JoVE Logo
Faculty Resource Center

Sign In

Summary

Abstract

Introduction

Protocol

Representative Results

Discussion

Acknowledgements

Materials

References

Environment

Watershed Planning within a Quantitative Scenario Analysis Framework

Published: July 24th, 2016

DOI:

10.3791/54095

1Division of Forestry and Natural Resources, West Virginia University, 2Division of Resource Management, West Virginia University

There is a critical need for tools and methodologies capable of managing aquatic systems in the face of uncertain future conditions. We provide methods for conducting a targeted watershed assessment that enables resource managers to produce landscape-based cumulative effects models for use within a scenario analysis management framework.

There is a critical need for tools and methodologies capable of managing aquatic systems within heavily impacted watersheds. Current efforts often fall short as a result of an inability to quantify and predict complex cumulative effects of current and future land use scenarios at relevant spatial scales. The goal of this manuscript is to provide methods for conducting a targeted watershed assessment that enables resource managers to produce landscape-based cumulative effects models for use within a scenario analysis management framework. Sites are first selected for inclusion within the watershed assessment by identifying sites that fall along independent gradients and combinations of known stressors. Field and laboratory techniques are then used to obtain data on the physical, chemical, and biological effects of multiple land use activities. Multiple linear regression analysis is then used to produce landscape-based cumulative effects models for predicting aquatic conditions. Lastly, methods for incorporating cumulative effects models within a scenario analysis framework for guiding management and regulatory decisions (e.g., permitting and mitigation) within actively developing watersheds are discussed and demonstrated for 2 sub-watersheds within the mountaintop mining region of central Appalachia. The watershed assessment and management approach provided herein enables resource managers to facilitate economic and development activity while protecting aquatic resources and producing opportunity for net ecological benefits through targeted remediation.

Anthropogenic alteration of natural landscapes is among the greatest current threats to aquatic ecosystems throughout the world1. In many regions, continued degradation at current rates will result in irreparable damage to aquatic resources, ultimately limiting their capacity to provide invaluable and irreplaceable ecosystem services. Thus, there is a critical need for tools and methodologies capable of managing aquatic systems within developing watersheds2-3. This is particularly important given that managers are often tasked with conserving aquatic resources in the face of socioeconomic and political pressures to continue development activities....

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

1. Target Sites for Inclusion in Watershed Assessment

  1. Identify the dominant land use activities within the target 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watershed that are impacting physicochemical and biological condition3, 7.
    Note: This methodology assumes pre-existing knowledge of important stressors within the watershed of interest. However, consulting regulatory agencies or watershed groups familiar with the system can aid in this effort.
  2. Select landscape-based measures of dominan.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Forty 1:24,000 NHD catchments were selected as study sites within the Coal River, West Virginia (Figure 2). Study sites were selected to span a range influence from surface mining (% land area24), residential development [structure density (no./km2)], and underground mining [national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit density (no./km2)] such that each major land use activity occurred both in isolation and in combination .......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

We provide a framework for assessing and managing cumulative effects of multiple land use activities in heavily impacted watersheds. The approach described herein addresses previously identified limitations associated with managing aquatic systems in heavily impacted watersheds5-6. Most notably, the targeted watershed assessment design (i.e., sampling along individual and combined stressor axes) produces data that are well suited for quantifying complex cumulative effects at relevant spatial scales (<.......

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

We thank the numerous field and laboratory helpers that were involved in various aspects of this work, especially Donna Hartman, Aaron Maxwell, Eric Miller, and Alison Anderson. Funding for this study was provided by the US Geological Survey through support from US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region III. This study was partially developed under the Science To Achieve Results Fellowship Assistance Agreement number FP-91766601-0 awarded by the US EPA. Although the research described in this article has been funded by the US EPA, it has not been subjected to the agency's required peer and policy review and, therefore, does not necessarily reflect the views ....

