This item is only available as the following downloads:
1 QUANTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING STREAM RESTORATION NEEDS IN FLORIDA By DARINA I. PALACIO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOC TOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013
2 2013 Darina I. Palacio
3 To my family and friends who stood by me throughout this process
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my co advisors Dr. David Kaplan and Dr. J oann Mossa who stood by me and ensured that I completed this dissertation. For thought provoking advice and mentoring that helped to shape the final product of this research, I am forever grateful. I thank Dr. John Kiefer, Dr. Michael Annable, and Dr. Chri s Martinez for their guidance as members of my PhD supervisory Committee. I would also like to thank the countless agencies and restoration professionals who contributed data, insight or provided valuable feedback for this dissertation. I also thank Dr Ann Donnelly who has provided financial and emotional support throughout my graduate career ; I would not be at the University of Florida without her. She has been by my side from the day that I set foot on campus and has been my guardian angel during som e of my most difficult times. She is one step closer to retirement now that I am graduating. I am eternally indebted to her for all she has done. I thank members and administrators for the South East Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professorate ( SEAGEP), the Science Partners in Inquiry based Collaborative and Education (SPICE), the Innovation for Institutional Integration (I3), the Office of Graduate Minority Program (OGMP), and the Florida Education Fund (FEF) for not only financial support to pu rsue my education but also for countless opportunities that have made grad uate school education an amazing experience. With your support I have been able to travel to broaden my horizons through international research experiences, professional development conferences and leadership opportunities. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Ann Foster, David Guest and the members of the American Water Resources Association Florida Section for
5 providing me with opportunities to develop my skills as a well rounded e nvironmental e ngineer Those opportunities have left an indelible mark on my career. I thank my family fo r all their support and prayers. I appreciate all you did for me during all this time, whether an encouraging call, a place of refuge or a surprise in the mail. I especially thank my sister Lareini Palacio who spent numerous hours with Excel while formatting my data. To my wonderful boyfriend and the love of my life Nisean Castillo t hank you for the support and patience during this t ime I am also grateful to M r s. Elise Archer and Savondra Patton Mrs. Elsie housed me when I came to Gainesville She t ook the time and the effort to get me acclimated to Florida when I was so far a way from my family. I love and appreciate her for her k indness and hospitality Sovandra adopted me into her family and taught me the importance of enjoying life no matter the circumstances Rest i n p eace Ms Elsie and Sovandra !! It takes a village to raise a child but it takes a bigger village to complete a dissertation! I am eternally grateful for each person that contributed to me achieving this goal.
6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 11 LIST OF OBJECTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 13 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 State of Knowledge ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Legal Mandate ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 18 Impairment Assessments ................................ ................................ ................. 19 Philosophy of Restoration ................................ ................................ ....................... 20 Historical Context ................................ ................................ ............................. 20 Practice of Restorat ion ................................ ................................ ..................... 21 Measuring Success ................................ ................................ .......................... 22 Restoration Prioritization ................................ ................................ .................. 24 Restor ation Recovery Potential ................................ ................................ ........ 25 Tools and Technology ................................ ................................ ...................... 25 Geographic Setting ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 Florida Restoration ................................ ................................ ................................ 26 Measuring Impairment ................................ ................................ ...................... 27 Restoration Planning ................................ ................................ ........................ 28 Threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats ................................ ............................ 30 Statewide Surface Water Restoration and Conservation Planning Using FWC Threat Data ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 Restoration Funding ................................ ................................ ......................... 31 Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 32 2 GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT OF STREAM IMPAIRMENT IN FLORIDA ............. 39 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 39 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 43 Dataset Development ................................ ................................ ....................... 44 Impairment data ................................ ................................ ......................... 44 Threats data ................................ ................................ ............................... 45 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 46 Spatial relationships between impairment and threats ............................... 46 Impairment hotspots analysis ................................ ................................ ..... 46
7 Grouping analysis ................................ ................................ ...................... 47 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 47 Impairment Extent and Spatial Structure ................................ .......................... 47 Correlati on between Impairment and Threats ................................ .................. 49 Hotspots Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................. 49 Threat Grouping Analysis ................................ ................................ ................. 50 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 52 Implications to the Practice ................................ ................................ ..................... 56 3 SYNTHESIZING STREAM RESTORATION EFFORTS IN FLORIDA .................... 88 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 88 Study Region ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 91 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 92 Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ 92 Project Characterization ................................ ................................ ................... 94 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 95 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 96 Data Compilation ................................ ................................ .............................. 96 Project Type and Typical Activities ................................ ................................ ... 97 Spatial Distribution Trends ................................ ................................ ............... 97 Project Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 98 Temporal Trends ................................ ................................ ............................ 100 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 101 Future Work ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 106 4 DEVELOPMENT OF A TECHNIQUE TO PRIORITIZE STREAM R ESTORATION BASED ON RECOVERY POTENTIAL ................................ ....... 120 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 120 Restoration Recovery Potential Concepts ................................ ...................... 121 Restoration Prioritization in Florida ................................ ................................ 122 Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 123 Metric Selection ................................ ................................ .............................. 124 Restoration Recovery Potential Score Calculation ................................ ......... 124 Restoration Recovery Potential Ranking ................................ ........................ 126 Change Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 126 Regional Analysis ................................ ................................ ........................... 127 Results ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 127 Restoration Potential Score Distribution ................................ ......................... 127 Change Analysis ................................ ................................ ............................ 128 Spatial Summary ................................ ................................ ............................ 129 Discussion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 131 Management Implications ................................ ................................ ..................... 134 Future Work ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 134 5 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 160
8 APPENDIX A AWRA REQUEST LETTER ................................ ................................ .................. 164 B GIS DATA LAYERS AND SOURCES ................................ ................................ ... 165 C GROUPING ANALYSIS RESULTS ................................ ................................ ...... 169 D DISSERTATION CHAPTER DATASETS ................................ ............................. 185 LIST OF REFERE NCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 198
9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1 1 Restoration concepts ................................ ................................ .......................... 35 2 1 Example Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) impairment selection criteria using the 1 in 3 year rule for impairment. No WBID may exceed the numeric criteria more than once in three years. ................................ ............................... 57 2 2 Example Stream Condition Index (SCI) impairment data conversion table. ...... 58 2 3 Example calculation of count of impairment f or each stream WBID. .................. 59 2 4 Description of ecological threats data from the FWC Threats Database. ........... 60 2 5 Spatial summary of impa irment in the Panhandle, Peninsula and Central Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 61 2 6 Summary of impairment category combinations of WBIDs with sufficient data. 62 2 7 Results of independent samples median test between impairment and stream threats ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 63 2 8 Distribution of impaired WBIDs and hotspot confidence values (gizscores) for each impair ment type. ................................ ................................ ........................ 64 2 9 Summary of impairment combinations per grouping analysis groups. ................ 65 2 10 Grouping analysis impairment summary with threat rankings. ........................... 66 2 11 Distribution of stream threat (standardized averages) by group. ....................... 67 3 1 Comparison of restoration categories identified in prior studies and this study. 107 3 2 Restoration projects data structure. ................................ ................................ 108 3 3 Data sources that contributed to the stream restoration database in this study. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 110 3 4 Restoration activities commonly associated with each project type. ................ 111 3 5 Summary of project costs by project type. ................................ ....................... 112 4 1 Metrics for restoration recovery potential prioritization. ................................ ... 136 4 2 Matrix of metric weighting schemes ................................ ................................ .. 137 4 3 RRP Scores used for ranking scheme. ................................ ............................. 138
10 4 4 Descriptive statistics of the R ecovery Potential Score ................................ ...... 139 4 5 Distribution of stream WBIDs by Recovery Potential (RP) Score ..................... 140 4 7 Rank Change Analysis from Equal Role RP Scores ................................ ......... 142 4 8 Distribution of RRP Score and Change Analysis Summary per Region ........... 143 4 9 Regional Comparison of Rec overy Potential Score Rankings .......................... 144 B 1 GIS Layers and data sources. ................................ ................................ .......... 165 B 2 Data Sources for FWC Threat Data. ................................ ................................ 166
11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Impairment status of assessed waters of the United States ............................... 36 1 2 Impairment status of assessed waters of Florida ................................ ................ 37 2 1 Clean Water Act 303(d) List impairment in Florida. ................................ ............ 68 2 2 Numeric Nutrien t Criteria (NNC) Total Nitrogen (TN) impairment ..................... 69 2 3 Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) Total Phosphorus impairment ....................... 70 2 4 St ream Condition Index (SCI) impairment ................................ .......................... 71 2 5 Spatial layout of all thirteen possible combi nations of impairment for stream WBIDs in Florida ................................ ................................ ................................ 72 2 6 Percentage of impairment type by region ................................ ........................... 73 2 7 Number of impairment typ es per WBID. ................................ ............................. 74 2 8 Non native/exotic invasive aquatic plants stream habitat threat ......................... 75 2 9 Federal dam storage stream habitat th reat ................................ ......................... 76 2 10 Average daily permitted groundwater withdrawals stream habitat threat ............ 77 2 11 Non native/exotic invasive aquatic an imals stream habitat threat ...................... 78 2 12 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) stream habitat threat ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 79 2 13 Ripari an/freshwater agriculture buffer zone stream habitat threat ...................... 80 2 14 Average daily permitted surface water withdrawals (MGD) stream habitat threat ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 81 2 15 Water control structure density stream habitat threat ................................ ......... 82 2 16 Waterway modification stream habitat threat ................................ ...................... 83 2 17 Hotspots analysis on the number of impairments per WBID. ............................. 84 2 18 Distribution of normalized averages of habitat threats magnitude and level of significance in hotspots analysis. ................................ ................................ ........ 85 2 20 Percentage of impairment combinations across threat groups. .......................... 87
12 3 1 Restoration project types summarized by scale. ................................ .............. 113 3 2 The distribution of r estoration projects in Florida. ................................ ............. 114 3 3 Project type distribution. ................................ ................................ ................... 115 3 4 Distribution of projects by basin, reach, or in stream scale. ............................. 116 3 5 Regional distribution of restoration projects. ................................ ..................... 117 3 6 Number of projects distributed by cost ................................ ............................. 118 3 7 Timeline of restoration completion dates by project type for the 147 projects where completion data were available ................................ .............................. 119 4 1 Classification of decision support tools ................................ ............................. 145 4 2 CLIP core data Layers with Restoration Priority layer which will be added based on my research. ................................ ................................ .................... 146 4 3 Equal Role Scena rio Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking. ............. 147 4 4 Nature Wins Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking. ........... 148 4 5 Society Wins Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Ranking. .................... 149 4 6 Stressor Wins Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking. ........ 150 4 7 Hydrologic Alterations Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking. ........... 151 4 8 Ecologic Alteration Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking. 152 4 9 Histograms of RRP Scores for each weighting scenario ................................ .. 153 4 10 Comparison of nature wins ranking to equal role ranking ................................ 154 4 11 Comparison of society wins ranking to equal role ranking ................................ 155 4 12 Comparison of Stressor Wins ranking to equal role ranking ............................. 156 4 13 Comparison of hydrologic alteration ranking to Equal role ranking ................... 157 4 14 Comparison of ecologic alteration ranking to equal role ranking ...................... 158 4 15 Maximum restoration recovery potential score change. ................................ ... 159 C 1 Grouping Analysis Output ................................ ................................ ................. 169
13 LIST OF OBJECTS Object page D 1 Chapter 2 Impairment Geospatial Assessment Dataset (.zip file 80.6MB) ....... 185 D 2 Chapter 3 Florida Stream Restoration Database (.zip file 9.73MB) .................. 185 D 3 Chapter 4 Restoration Recovery Potential Dataset (.zip file 32.5MB) .............. 185
14 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy QUANTIFYING AND PRIORITIZING STREAM RESTORATION NEEDS IN FLO RIDA By Darina I. Palacio December 2013 Chair: David A. Kaplan Co chair: Joann Mossa Major: Environmental Engineering Sciences One of the most recent national assessments of stream condition in the United States (Paulsen et al. 2008) suggested that 42% of streams in the United States were in national trend in our low and mid order streams that is evident in the state of Florida ; w ell over 50% of stream miles assessed in th e state suffer from some form of water quality or biological impairment. As the p opulation of the state continues to increas e, the demands on water resources also increase causing further impairment to maintain the integrity of its water resources While much is known about impairment there is limited knowledge about the spatial extent and thresholds of threats that contribute to stream impairment the number of stream restoration projects performed and a definite method to prioritize restoration needs in the state of Florida This work addresses those need s by identifying the contributions s ten T hreats to Stream H abitat to stream impairment, synthesiz ing stream restoration practice in the state and proposing a method to prioritize future surface water restoration
15 Through statistical and geospatial techniques, t his study revealed that stream impairment is a localized problem that spans across areas of average to high magnit ude of the threats to stream habitat. Additionally 178 stream restoration projects were synthesized revealing spatial trends in the quantity and type of restoration occurring across the state. Projects were categorized into nine types of projects which in creased in number and type of projects between 1978 and 2015 (projected) Project costs were dependent on scale and type and averaged with a few projects well over US$50M. Finally, six weighting scenarios were evaluated for inclusions into statewide land c onservation and restoration decision support systems. A Restoration Recover Potential (RRP) score was calculated for each WBID and change analysis was perform ed to identify areas with the most potential for restoration success. Individually or combined the results of this study can be used for restoration and conservation planning.
