ecosystem (Trust for Public Land, 2005). This section, which was
influenced by a national study showing the importance of restoration and protection of riparian
zones (NRC, 2002), refers to practices advised by USDA NRCS on the width of buffer strips
around riparian zones for maximum removal of pollutants. However, these recommendations do
not include the use of ecosystem function assessment as shown in the examples of Section 2.1 and
Section 2.
Stewardship of protected watersheds may require a more extensive assessment of
ecosystem function to obtain a full picture of threats to the watershed. For example, the width of
riparian buffer strips is not an adequate substitute for PFC assessment where most pollution comes
from eroding stream banks or where opportunities for riparian function restoration are covered by
stream bank revetment (artificial structures placed on top of the soil). Watershed protection can
benefit from using the assessment of ecosystem function to identify early warning signs of
degradation. Watershed surveillance is important since even small changes in land use can affect
the quality of water resources, as shown in a landscape assessment for the New York City water
supply (Mehaffey et al., 2001) (New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 201 1).
The use of PFC assessment for the Cold Creek, Nevada watershed (Figure 7) illustrates
how ecosystem function assessment can help to protect the source of drinking water (Hall et al.,
2014b). If the Cold Creek watershed is not functioning properly (Figure 8), it is likely to experience
erosion that causes head cuts that move upstream. This process threatens the structure of the spring
that feeds the headwaters of Cold Creek. This spring is the ultimate source of drinking water for
households in this community, which typically use wells to access groundwater that is connected
to the creek and is affected by the condition of the creek.
The PFC assessment of Cold Creek was conducted jointly by US Forest Service, USEPA,
BLM and University of Nevada, Reno, scientists to better understand problems and find solutions (Hall
et al., 2014b). According to the PFC assessment, feral/wild horse activity and urbanization in the
upland and upstream areas were contributing to stream and riparian degradation. Recommendations
to deal with this problem involved education of the community, protection of creek banks,
improvement of riparian vegetation (managing horses and wildlife and/or re-vegetation), and
restoration and maintenance of hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, and wetlands.
20
-------
.:
- Ļ
to**&;*%*&<Ģ! '> ' ' vMB
-*Ļ* 4 1 - v.** ĻĢv
Ļ 'v.*iS
SUM
Figure 7. Satellite Image of the Lotic (Stream) Field Study Site. Cold Creek Nevada, 2014. Source: Hall el 41.. 2014b.
Restoration of PFC must be coupled, however, with other pollution prevention programs
to protect drinking water in the Cold Creek watershed. Wild horses and a variety of wildlife coming
into contact with the creek can contaminate it with pathogens. Solutions to prevent or limit contact,
such as a watering trough behind a fence that keeps animals away from the riparian area, may
contribute to the restoration of the riparian function while they prevent pathogenic contamination.
Another potential threat to water quality is leakage from household septic tanks, a traditional point
source of pollution. USEPA and tribes have been developing plans for septic remediation,
maintenance, and replacement.
21
-------
Figure 8. Cold Creek Upstream view- Nevada. 2014. This reach of Cold Creek was determined to be nonfunctional
using PFC. Source: Hall et al.. 2014b.
22
-------
3.0 Comparison with other Ecosystem Protection and
Restoration Approaches
The ability of the environment to sustain human health and well-being is a central concern
of USEPA, both in the agency and in its Sustainable and Healthy Communities Research Program
(SHCRP) (USEPA, 2010a; USEPA, 2012b). How to protect and restore ecosystems to provide
benefits to human communities, such as flood mitigation and water filtration, is a subject of great
interest. This interest has led to a whole-hearted adoption of ecosystem services at the agency
where a variety of approaches have been taken. The concepts of ecosystem service and ecosystem
function serve different purposes in a combined effort for ecosystem protection and restoration.
The concept of ecosystem service is better known, but these two concepts are often
informally used as synonyms, obscuring their scientific meanings. Study of the production, use,
and benefits of ecosystem services emphasizes how ecosystems contribute to human health and
well-being and how environmental markets and policies can encourage resource conservation.
Study of ecosystem function emphasizes the ecosystem structures, processes, and biological
communities that underlie ecosystem services. In watershed restoration planning, the functional
approach of ecosystem function is gaining acceptance over the beneficial use approach of
ecosystem service (Fischenich, 2006). A functional approach permits rapid assessment of
alternative restoration designs, analyzes ecosystem processes and identifies the risks and causes of
environmental degradation. Although a beneficial use approach may be useful in finding public
support, it has drawbacks in the design of watershed restoration because beneficial uses,
perceptions, and values change overtime and political boundaries (Fischenich, 2006). SHCRP has
released the new EnviroAtlas (USEPA, 2014b), which helps communities understand the impact
of policy decisions on ecosystem services; the tools for assessment and management of ecosystem
function help to find solutions for problems identified by the atlas.