Log in or to access full content. Learn more about your institution’s access to JoVE content here

Name Company Catalog Number Comments
Slack Invert Sampling Kit Wildco 3-425-N56
HDPE Square Jars US Plastic Corp 66188 32oz./for storing fixed, composite invertebrate samples
Ethyl Alcohol 190 Proof PHARMCO-AAPER 111000190 For fixing and storing invertebrate samples
5in. by 20in. Macroinvertebrate sub-samplilng grid N/A N/A This item cannot be purchased and must be made in house
Stereomicroscope Stemi 2000 with stand C LED ZEISS 000000-1106-133 For macroinvertebrate sorting and identification
Thermo Scientific Nalgene Reusable Filter Holders with Receiver Fisher Scientific 09-740-23A
Immobilon-NC Transfer Membrane Millipore HATF04700 Triton-free, mixed cellulose exters, 0.45um, 47mm, disc
Actron Vacuum Pump Brake Bleeder Kit Advanced Auto Parts CP7835
Nitric Acid Solution HACH 254049 1:1, 500mL
Oblong NDPE Wide Mouth Bottles Thomas Scientific 1229Z38 250 mL/for collection of water samples
650 Multi-parameter display, standard memory Fondriest Environmental 650-01
600XL Sonde with temperature/conductivity sensor Fondriest Environmental 065862
pH calibration buffer pack Fondriest Environmental 603824 2 pints each of pH 4, 7, & 10
conductivity standard Fondriest Environmental 065270 1 quart, 1000 uS
Flo-Mate 2000 TTT Environmental 2000-11
Keson English/Metric Open Reel Fiberglass Tape Forestry Suppliers 40025 300'/100m
ArcGIS 10.3.1 ESRI

