You are here:
A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning
Citation:
NORTON, D. J., J. D. WICKHAM, T. G. WADE, K. Kunert, J. V. THOMAS, AND P. Zeph. A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning . JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. Elsevier Science Ltd, New York, NY, 44:356-368, (2009).
Impact/Purpose:
In 1990, a special issue of Environmental Management (1990) on lotic systems recovery identified the crucial importance of recovery science as a foundation for restoration practice. While acknowledging the uncertainties of prediction at that time (Cairns 1990), the issue’s governmental and academic authors alike displayed optimism about developing the theoretical basis and technical tools to apply recovery concepts in restoration programs. Despite progress, common geo-spatial data, tools and scientific knowledge about aquatic ecosystem recovery are still not routinely used in guiding large state and federal restoration programs affecting thousands of impaired waters. In restoration programs, case-by-case decisions and ‘worst-first’ approaches without systematic use of recovery information can have several undesirable outcomes: 1) more recoverable waters may be overlooked, resulting in a lost opportunity for easier environmental gains; 2) already-limited resources can be depleted by relatively few, severely impaired systems that may yield paltry benefits or never recover at all, making it hard to demonstrate program success; 3) priority-setting without a transparent and consistent basis may be vulnerable to political or legal pressure; and 4) the tools and scientific knowledge of recovery are not being fully utilized in restoration decisions meant to bring about recovery. To help remedy these shortcomings, we used recovery principles and common data sources to develop methods for states and others to systematically consider recovery potential in developing restoration strategies.
Description:
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 priority 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 screening approach adaptable to widely different environments and program goals. In this paper we describe the indicators, methodology and three statewide, recovery-based targeting and prioritization projects. We also call for refining the scientific basis for estimating recovery potential.