In the complex undertaking of ecosystem restoration, the decision on what to restore has a
major impact on effectiveness and sustainability. Changes in the restoration approach for the upper
Feather River watershed in the Sierra Nevada in northeastern California illustrate the benefits of
switching to the new objective of restoring landscape (ecosystem) function from the old objective
of stabilizing banks to reduce erosion (Lindquist and Wilcox, 2000; Kondolf, 2011). The Feather
River Coordinated Resource Management Group has been restoring channel, meadow and
floodplain systems in the Feather River watershed since 1985 because healthy streams, forests,
and meadows are important for their region's environment and economy. Big Flat Meadow in this
watershed experienced years of intense grazing, logging, and road-building that resulted in a
relocated creek and a deep gully. The initial approach to restoration was bank stabilization to treat
erosion and sediment supply. In 1994, the management team shifted its approach to landscape
(ecosystem) function, which resulted in the elimination of incised channels and the restoration of
remnant channels on the historic floodplain. The hydrologic benefits include a longer period of
stream flow, moderation of peak flow events, and increased ground water storage. Restored
23
-------
meadows in this area also contain twice as much total carbon as degraded (unrestored) meadows
(Feather River CRM, Plumas Corporation, 2010).
Human impacts on aquatic ecosystems involve hydrologic connectivity and flow regime
(Kondolf et al., 2006), both form and function. However, restoration efforts have more often
addressed connectivity than flow dynamics, presumably because of the economic importance of
water diversions and flood control (Kondolf et al., 2006). This difficulty in restoring flow is tied
to the natural variability in river systems. Channels that can migrate provide a setting for greater
ecological structure and variation (Kondolf, 2006). Disturbances caused by flooding play an
important role in maintaining biological diversity (Hughes et al., 2006).
24
-------
4.0 Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Ecosystem resilience is the ability to bounce back from a high energy event and is a central
concept in the application of ecosystem function assessments and analysis. A functional ecosystem
should be able to withstand major (acute) disturbances and rebound from chronic impacts (e.g.,
grazing, logging) over time. One of the successes of the CWA is in the prevention of ecological
and environmental toxic effects (acute, chronic). However, the policies and WQS that contributed
to this success have fallen short in addressing habitat and NPS pollution oriented impairments.
Surveillance for the health impacts of water pollution should be coordinated with pollution
control activities. Public health agencies have a strong interest in water pollution as a source of
contamination for food and drink. Public health and marine agencies should also collaborate since
coastal waters are linked to public health in many ways (NRC, 2014a). Land-based pollution can
contaminate coastal waters, leading to beach closures with large economic consequences. There is
evidence that runoff contains parasites that pose a danger to humans and animals in the marine
environment; the Toxoplasma gondii cat parasite has been shown to infect marine mammals (Ham
and Schaffer, 2014).
Therefore, the importance of managing by observing ecosystems is key because the loss of
ecosystem function physical processes can be gradual and longer term. Modifying actions in
response to observed changes is not a new idea. Studies of the TMDL process highlight the role
of adaptive implementation (NRC, 2001; USGAO, 2013). Adaptive management is considered
essential to planning for water resource projects (NRC, 2004). There are many variations in the
structure of adaptive management (NRC, 2004) possible through integrated riparian management
by using PFC and then monitoring at-risk reaches to adjust management (Wyman et al., 2006;
Kozlowski et al., 2013; Dickard et al., 2015; Swanson et al., 2015; Swanson et al., 2017).
Anthropogenic influences may increase the vulnerability of a watershed to disturbances
(USEPA, 2012a) and provide an additional impetus for monitoring and adaptive management.
Changes in the natural variability of an ecological characteristic may have adverse impacts.
Urbanization generally increases the number and size of storm water runoff events. Climate
variability can have broad effects through changing temperature and precipitation regimes.
Introduced pollutants, such as pesticides, may be harmful to people, animals, and ecosystem
functions. Invasive species, which are widely differing kinds of organisms, can disrupt natural
communities with far-reaching environmental and economic consequences. Therefore, in aquatic
environments, not all water pollution is from an external input. Pollution can come from the
materials stored in riparian areas and wetlands due to their attributes and processes or functions.
When functions decline rapidly, most streams can release a significant portion of NPS pollution.
For example, sediment is a major pollutant across the United States (USEPA, 2009) and frequently
emerges in conjunction with functional decline. Salt Cedar is an invasive tree species that has
spread throughout the western U.S. Asian carp, a group of invasive fish species, has disseminated
25
-------
northward along the Mississippi River and threatens to become established in the Great Lakes.