16 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION There are many unknowns about the water quality condition of US water bodies (US Environmental Protection Agency 2006) w hich constitute a series of questions to ? W hat is the magnitude of those problems and are they deteriorating ? W hat are the causes ? A nd are we making smart restoration investments? These are key questi ons that the EPA, under its mandate from the Clean Water Act (CWA), has attempted to answer by conducting the National Wadeable Stream Assessment (WSA) (Shapiro et al. 2008) Nationally, approximately 53% (Figure 1 1) and in Florida 80% (Figure 1 2) of stream miles assessed were classified as impaired (US Environmental Protection Agency 2013a; US Environmental Protection Agency 2013b) The list of impaired streams not meeting the CWA water quality standard s alone can overwhelm the prioritization of stream restoration (Norton et al. 2009) Billions of dollars are allotte d nationally for stream restoration; however, demands on these allotments will continue to increase as more stringent water quality regulations are enforced (Bernhardt et al. 2005) Since the National River Restor ation Science Synthesis was performed in 2004 there has been no other national overview of river restoration to understand the state of river restoration in the US. An update to that data will prove better insight to the current state of river restoration science in the US. It will also provide a baseline for states to compare their efforts. Most importantly it will offer a source to learn best management practices in an effort to improve restoration practices.
17 Florida is a lead er in protecting natural re sources (River Federation 1996; Farr & Brock 2006; Wang 2011) through land acquisition for conservation, water quality improvements, and wetland restoration Despite Florida's efforts in environmental conservation national and regional restoration research data (Carpenter et al. 2004; Bernhardt et al. 2005; Sudduth et al. 20 07) fail to sufficiently describe stream restoration efforts in the state Studies on stream restoration generally either only discuss landmark projects such as restoration of the Apalachicola River, Kissimmee River and the comprehensive Everglades Resto ration Plan or exclude Florida from the discussion altogether (Carpenter et al. 2004; Tech 2004; Bernhardt et al. 20 05; Sudduth et al. 2007; King et al. 2009) There is little knowledge of restoration in smaller systems that are vital to protect ing criti cal species, absorbing d evelopment impacts, and preventing erosion. Florida has a unique need for such information. First, the geographic location, climate and topography make the natural conditions of our water resources different from the rest of the country (Kiefer 2010) Both stream conditions and restoration challenges with in the state are unique Current and future restoration practitioners must learn from past mistakes to make better decisions in the future. Second, the quantity of streams listed as impaired and needing the development of TMDLs ( ultimately requiring restor ation ) is extremely high (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012; US Environmental Protection Agency 2013a) Third Florida has an extensive conservation land acquisition prog ram (River Federation 1996; Farr & Brock 2006; Wang 2011) ; however, to date surface water restoration needs have yet to be fully incorporated into existing mechanisms to prioritize lands for acquisition and
18 conservation planning (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 2012; Oetting e t al. 2012) Finally, the number of streams that currently do not meet the proposed EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) will create a frenzy of restoration activities in order for streams to meet the criteria for these rules (Entrix 2010; Drozd 2011; Griswold 2011) Given the paucity of data relevant to the surface water restoration in Florida particularly using a statewide geospatial lens there is a clear need to understand the causes of stream impair ment analyze existing restoration practices, and enhance restoration prioritization techniques in Florida. This study developed a nd extended techniques to quantitatively and comprehensively assess the relationship bet ween stream impairment and habitat threat s ; developed and synthesized a database of the Florida Str eam Restoration Database (FSRD ); and develop ed a ranking system for prioritizing restoration efforts Ultimately, the results of this work can be utilized as a tool to enhance conservation and restoration efforts by various agencies across the state. State of Knowledge Legal Mandate To remedy a series of legislation has been enacte administration of the EPA and US Army Corp of Engineers (ACE) The CWA Amendments (1977), Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Protection Act each play a pivotal role in the protection and restoration of waterways and set the (Houck 1989; Adler et al. 1993) States and local governments have enacted complimentary ru les and regulations to comply with federal l aws (Norgart 2003; Ankersen et al. 2009; Florida Department of
1 9 Env ironmental Protection 2013b) In the case of Florida the Impaired Waters Rule ( IWR) ( Chapter 62 303, Florida Administrative Code [FAC]) governs the identification and restoration of impaired waters (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Constant legal action in federal and local courts has continued to redefine the way these laws are enforced (Caruso 2011; Doyle & BenDor 2011; Doyle & Douglas Shields 2012) Ultimately, legal mandates frame much of the decisions on what to restore and how (Roni et al. 2002) Impairment Assessments As no ted above, t he Wadeable Streams Assessment (WSA) suggested that 42% in 2008 (US Environmental Protection Agency 2006; Paulse n et al. 2008) This assessment measures stream condition based on statistical sampling of 100 perennial wadeable streams from each EPA region Additionally, r esults from both national (US Env ironmental Protection Agency 2013b) and regional (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) studies suggest that there is: 1) a great need for continued monitoring of st ream status and 2) a substantial number of impaired water bodies that will ultimately need to be restored. To measure stream health, the report evaluated several factors including biological quality, nutrient concentrations, habitat quality, salinity level s, streambed sediments and riparian condition. streams were the high levels of nutrients and streambed sediments and the deteriorated condition of riparian areas. The EPA has indi cated that future national stream assessments will include urban streams and incorporate fish and algal assemblages as metrics of stream quality with the aim of completely filling the aforementioned gaps. WSA is recognized as the first step in answering E
20 our water quality and the increased roles states will play in conducting effective assessments. However it is limited in the number of stream it can sample, since the WSA is a national assessment. A total of 1,392 wade able, perennial streams were evaluated. By following similar guidelines, the state can increase the number of streams used to determine its water body conditions more accurately. The results of the WSA also match EPA results for the National Summary of Wat er Quality Attainment in Assessed streams shown in for the entire United States (US) in Figure 1 1 and 1 2 The national summary indicates that of streams assessed for water quality condition only 50% are in good condition (EPA 2010) The others are impaired by factors such as pathogens, sediment, and nutrients, which represent approximately half of the stream miles assessed. These discouraging water quality conditions represent a sign ificant loss of ecosystem function in streams across the waterways and to enhance their ecosystem services. Philosophy of Restoration Historical Context River r esto ration has seen several phase transitions (Palmer et al. 2005; Roni & Beechie 2012a) During the early era, bank stabilization, and fish habitat improvement were the primary project types ( Figure 1 3 ) Recently the focus of river restoration has expanded to include basin scale ecosystem engineering to improve both form and function of the entire watershed rather than concentrating exclusively on reach scale activities ; this transition has occurr ed both nationally and internationally (Gilvear et al. 2012) La rge catchment scale restoration projects incorporate many facets of
21 restoration : hydrology, geomorphology, biology, hydraulics policy, economics, social context, etc. (Boon 1998; King et al. 2009) each requiring specific expertise Practice of Restoration Results from interview surveys of restoration practitioners nationwide indicate th at the primary goals for restoration projects include enhancement of water quality, management of riparian zones, improvement of in stream habitat, fish passage and bank stabilization (Bernhardt et al. 2007) Be rnhardt et al. (2007) also suggest that monitoring of project success ( i.e., the availability of funding to perform monitoring ) is of major concern to restoration practitioners. In order to measure the success of these projects pre and post assessments of site condition s are critical. These assessments must be done in a manner that matches project goals and expected outcomes. Rather than developing independent monitoring programs for each project, a standardi zed routine monitoring program may improve the measurement of restoration success or failure. Restoration projects vary across the United States not only by location but also by project objectives and quantity/quality of monitoring performed (Carpenter et al. 2004) Results from the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS) (Bernhardt et al. 2005) suggest that three regions of the United States the Pacific N orthwest, the Chesapeake Bay, and California m ake up a large percentage ( 88%) of national restoration projects. However, the costliest projects are spread evenly throughout the country. T hese are large scale projects with multiple restoration objectives, multi million dollar budgets, and multi year efforts such as the Kissimmee River, the Columbia River, the Missouri River, or the San Francisco Delta p rojects These large projects absorb much of the resources of a region and consequently limit
22 funding and resources for smaller projects. Restoration projects also seem to occur in highly populated counties versus in rural areas (Bernhardt & Palmer 2007) Additionally, project goals vary across the country. For exam ple, in stream habitat projects are more frequent in the Chesapeake Bay, Pacific N orthwest and s outh w est Regions, while w ater q uality m anagement is more dominant in the s outh e ast and c entral US and r iparian m anagement is most common in the u pper M idwest O ften specific restoration needs are driven by the type of development activities in each region (and their particular impacts on the environment ). In some cases the responsibility for stream restoration has bee n delegated to mitigation banks (Wilkinson 2009; Doyle & Douglas Shields 2012) Stream m itigation banks are now prominent and in some cases surpass wetland banks (Doyle & BenDor 2011) Historically (USACE 2008) The 2008 ACE/E PA C ompensatory This mandate has had an impact in the number of stream projects (FDEP 2007; Womble & Doyle 2012) particularly in the phosphate mining industry (Hawkins & Ruesch 1988) Measuring Success The success of r iver restoration activities has been consistently debated (Harrison et al. 2004; Palmer & Allan 2006; Thompson 2006; Roni & Beechie 2012a) Furthermore a universally accepted definition of what is restoration has not been established. Several conflicting definitions/concepts of restoration make it difficult to measure success (Table 1 1). Successful river restoration may be defined as succe ss on a watershed scale that enhances the function of the entire ecosystem (Wohl et al.
