| Watershed natural structure |
|
watershed % natural cover
Why relevant to recovery: Large-scale land use change often provides nonpoint pollution (e.g. from urban areas, agriculture, transportation, mining) as well as altering runoff and infiltration patterns in ways that can destabilize stream channels and flow regimes. The percent of watershed area that is not transformed to non-natural cover types is generally associated with runoff and flow dynamics within normal range of variability, as well as reduced opportunity for pollutant runoff. Natural cover categories from land cover mapping mainly include forest, shrubland, wetlands, grasslands and in some regions desert or barren land categories.
Data sources and measurement: Measured as total percent of land area (not including water area) in the watershed within several mapped natural land cover categories, as listed above. For land cover data, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006, 2001 and 1992 is accessible at http://www.mrlc.gov/finddata.php ; numerous statewide land cover mapping datasets are also available from state-specific sources. For watershed boundaries, numerous watershed scales have been delineated nationally as part of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (see: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov ). Custom watershed boundary delineation can be done by aggregating NHDplus catchments (see: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ ) or WBD HUC12 watersheds.
|
|
watershed % forest (PDF) (4 pp, 57.7K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: More watershed forest cover reduces risk of numerous impairment types, thus lessening the relative complexity of restoration of impaired waters from forested watersheds. Mollifying effects on runoff and recharge, temperature, and overland pollutant transport are associated with more forested watersheds and help ensure that several primary natural processes are or can become functional once stresses are removed.
Data sources and measurement:
Percent of the total land area of a watershed mapped with a land cover classification of "forest" (i.e. deciduous forest, evergreen forest, mixed forest). For land cover data, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006, 2001 and 1992 is accessible at http://www.mrlc.gov/finddata.php ; numerous statewide land cover mapping datasets are also available from state-specific sources. For watershed boundaries, numerous watershed scales have been delineated nationally as part of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (See: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov ). Custom watershed boundary delineation can be done by aggregating NHDplus catchments (See: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ ) or WBD HUC12 watersheds. For relatively small study areas, it is possible to use aerial imagery to digitize the forest cover manually.
|
|
watershed % wetlands (PDF) (5 pp, 83.5K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: Wetlands are key features in watershed processing of nutrients in runoff, detention of excessive runoff during extreme weather events, and act as sinks for sediment and pollutants. In addition, wetlands provide vital recharge, detention and release in their role within groundwater/surface water interactions. Absence of wetlands degrades natural processing of the pollutants mentioned and results in greater direct transport to the receiving water body of the watershed, increasing or perpetuating impairment. The rationale is that greater proportion of wetland area in the watershed positively influences recovery potential in that watersheds with more wetlands have greater resilience concerning the types of impairments mentioned.
Data sources and measurement: Percent wetland area within the selected watershed scale. Data sources may vary considerably in source, date and accuracy of wetland/upland delineation. For land cover data including generalized wetland categories, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006, 2001 and 1992 is accessible at http://www.mrlc.gov/finddata.php ; numerous statewide land cover mapping datasets are also available from state-specific sources. NLCD or state land cover datasets are generally available but less accurate than wetland-specific mapping efforts such as National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (see: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html ). NWI data are partially available as digital coverage, are likely more accurately interpreted but may be out of date in selected areas. For watershed boundaries, numerous watershed scales have been delineated nationally as part of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (see: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov ). Custom watershed boundary delineation can be done by aggregating NHDplus catchments (see: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ ) or WBD HUC12 watersheds.
|
|
watershed % woody vegetation (PDF) (2 pp, 16K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: This metric is relevant for reasons similar to watershed forest and watershed natural cover, and provides a more appropriate indicator choice in regions that are not naturally forested. More watershed forest and shrub cover reduces risk of numerous impairment types, thus lessening the relative complexity of restoration. Mollifying effects on runoff and recharge, temperature, and overland pollutant transport are associated with more naturally vegetated watersheds and help ensure that several primary natural processes are or can become functional once stresses are removed. Broad array of influences on capacity to recover including intercepting and moderating the timing of runoff, buffering temperature extremes (which can also reduce certain toxicities), filtering pollutants in surface or subsurface runoff, providing woody debris to stream channels that enhances aquatic food webs, and stabilizing excessive erosion.
Data sources and measurement: Land cover mapping typically contains forested and shrub categories, which are added to calculate this metric. For land cover data, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006, 2001 and 1992 is accessible at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html ; numerous statewide land cover mapping datasets are also available from state-specific sources. For watershed boundaries, numerous watershed scales have been delineated nationally as part of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (see: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov ). Custom watershed boundary delineation can be done by aggregating NHDplus catchments (see: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ )) or WBD HUC12 watersheds.
|
|
watershed topographic complexity (PDF) (2 pp, 43.1K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: Although likely not a strong causal influence on ecological condition, topographic complexity is associated with higher biodiversity, better water quality and reduced nutrient pollution in some studies. The metric may be indirectly related to limiting the extent of some forms of land use that may degrade aquatic condition, also associating it with greater recovery potential in general.