Whatever the challenge, PFC assessment identifies the steps back toward ecosystem functionality.
26
-------
5.0 Scientific and Technological Developments
Studies of ecosystem function are connected to other scientific and technological
developments. The applications of the work can be extended in several ways.
One priority is studies to identify early indicators of changes in ecosystem function in a
wider range of settings. Early indicators give decision-makers an opportunity to be more effective
in monitoring and developing adaptive management plans. Management and monitoring can focus
on what is needed to address issues identified in PFC assessment. Often recovery begins with
improvements in riparian vegetation (Wyman et al., 2006; Swanson et al., 2015). It is also
important to analyze the relative effectiveness of an ecosystem function approach to protect and
restore healthy watersheds in conjunction with other pollution control efforts to limit the sources
of pollutants (e.g., reduce fertilizer use) and limit spread of pollutants in waterways (e.g., place
buffers around riparian zones and agricultural fields).
The study of ecosystem function for sustainability of water quality fits within a broader
study of sustainability tools and approaches at USEPA (NRC, 2014b). USEPA is organizing
metrics for sustainability in the Office of Research and Development (USEPA, 2013b). The use of
ecosystem function can be expanded with a connection to sustainability metrics. For example, as
drought/flood conditions change the potential impacts to sustainable goods and services (i.e.,
recharging aquifers; transport of essential nutrients; flood damage) is dependent on ecosystem
functional physical processes. At proper functioning condition (PFC) an ecosystem is resilience to
almost any perturbation.
There are emerging opportunities to use remotely-sensed imagery to speed up PFC
assessments and other ecosystem function assessments. As data become more readily available
from hyperspectral imagery allowing species of plants to be distinguished and Light Detection and
Radar (LIDAR) for detailed topography such as bank height, they can be used for assessment on
a larger spatial scale (Hall et al., 2009). Re-analysis of global Earth science datasets for climate
and watershed conditions over the past few decades may permit some indicators of watershed
health and flooding to be used for risk analysis leading to risk management through remediation
of impaired functions (Earth Science Information Partnership, 2014; Federal Big Data Working
Group, 2014).
27
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
28
-------
6.0 Partnerships Needed
Sustainability of water quality requires partnerships between the water quality community
and efforts to maintain and restore sustainable natural resources in watersheds, riparian areas, and
aquatic and coastal ecosystems. It is crucial to have communication and collaboration not only
across agencies at the federal, state, local and tribal levels but also with local landowners and land
users. The nature of this work crosses over lines demarcating academic disciplines.
USEPA has articulated the need for integration across CWA programs, all USEPA
statutory programs, and the water quality programs of other federal agencies in its long-term vision
for assessment, restoration and protection under the CWA Section 303(d) program for impaired
waters (USEPA, 2013c). This nonbinding document emphasizes that states have flexibility in
using alternatives to TMDLs. Despite common needs and interests, however, mandates for
agencies at federal and other levels limit how well agencies can work together. Federal mandates
even affect collaboration across different statutory programs at USEPA (CWA, Clean Air Act,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act [Superfund], etc.). It is
a great challenge to establish formal cooperation between agencies, especially for the periods of
time required for management of ecosystem function and NPS pollution control. BLM and the
Montana Department of Environmental Quality provide an example of a successful partnership to
produce high-quality waters by focusing on the strengths of their respective agencies. Several
items in this partnership address restoring and maintaining watershed function. This partnership
was expanded to include cooperative water quality monitoring that meets the needs of both
agencies (Aron et al., 2013). McKinney and Harmon (2004) underscore the importance of
collaborative leadership in managing natural resources.
Engagement with clean water groups can advance the application of new approaches. The
U.S. Water Alliance (formerly Clean Water America Alliance) unifies several activities in the One
Water Management Network (U.S. Water Alliance, 2014). Three related associations are the
National Association of Clean Water Agencies that heads the Healthy Water Coalition, the
Association of Clean Water Administrators that represents the state and interstate water managers
and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators that represents their drinking water
counterparts. The UC is interested in related impacts on the Great Lakes. Another partner is the
Urban Waters Learning Network, a peer-to-peer network of people and organizations that share
practical on-the-ground experiences to improve urban waterways and revitalize the neighborhoods
around them. The network is a partnership between Groundwork USA & River Network, and
funding by USEPA. http://www.urbanwaterslearningnetwork.org/.
Land management agencies are important partners. BLM is a leader in applications of
riparian function and has been in close collaboration on USEPA projects. The USDA NRCS is
critical for dealing with the agricultural sector and has a new structure for its programs under the
Regional Conservation Partnerships Program in the 2014 Farm Bill. In addition, the participation
29
-------
of local landowners and land users is essential.
