Developing an Index of Stream – Wetland – Riparian Condition

Brooks et al. 2009

LEVEL 1 (LANDSCAPE FROM GIS)

LEVEL 2 (RAPID FIELD ASSESSMENT)

LEVEL 3 (INTENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT)

How do our estimates of condition compare across levels of measurement resolution and across geographic scales?

Mayer et al. 2005 (EPA)

Measurement Type Site-Level Metric

Adjacent Land Use Buffer score

Riparian Classification Wetland presence/ absence; Average cover type (~ biomass index)

Bankfull Parameters Incision ratio; Width/ depth ratio

Wetland Classification Wetland presence/ absence; # of wetland types

Hydrology, Wetland and Soils Assessment Wetness of wettest wetland on site

Vegetation Assessment (Trees)

Basal area, total and by species; Number of species; Median DBH

Invasive Species % cover of invasive species, total and by species

Stressor ChecklistTotal number of stressors, and number of stressor categories, for stream, floodplain, wetlands

Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA) SHA score (normalized to a 0 -1 scale)

Otherreference site (yes/ no); stream order class; beaver site (yes/ no)

EXAMPLES OF METRICS COMPUTED FROM SWR DATA

SHA ScoreIncision Ratio

# StreamStressors

Stream-Wetland-Riparian (SWR) Index

Buff0-300 Basal Area Invasives # FP-WLStressors

Floodplain-WetlandCondition

Conceptual Model of Condition Used for SWR Index

Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA) variables:(each gets 1-10 BPJ rating)

Epifaunal substrateEmbeddednessVelocity/Depth regimeSediment depositionChannel flowChannel alterationFrequency of rifflesBank stabilityVegetative protectionRiparian vegetative zone width

STRESSORS - Brooks et al. SWR – site and buffer (<30 m, 30-100 m)Hydrologic modification (+ or -, ditch, fill, dead trees, stormwater, roads)Sedimentation/Erosion (deposits, intensive grazing, active construc) Dissolved oxygen (excessive density of algal mats, excessive deposition of organic waster, discharges of organic wastewater) Contaminant toxicity (pt discharges, severe veg stress, chem odors) Vegetation alteration (mowing, moderate grazing, brush cutting) Eutrophication (discharges, heavy algal mats, direct discharges from septic or wastewater treatment systems) Acidification (atmosph. deposition, AMD, adjacent mine spoil piles) Turbidity (mod. Concentration suspended solids in water column, obvious sediment plumes) Thermal alteration (significant increases in water temperature, recent human-induced canopy removal) Salinity (obvious increase in dissolved salts)Habitat fragmentation - handled w/ Landscape Index

LEVEL 1 (LANDSCAPE FROM GIS)

• overall watershed• contributing area to sample point• 1-km circle centered on sample point

LEVEL 2 (RAPID FIELD ASSESSMENT)

• SWR – single site• SWR – average for watershed or contributing area

LEVEL 3 (INTENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT) – existing data

• benthic IBI, fish IBI, NO3

LANDSCAPE METRICS (FROM GIS)• Percent Forest• Land Development Intensity coefficient (LDI)• Impervious Surface• Mean Forest Patch Size• [Core Forest/ Total Forest]

LANDSCAPE INDEX = AVERAGE [ % forest score +

(LDI score + Impervious Surface score)/ 2 + (Forest Patch Size score + Core Forest score) /2 ]

LANDSCAPE SCORES

2. contributing area to IBI sample point

LEVEL 1 – LANDSCAPE INDEX

1. overall watershed3. 1-km circle centered on SWR sample point

2. How well does average site-level physical condition in the upstream contributing area reflect biotic condition?

r pBenthic IBI 0.549 0.000 ***

Fish IBI 0.493 0.000 ***

NO3 0.400 0.002 **

Correlation between SWR Index and MBSS (n=60):

Avg. SWR Index in MBSS point contributing area vs. IBI score

ST

RM

-B2

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0R

epau

po

Aho

skie

Sai

nt M

ary'

s A

Sai

nt M

ary'