Data sources and measurement: Watershed elevation range, mean watershed slope and relief ratio are measurable from elevation datasets and are closely correlated with topographic complexity. The National Elevation Dataset (NED) (See: http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html ) is adequate for generalized differences in elevation. High resolution elevation data should be used for any assessment units at HUC12 level of smaller. The Elevation Derivatives for National Applications (EDNA) has been derived from the NED and is hydrologically conditioned to improve hydrologic flow representation (see: http://edna.usgs.gov/ ). NHD plus contains information on maximum and minimum elevation for each flowline (http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ ).
|
|
watershed forest patch mean area
Why relevant to recovery: Patch size is a direct indicator of how fragmented a watershed's natural cover is. Larger average patch size is likely to be associated with less fragmentation in a watershed. Forest fragmentation and its land use causes are associated with runoff changes and potentially greater pollutant loading. Larger forest patches containing parts of the stream network are also more likely to harbor functionally intact waters.
Data sources and measurement: Calculated as the total forested land area of a watershed divided by forest patch count. For land cover data, the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2006, 2001 and 1992 is accessible at http://www.mrlc.gov/finddata.php ; numerous statewide land cover mapping datasets are also available from state-specific sources. For watershed boundaries, numerous watershed scales have been delineated nationally as part of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (See: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov ). Custom watershed boundary delineation can be done by aggregating NHDplus catchments (See: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ ) or WBD HUC12 watersheds. For relatively small study areas, it is possible to use aerial imagery to digitize the forest cover manually.
|
|
watershed soil resilience (PDF) (6 pp, 131K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: Soil texture and slope characteristics affect the degree of nitrogen retention, bank stability, overland flow and erosion potential, and soil characteristics can even completely override land cover effects. Higher stream slopes increase soil erosion potential, and thus, Phosphorus transport potential in overland flow. Soil texture has been called the single most important watershed characteristic affecting water quality of the Great Lakes. Stream nutrients can be associated with soil properties, and fine-textured soils with higher runoff potentials appear to limit the transport of leached Nitrogen.
Data sources and measurement: Measured from mapped soil survey data within a selected corridor width, e.g. 30 meters, 90 meters. Based on selection of specific soil types documented as better for nitrogen processing, stability/erosion resistance, and other factors as appropriate to the study area. Assigning scores to different soil types based on the properties discussed should be done specifically for the area undergoing assessment, as national generalizations are limiting. Another option is to measure % area within the corridor that has soils with high resilience properties. Digital soil survey data varies from State to State in availability. States with fully digitized county soil survey-level information can use this metric most effectively. Physical and chemical properties of soils are available for most areas as part of the US General Soils Map through the NRCS Soil Data Mart (See: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/ ).
|
|
watershed % streamlength unimpaired
Why relevant to recovery: From the standpoint of watershed-scale condition and functionality, the proportion of waterbodies reported as impaired is likely associated with the difficulty and complexity of a watershed-wide restoration. Functionally healthy stream reaches upstream of impairments may aid the recovery of impaired segments via dilution and through recruitment of aquatic biota. Caution should be taken that streams not reported as impaired aren't simply unassessed waters that could be impaired.
Data sources and measurement: Measured as a proportion of total stream length per watershed. Geospatial data on impaired waters reporting (CWA section 303(d) impaired waters listing) is available from states directly or from EPA national geospatial data downloads (http://www.epa.gov/waters/data/downloads.html), which are updated periodically with the most recent final spatial data from the states.
|
|
watershed shape (PDF) (1 pp, 36.9K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: A more circular watershed shape has been associated with degraded water quality primarily due to greater risk of a more frequently destabilized channel. Runoff from rounder watersheds tends to concentrate and reach the mouth more quickly and with greater erosive power and velocity. Further, the shortened channel length associated with rounder watersheds enables less travel time to naturally process excess nutrients. Elongate watersheds tend to lessen the effects described above, which would lower the risk of repeated destabilization during recovery efforts.
Data sources and measurement: Uses watershed boundary data. Watershed boundary datasets are available from the NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway (http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/GDGHome.aspx ). Locate the watershed centroid, measure the axis (A) through the centroid most nearly parallel to the main channel, measure three additional axes (B, C, D) in 45 degree increments, then calculate the variability in length of these axes as A divided by the mean of the four axes. Nearly round watersheds approach a value of 1, elongate watersheds have higher values.
|
|
watershed size (PDF) (3 pp, 52.3K, About PDF)
Why relevant to recovery: Related more to rate of recovery than absolute capacity to recover. As a general principle, smaller ecological systems are known to recover faster than larger ones if all else is equal. Also, size is correlated with many additional, directly and indirectly contributing recovery factors: for example, increasing complexity of larger systems delaying full recovery, larger systems' restoration often being more complex and expensive, larger watersheds usually having more complex ownership and multiple jurisdictions, larger lakes' far longer residence time, and larger river systems affected by more upstream factors that are less easy to isolate and address as part of a smaller system's restoration can often do.
Data sources and measurement: Direct measurement of watershed area, with smaller size scoring higher. For digital data on watershed boundaries, numerous watershed scales have been delineated nationally as part of the Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (see: http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov ). Custom watershed boundary delineation can be done by aggregating NHDplus catchments (see: http://www.horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/ ) or WBD HUC12 watersheds. This metric requires the watershed defined by the impaired segment's downstream terminus (e.g., not necessarily coincident with standard HUC units). ArcGIS tools can be used to derive area measures for any set of polygons of interest.
|