Land-based sources are the major sources of pollution in the marine environment, affecting
aquaculture, marine sanctuaries, fisheries, and desalination. Surveillance of coastal impacts should
be coordinated with pollution control activities. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) is the key marine agency. NOAA has an Office of Aquaculture, an Office
of National Marine Sanctuaries, and a Coastal Services Center. The UC is interested in related
impacts on the Great Lakes.
30
-------
7.0 Conclusion
Watershed assessments of ecosystem functions provides alternative approaches for
addressing NPS pollution and planning associated with TMDLs (Houck 1999; Park et al. 2011).
Objective is to implement a watershed management plan that will maintain and/or improve
ecological resilience. Resilience contributes to a larger picture connecting social, ecological and
health concerns in a watershed (Bunch et al. 2014). The US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) recently articulated a new long-term vision for assessment, restoration and protection
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) program for impaired waters (USEPA 2013a).
This vision does not reflect new regulations or legislation but rather allows USEPA, states and
stakeholders greater flexibility in devising strategies to achieve water quality goals using
alternative restoration and protection approaches. Such flexibility permits the application of
ecosystem knowledge from decades of restoration experience to address the persistent problem of
polluted runoff entering water bodies (USEPA 2013b) and the majority of water quality
impairments are now caused by diffuse nonpoint source (NPS) pollutants, such as sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus and pathogens, that move across the landscape before being deposited into
water bodies (e.g., US General Accountability Office [GAO] 2013).
This work on ecosystem function can be used more widely to help USEPA and the nation
manage ecological processes that underlie sustainability of water quality. The aim is to transfer
experience from using ecosystem function for ecosystem restoration and apply it to the control of
stressors, particularly NPS pollutants. Sustainability associated with resilient ecosystems is linked
to the control of NPS pollutants, such as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and pathogens, which
are the primary causes of water quality impairments in the United States. This report has shown
how the assessment of ecosystem function can be utilized under the CWA in the development of
an alternative to the traditional permit and chemical centric TMDL approach for restoring water
quality. Examples have shown how assessments for ecosystem function can be used to restore
salmon runs in Vancouver Island in British Columbia and to protect a drinking water source
threatened by erosion in Cold Creek, Nevada. To be optimally effective, assessment of ecosystem
function should be followed by analysis of assessment information to identify priority locations
for remediation. The science of ecosystem function is ready for application to necessary
investments in water and sanitation infrastructure and it can satisfy the growing demand to couple
these projects with conservation of natural resources and integration of natural "green" ecosystems
within the built environment.
31
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
32
-------
8.0 References
American Water Blog. 2014. USGAO: Many Polluted Waterways Are Slipping Through
the Cracks (Jan. 14, 2014). Available at http://americanwaterblog.com (accessed April 5, 2014).
Aron, J.L., Hall, R.K., Philbin, M.J., and Schafer, R.J. 2013. Using watershed function
as the leading indicator for water quality. Water Policy 15: 850-858.
Barbour, M.T., Swietlik, W.F., Jackson, S.K., Courtemanch, D.L., Davies, S.P., and
Yoder, C.O. 2000. Measuring the attainment of biological integrity in the USA: A critical
element of ecological integrity. Hydrobiologia 00:1-12.
Beauvais, J. 2015. EPA Takes Next Steps to Protect Drinking Water from Harmful Algal
Blooms. Available at: blog.epa.gov/blog/2015/ll/next-steps-to-protect-drinking-water (accessed
November 3, 2017).
Blankenship, K. 2014. Scientists: New Bay goals should be based on results, not
numbers. Today's 'right' amount might be obsolete under tomorrow's conditions, STAC
members say. Bay Journal, Chesapeake Media Service, April 7, 2014. Available at
http://www.baviournal.com/article/scientists new bay goals should be based on results not
numbers (accessed April 28, 2014).
Borman, M.M., Massingill, C.R., and Elmore, E.W. 1999. Riparian area responses to
changes in management. Rangelands 21 (3): 3-7 (June 1999).
Buchanan, S, Barraclough, C.L., Townsend, L., Hegg, D., Malmkvist, L., and Lucey, W.P.
2009. Colquitz River Watershed Proper Functioning Condition Watershed Assessment. Aqua-Tex
Scientific Consulting, Ltd., Kimberley, British Columbia, Canada, 129 pp + Appendices.
Bunch, Martin J., Parkes, Margot, Zubrycki, Karla, Venema, Henry, Hallstrom, Lars,
Neudorffer, Cynthia, Berbes-Blazquez, Marta, Morrison, Karen, 2014, Watershed Management
and Public Health: An Exploration of the Intersection of Two Fields as Reported in the Literature
from 2000 to 2010, Environmental Management, 54(2):240-254.