23 2005) Boon ( 1998) argues that river restoration is in fact rehabilitation of a degraded stat e. On the other hand, Wohl et al. (2005) define river restoration as the establishment of improved hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecological processing in degraded watershed systems and replacing loss, damaged or compromised elements of natural systems. Emph rehabilitated rather than restored. Adding to the uncertainty, Palmer et al. (2010) noted that solely increasing habitat h eterogeneity as a restoration technique does not necessarily increase biodiversity. Wohl et al. ( 2005 ) further suggest that benefits of river restoration in urban settings are less ecological and more societal. S takeholders play an active role in the deve lopment of project objective s and strategies (Dooley & Fridley 1998; Borisova et al. 2011; Duggan et al. 2013) Involvement of a variety of stakeholders both inc reases the complexity of projects and enhances the design of projects by incorporating varying interests. Palmer et al. ( 2005) suggest five criteria for evaluating the success of a restoration project from an ecolog ical engineering perspective. These criteria can serve as a consistent measure to evaluate ecological success, enco urage reporting of restoration results. Due to limited success in restoration other avenues of restoration planning are being explored such as basin scale assessments to determine the most beneficial restoration location (Norton et al. 2009; Doyle & BenDor 2011) Restoration may not occur directly at the site of the impairment but possibly further upstream in the basin. Finally, Hilderbrand et al. ( 2005) claim that five myths are commonly used when deciding on how to implement a restoration strategy. These myths help to explain frequent failures of the practice of restoration. The Carbon Copy Field of Dreams
24 Fast Forwarding Cookbook and Command and Control myths describe current practices in restoration. Acknowledgment of these myths helps to address the uncertaint y that exists in restoration planning and recognizes the need for resilience to be actively incorporated into the design of restoration projects. Similar myths have been applied to understand failures of wetland restoration (Lewis 1990) Restoration Prioritization Prioritization schemes have been widely used for resource management and restoration applications including protecting natural resources (McBride et al. 2010) enhancing species habitat or biodiversity (Luck et al. 2009) and ecosystem restoration (Stewart Koster et al. 2010) The application of prioritization schemes for river restoration is an active area of research (Kiker et al. 2005; Change 2007; Marsh et al. 2007; Marsh et al. 2007; Beechie et al. 2008; Stringfellow 2008; Cors air et al. 2009; Norton et al. 2009; McBride et al. 2010; Beechie et al. 2013) Restoration literature indicate s that location is a primary driver for stream restoration activities (Bernhardt et al. 2005; Bernhardt & Palmer 2007; Roni & Beechie 2012a) Several factors contribute to this reality The cost of acquiring land can be prohibitively high; in agricultural areas it is easier and cheaper to acquire land for s tream restoration but this approach overlooks opportunities to prioritize restoration projects for the largest environmental improvement. Trends in stream restoration are moving in the direction of watershed based approaches and large scale restoration p otential (Palmer et al. 2005; Bernhardt et al. 2007; Marsh et al. 2007; Beechie et al. 2008; Stringfellow 2008) Th e res earch presented here aims to address and resolve these two approaches by developing tools to identify restoration needs and priorities for the state of Florida.
25 Restoration Recovery Potential Beechie et al. (2008 ) cite three reasons for restoration project failure : misunderstanding of the natural potential of the site, lack of understanding of geomorphic controls on habitat responses, and p resence of undetected water quality impairments Norton et al (2009) propose a method of calculating recovery potential using a series of metrics that measur es ecological capacity, stressor exposure and social context. Recovery potential is a n ecological concept that has bee n utilized in varied settings, including coastal waters (Lotze et al. 2006) and streams (Fuchs & Statzner 1990; Fryirs & Brierley 2000; Hansen & Budy 2011) to measure the ability for a system to recover once a disturbance is removed (Niemi et al. 1990; Norton et al. 2009) There are few cases however, wher e this technique has been applied explicitly for restoration planning. Tools and Technology Improvement in restoration sciences and technology has enhanced our ability to assess disturbances, prioritize restoration and implement best practices. The use o f b oth in quantity and the temporal and spatial scale s of data is an emerging trend. Aerial photography, remote sensing, GIS and various modeling techniques contribute to the assessment, planning and design of restoration priori tization schema (Baker et al. 2001; Leckie et al. 2005; Marcus & Fonstad 2008; Xie et al. 2008) These techniques have improved our u nderstanding of the interactions between important variables in restoration design. Technological advances are also included in the construction phase of restoration. For example, earth moving equipment such as bulldozers are equipped with GPS so that the operator can move t he precise dept h of excavation necessary at a particular location
26 Geographic Setting Florida is the 4 th most populous state in the US and rank s 3 rd in population growth with a high urbanization rate As large cities drive urban and suburban sprawl and agr icultural areas are transformed into suburbs, streams and rivers are directly impacted gradients support approximately 88,250 km of rivers and streams, 12,288 lakes, 33 first magnitude springs, and 4.35 million of hectares of wetlands (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Karst landforms which dominate most of peninsular Florida are associated with deranged drainage systems. T hese stream system s are discontinuous streams punctuated by in line lakes, sinks and wetlands and originate from springs, swamps, or lakes. Clastic sediments dominate the panhandle of Florida, and larger alluvial rivers dominate this region. Each of these stream types has unique topographic controls, hydrology and ecology that influence their impairment and the practices used for restoration (Hupp et al. 2005) Florida Restoration Florida has several programs which dr ive ecosystem restoration. The Florida Forever and Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) p rogram s as well as stringent mitigation rules provide the legal and regulatory framework for environmental protection. The Florida Forever Program has acquired more tha n 683,000 acres of land for environmental restoration; water resource development and supply; increased public access; public lands management and maintenance. The BMAP program blueprint document to improve the water quality of water bod ies T o date, several large watersheds have developed BMAPs while others are in development. Both national and regional mitigation rules influence how streams are repaired after loss of aquatic
27 function. In most cases onsite mitigation is preferred but m itigat ion b anks may be utilized when onsite restoration is not feasible. Mitigation b anking has been an avenue for performing restoration of many ecosystems, including stream restoration wherein credit for creation of new ecosystems or enhancement of degraded s ystems is traded for impacts to other systems Measuring Impairment In Florida, there are several methods to assess stream health, some of which are already established while others are still in development. Currently in use are water quality criteria and two tools for assessing biological conditions: BioReconnaissance (BioRecon) and Stream Condition Index. Additionally Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) to measure ecological condition relative to hydrologic modification/management are complete or in develo pment for many water bodies in the state and will serve as another metric to 2 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida reported that well over 50% of stream miles assessed for water quality were im paired in at least one criterion and required the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). In the area of biological status, assessments made for Nutrients suggest that only 26% of streams assessed attained for some of their designated uses. While these numbers give an indication of stream status in the state, they do not illustrate a comprehensive assessment of the physical conditions that caused the impairment of stream conditions. Missing from the stream status assessments in the state are measu rement s of riparian condition, hydrology and geomorphology. A comprehensive assessment of streams, their floodplains and riparian areas is critical for maintaining ecosystem heath, floodplain protection, and water quality (Davies et al. 2000) Works in some of these areas are currently being
28 conducted by researchers, organizations, and agencies (Reiss 2006; Blanton 2008; Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 2008a; Hoctor et al. 2008; Kiefer 2010) N ot only should stream indices include water quality and biologic condition but also hydrologic, geomorphologic and riparian condition assessments. That level of comprehensive evaluation should be the standard employed to inform environmental policy and aquatic systems management practices and to establish the guidelines for restoration targets (Davies et al. 2000; Frappier & Eckert 2007; Beechie et al. 2008; Palmer 2009; Beechie et al. 2013) Restoration Planning Water Management Dis tricts uses several methods to perform activities in for maintaining water quality using the Surface Water Improvement and Management SWIM Plans, Environmental Resource Permits (ERPs) and regional wetland mitigation. Primary activities implemented to acco mplish water quality improvement are land acquisitions, land management, habitat/hydrologic restoration and storm water retrofits. Incorporated in the D istricts mandated 5 year strategic plan is usually a strategy to restore natural waterways. For exampl e, i n St. Johns River Water Management District plan river restoration is described as a draft priority under the Water Quality and Recent p riorities are the Springs Initiative Land Management Enhancements, and Indian River Lagoon. In the Northwest Florida Water Management District restoration focuses on waterways on district lands and those listed as priorities in surface water improvement manage ment or land management plans. Tellingly, e ach of the seven watersheds in North West Florida Water Management District ( NWFWMD ) is listed as priorities.