s B

War

e R

iver

Grin

dle

Cre

ek

Littl

e C

onte

ntne

a

Pam

unke

y

Sou

thea

st C

reek

Bac

k R

iver

Man

tua

Cat

tail

Cre

ek

Mid

dle

Cre

ek

Upp

er P

atux

ent

Chi

ckah

omin

y

Gw

ynn

Fal

ls

Buf

falo

Cre

ek

Chr

istia

n C

reek

Cle

arfie

ld C

reek

Whi

te D

eer

Cre

ek

Wis

coni

sco

Mid

dle

Riv

er

Upp

er P

enns

Cre

ek

Spr

ing

Cre

ek

Con

odog

uine

t A

Con

odog

uine

t B Wtrshed

Agr

icul

ture

For

est/

Low

Slo

Mix

ed/ H

igh

Nod

Mix

ed/ L

ow N

oda

Urb

an

Agr

icul

ture

Mix

ed/ L

ow N

oda

Urb

an

Agr

icul

ture

For

est/

Hig

h S

l

Mix

ed/ H

igh

Nod

Mix

ed/ L

ow N

oda

Urb

an ClusterDescrip

Coastal Plain Piedmont Ridge & Valley PhysioRegion

Within-watershed Variability of SWR Index

Sc

ale

com

parin

g so

cial

cho

ices

Ref. Std>75%forest

Moderate40-75%

Low25-

40%

Ref. std 30-50% forest

Ref. Std. 40-75% tree cover

Forest

Agriculture

Urban

Social choice D

Social choice D

Scal

e co

mpa

ring

cond

ition

Watersheds with best agreement between Level 1 (landscape) vs. Level 2 (site level):

Watersheds where Level 2 (site level) score >> Level 1 (landscape) score

Mayer et al. 2005 (EPA)

Boyd – Ecosystem Services 2010

Hawes & Smith 2005

Yetter, IBIslope & stream points

Yetter

Yetter

Harte 2013

Selected Ecosystem Services – to Final Services (HOUSEHOLD OR INDIVIDUAL FARM/BUSINESS FOCUS; ON-SITE VS. OFF-SITE BENEFITS&COSTS)

1 - WATER PURIFICATION (HAVING CLEANER WATER; IMPROVED WATER QUALITY;

RETAIN, REMOVE, TRANSFORM NUTRIENTS - (preventing excess nutrients entering stream – links to healthy stream for fishing, livestock drinking water, avoid or eliminate regulatory “impaired” water determination)

2- WATER-BASED RECREATION (FISHING, MAYBE SMALL BOATING)

(need to parse among coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater fisheries) 3- ECOLOGICAL HEALTH (NON-USE VALUES FOR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF

STREAM-WETLAND-RIPARIAN BIODIVERSITY) 4- FLOOD STORAGE & DESYNCHRONIZATION (reduced damage to property and crops;

need to tie to measurement of flood risk, then $), whereas riparian buffers filter upland sources of nutrients moving toward waterbodies, properly

connectedflooding regime allows transformation of nutrients by the floodplain and

wetlands when stream overflows (therefore, less incised due to land use proportions)

5 – CARBON SEQUESTRATION (ESTIMATES BASED ON LAND USE CONVERSION

(e.g., crop to forest) or VEGETATION/SOIL BASED CARBON PER UNIT AREA)

Valuation of Ecosystem Services

to Final Services

Ecosystem Services to be Valued

• Criteria– Potentially large value– Know linkages between intervention and service– Have estimates of economic value

• Initial List– Values tied to direct use

• Fishing/Boating/Swimming

– Nonuse Values and indirect use values• Existence value for Habitat/Ecosystem Health• Carbon Sequestration

– Pockeboot Impacts• Water Purification Costs• Property damage from floods

Recreational Use

• Model of recreational fishing behavior• Can calculate benefit to anglers of spatially explicit changes in

fishing quality– One quality measure used: National Fish Habitat Partnership

Habitat Degradation Risk Index• Based largely on landscape upstream

– Can value a change in HDRI• Need to know linkage between intervention and HDRI

• Much less info available on swimming and boating, but we are looking

NFHP Database

Nonuse Values

• Measure using general population surveys to measure WTP for improvements in stream/river quality– Water Quality – Biological Health

• Need to know linkages between intervention and water quality and/or biological health

Water Quality Scales

• National Sanitation Foundation WQI• 9 water quality measures, including nitrates, total

phosphate and turbidity

– qi = quantile of that measure

– wi = weight for that measure

• WQI ranges from 0 to 100• Can be calculated based on subset of WQ measures

Water Quality Scales

• Water Quality Ladders– Drinkable 95– Swimmable 70– Fishable 50– Boatable 25– Suitable for outings 15– Not suitable for any use 5

• Measure WTP to move up ladder• Scale comparable to WQI?

Biological Health

• Biotic Indices/scales developed by team 3• WTP for changes in biological health – MidAtlantic

Slope Consortium survey• Need to be able to link the two

Carbon Sequestration

• Intervention may affect carbon sequestration– Forested buffer vs cropland– No-til vs conventional

• Fed Govt has standard dollar values for social cost of carbon

• Need to know carbon seq effect of intervention

Others

• Water Purification– Impact of intervention on criteria water pollutants downstream– Population using surface water supplies downstream of intervention– Average impact on treatment cost

• Property damage from floods– Change in downstream flood frequency– Downstream properties at risk