260 likes | 415 Vues
The Need for Restoration I. US-EPA Atlas of America’s Polluted Waters Restoration definitions National River Restoration Science Synthesis. 1. 2000 EPA Survey of U.S. Streams. US-EPA National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress 2002 Reporting Cycle.
E N D
The Need for Restoration I • US-EPA Atlas of America’s Polluted Waters • Restoration definitions • National River Restoration Science Synthesis
1. 2000 EPA Survey of U.S. Streams US-EPA National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress 2002 Reporting Cycle “Good” Water quality will support designated uses “Good but threatened” Shows a declining trend in water quality and will be impaired in the future “Polluted” Water body does not support one or more designated uses
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 840-B-00-002) May 2000Atlas of America’s Polluted Waters
Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment (EPA) • Pathogens 14% • Mercury 12 • Metals (other than Mercury) 10 • Nutrients 9 • Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 8 • Sediment 8 • Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 8 • pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions 5 • Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 4 • Temperature 4 • Turbidity 4 • Pesticides 2 • Salinity/Total Dissolved Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates 2 • Unknown 2 % of cases reported as of 2010
Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment (EPA),2002 US-EPA National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress 2002 Reporting Cycle
Leading Causes of Water Quality Impairment (EPA) • Pathogens 15% • Sediment 11 • Nutrients 11 • Organic Enrichment/Oxygen Depletion 9 • Habitat Alterations 9 • Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 8 • Metals (other than Mercury) 7 • Flow Alteration(s) 6 • Mercury 5 • Temperature 5 • Cause Unknown 5 • Salinity/Total Dissolved Solids/Chlorides/Sulfates 3 • Cause Unknown - Impaired Biota 3 • pH/Acidity/Caustic Conditions 3 % of river miles affected as of 2010
Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment (EPA),2002 WQ Impairment Sediment Pathogens Habitat Alteration Metals Nutrients US-EPA National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress 2002 Reporting Cycle
Leading Sources of Water Quality Impairment (EPA) % of river miles affected as of 2010 • Agriculture 17% • Unknown 13 • Atmospheric Deposition 11 • Hydromodification 10 • Natural/Wildlife 9 • Unspecified Nonpoint Source 7 • Municipal Dishcarges/Sewage 6 • Habitat Alterations (Not Hydromod.) 6 • Urban-Related Runoff/Stormwater 5 • Resource Extraction 4 • Silviculture (Forestry) 3 WQ Impairment Sediment Pathogens Habitat Alteration Metals Nutrients
Biological Condition of Wadeable Streams (EPA), 2002 US-EPA National Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress 2002 Reporting Cycle
Implications of the EPA Survey to Stream Restoration • Many impaired streams already identified, as well as the cause for and source of the impairment • Data may not be reliable • Mobilized state agencies
Restoration Definitions • Total maximum daily load—the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to the pollutant's sources
Terms for “Restoration” (compiled by Colleen Bronner)
Implications of Definitions to Stream Restoration • A wide range of vocabulary currently is being used • The correct vocabulary is critical for the effective establishment of restoration goals and measurements of success
3. National River RestorationScience Synthesis (NRRSS) • 2001 working group to evaluate river restoration in the U.S. • Summarize restoration activities • 37,000 records on river restoration projects from ~800 data sources • Efforts growing exponentially in the U.S., spending more than $1B/yr (Bernhardt et al., 2007)
Primary Goals of Restoration Why • Water quality management (26%) • In-stream habitat improvement (18%) Where • Agriculture (46%) • Undeveloped watersheds, wildlands, and protected areas (38%) • Urban or suburban watersheds (29%) • Privately owned (53%) (Bernhardt et al., 2007)
Riparian Management Activities (Palmer et al., 2007)
Water Quality Management Activities (Palmer et al., 2007)
Restoration Project Density, U.S. No. of projects per 1,000 river km (Bernhardt et al. 2005)
Distribution of Activities (Palmer et al., 2010)
Median Costs for Goal Categories (Bernhardt et al., 2007)
Cumulative Project Cost and Frequency (Bernhardt et al., 2007)
Temporal Variation in Projects and Publications (Bernhardt et al., 2007)
Five Ecosystem Amenities that Motivate Restoration Projects • Clean Water—water/sediment chemistry, pathogen density • Uncontaminated food—body loads of contaminants • Aesthetic appeal—water clarity, bank stability, channel shape, vegetation • Rare or valued biota—chemistry, habitat, flow, production dynamics • Productive fishery—ditto (Wohl et al., WRR, 2005)
Implications of NRRSS to Stream Restoration • Established the primary database on SR activities in the U.S. • Actions • Costs • Attributes • Much more needs to be learned
The Need for Stream Restoration I Conclusions • Buoyed/muddied by EPA survey • Leading causes of WQ impairment: • % reported: pathogens, mercury, metals • % river miles: pathogens, sediment, nutrients • Sources (% river miles): agriculture, Unknown, atmospheric deposition, hydromodification