29 In 1999 the state legislature created both the State and Water Management District Florida Forever programs to replace the Save our Creeks and the Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) programs (Beal Hodges 2012; FDEP 2013a) Florida Forever programmatic goals include coo rdination and completion of projects left protecting, restoring and maintaining natural ecological functions. The Florida Forever Act also replaced the older Land Acquis ition and Management Advisory Council (LAMAC) with a new nine member Acquisition and Restoration Council (ARC). Funding for the Florida Forever Programs was from the sale of $300 million in bonds. Distribution of funding was as follows with a greater emph asis on protecting water resources and water supplies Research 2012) : State Florida Forever Prog ram 35% Water Management District 35% Florida Communities Trust 25% Inholdings and Additions Programs and Greenways and Trails Program 1.5% Florida Recreational Development Assistance Program 2% The water management districts, the state and the counti es have acquired thousands of acres of lands with the specific goal of conservation. Once a land is acquired a comprehensive assessment is performed and a management plan is developed to enhance and restore these lands to maximize their benefit to the env ironment and the general public. Few of these management plans include plans to restore wetlands and streams Finally, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) the state natural heritage program g athers information on biodiversity that is used to asses s projects and prioritize land acquisition under the Florida Forever Program (Beal
30 Hodges 2012) FNAI uses an iterative modeling tool called Florida Forever Tool for Efficient Resource Acquisition and Conservat ion ( F TRAC ) (Oetting et al. 2009) which incorporates species, natural communities, high quality watersheds, wetlands and sustainable forestry. Threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats The F lorida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) embarked on a series of studies in conjunction with the development of its Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. The overall objective of this strategy was to improve strategic habitat conservation planning and address causes of low abundance and decline of species in aquatic habitats. In its Mapping Threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats r eport ( FWC, 2008b) 27 possible threat categories were narrowe d down to ten uncorrelated categories to identify threats to freshwater habitats. Data used for this analysis included information gathered between 1982 and 200 7 Relative threats were calculated at the Hydrologic Unit Code ( HUC ) 12 scale and used to devel op a cumulative index of threats These categories include a wide range of factors that serve as threats to healthy freshwater ecosystems. Use of the FWC habitat threat data have been proposed for two conservation planning tools : the 2012 State Wildlife Ac tion Plan (SWAP) and the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) (F WC 2012; Oetting et al. 2012) Statewide Surface Water Restoration and Conservation P lanning U sing FWC Threa t D ata The 2012 SWAP F TRAC and CLIP Project are statewide habitat protection and land conservation multi criteria decision support tools that prioritize lands for conservation (Oetting et al. 2009; Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission 2012; Oetting et
31 al. 2012) They aggregate metrics in various categories including habitat corridors, key species habitat, water resource res toration. In the 2012 SWAP and CLIP surface water restoration categories are being explored for further development B oth require a statewide logic prioritization approach, with readily available data and the ability to be integrated into the existing pr ioritization framework Restoration Funding Florida has been active in addressing stream restoration and conservation practices and in many respects leads the nation in protecting natural resources (River Federation 1996; Farr & Brock 2006; Wang 2011) Using an analysis of environmental preservation spending (EPS) as a proxy for stream restoration spending, resources tend to go to areas with highly educated, democra tic leaning populations (Wang 2011) Factors such as higher income base and political will contributed to this trend (Wang 2011) The River Federation and National Park Serv ice compiled a comparison of river conservation practices across the United States. These data were based on self reporting from each state. During the 1996 budget year Florida spent over 60% of the money expended on conservation nationally with a primar y focus on land acquisition (River Federation 1996) Additionally, since 2001 the state has acquired 683,000 acres of conservation land at a cost of $2.87 billion (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2013a) Several reasons have been cited for environmental conservation. These include protection from swift population growth and urban sprawl, the environme nt as an economic engine, and previous destruction of many natural areas. Local governments at the county and municipal level play a critical role in environmental conservation. Local referendums to vote on increased sales taxes
32 serve as match dollars for land acquisition and management grants (Farr & Brock 2006) Isolating funds spent on stream restoration from conservation funds is a difficult task. Funding for one project may come from multiple levels of governm ent, nonprofit organizations, and volunteer investments, which include both in kind and monetary funds. Additionally, projects span multiple years and many jurisdictions. Quantifying the money spent from all these avenues for multiple years becomes difficu lt. Despite these challenges, Bernhardt (Bernhardt et al. 2005) estimated that over one billion dollars are spen t each year on stream restoration projects in the US. Approach This work was organized to address the four questions posed by the assessment of stream water quality and habitat: 1) W quality problems ? 2) W hat is the magnitude of those problems and are they worsening ? 3) W hat are the causes of impairment ? 4) A re we mak ing smart restoration investments? In this study t hese questions were posed in the context of Florida and addressed in the following three chapters and summarized in the final chapter. Chapter 2 stream water qual ity problems are located by performing a geospatial assessment of stream impairment at the Water Body Identification ( WBID ) level WBIDs were used since they are the operational unit to identify impairment used by FDEP. In this chapter, stream impairment ( via Clean Water Act 303(d) parameters, Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorous and Stream Condition Index ) was quantified and described based on spatial distribution. Next, the spatial distribution of impairment was compared to threats to stream habitat (Florida Fish and Wildlife
33 Commission 2008b) Three types of analyse s, one statistical and two geospatial, were used to evaluate the relationship b etween impairment and threats : a non parametric linear median test to identify the significan ce of the relationship between threats and impairment ; a hotspots analysis to identify impairment hotspots ; and an assessment of the relationship between high magn itude of threat magnitude and high impairment. Finally a grouping analysis clustered similar WBIDs based on the magnitude of the ten threats to identify if a particular group of threats were associated with impairment. Chapter 3 addresses the question of where our investments to improving stream health and water quality are located through the development of a Florida Stream Restoration Database (FSRD) A combination of literature/database search and snowball interviews techniques was utilized to collect the names, description, costs, completion year among o ther project attributes. S patial analyses were used to determine where restoration is occurring and what types are most prevalent in which regions Finally, the project cost s and temporal trends were an alyzed to explore the level of investment Florida has committed to stream restoration and how the number and type of restoration projects implemented have changed over time. In Chapter 4 a Restoration Recovery Potentia l (RRP) s core was calculated for eac h WBID to determine locations were restoration would be most successful. The RRP considered t wenty metrics: 10 measures of ecological capacity and social context and 10 stressor s (from the FWC threats datab a se) Restoration prioritization schemes were deve loped using six weighting scenarios each of which emphasized a particular set of metrics RRP s cores were ranked on a scale from good to poor and a change analysis
34 was performed to determine how sensitive each WBID was to the application of various scenar ios. Chapter 5 briefly summarizes findings and draws conclusions between the three preceding chapters. Management implications and future work of each chapter are also discussed.
35 Table 1 1. Restoration concepts Reclamation vs Mit igation Restoration vs Preservation/Conservation Restoration vs Rehabilitation Restoration vs maintenance River Engineering vs Ecological Engineering Active vs passive Form vs function Piecemeal vs strategic Single benefit vs multiple benefits Class ification vs engineering techniques
36 Figure 1 1. Impairment status of assessed waters of the United States (US Environmental Protection Agency 2013b)
37 Figure 1 2. Impairment status of a ssessed waters of Florida (US Environmental Protection Agency 2013b)
38 Figure 1 3 Historical trends in the practice of restoration. (Roni & Beechie 2 012a)
39 CHAPTER 2 GEOSPATIAL ASSESSMENT OF STREAM IMPAIRMENT IN FLORIDA Background T he advancement of computing power and wide availability of geospatial data has facilitated the application of geospatial analyses to identify causes of water quality impa irment (Hinck et al. 2011) assess impacts to habitat (Merem et al. 2011) and prioritize management decisions to improve water quality (Jablonski 2011 Norton et al. 2009) Improving our u nderstanding of the drivers of impairment via geospatial analyses provides an opportunity to develop strategies to improve stream health by strategically r educing those drivers most associated with impaired stream function. A growing body of work agrees that planning at broad scales best enables the realization of fundamental biodiversity conservation goals (Hawkins et al. 2008; Ode et al. 2008; Carlisle et al. 2009; Abell et al. 2011a; FWC 2012) This concept can also be applied to environmental r estoration goals since biodiversity is intrinsically linked to healthy terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (Carlisle et al. 2009; Falcone et al. 2010) Broad scale geospatial assessments of threats to stream impairment in restoration planning can improve restoration success rates. A number of geospatial techniques have been employed to quantify and rank selected water quality impairment indicators and identify possible contributions to im pairment risk (Hawkins et al. 2008; Falcone et al. 2010; Petty et al. 2010; Abell et al. 2011b; Hinck et al. 2011; Kupfer & Gao 2011; Merem et al. 2011; Brown & Froemke 2012; Beechie et al. 2013) A broad selection of ecological, landscape, and biological indicators has been used to e xplain impairment including land use, road density, atmospheric deposition, mining land, toxic mines, confined animal feeding operations,
40 and housing density (Norton et al. 2009; Falcone et al. 2010; Petty et al. 2010; Abell et al. 2011a) Management relevant applications of these techniques include summarizing impairment within a region, development of decision support tools, and selecting the pr imary contributors to water quality or habitat degradation (Beechie et al. 2008; Beechie et al. 2009; Roni & Beechie 2012a) Selection techniques include p rincipal compo nent analysis in combination with normalization (Merem et al. 2011) natural breaks ranking (FWC 2008b) and percentiles (Falcone et al. 2010) This study evaluate d the spatial distribution of impaired stream s based on Clean Water Act (CWA) 303(d), Numeric Nutrient Criteria T otal N itrogen (NNC TN) and T otal P hosphorous (NNC TP) and Stream Condition Index ( SCI) impairments and correlated these metrics with identified threats to stream h abitat. The assessment was performed at the w aterbody i dentification ( WBID ) level; WBIDs are defined as relatively homogenous and hydrologically distinct segment of a major su rface water feature of the state (FDEP 2012) and is the primary assessment unit that the FDEP uses for measuring water body impairment. A combination of statistical and ge ospatial techniques were used to gain an understand ing of the relationship between stream impairment and habitat threats in the state of Florida for conservation and restoration policy decision making. There are four primary goals of this work : (1) i dentif y spatial relationships between impairment metrics ( Clean Water Act 303(d), Numeric Nutrient Criteria TP and TN and Stream Condition Index ); (2) evaluate whether there is a statistical correlation between impairment status and identified threats; ( 3 ) ident ify areas of impairment concentration, where restoration may be focused ; and (4) evaluate spatial relationship between impairment status and observed habitat threats.