Burton, T.A., Smith, S.J., Cowley, E.R., 2011, Riparian Area Management: Multiple
Indicator Monitoring (MIM) for Stream Channels and Streamside Vegetation. Technical
Reference 1737-23. BLM/OC/ST-10/003+1737. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, National Operations Center, Denver, CO 155 pp.
CBF. 2014a. What is Killing the Bay? Available at http://www.cbf.org/how-we-save-the-
bav/chesapeake-clean-water-blueprint/what-is-killing-the-bav (accessed on April 30, 2014).
33
-------
CBF. 2014b. Polluted Runoff: How Investing in Runoff Pollution Control Systems
Improves the Chesapeake Bay Region's Ecology, Economy, and Health.
Chaffin, B.C., Garmestani, A.S., Angeler, D.G., Herrmann, D.L., Stow, C.A., Nystrom,
M., Sendzimir, J., Hopton, M.E., Kolasa, J., Allen, C.R., 2016, Biological invasions, ecological
resilience and adaptive governance, Journal of Environmental Management, Volume 183, Part 2,
1 December 2016, Pages 399-407.
Courtemanch, D.L. (1995). "Merging the science of biological monitoring with water
resource management policy: criteria development." Biological assessment and criteria: tools for
water resource planning and decision making, Davis W.S., and Simon, T.P., eds., Lewis, Boca
Raton, Fla., 315-325.
Davies, S.P. and Jackson, S.K. 2006. The biological condition gradient: a descriptive model
for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16 (4): 1251-1266 +
appendices.
Davis, W.S. (1995). "Biological assessment and criteria: building on the past." Biological
assessment and criteria: tools for water resource planning and decision making. W.S. Davis and T.
P. Simon, eds., Lewis, Boca Raton, Fla., 15-29.
De Groot, R., 2006, Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts
in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes, Landscape and Urban Planning, 75
(2006), pp. 175-186.
Dickard, M., Gonzales, M., Elmore, W., Leonard, S., Smith, D., Smith, S., Staats, J.,
Summers, P., Weixelman, D., and Wyman, S. 2015. Riparian Area Management - Proper
Functioning Condition Assessment for Lotic Areas. BLM Technical Reference 1737-15 Second
edition. 199 pp.
Earth Science Information Partnership. 2014. Earth Science Data Analytics. Available at
http://wiki.esipfed.org/index.php/Earth Science Data Analytics (accessed on April 9, 2014).
Elmore W. 1998. Twenty-one years. The ever-changing tale of Oregon's Bear Creek.
Range Magazine (Spring 1998): 32-35. Available at
http://www.rangemagazine.com/archives/stories/spring98/stories 21 vears.htm (accessed on
May 26, 2014).
Executive Order No. 13653, Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate
Change, Federal Register, Part III, The President, Vol. 78, No. 215, Nov. 6, 2013, Section 8.
Feather River CRM, Plumas Corporation. 2010. Technical Report - Quantification of
Carbon Sequestration Benefits of Restoring Degraded Montane Meadows. Feather River
34
-------
Coordinated Resource Management. 14pp. Available at http://www.feather-river-crm.org/
(accessed May 2, 2014).
Federal Big Data Working Group. 2014. Federal Big Data Working Group. Available at
http://www.meetup.com/Federal-Big-Data-Working-Group/ (accessed on April 9, 2014).
Fischenich J.C. 2006. Functional objectives for stream restoration. EMRRP Technical
Notes Collection (ERDC TN-EMRRP-SR-52). U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Vicksburg, Miss, http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/sr52.pdf.
Hall, R.K., Watkins, R.L., Heggem, D.T., Jones, K.B., Kaufmann, P.R., Moore, S.B., and
Gregory, S.J., 2009, Quantifying Structural Physical Habitat Attributes Using Lidar and
Hyperspectral Imagery; Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 59:63-83.
Hall, R.K, Guiliano, D., Swanson, S., Philbin, M.J., Lin, J., Aron, J.L., Schafer, R.J., and
Heggem D.T. 2014a. An ecological function and services approach to total maximum daily load
(TMDL) prioritization. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 186 (4): 2413-2433.
Hall, R.K., Heggem, D., Swanson, S., and Lin, J. 2014b. Proper Functioning Condition
(PFC) Assessment for Management and Monitoring. Tribal Ecosystem Research Program (TERP)
Workshop. USEPA Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research
Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, Las Vegas, Nevada, EPA/600/R-14/344,
September 2014.
Ham, B., and Schaffer, C. 2014. Arctic's big thaw may affect the health of whales, seals.
Available at http://www.aaas.org/news/arctics-big-thaw-mav-affect-health-whales-seals
(accessed on April 9, 2014)
Hancock, G.R., Hugo, J., Webb, A.A., Turner, L., 2017, Sediment transport in steep
forested catchments - An assessment of scale and disturbance, Journal of Hydrology, 547:613-
622.