  1. Allan, J. D. Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 257-284 (2004).
  2. Merovich, G. T., Petty, J. T., Strager, M. P., Fulton, J. B. Hierarchical classification of stream condition: a house-neighborhood framework for establishing conservartion priorities in complex riverscapes. Freshwater Science. 32, 874-891 (2013).
  3. Merriam, E. R., Petty, J. T., Strager, M. P., Maxwell, A. E., Ziemkiewicz, P. F. Scenario analysis predicts context-dependent stream response to land use change in a heavily mined central Appalachian watershed. Freshwater Science. 32, 1246-1259 (2013).
  4. Petty, J. T., Fulton, J. B., Strager, M. P., Merovich, G. T., Stiles, J. M., Ziemkiewicz, P. F. Landscape indicators and thresholds of stream ecological impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 29, 1292-1309 (2010).
  5. Seitz, N. E., Westbrook, C. J., Noble, B. F. Bringing science into river systems cumulative effects assessment practice. Environ. Impact Asses. 31, 172-179 (2011).
  6. Duinker, P. N., Greig, L. A. The importance of cumulative effects assessment in Canada: ailments and ideas for redeployment. Environ. Manage. 37, 153-161 (2006).
  7. Merriam, E. R., Petty, J. T., Strager, M. P., Maxwell, A. E., Ziemkiewicz, P. F. Landscape-based cumulative effects models for predicting stream response to mountaintop mining in multistressor Appalachian watersheds. Freshwater Science. 34, 1006-1019 (2015).
  8. Duinker, P. N., Greig, L. A. Scenario analysis in environmental impact assessment: improving explorations of the future. Environ. Impact Asses. 27, 206-219 (2007).
  9. Kepner, W. G., Ramsey, M. M., Brown, E. S., Jarchow, M. E., Dickinson, K. J. M., Mark, A. F. Hydrologic futures: using scenario analysis to evaluate impacts of forecasted land use change on hydrologic services. Ecosphere. 3, 1-25 (2012).
  10. Gergel, S. E., Turner, M. G., Miller, J. R., Melack, J. M., Stanley, E. H. Landscape indicators of human impacts to riverine systems. Aquat. Sci. 64, 118-128 (2002).
  11. McKay, L., Bondelid, T., Dewald, T., Johnston, J., Moore, R., Rea, A. . NHDPlus Version 2: User Guide. , (2012).
  12. Strager, M. P., Petty, J. T., Strager, J. M., Barker-Fulton, J. A spatially explicit framework for quantifying downstream hydrologic conditions. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1854-1861 (2009).
  13. . . WVDEP (Virginia Department of Environmental Protection). Standard operating proceedures. , (2009).
  14. . EPA-60014-79-020. USEPA. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. , (1983).
  15. Merriam, E. R., Petty, J. T., Merovich, G. T., Fulton, J. B., Strager, M. P. Additive effects of mining and residential development on stream conditions in a central Appalachian watershed. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 30, 399-418 (2011).
  16. Bisson, P. A., Nielsen, J. L., Palmason, R. A., Grove, L. E., Armentrout, N. D. A system of naming habitat types in streams, with examples of habitat utilization by salmonids during low streamflow. Acquisition and utilization of aquatic habitat inventory information. Proceedings of a symposium held 28-30 October, 1981. , 62-73 (1982).
  17. Wentworth, C. K. A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. J. Geol. 30, 377-392 (1922).
  18. Petty, J. T., Freund, J., Lamothe, P., Mazik, P. Quantifying instream habitat in the upper Shavers Fork basin at multiple spatial scales. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fisheries and Wildlife Agencies. 55, 81-94 (2001).
  19. Barbour, M. T., Gerritsen, J., Snyder, B. D., Stribling, J. B. EPA/841-B-99-022. Rapid bioassessment protocols for use in streams and wadeable rivers: periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, and fish. 2nd edition. , (1999).
  20. Merritt, R. W., Cummins, K. W. . An introduction to the aquatic insects of North America. 4th edition. , (2008).
  21. Crawley, M. J. . Statistics: an introduction using R. , (2005).
  22. Zeileis, A., Hothorn, T. Diagnostic Checking in Regression Relationships. R News. 2, 7-10 (2002).
  23. Maxwell, A. E., Strager, M. P., Yuill, C., Petty, J. T., Merriam, E. R., Mazzarella, C. Disturbance mapping and landscape modeling of mountaintop mining using ArcGIS. Proceedings of the ESRI International User Conference. , (2011).
  24. Gerritsen, J., Burton, J., Barbour, M. T. . A stream condition index for West Virginia wadeable streams. , (2000).
  25. Pond, G. J., Passmore, M. E., Borsuk, F. A., Reynolds, L., Rose, C. J. Downstream effects of mountaintop coal mining: comparing biological conditions using family- and genus-level macroinvertebrate bioassessment tools. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 27, 717-737 (2008).
  26. Luo, Y., et al. Ecological forecasting and data assimilation in a data-rich era. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1429-1442 (2011).
  27. Petty, J. T., Strager, M. P., Merriam, E. R., Ziemkiewicz, P. F., Craynon, J. R. Scenario analysis and the Watershed Futures Planner: predicting future aquatic condiditons in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed. Environmental Considerations in Energy Productions. , 5-19 (2013).
  28. Daraio, J. A., Bales, J. D. Effects of land use and climate change on stream temperature I: daily flow and stream temperature projections. J. Am. Water Resour. As. 50, 1155-1176 (2014).
  29. Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Martin, T. G., Moffatt, D. B., Linke, S., Rhodes, J. R. Understanding and predicting the combined effects of climate change and land-use change on freshwater macroinvertebrates and fish. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 572-581 (2014).
  30. Piggott, J. J., Townsend, C. R., Matthaei, C. D. Climate warming and agricultural stressors interact to determine stream macroinvertebrate community dynamics. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1897-1906 (2015).
  31. Elith, J., Leathwick, J. R., Hastie, T. A working guide to boosted regression trees. J. Anim. Ecol. 77, 802-813 (2008).
  32. Mattson, K. M., Angermeier, P. L. Integrating human impacts and ecological integrity into a risk-based protocol for conservation planning. Environ. Manage. 39, 125-138 (2007).
  33. (US, U. S. E. P. A. EPA 841-B-11-002. USEPA. Identifying and protecting healthy watersheds. Concepts, assessments, and management approaches. , (2012).
  34. Merriam, E. R., Petty, J. T., Strager, M. P., Maxwell, A. E., Ziemkiewicz, P. F. Complex contaminant mixtures in multi-stressor Appalachian riverscapes. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. , (2015).

This article has been published

Video Coming Soon

JoVE Logo

Privacy

Terms of Use

Policies

Research

Education

ABOUT JoVE

Copyright © 2024 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved