Grantee Research Project Results
2000 Progress Report: Developing Methods and Tools for Watershed Restoration: Design, Implementation, and Assessment in the Willamette Basin, Oregon
EPA Grant Number: R827146Title: Developing Methods and Tools for Watershed Restoration: Design, Implementation, and Assessment in the Willamette Basin, Oregon
Investigators: Bolte, John P. , Santelmann, Mary , Jepson, Paul C. , Li, Judith L. , Smith, Courtland
Current Investigators: Bolte, John P. , Santelmann, Mary , Smith, Courtland , Li, Judith L. , Jepson, Paul C.
Institution: Oregon State University
EPA Project Officer: Chung, Serena
Project Period: October 1, 1998 through September 30, 2001 (Extended to September 30, 2002)
Project Period Covered by this Report: October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000
Project Amount: $809,993
RFA: Water and Watersheds (1998) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: Watersheds , Water
Objective:
The overall objective of this study was to integrate models of watershed function and economic characterizations of restoration options with stakeholder priorities and constraints to provide a tool for stakeholders to identify feasible restoration strategies and evaluate the ecological and economic effectiveness of these strategies at addressing watershed-level function using two case studies. The specific objectives of this research project are to: (1) refine and integrate a set of simplified models relating land use, ecological factors, and watershed hydrology to measure reflecting water quality, habitat, and biodiversity endpoints at a watershed level; (2) coordinate with community-based Watershed Councils to identify and prioritize restoration goals and options for two diverse watersheds; (3) characterize potential restoration strategies from an economic and social perspective; (4) develop a decisionmaking framework integrating these models and characterizations, coupled with community-based prioritization strategies, for generating and prioritizing potential restoration activities; and (5) evaluate the impact of using this framework on stakeholder decisionmaking and transferability of the methodology using two watersheds in the Willamette Basin, Oregon.
Progress Summary:
Efforts during this project period focused on two main areas: continued development of the decision support tool RESTORE, and interactions with two watershed councils in presenting preliminary results and soliciting feedback on the utility of the tool for guiding decision-making.
Decision Support Tool Development
A primary focus of this project is to develop a spatially explicit, geographic information system (GIS)-based decision support tool for assisting local stakeholders in generating and evaluating alternative restoration plans responsive to their particular restoration objectives. In Year 1 of this project, we developed a prototype software tool capable of querying users for objective weights and then generating restoration plans responsive to these objectives. The tool uses a rule base developed in the project that relates the utility of specific restoration alternatives to stakeholder objectives and site conditions.
The general approach developed here employed several key components. First, a GIS was used to organize and manage spatially explicit data sets relevant to restoration decision-making. Second, a multiobjective decision-making engine was developed to interface with the GIS data sets, identify stakeholder goals, and evaluate a range of restoration alternatives at each site in the landscape to determine optimal plans addressing diverse stakeholder goals. Finally, a series of spatially explicit models of watershed function and economic characterizations of restoration options were developed to determine the effectiveness at which the generated restoration plan satisfies stakeholder-determined constraints and priorities. The resulting tool, RESTORE, can assist stakeholders in identifying feasible restoration strategies and evaluating the ecological and economic effectiveness of these strategies at addressing watershed-level ecological, economic, and social function.
The RESTORE tool contains a series of rules that relate specific site-based restoration alternatives, stakeholder goals, and site-specific landscape features to generate feasible restoration plans that reflect stakeholder concerns. These were developed through cooperation with two watershed councils representing diverse watershed types and disturbance levels. The analysis framework uses a landscape generator to apply design heuristics that embody ecological, economic, and social constraints and preferences to allocate restoration activities to specific sites based on site features.
Activities in Year 2 of the project involved both continued development of the RESTORE software to provide robust rule-handling and explanation capabilities, as well as refinement of the rule base used by RESTORE to generate restoration plans. We have largely completed software development related to plan generation, consistent with our original timeline. To refine the rule sets employed by RESTORE, we conducted a series of workshops with scientists involved in the project representing a diverse disciplinary perspective (ranging from habitat and water quality to social and economic perspectives). The outcome of this series of workshops was a robust rule base that addresses 16 restoration alternatives, 5 major objectives, and about 25 subobjectives.
We also met with stakeholder groups (watershed councils) to present preliminary results, demonstrate RESTORE, and solicit feedback on the utility of the tool at addressing prioritization needs. In general, the approach was enthusiastically embraced, with concerns expressed about the confidentiality of some of the spatially explicit information and the specific restoration alternatives considered. We incorporated the outcomes of these interactions into RESTORE through the development and refinement of additional rules. We also controlled the information presented through the RESTORE user interface.
A second component of RESTORE that we have begun to address this year is the development of a series of watershed-scale evaluative modules. An important outcome of the stakeholder meetings was the watershed councils' increased interest in watershed-scale indicators. The primary concerns focused on the effects of restoration on stream temperature distributions in the stream network, and habitat quality and provisions for a number of sensitive species. As a result, we have initiated development of evaluative tools in these areas; further development of these tools will be a primary focus of next year's activities.
Future Activities:
Future activities for this research project will focus on: (1) developing evaluative modules for watershed-scale metrics, particularly stream temperature and habitat quality resulting from generated restoration plans; (2) further characterization of the social networks influencing restoration objectives and adoption of restoration plans; (3) further field research on species/habitat relationships, particularly with respect to wetland and riparian invertebrates; and (4) continued development and refinement of the RESTORE tool.
Journal Articles on this Report : 1 Displayed | Download in RIS Format
| Other project views: | All 32 publications | 4 publications in selected types | All 2 journal articles |
|---|
| Type | Citation | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
Smith CL, Gilden J. Assets to move watershed councils from assessment to action. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 2002;38(3):653-662. |
R827146 (2000) R827146 (Final) R825751 (2000) R825751 (Final) |
Exit Exit |
Supplemental Keywords:
water, watersheds, ecological effects, ecosystems, restoration, terrestrial, aquatic, habitat, integrated assessment, decision-making, community-based, preferences, sociological, engineering, modeling, Pacific Northwest., RFA, Scientific Discipline, Ecosystem Protection/Environmental Exposure & Risk, Geographic Area, Water, Restoration, Ecological Indicators, State, Ecosystem Protection, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, Economics, Watersheds, Ecosystem/Assessment/Indicators, Monitoring/Modeling, Ecological Effects - Environmental Exposure & Risk, Hydrology, Water & Watershed, integrated assessment, biodiversity, socioeconomics, water quality, cost benefit, stakeholder groups, watershed restoration, risk assessment, community involvement, Oregon, community values, econometrics, public policy, web site development, land use, ecology assessment models, OR, aquatic ecosystems, economic, GIS, stakeholder feedback, conservation, decision making, ecological recovery, environmental rehabilitationProgress and Final Reports:
Original AbstractThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.