Harman, W., Starr, R., Carter, M., Tweedy, K., Clemmons, M., Suggs, K., and Miller, C.
2012. A Function-Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. USEPA
843-K-12-006. USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Houck, O.A. 1999. The clean water act TMDL program: law, policy, and
implementation. Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC.
Howard, B.C. 2014. Mississippi Basin water quality declining despite conservation.
National Geographic Daily News (April 11, 2014). Available at
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/04/14Q411-water-qualitv-nutrients-pesticides-
dead-zones-science/ (accessed April 30, 2014).
35
-------
Hughes, F.M.R, Colston, A., and Mountford, J.O. 2006. Restoring riparian ecosystems: the
challenge of accommodating variability and designing restoration trajectories. Ecology and
Society 11(2): 12.
IJC. 2014. A Balanced Diet for Lake Erie: Reducing Phosphorus Loadings and Harmful
Algal Blooms. Report of the Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority
Karr, J.R. 1998. Rivers as sentinels: Using the biology of rivers to guide landscape
management, in Naiman, R.J., and Bilby, R.E., editors. River Ecology and Management: Lessons
from the Pacific Coastal Ecosystem. Springer, Pages 502-528.
Karr, J.R., and Yoder, C.O. 2004. Biological assessment and criteria improve TMDL
planning and decision-making. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130(6): 594-604.
Klamath Basin Task Force. 2014. Historic Agreement Reached on Upper Klamath Basin
Water. Press Release (March 5, 2014). Available at
http://www.oregon.gov/gov/media room/Pages/press releases/press 030514.aspx (accessed on
April 8, 2014).
Kondolf, G.M. 2006. River restoration and meanders. Ecology and Society 11(2): 42.
Kondolf, G.M., Boulton, A.J., O'Daniel, S., Poole, G.C., Rahel, F.J., Stanley, E.H., Wohl,
E., Bang, A., Carlstrom, J., Cristoni, C., Huber, H., Koljonen, S., Louhi, P., and Nakamura, K.
2006. Process-based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-dimensional connectivity and
dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and Society 11(2): 5.
Kondolf, G.M. 2011. Setting goals in river restoration: when and where can the river "heal
itself'? in: Stream Restoration in Dynamic Fluvial Systems: Scientific Approaches, Analyses, and
Tools. Geophysical Monograph Series 194. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp.
29-43.
Kozlowski, D., Swanson, S., Hall, R., and Heggem, D. 2013. Linking Changes in
Management and Riparian Physical Function to Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat: A Case Study
of Maggie Creek, NV. EPA/600/R-13/133. USEPA Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
Kozlowski, D.F., Hall, R.K., Swanson, S.R. and Heggem, D.T. (2016) Linking
Management and Riparian Physical Functions to Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat. Journal of
Water Resource and Protection, 8, 797-815. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/iwarp.2016.88065.
Lindquist, D.S., and Wilcox, J. 2000. New concepts for meadow restoration in the northern
Sierra Nevada. Technical Note (01/21/00). Feather River Coordinated Resource Management,
California.
36
-------
LVWCC. 2000. Las Vegas Wash Comprehensive Adaptive Management Plan. Available
at: http://www.lvwash.org/html/resources library lvwcamp.html (accessed May 1, 2014).
LVWCC and LVWWP. 2003. Integrated Weed Management Plan for the Lower Las Vegas
Wash. Available at: http://www.lvwash.org/html/being done invasives.html (accessed May 17,
2014).
LUMCON. 2014. Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/
(accessed April 30, 2014).
McKinney, M., and Harmon, W. 2004. The Western Confluence: A Guide to Governing
Natural Resources. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Mehaffey, M.H., Nash, M.S., Wade, T.G., Edmonds, C.M., Ebert, C.W., Jones, K.B., and
Rager, A. 2001. A Landscape Assessment of the Catskill/Delaware Watersheds 1975-1988. New
York City's Water Supply Watersheds. EPA/600/R-01/075. USEPA Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
Murphy, J.C., Hirsch, R.M., and Sprague, L.A. 2013. Nitrate in the Mississippi River and
its Tributaries, 1980-2010 - An update: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2013-5169, 31 pp.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 2011. State, City Announce Landmark
Agreement to Safeguard New York City Drinking Water (Feb. 16, 2011). Available at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/html/press releases/11-1 lpr.shtml#.Ut7TPU0o5YI (accessed April 8,2014).