41 Under the requirements of Section s 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Impaired Waters Rule (IWR), Florida conducted the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Section 305(b) requires reports on stream conditions in the state while Section 303(d) requires report ing of all impaired waters (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Integrated Water Resources Monitoring Program is a multi tiered system that monitors b ot h the current status of streams as well as trends in water quality in fulfillment of this requirement (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Streams in the report co mprised 20,788 miles of the 54,836 total stream miles in Recently, the Nutrient Impairment Criteria C hapters 62 302 (Water Quality Standards) and 62 303 (Identification of Impaired Surface Waters), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) s et lakes and streams, introducing a clear metric for TN and TP For streams that are listed as impaired, a Total Daily Maxim um Load (TMDL) is established (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Both the CWA 303(d) list and SCI will play a key role in the implementation of the recently ado pted Numeric Nutrient Criteria. SCI will be the preliminary analysis tool to determine if there is degradation to the stream followed by extensive site specific analysis to determine if nutrient concentrations were indeed exceeding baseline concentrations (FDEP 2013b) Finally, either a site specific numeric criterion will be applied or regionalized concentrations limits for Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total P hosphorous (TP) wil l be applied An understanding of how these impairments
42 associate with others will be critical in future planning. There is expected to be significant economic and management implications on industries, cities and small towns that now must ensure that the ir discharges do no contribute to impairment (Entrix 2010; Pena Tijerina et al. 2010; Drozd 2011) Stream water quality trends are assessed as part of the Statewide Status and Trend Monitoring Program for Surface and Ground Water (SSTMP), which monitors stream chemistry to determine whether or not streams are impaired under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Of those streams assessed, 25% attained EPA Category 2 status (i.e., attained some of their designated uses), while 55% were grouped in Category 3b (i.e., insufficient data to m ake a determination), and 11% fell into Category 5 (i.e., non attainment of water quality standards requiring a TMDL). Others were already in stages of TMDL development, did not have enough data or were undergoing restoration to meet designated uses ( Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) The most common water quality impairments were dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, fish advisorie s for mercury and chlorophyll caused by a variety of factors ( Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012) Biological monitoring includes the Stream Condition Index (SCI) and Bioreconnaissance (BioRecon) me thods (Fore et al. 2007) which are used as screening tools (BioRecon) and determinat ion of impairment (SCI). Once a potential impairment is identified, a rapid assessment is conducted using BioRecon, a macroinvert ebrate based index. If a s tream is determined to be stressed or have an index score less than 6 out of 10, further investigation is recommended. Th e second
43 level of investigation typically performed using the SCI _2007 methodology which measures ecosystem health along a Human disturbance and biological condition gradient (Fore et al. 2007) Both assessments were regionally calibrated based o n 13 ecoregions (Fore et al. 2007) Since 1992, 1, 117 BioRecon and 3,441 SCI samples have been analyzed (FDEP 2012) ; 32 % of assessed sites failed to meet the minimum BioRecon score, requiring SCI sampling. Of these streams, 18 % did not meet the minimum SCI standard over this timeframe (FDEP 2010) mponent of their freshwater resources restoration, conservation and protection strategies: the 2012 State Wildlife Action Plan and the Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project In both cases, the data were used for the development of a statewide pri oritization scheme to protect water resource and both were proposed to be integrated into larger strategic conservation plans. Each study analyzed the data using different spatial scales and number of threats. The SWAP analysis was performed on the HUC 8 s cale and includ ed 13 threats while the CLIP analysis was perform ed using HUC 12 watersheds and includ ed 10 threats Methods Four categories of stream impairment C lean Water Act 303(d) List Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) for T otal N itrogen and T otal Ph osphorous and Stream Condition Index (SCI) were assigned to each WBID and organized into a geospatial database. Only WBIDs classified as stream s in the original dataset were considered for analysis (i.e., lakes and wetlands were excluded) The spatial dist ribution of each impairment category was assessed individually and in relationship to other categories A hotspots analysis cluster analysis ) was performed to identify concentrations of impairment.
44 For the purpose of this analysis the final impai rment status of a WBID is assumed to apply to all streams in that WBID. Hotspots analysis was calculated by the number of impairments affecting a particular watershed, identified by WBID. Impaired WBIDs were then compared with healthy water bodies to dete rmine which threats, if any, predicted impairment status To maintain uniformity with impairment units (i.e., WBIDs) FWC Threat data were recalculated from HUC 12 to WBID scale using the original datasets Data sources used to perform these analys e s are s ummarized in Appendix B 1 Most data preparation and final analysis were performed in a Geographical Information System (GIS) d atabase (ArcMap, ESRI, Redlands CA) Supplementary processing and analysis were performed in database software (MS Access), spre adsheet software (MS Excel) and statistical software (SPSS). Dataset Development Impairment d ata Three data sources were used to characterize overall WBID impairment: 1) Verified CWA 303(d) Impaired WBIDs database (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP 2013) ; 2) the draft EPA Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rule (one each for TN and TP) presented in 2010 ; and 3) databas e (Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP 2013) which lists impairment via the SCI. For the CWA 303(d) impairment assessment, all parameters were considered whe n classifying WBIDs as impaired. In other words, if a water body was impaired by any parameter, it would be identified as impaired. EPA NNC impairment status was determined based on annual geometric mean TN and TP concentration s measured between 200 0 and 2 009. Application of the f inal rule entailed use of a 1 in 3 year exceedance criteria where t he annual geometric mean must not
45 exceed the criteria more than once in the pr e ceding three years (i.e., 2007 2009 f or this analysis ) (Table 2 1) I f there were not enough data to apply the 1 in 3 year rule the WBID was listed with Insufficient Data for NNC impairment. For assessment of SCI impairment, measurements from SCI_2007 methodology were used (Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012; Mixon 2012) SCI categories included: Category 1(Exceptional), Category 2 (Healthy) and Category 3 (Unhealthy) (Table 2 2 ) however SCI data were only available fo r 652 of 6614 WBIDs. The most recent measurement for each WBID was used to determine its impairment status. The most recent date for SCI measurement ranged from 2006 to 2012. Overall i mpairment status was characterized as the sum of impairment categories for each WBID (e.g., ranging from 0 for WBIDs with no impairment to four for WBIDs with impairment in each category) (Table 2 3 ) Threats d ata Ten threats (FWC, 2008) were utilized to explore correlations between impairment and identified threats in each w atershed (Table 2 4 ). FWC is currently in the process of updating the threats database for public release (Jennifer Beck, FWC, personal communication September 23, 2013 ) and t hese updated datasets were used in this analysis with three minor changes: 1) t he water quality impairment threat was replaced by the density of NPDES dischargers in each WBID (to avoid direct correspondence between impairment and threat); 2) threats were recalculated for each WBID using the raw data using the methodology outlined by FWC except as otherwise noted ; and 3) the water modification threat was calculated using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (as was used in the 2008 threats database) rather than the
46 enhanced dataset, which us es the Southwest Florida Drainage Canals a nd the Navigation W aterways d atasets. Data Analysis Spatial r elationships between i mpairment and t hreats To describe the spatial relationship between impairment types, WBID s were categorized into thirteen groups based on possible combinations of the four impairment categories: CWA 303(d), NNC TP, NNC TN, and SCI I mpairment categories were analyzed to determine both the extent and spatial clustering of stream impairment in the state. To determine the relationship between impairment status and threats, a te st of normality was first performed on the distribution of each threat. P values from the Shapiro Wilk test suggest ed that the threats data were not normally distributed. Therefore, non parametric comparisons of the median values of each threat as a functi on of impairment status were applied, testing for significance at the 95% confidence level. Impairment hotspots analysis To further understand how impaired WBIDs are clustered in the state, an optimized hotspots analysis was performed (ESRI 2013) Hotspots analysis is a geospatial technique that Ord Gi* statist ic (ESRI 2013) For this analysis, the sum of impairment categori es was calculated for each WBID and these values were compared with values in neighboring WBIDs to identi fy hotspots. A z score and p score were calculated for each WBID, which indicate whether spatial clustering is more or less intense (z score) than one would expect from a random distribution of values (p score). Hotspots were identified by a high z score a nd small p score, while
47 coldspots were identified by low negative z scores and a small p score. Each WBID was assigned a Gizscore and Gipvalue, which measured the level of significance (90, 95 and 99% confidence) of either the hotspot or the coldspot. Gro uping analysis A g rouping a nalysis was performed on the habitat threats The grouping analysis is a GIS technique that clusters features based on the values of multiple attributes (ESRI 2013) The technique seeks to create clusters that maximize within group similarity and between group differences using the smallest number of clusters. The cluster analysis was performed without spatial constraint such that a WBID anywhere in the state may be clustered with other WBIDs with a similar composition of threats The average threat value in each group was ranked as high medium or low by comparing to the total average threat mean. To determine the dist ribution of impairments within each group, grouping analysis result s were overla id with the impaired WBIDs shape file. The data were summarized based on the impairment status of each WBID between each group T he percent age of impaired WBIDS was calculated with respect to all impaired WBIDS and impaired within each individual group This assessment determined the groups with the highest percentage of all impaired WBIDS and the groups with the highest proportion of impairment WBIDs A similar analysis was c onducted for each impairment type. Results Impairment Extent and Spatial Structure A total of 3834 river and stream WBIDs were assessed in this analysis. Sufficient data were available for 2550 (67%) of these WBIDs, and 35% of these reaches were impair ed in one or more category. CWA 303(d) listing was the most common
48 impairment category for streams in Florida, with a total of 732 impaired WBIDs (29% of WBIDs with sufficient data) (Table 2 5) Approximately 70% of those WBIDs were recognized as impaired only by CWA 303(d) parameters ( Table 2 6 and Figure 2 1) while the remaining 30% were listed under two or more impairment categories (Table 2 6 ). For example, 131 were impaired for TN and TP, and 80 were impaired by SCI, indicating biological degradation caused by water quality deterioration. Spatially, CWA 303(d) i mpairment s impact the main channel of many strea ms and rivers across the state, and most major rivers are impaired by at least one parameter on multiple reaches (Figure 2 1 and Figure 2 5 ). Imp airment by NNC TN and NNC TP had differing spatial extents (Figures 2 2 and 2 3) A total of 143 WBIDs were impaired for TN and 178 for TP (Table 2 5) M ost NNC impairment was found in peninsular Florida ( Figure 2 1 ). Furthermore, on ly 12 WBIDs were impai red for both TN and TP without any other impairment categories (Table 2 6) Only 60 WBIDs of the 147 assessed were impaired as SCI only (Table 2 6 and Figure 2 4 ). Other SCI impairm ent combinations were with CWA 303(d) (61) and Numeri c Nutrient Criteria ( 21). Stream Condition Index scores that were determined to be impaired were dispersed in varied WBIDs throughout the state Figure (2 4 ) In the western end of the Florida panhandle, the sub watersheds of Perdido watersheds had the most varied combinations of impairment. This area contained seven of the 13 impairment combinations excluding the No Data and No Impairment categories (Figure 2 5) Three WBIDs were impaired by all four impairment types. T hese three WBIDs were located in three disparate parts of the state, Eleven Mile
49 and Taylor Creek near Lake Okeechobee. Correlation b etween Impairment and Threats Data from the FWC Threats Database were evaluated in relationship with each impairment type to determine if there was a relationship between the magnitudes of treats across impaired or unimpaired basins. The hypothesis that threat levels are similar for impaired and non impaired WBIDs was rejected in al most all cases irrespective of threat and impairment type ( Table 2 7) Exceptions included a significant difference between: 1) road densities in WBIDs with and without impairment ( based on NNC TN, NNC TP ), and SCI, and 2) percent riparian buffer in agriculture in WBIDs with and without impair ment for SCI This finding suggests that the magnitude of road density and riparian agriculture were similar irrespective of impairment status in the WBID A similar analysis was performed to assess the correlation between the ten threats and the total num ber of impairments ( Table 2 7 ) ; the assessment revealed that a significant difference exists between impaired and non impaired WBIDs for all ten threats. Hotspots Analysis The hotspots analysis identified several clusters of impairment (Figure 2 18). It The majority of i mpaired WBIDs showed no significan t spatial clustering at the 99% confidence level (Figure 2 19 ) As expected, very few impaired WBIDs were found in coldspots (Table 2 8). I mpairment hotspots were typically associated with areas of high average threats while low spots were typically associated with low habitat threat averages ( Table 2 8 ). Eight of the ten threats follow this trend, supporting the general relationshi p between
50 impairment and threats presented above. The two remaining threats, average density of water control structures and average percent agriculture in the riparian zone, did not show a clear relationship with impairment hotspots. Threat Grouping Anal ysis The grouping analysis identified si x unique groups of WBIDs that represents a unique spatial distribution (Figure 2 21), impairment combination s (Table 2 10) and threat magnitude s (Table 2 11 ). Groups 1, 3 and 5 represent WBIDs that are geographically clustered with large continuous groups of WBIDs in the panhandle, northern peninsula and southern peninsula of Florida, respectively though e ach group also contained WBIDs dispersed across the state. Group 2 consisted of a single WBID which contained fo ur water control structures over a small length of defined streams channels, therefore, the calculated water control density threat value was substantially higher than average. Groups 4 and 6 were less clustered and were made up of small groups of WBIDs di spersed across the state. These groups also correspond to specific impairment characteristic s (i.e, the number and type of impairment s) (Table 2 9 ) For example, Group 1 contains both the highest number of WBIDs which were primarily impaired by combination s with only one of the four impairment types In Group 3 the largest proportion of WBID s were affected by only one impairment type; however, when compared to the other gr oups there was a larger number of WBIDs affected by two (74) and three (32) impairmen t type combinations Group 4 contained an average number of WBIDs which were distributed heavily affected by impairment combinations with only one type of impairment and ten with impairment combinations with three impairment types. Groups 5 and 6 had fewer numbers of WBIDS within each group seventy five and eight respectively. Similar to the other groups most impaired WBIDs were
51 combinations of only one impairment type. Groups 5 or 6 have each have one WBID with all four impairment types. Despite having the smallest number of WBIDs, Groups 5 and 6 had the highest proportion (68% and 75%) of impaired WBIDs as well as above average values for eight out of ten habitat threats. WBIDs in Group 1 had the highest number of impaired WBIDs but below average threat r ank with the exception of riparian agriculture which had an average threat rank The remaining groups had a mixture of above average, average and below average threat rankings and a moderate number of impaired WBIDs. In summary, groups of WBIDs with higher threat levels contained the highest percentages of impaired WBIDs and a reas with low average threat values contained the lowest percentages of impaired WBIDs (Table 2 10 ). Additionally, the proportions of various impairment combinations differ within eac h group (Figure 2 5 ). Despite having the largest percentage of impaired WBIDs, group s 5 and 6 had a low variety of impairment combinations (Table 2 9 ). Clean Water Act 303(d) Impairment dominated the types of impairment influencing each of the groups regar dless of the number of threats involved. Interestingly, a reas with lower and mid range threat levels had a higher number of impairment combinations of the 4 impairment types S pecifically more WBIDs were impaired by two or more impairment types in group 1 3, and 4 WBIDs than in group 5 or 6. Spatially, threat groups were dispersed throughout the state ; however some major features were revealed (Figure 2 2 2 ). Groups 1 and 3 (lower threat) had the largest geographical span and divided the state roughly bet ween panhandle and peninsula r Florida while Groups 5 and 6 were primarily located in southern Florida.
