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

Abstract

Common decision support tools and a growing body of knowledge about ecological recovery can help inform and guide large state and federal restoration programs affecting thousands of impaired waters. Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), waters not meeting state Water Quality Standards due to impairment by pollutants are placed on the CWA Section 303(d) list, scheduled for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, and ultimately restored. Tens of thousands of 303(d)-listed waters, many with completed TMDLs, represent a restoration workload of many years. State TMDL scheduling and implementation decisions influence the choice of waters and the sequence of restoration. Strategies that compare these waters' recovery potential could optimize the gain of ecological resources by restoring promising sites earlier. We explored ways for states to use recovery potential in restoration priority setting with landscape analysis methods, geographic data, and impaired waters monitoring data. From the literature and practice we identified measurable, recovery-relevant ecological, stressor, and social context metrics and developed a restorability screening approach adaptable to widely different environments and program goals. In this paper we describe the indicators, the methodology, and three statewide, recovery-based targeting and prioritization projects. We also call for refining the scientific basis for estimating recovery potential.

Prioritizing Watersheds for Conservation Actions in the Southeastern Coastal Plain Ecoregion

“…Game et al (2013) suggested that the quality and usefulness of conservation priority setting can be improved by broader recognition that conservation planners act as both modelers and decision analysts and need to be trained in the science and philosophy of these disciplines. In order to reduce ambiguity in our application of the prioritization model, we selected only descriptors and indicators which are well supported in the literature (Norton et al 2009), and we followed the JSEM approach for evaluating indicators and developing the specific mathematical relationship between indicators. We further evaluated the effect of the indicators we selected and the data sources by which we quantified them.…”

“…Community support and willingness for conservation activities is a qualitative measure of the watershed residents' disposition toward watershed conservation activities and was described by Norton et al (2009) as the social context affecting efforts to improve a watershed's condition. In this study, we adopted indicators for this descriptor which are well supported in the literature (Norton et al 2009;USEPA 2012). For this study, we selected only indicators for which we could readily identify measurement endpoints supported by publicly and electronically accessible data sources (Table 1).…”

Tailored Watershed Assessment and Integrated Management (TWAIM): A Systems Thinking Approach

“…But more accurately, the persistent pollution problem is likely a lag-time issue [15]. Or is this a story of limited recovery potential [26]? Slow recovery or no recovery is very frustrating to those who pay for a product, but see little return on investment.…”

“…Landscape-linked BMPs are BMPs that first define pollutant origin and then address a pollutant's potential to move, from the upland or other source (point source), into and through a transitional or hillslope zone into the riparian corridor and water-body [9]. By linking BMPs there is the potential for an environmental value added affect, i.e., water quality improvement, restored habitat, enhanced aesthetics and infrastructure protection [26]. These would generally be considered desirable enhancements of the CPR.…”

“…However, the idea is less applicable to NPS pollution of the Chesapeake Bay. There are external costs associated with the private use of such resources or more specifically the lack of proper land use management that an individual imposes on the community through the use of their private property management decisions (i.e., allowing sediment and attached nutrients to enter into a stream) [2,26]. Specifically, this could be referred to as a technological externality; land use managers who have taken land out of row-crop production to build a treatment wetland have made a technological and financial investment to limit sediment and nutrient damage to down gradient water resources [6].…”