NRC. 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2002. Riparian Areas: Functions and Strategies for Management. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2004. Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2011. Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NRC. 2014a. Understanding the Connections Between Coastal Waters and Ocean
Ecosystem Services and Human Health: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
NRC. 2014b Sustainability Concepts in Decision-Making: Tools and Approaches for the
US Environmental Protection Agency. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
37
-------
Park, D., Loftis, J.C., Rosner, L.A., 2011, Modeling performance of storm water best
management practices with uncertainty analysis, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 16(4):332-
344.
Prichard, D., Barrett, H., Cagney, J., Clark, R., Fogg, J., Gebhardt, K., Hansen, P.,
Mitchell, B., and Tippy, D. 1993. Riparian area management: a process for assessing proper
functioning condition. TR 1737-9. Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737,
Service Center, CO. 60 pp.
Prichard, D., Berg, F., Hagenbuck, W., Krapf, R., Leinard, R., Leonard, S., Manning, M.,
Noble, C. and Staats, J., 1996, Riparian Area management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper
Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas, Technical Reference 1737-
16, 1999; Revised 2003, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Prichard, D., Anderson, J., Correll, C., Fogg, J., Gebhardt, K., Krapf, R., Leonard, S.,
Mitchell, B., and Staats, J. 1998. Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper
Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas, Technical Reference TR1737-
15. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Applied Resource
Sciences Center, Denver, CO.
Rosgen, D.L., 1994, A Classification of Natural Streams, Catena 22:169-199. SSDI0341-
8162(94) E0046-3.
Schumm, S.A., 1977, The fluvial system, Schumm, S.A., New York, Wiley, 1977. No. of
Pages: 338.
Schumm, S.A, Harvey, M.D., and Watson, C.C. 1984. Incised channels: Morphology,
dynamics, and control. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO. 200 pp.
Simon, A., andRinaldi, M. 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: The
roles of excess transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response.
Geomorphology 79(3-4):361-383.
Swanson, S. 1996. Reading a Stream's Need for Management. In Livestock Management
in Grazed Watersheds - A Review of Practices that Protect Water Quality, M.R. George (Technical
Coordinator), Agriculture Issues Center Publication 3381, 23-36. Berkeley, CA: Davis Animal
Agriculture Research Center and the University of California.
Swanson, S., Hall, R.K., Heggem, D.T., Lin, J., Kozlowski, D., and Gibson, R.J., 2012,
Leading or Lagging Indicator for Water Quality Management. 8th National Monitoring
Conference. Abstracts with Programs, Portland, OR, April 1 - May 4.
Swanson, S., Wyman, S., Evans, C., 2015, Practical Grazing Management to Maintain or
Restore Riparian Functions and Values on Rangelands. Journal of Rangeland Applications 2:1-
28, ISSN:2331-5512.
38
-------
Swanson, S., Kozlowski, D., Hall, R., Heggem, D., and Lin, J. 2017. Riparian proper
functioning condition assessment to improve watershed management for water quality. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 72-2:168-182, doi: 10.2489/jswc.72.2.168.
Trust for Public Land. 2005. Source Protection Handbook: Using Land Conservation to
Protect Drinking Water Supplies. Available at http://www.tpl.org/source-protection-handbook
(accessed April 8, 2014).
USACE, 2011, Upper Mississippi River System Ecosystem Restoration Objectives 2009.
Rock Island District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
USACE, 2017. Upper Mississippi River Restoration: Find a HREP project. Available at
http://www.mvr.usace.armv.mil/Missions/Environmental-Protection-and-Restoration/Upper-
Mississippi-River-Restoration/Habitat-Restoration/Find-an-HREP-Project/ (accessed November
16, 2017).
U.S. Water Alliance. 2014. U.S. Water Alliance. Available at http://www.uswateralliance.org/
(accessed on April 9,2014).
USD A NRCS. 2013. Impacts of Conservation Adoption on Cultivated Acres of Cropland
in the Chesapeake Bay Region, 2003-06 to 2011. 113p.
USEPA. 2005. USEPA Region 10 Natural Conditions Workgroup Report on Principles to
Consider When Reviewing and Using Natural Conditions Provision (50 pp.). USEPA Region 10,
Office of Water and Watersheds.
USEPA. 2006. How-To Manual: Update and Enhance Your Local Source Water Protection
Assessments. EPA816-K-06-004. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2009. The National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress for the 2004
Reporting Cycle, Office of Water, EPA 841-F-08-003, January.
USEPA. 2010a. Fiscal Year 2011 - 2015 EPA Strategic Plan: Achieving Our Vision.
USEPA, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2010b. Integrating Ecological Assessment and Decision-Making at EPA: A Path
Forward. Results of a Colloquium in Response to Science Advisory Board and National Research
Council Recommendations. EPA/100/R-10/004. USEPA Office of the Science Advisor Risk
Assessment Forum. Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2011. Coming Together for Clean Water: EPA's Strategy to Protect America's
Waters. USEPA, Washington, DC.