52 Discussion These results suggest multifaceted dynamics involved with stream impairment in the state of Florida. First it was found that more than 5 0% of WBIDs designated as streams were either not impaired or had insufficient data to determine stream health (Figure 2 8). Of those WBIDs that were impaired a large pro portion were impaired under the CWA 303(d) list with smaller percentages of NNC and SCI impairments 72% of i mpaired WBIDs were impacted by a single impairment category while 21% and 6% were impaired by two and three impairment categories, respectively Only three WBIDs were impaired by all four impairment categories; t hese streams were located in different geographic regions of the state. Statistical tests comparing impairment status with threats to stream habitat suggest ed that with the exception of road density the magnitude of threats were higher in impaired vs. non impaired WBIDs. Further g eospatial and grouping a nalyses supported the results of these statistical tests. The h otspots analysis revealed areas of WBIDs with a high number of impairment s, while coldspots indicated areas where there were clusters of WBIDs with no impairmen t or no data. Hotspots were identified near several urban areas such as Jacksonville, Fort Myers, and along the eastern coastline from Fort Pierce moving south (Figure 2 1 8 ). Significant hotspots also existed in the n orth e astern portion of Lake Okeechobee These impairment hotspots were also associated with significantly higher than average threat values for eight of the ten threats to stream habita t the exceptions were agricultural area in the riparian buffer and w ater c ontrol s tructure d ensity (Figure 2 11). Interestingly, the largest numbers of impaired WBIDs were found in areas with no significant clustering (Table 2 8) suggest ing that impairment is largely caused by local rather than regional phenomena. Additionally, areas without significant clusteri ng
53 (representing the largest number of WBIDs) were also associated with moderate threat levels (Figure 2 11 and Figure 2 19) The grouping analysis clustered WBIDs with similar threat characteristics into six distinct groups with e ach group containing dif ferent combinations of high, medium or low average values for each of the ten threats. Groups 5 and 6 contained the highest percentages of impaired WBIDs with high to medium averages for eight out of ten threats. Group 1 however, contained the highest qu antity of impaired WBIDs. Similar to the hotspots analysis group 1 had primarily low averages for each threat. These trends suggest that there were two or more distinct factors that influence d impairment rather than a specific set of threats (and threat l evels) that predict ed impairment status. Approximately 30% of stream WBIDs lacked sufficient data to assess the health of the stream (Table 2 6) Many of these areas may include intermittent streams or ephemeral streams which were typically not under CWA jurisdiction (Nadeau & Rains 2007; Leibowitz et al. 2008; Caruso 2011) or reaches that were difficult to access due to hydrologic considerations and un certainty about their contribution to downstream impairment (Leopold & Miller 1956; Hansen 2001; Roy et al. 2009; Armstrong et al. 2012; Wenerick et al.) There is still much to be learned about the health of intermittent streams and other unregulated waterbody types and management implications for w ater quality. For example, headwater and stee phead streams in northwest Florida are generally in less developed areas, however, they are being threatened with increased landuse conversion from pine plantation to various agricultural and residential uses. The increase of these pressures in currently p ristine
54 watersheds will potentially have long term implications on the future of water quality in panhandle Florida water body types and management implications for w ater quality. In view of the fact that the CWA 303(d) list is one possible pathway to sta te funded restoration, it is critical to understand the spatial distribution of 303(d) impairment and its correlation with other impairment types. CWA 303(d) impairment was the most common impairment in terms of number of stream WBIDs (732) and percentage 19% (Table 2 5 ). When identifying the spatial distribution of impairment, a pproximately 60% of WBIDs impaired by CWA 303(d) were found in peninsula r Florida where there are also above average habitat threats associated with agriculture, urbanization and wa terway channelization Several WBIDs ( 61 ) exhibited biological degradation in conjunction with SCI Impairment (Table 2 6) In general most impairment by CWA 303(d) occurred individually while a portion of WBIDs (131) were also either impaired by previousl y established TN/TP impairment or will be newly impaired when the 1 in 3 year rule is applied for the N NC The newly identified impaired streams will increase the need for verification of impairment and ultimately TMDL development with implications to a nu mber of NPDEs dischargers. Given the relationship between the CWA 303(d) list and SCI to the recent Numeric Nutrient Criteria Rule for Florida, the application of the 1 in 3 year rule to TN and TP concentrations in this study provides an outlook for the fu ture impairment status of the s streams C omparison of NNC impairment to current impairment metrics (Table 2 6 and 2 9 ) can further the discussion of how the rule will impact water management in Florida. In particular it may influence how future res toration strategies are developed to address these impairments.
55 Several key considerations may have contributed to the difference in numbers of impairment by CWA 303(d) versus SCI First, a WBID may be on different phases of the impairment identification process. Therefore, a biological impairment may have been identified but studies to identify the cause of that impairment m a y have not concluded; consequently, 303(d) i mpairment status has not been established. Additionally, it can take years to be placed on the 303(d) list for impairment following the watershed management approach where basins are evaluated and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) on a five year rotation basis (FDEP 2012) Furthermore, SCIs were not conducted on a routine basis to identify areas of impairment. There may be other streams that were yet to be identified as impaired that would enhance this analysis. Impairment types were measured at different scal es F or example NNC is not applicable to intermittent streams. Another important consideration for the interpretation of these results is that the metrics used to quantify certain threats may have not been the best representation of the level of threat F or example, the density of water control structures do es not correspond w ell w ith known areas that contain high numbers of water control structures (Fig. 2 17 ) In this case, quantity of control structures rather than density of water control structures scaled by length of waterways in a WBID, may be a better metric. Additionally, instead of measuring all roads in the road density threat, unpaved roads in close proximity to streams should be taken under consideration. Unpaved roads are often contributors to increased sediment in streams when in close proximity. In general, a closer look at the spatial relationships between impaired water bod ies and threats will aid understanding the key drivers to water body impairment.
56 T his analysis demonstrated that the re are differences between the spatial distributions of stream impairment types Furthermore, there are statistical differences between identified threats to stream habitat in WBIDs with and without impairment Additionally, the hotspots and grouping analy s e s isolated a small percentage of impair ment clusters, suggesting impairment may be influenced by localized rather than regional phenomena. Several management considerations may be influence d as a r esult of this analysis I t is a step towards further und erstanding the spatial context of stream impairment. Implications to the Practice The results of this analysis, coupled with increased efforts to assess and monitor stream condition by local state and federal agencies, may be used to develop an effective restoration strategy Some important lessons learned from this work are: Lack of data for many streams prohibits a full understanding of the state of Florida s treams. A number of streams within the state currently require restoration to improve water qual ity. Management and r estoration solutions must be comprehensive but localized Future Work Identify the relationship between intermittent and ephemeral streams to downstream impairment. Examining other clustering techniques may better predict the local v ersus regional nature of impairment. A different set of threats or these threats measured in a different way may be used to evaluate contributors to stream impairment. of its A mbient Monitoring Program. A temporal component to this analysis could be added addressing how change in threat levels relate s to change i n impairment status.
57 Table 2 1 Example Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) impairment selection criteria using the 1 in 3 year rule for impairment. No WBID may exceed the numeric criteria more than once in th ree years. Parameter NNC Criteria Annual Geomean Numeric Nutrient Criteria Status Impairment Summary TN 0.67 2000 (0.34); 2001 (0.49); 2002 (0.39); 2003 (0.51); 2 004 (0.43); 2005 (0.41); 2006 (0.36); 2007 (0.42); 2008 (0.42); 2009 (0.54) Meets Criteria 2 TN 0.67 2008 (0.63); 2009 (0.75 ) Insufficient Data 4 TN 0.67 2004 (2.56 ); 2008 (4.80 ); 2009 (4.61 ) Does Not Meet Criteria 1 *Values not meeting Numeric Nut rient Criteria.