39
-------
USEPA. 2012a. Identifying and Protecting Healthy Watersheds: Concepts, Assessments,
and Management Approaches. EPA 841-B-l 1-002. USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2012b. Sustainable and Healthy Communities - Strategic Research Plan 2012 -
2016. EPA/601/R-12/005. USEPA Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2012c. The Clean Water Act: Protecting and Restoring our Nation's Waters.
Available at http://water.epa.gov/action/ cleanwater40/cwal01.cfm (accessed June 16, 2013).
USEPA. 2012d. Nevada: Las Vegas Wash. Best Management Practices Drastically
Reduce Sediment and Restore Water Quality in Las Vegas Wash. Available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/state nv.cfm (accessed May 1, 2014).
USEPA. 2013a. National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2008-2009 A Collaborative
Survey Draft, EPA/841/D-13/001. USEPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, and
Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2013b. Sustainability Analytics. Available at
http://www.epa.gov/sustainabilitv/analvtics/ (accessed April 9, 2014).
USEPA. 2013c. A Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection Under
the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Program. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2014a. Section 319 Nonpoint Source Success Stories. Available at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/ (accessed March 25, 2014).
USEPA. 2014b. EnviroAtlas. Available at http://enviroatlas.epa.gov/enviroatlas/ (accessed
May 17, 2014).
USEPA. 2017. Summary of the Clean Water Act. Available at http:
https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act/ (accessed November 15, 2017).
USGAO. 2013. Clean Water Act: Changes Needed If Key EPA Program Is to Help Fulfill
the Nation's Water Quality Goals. USGAO-14-80. Washington, DC.
van Leeuwen, J.P., Djukic, I., Bloem, J., Lehtinen, T., Hemerik, L., de Ruiter, P.C., Lair,
G.J., 2017, Effects of land use on soil microbial biomass, activity and community structure at
different soil depths in the Danube floodplain, European Journal of Soil Biology, Volume 79,
March-April, Pages 14-20.
40
-------
Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., and Kinzig, A. 2004. Resilience, adaptability,
and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologvandsocietv.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
Wang, H., Nie, Y., Butterly, C.R., Wang, L., Chen, Qiuhui, T., Wei, S., Bingbing, X.,
Yunguan, Wanf, Y., 2017, Fertilization alters microbial community composition and functional
patterns by changing the chemical nature of soil organic carbon: A field study in a Halosol,
Geoderma, Volume 292, 15 April, Pages 17-24.
Wang, Le, Cuthbertson, Alan J.S., Pender, Gareth, Cao, Zhixian Cao, 2015, Experimental
investigations of graded sediment transport under unsteady flow hydrographs, International
Journal of Sediment Research, 30 (4):306-320.
Winward, A.H., 2000, Monitoring the Vegetation Resources in Riparian Areas, General
Technical Report RMRS-GTR-47, Ogden, UT, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station 49 pp.
Wyman, S., Bailey, D., Borman, M., Cote, S., Eisner, J., Elmore, W., Leinard, B., Leonard,
S., Reed, F., Swanson, S., Van Riper, L., Westfall, T., Wiley, R., and Winward, A. 2006. Riparian
area management: grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas
(Technical Reference No. 1737-20). Denver, CO: USDI, Bureau of Land Management.
Zheng, J., Chen, J., Pan, G., Wang, G., Liu, Xiaoyu, Z., Zhang, LI, L., Bian, R., Cheng,
K., Zheng, J., 2017, A long-term hybrid poplar plantation on cropland reduces soil organic
carbon mineralization and shifts microbial community abundance and composition, Applied Soil
Ecology, Volume 111, March, Pages 94-104.
41
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
42
-------
9.0 Quality Assurance Summary
A Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) was used for this work entitled, "Ecosystem
Service Protection to Improve Tribal Well-Being Proper Functioning Conditions (PFC) Assessing
Ecological Function using EMAP, State and Tribal Water Quality and Biological Data, and
Satellite and Aerial Imagery using PFC Protocol", approved on December 15, 2015, QA DCN D-
SED-EIB-007-QAPP-01. This Report does not include environmental data collected by the
USEPA. Laboratory Notebooks were reviewed by the System Exposure Division management
and Quality Assurance Manager annually. There were no findings requiring corrective actions.
There were no deviations to methods or general or specific limitation on the use of the results.
43
-------
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
44
-------
-------
AERIV
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Please make all necessary changes on the below label, detach
or copy and return to the address in the upper left-hand corner.
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE:I I
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner.
PRESORTED STANDARD
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA PERMIT No. G-35
Office of Research
and Development (8101R)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
EPA/600/R-17/138
October 2017
www.epa.gov
ft
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
------- |