58 Table 2 2. Example S tream C on dition Index (SCI) i mpairment data conversion table. Description SCI Category Impairment Data Category Exceptional Category 1 3 Healthy Category 2 2 Impaired Category 3 1
59 Table 2 3 Example calculati on of count of impairment for each stream WBID WBID Stream Condition Index Numeric Nutrient Criteria Total Nitrogen Numeric Nutrient Criteria Total Phosphorus Clean Water Act 303 (d) Count of WBID 10 1 1 25C 1 1 1 1 4 345 1 1 2 10 1 1 1 3 45B 0
60 Table 2 4 Description of ecological threats data from the FWC Threats Database (FWC, 2010) Description Measurement Variable Type Non Invasive/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Plants # of category 1 invasive plant Species per WBID Count Wa terway Modification Channelized length/total stream length Density Federal Dam Storage Average Normal storage per WBI D Average (acre ft) Groundwater Withdrawal Average withdraw a l per WBID in mgd Average (mgd) Non native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Animals # species of invasive aquatic animals Count Riparian/Freshwater Buffer Zone Percent agriculture in the riparian zone Ratio Surface Water Withdrawal Average withdraw a l per WBID in mgd Average (mgd) NPDES Discharges Number of discharges Count Water Contr ol Structure Density # control structures/ length of streams in each WBID Density (# structures/km stream) Weighted Road Density Length for roads per WBID area, weighted by road width Density (km/km^2)
61 Table 2 5 Spatial summary of impairment in the P anhandle, Peninsula and Central Florida Clean Water Act 303(d) Impairment Numeric Nutrient Criteria Total Phosphorous Numeric Nutrient Criteria Total Nitrogen Stream Condition Inde x Central Florida 19.40% 20.20% 14.00% 27.20% Panhandle 19.50% 12.90% 25. 90% 17.00% Peninsula 61.10% 66.90% 60.10% 55.80% Statewide 732 178 143 147
62 Table 2 6 Summary of impairment category combinations of WBIDs with sufficient data Number of Impairments Impairment Combinations Number of WBIDS Percent 0 No Impa irment 36 3.88 % 1 N NC TN Only 31 1.74 % NNC TP Only 54 3.08 % SCI Only 60 3.54 % CWA 303(d) Only 511 31.22 % 2 CWA 303 (d) and NNC TN 42 3.73 % CWA 303(d) and NNC TP 60 5.54 % CWA 303(d) and SCI 61 5.96 % NNC TN and SCI 2 0. 21 % NN C TN & TP 12 1. 25 % 3 CWA 303 (d), NNC TN and SCI 8 0. 84 % CWA 303(d), NNC TP and SCI 11 1. 17 % CWA 303(d ) and NNC 36 3.87 % 4 Impaired By All 3 0.34% Total Impairment 891 23. 24 %
63 Table 2 7. Results of independent samples median test b etween impairment and stream threats Threat CWA 303(d) List NNC TP NNC TN SCI Count of Impairment Non Native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Plants *** *** *** *** *** Daily Permitted Surface Water Withdrawal *** *** *** *** *** Daily Permitt ed Ground Water Withdrawal *** *** *** *** *** Federal Dam Storage *** ** ** *** *** Water Control Structures *** 0 .019 ** *** *** Riparian Agriculture/Freshwater Buffer Zone *** ** ** 0 .056 *** Non native/Exotic Invasive Aquati c Animals *** *** *** *** *** Road Density *** 0 .289 0 .165 0 .218 ** Waterway Modification *** *** *** *** *** NPDES Dischargers *** *** *** *** *** *** p < 0 .001 ** p < 0.01
64 Table 2 8 Distribution of impaired WBIDs and hot spot confidence values (giz score s) for each impairment type Cold spot Hot spot Confidence Level 99% 95% 90% 90% 95% 99% Grand Total CWA 303(d) 8 8 12 477 41 45 141 732 NNC TP 1 0 6 109 3 8 49 176 NNC TN 0 3 1 93 6 4 27 134 SCI 0 1 100 9 8 29 147
65 Table 2 9 Summary of impairment c ombinations per grouping a nalysis groups. Number of Impairments Impairment Combinations 0 Group Number Grand Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 No Impairment 7 1218 275 147 11 1 1659 No Data Available 3 864 1 255 147 13 1 1284 1 NNC TN Only 18 10 2 1 31 NNC TP Only 37 10 5 2 54 SCI Only 26 21 12 1 60 CWA 303(d) Only 2 199 157 111 40 2 511 2 CWA 303 (d) and NNC TN 21 16 4 1 42 CWA 303(d) and NNC TP 16 25 17 2 60 CWA 303(d) and SCI 18 28 11 4 61 NNC TN and SCI 1 1 2 NNC TN & TP 8 4 12 3 CWA 303 (d), NNC TN and SCI 2 4 2 8 CWA 303(d), NNC TP and SCI 2 6 2 1 11 CWA 303(d) NNC TN and NNC TP 7 22 6 1 36 4 Impai red By All 1 1 1 3 Total Impairment 12 2437 1 835 466 75 8 3834
66 Table 2 10 Grouping analysis impairment summary with threat rankings. Impairment Combinations 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total WBIDS within Groups 12 2437 1 835 466 75 8 Percent of All WB IDs in Group 0% 64% 0% 22% 12% 2% 0% Number of WBIDS with Impairment 2 355 0 305 172 51 6 Percent of WBIDS with Impairment 0% 40% 1 0% 34% 1 19% 6% 1% Number of WBIDS with No Impairment/Nodata 10 2082 1 530 294 24 2 Percent of WBIDS with No Impa irment/Nodata 0% 71% 0% 18% 10% 1% 0% Percentages Within Groups Number of WBIDS with Impairment 2 355 0 305 172 51 6 Percent of WBIDS with Impairment 17% 15% 0% 37% 37% 68% 2 75% 2 Number of WBIDS with No Impairment/Nodata 10 208 2 1 530 294 24 2 Percent of WBIDS with No Impairment/Nodata 83% 85% 100% 63% 63% 32% 25% 1 H ighest percentages of total impaired WBIDs. 2 Higest number of impaired WBIDs within respective groups.
67 Table 2 11 Distribution of stream threat ( standardized ave rages ) by group. Threat 1 2 3 4 5 6 Overall Average Non Native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Plants 0.27* 0.00* 2.65** 1.02** 5.87*** 3.89*** 1.03 Daily Permitted Surface Water Withdrawal 0.09* 0.00* 1.75** 0.28* 22.56*** 40.97*** 0.97 Daily Permitted Ground Water Withdrawal 0.22* 0.00* 1.61** 0.96* 19.30*** 4.69*** 1.85 Federal Dam Storage 0.06* 0.33* 0.65* 0.09* 1.11** 375.67*** 8862.16 Water Control Structures 0.61* 1481.26*** 0.47* 0.92* 0.28* 0.50* 0.00 Riparian Agriculture/Freshwater Buffer Zone 1.1 4** 0.04* 1.07** 0.17* 0.56* 2.37*** 0.29 Non native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Animals 0.38* 0.00* 1.58** 0.84* 14.91*** 6.48*** 0.56 Road Density 0.58* 2.09** 0.63** 3.77*** 1.69** 0.35* 2.37 Waterway Modification 0.18* 0.00* 2.88*** 1.57** 2.79*** 3.87* ** 0.22 NPDES Dischargers 0.22* 0.15* 0.94* 3.13*** 13.62*** 2.35*** 6.58 Low Average Threat (below 1) ** Medium Average Threat (between 1 and 2) *** High Average Threat (above 2)
68 Figure 2 1 Clean Water Act 303(d) List i mpairment in Florida.
69 Figure 2 2 Numeric Nutrient Criteria (NNC) Total Nitrogen (TN) i mpairment
70 Figure 2 3 Numeric Nutrient Cri teria (NNC) Total Phosphorus i mpairment
71 Figure 2 4 Stream Condition Index (SCI) i mpairment
72 Figure 2 5 Spatial layout of all thirteen possible combinations of impairment for stream WBIDs in Florida
73 Figure 2 6 Percentage of impairmen t type by region 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Numeric Nutrient Criteria TP Numeric Nutrient Criteria TN Stream Condition Index CWA 303(d) Penninsula Panhandle Central Florida
74 Figure 2 7 Number of impairment types per WBID.
75 Figure 2 8 N on native /exotic invasive aquatic plants stream habitat threat
76 Figure 2 9 F ederal dam storage stream habitat threat
77 Figure 2 10 A verage daily permitted groundwater withdrawals stream habitat threat
78 Figure 2 11 N on native/exotic invasive aquatic animals stream habitat threat
79 Figure 2 1 2 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NDPES) stream habitat threat
80 Figure 2 13 R iparian/freshwater agriculture bu ffer zone stream habitat threat
81 Figure 2 1 4 A verage daily permitted surface water withdrawals (MGD) stream habitat threat
82 Figure 2 1 5 W ater control structure density stream habitat threat
83 Figure 2 1 6 W aterway modification stream habitat threat
84 Figure 2 1 7 Hotspots a nalysis on the number of impairments per WBID.
85 Figure 2 1 8 Dist ribution of normalized averages of habitat threats magnitude and level of significance in hotspots analysis. 1 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 99% 95% 90% 0 90% 95% 99% Normalized Average Threat Magnitude Hotspot Significance Non Native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Plants Daily Permitted Surface Water Withdrawal Daily Permitted Ground Water Withdrawal Federal Dam Storage Water Control Structures Road Density Non native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Animals NPDES Dischargers Riparian Agriculture/Freshwater Buffer Zone Waterway Modification Hotspot Coldspot
86 Figure 2 1 9 Grouping of stream habitat threats b ased on threat similarity
87 Figure 2 20 Percentage of i mpairment c ombinations across threat groups. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 No Data Available No Impairment Impaired By All CWA 303(d), NNC TN and SCI Impairment CWA 303(d) and NNC TN Impairment Stream Condition Index Impairment Only NNC BothTN & TP Impairment NNC TN and SCI Impairment Impaired by TP Only Impaired by TN Only CWA 303(d), NNC TP and SCI Impairment CWA 303(d) Impairment Only CWA 303(d) and SCI Impairment CWA 303(d) and NNC TP Impairment CWA 303(d) and NNC Impairment
88 CHAPTER 3 SYNTHESIZING STREAM RESTORATION EFFORTS IN FLORIDA Background Over $1 Billion USD is spent annually on restoration to improve or repair stream s and rivers in the United States (Bernhardt et al. 2005) Stream r estoration efforts have been recorded anecdotally as early as the late 1800s (Roni & Beechie 2012b) H owev er, there have been limited national scale data collection efforts to catalogue projects or evaluate restoration effectiveness (National Research Council (US) 1992; Bernhard t et al. 2005) Existing reviews of the practice are regional (Kondolf 1998; Carpenter et al. 2004; King et al. 2009) focused on a specific restoration strategy (Harrison et al. 2004; Thompson 2005) or stream type (Carpenter et al. 2004) or are meta analyses of other restoration studies (Craig et al. 2008; Roni et al. 2008) The collection, synthesis, and evaluation of restoration projects continue to be a challenge (Jenkinson et al. 2006) for several reasons: 1) d ata on stream restoration practice are considered fragmented or incomplete due to varying reporting requirements by agencies responsible for restoration (Kondolf & Micheli 1995; Bernhardt et al. 2005; Beechie et al. 2009) ; 2) data that do exist vary in detail specific to the needs of the data sources (i.e., permitting agency, funding source, or news articles); and 3) information about restor ation projects is often recollected anecdotally and is therefore often lost in personnel changes. It has been nearly ten years since the last national survey of river restoration in the United States was conducted (Bernhardt et al. 2005), and much has chan ged during this period, including a number of new environmental regulations ( including interpretations of existing rules), advances in stream restoration techniques, and a large increase in the total number of completed projects.
89 According to the 2008 Fe deral Mitigation Rule manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the (National Research Council (US) 1992; USACOE & USEPA 2008) Restoration can also be described as active which includes intervention or the installing of measures to repair da mages or as passive which entails the removal of disturbance s that caus e impairment and also involves having the stream self adjust (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration,Wo rking Group 1998) The history of river restoration in the US has had several phases since its inception in the 1880s (Palmer et al. 2005; Thompson 2006; Roni & Beec hie 2012b) The first projects were in stream habitat improvements for the protection of trout populations in the northeast. Other early projects included bank stabilization (using hard engineering techniques such as riprap and concrete) and fish habitat improvements (employing tree plantings and log and weir installation) (Roni & Beechie 2012b) Since the 1990s, river restoration efforts have begun to focus on basin scale efforts, including sediment reduction, ripar ian management, and land conservation to improve both form and function of the entire watershed rather than concentrating exclusively on in stream and reach scale activities (Bernhardt et al. 2005) As summarized in Figure 3 1, in stream restoration efforts include the installation of root and log wads and other in stream structures. Reach scale restoration techniques include the creation or restoration of meanders, riffle pool sequences, and grading, and basin sca le restoration techniques include land acquisition, water quality management, and storm water management. A ctive and passive restoration projects exist at each scale, but basin scale projects are generally associated with more passive restoration
90 actions such as purchasing lands but not direct changes to the biophysical character of the stream or riparian corridor. In general, as the project scale decreases, restoration strategies become more active using heavy equipment and manpower for in stream projec ts. Ultimately, restoration at the basin scale works to improve in stream conditions through the restoration of watershed hydrology, including the timing and magnitude of water, sediment, and nutrient fluxes from the terrestrial to the aquatic environment. Motivations for the funding and implementation of stream restoration projects are variable. An international survey of 4 8 9 restoration practitioners from 32 countries ( Wheaton et al. 2006) found that projects with the objective of enhancing ecosystem habi tat had a higher priority than projects for flood control, mitigation, or property/structural protection. This study documented 21 countries that participate in stream restoration activities to rehabilitate waterways. Denmark, the United Kingdom and the U nited States each compiled databases of river and stream restoration projects (Hansen & Iversen 1998) ; the United includes 2000 proj ects (Hansen & Iversen 1998; River Restoration Center 2011) a nd the US has compiled over 3 7 ,000 projects in the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (Malakoff 2004; Bernhardt et al. 2005) an effort that is now defunct These compilation efforts have spurred the development of river restoration centers in various parts of the world. These centers serve as hubs of expertise to imp rove local restoration science, evaluate effective restoration techniques, and educate future restoration scientists (UK River Restoration Center 2013) ; such a nationwide center in the US, however, is currently lacking.
91 Florida is a lead er in protecting natural resources through land acquisition for conservation, water quality improvements, and wetland restoration (River Federation 1996; Farr & Brock 2006; Wang 2011) Despite Florida's efforts in environmental conservation national and regional restoration research data (Carpenter et al. 2004; Bernhardt et al. 2005; Sudduth et al. 2007) fail to sufficiently describe stream restoration efforts in the state Studies on stream restoration generally either only discuss landmark projects such as restoration of the Apalachico la River, Kissimmee River and the Everglades or exclude Florida from the discussion altogether. There is little knowledge of in stream restoration that showcases efforts to protect critical species, repair development impacts, or stabilize erosion. This s tudy aims to fill that knowledge gap by cataloging and synthesizing restoration projects in Florida. The research goals are to answer four questions about river restoration in Florida: 1) W here are the major sources of stream restoration data? 2) W hat type s of stream restoration are occurring? 3) A re there spatial and/or temporal trends in the data? 4) H ow much money is spent on restoration projects and how does this amount compare to national restoration expenditure s? Study Region landforms, surficial clastic sediments and low gradients support approximately 78 ,000 km of rivers and streams, 7,800 lakes, 33 first magnitude springs, and millions of hectares of wetlands (Anderson et al. 1998) Karst landforms, which dominate most of peninsular Florida, are associated with deranged drainage systems. These streams are often discontinuous are punctuated by in line lakes sinks and wetlands ; they originate from springs, seeps, swamps, or la kes. Clastic sediments dominate the panhandle of Florida, and larger alluvial rivers with dendritic drainage
92 patterns dominate this region. Based on this contrasting physiogeography, streams in each region have different topographic controls, hydrology a nd ecology that influence their structure and function, as well as their history of impairment and the types of practices used for their restoration. Florida is currently the third ranking state in population growth in the US with urban population increa sing 20% since 2000 while rural population decreased 3%. (U.S. Census Bureau 2009; US Census Bureau 2012) This population growth has directly impacted streams and rivers as large cit ies expand via urban sprawl and agricultural areas are developed into suburbs. Additionally, many headwater streams have been impacted (or are threatened with future impacts) by the phosphate mining industry in central Florida. R easons cited for enthusiasm for environmental conservation include : protection from swift population growth and urban sprawl, the environment as an economic engine, and previous destruction of many natural areas (Farr & Brock 2006) Tourism generates upwards of $60B in revenues annually (Visit Florida Research 2012) However, as the state continues to grow to meet the needs of the population impacts to vulnerable streams and rivers will increase. Methods Data Collection Data Sources and Selection Criteria Restoration project data were collected from various sources, including organizations that fund restoration projects, governmental environmental protection agencies many of which were used by Bernhardt et al. (2005) in their restoration synthesis and Internet sources. This effort identified several key databases containing information on restoration projects in the state including: restoration grants databases, Environmental Resou rce Permit (ERP)
93 databases from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the US Army Corps of Engineers. These databases contain thousands of restorat ion projects including storm water improvements, implementation of best management practices (BMPs), wetland restoration, and coastal ecosystem restoration. Keyword searches were used to identify relevant stream restoration projects. Due to limited documen was also used to identify stream restoration professionals and collect information about the projects they have implemented from a group of known contacts in the field. E mail reque sts for restoration data were sent along with a request for additional contacts Survey, members of the Florida Section of American Water Resources Association, and pro fessors from the University of Florida. Data requests were also sent to members of the Florida Section of the American Water Resources Association through their monthly newsletter. Projects were identified as restoration if they met the criteria defined b y the 2008 Federal Mitigation Rule: or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions (National Research Council (US) 1992; US Army Corps of Engineers & US Environmental Protection Agency 2008) The definition geomorphic of a stream corridor was used to differentiate stream restoration from upland restoration (Federal Interagency Stream Restoration,Working Group 1998) Under these criteria, projects that entailed in stream and riparian res toration activities
94 were selected for the database. Duplicate projects and projects such as agricultural BMPs, storm water enhancements, or upland vegetation restoration projects were excluded from the Florida Stream Restoration Database (FSRD) if they did not meet the defined restoration criteria. Thus, the emphasis was on reach scale and in stream restoration efforts with direct impact on stream form and/or function. Several basin scale restoration projects were also included; these were large scale proje cts that reconnected floodplains or backfilled canals or enhanced in stream flows. Project Characterization Projects that met the selection criteria were classified into categories ous studies in the National River Restoration Science Synthesis (Bernhardt et al. 2005; Sudduth et al. 2007) and were categorized by the primary type of restoration activity performed (as o pposed to using multiple categories) to avoid double counting (Table 2 1). Occasionally, projects fit into a number of project types. For example, a bank stabilization project activity may have an additional benefit of in stream habitat improvement. In the se cases, the category that was listed as the primary restoration activity was chosen (Figure 1). Two categories not included in previous efforts (invasive species removal and stream reclamation) were included in the FSRD. These new categories address rest oration activities in Florida that may have been less prevalent in other regions of the US. Mine reclamation in Florida often involves creating streams on previously surface mined phosphate la nds in central Florida. Moreover several projects cited invasiv e species removal as a primary restoration activity. Several categories such as water quality management, land acquisition, and storm water management used in the NRRSS were not included in the FSRD.
95 Data Analysis A ttributes includ ing general project desc riptors as well as geographic and physical properties were assigned to each project using a GIS database (Table 2 2). Project descriptors consist of an overall project description, size, cost, start year, end year, data source and funding program. It is often difficult to compare the size across project types since restoration is measured using both areal and linear units. Therefore, projects were assigned the scale (i.e., in stream, reach, or basin) that best represented the project Each attribute, exc luding region, was obtained spatially from the appropriate GIS shape files (Table 2 2). Spatial distribution and trends were described based on three regional groups: panhandle, peninsular and central FL. The regions were delineated based on physiographi c and geographical characteristics and also reflected spatial clusters of restoration projects and project types. Stream reclamation projects were specific to the central Florida region; these were excluded from further project type comparison between regi onal groups. Projects were evaluated based on other spatial attributes including proximity to the coast, land use/ownership, and location within urban boundaries. The proportion of projects within the saltwater interface was estimated based on the locatio n of tidal creeks (Florida Department Environmental Protection, FDEP GIS Data Review Numeric Nutrient Criteria GIS Methodology Notes, draft report). Projects within the boundaries of a city were labeled as urban, while the remaining projects were labeled a s rural. Similarly projects within state parks, Florida managed lands, water management district lands, and Florida Forever lands were identified and labeled.
96 Project costs were described using the following attributes: number and percent age of available data, total costs, average costs, minimum costs and maximum costs for each project type. If available, a project completion date was determined for each project. For several projects, completion dates were estimated based on Environmental Resource Permit expiration dates. A simple linear trend line was fit to these data to describe the overall trend in number o f projects completed per year. Results Data Compilation In total 178 stream restoration projects were identified throughout the state (Figure 2 2). Data sources were distributed among county, state, federal, and non profit agency websites as well as references from restoration practitioners or Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) applications (summarized in Table 2 2) Several of the data sources are complete e.g., in depth restoration databases (Tampa Bay Estuaries Program, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program, and Florida Ecological Restoration Inventory). Other sources house data relevant only to specific program objectives. For example, permitting dat abases include information on project size, location, and permitting process tracking, but they do not indicate project costs, funding sources or success. In some cases, projects overlapped several data sources; although a project was only synthesized onc e, relevant data from multiple sources (when available) were used to create a complete attribute set. Projects obtained from the snowball sampling revealed several groups of projects that were not readily identifiable from permit or grant databases
97 Proj ect Type and Typical Activities Projects were categorized into one of nine groups by restoration type (Table 2 1) and were well distributed between project types (Figure 2 3). Riparian management and stream creation on mined lands were the most prevalent restoration types, representing approximately 23% and 19% of the projects in the FSRD, respectively, while there were only two dam removal projects (i.e., <1% of all projects), both of which were located in the panhandle. Table 4 summarizes the variety of restoration activities utilized for each restoration type. Channel dredging, invasive removal, and vegetation planting were the most common activities and were utilized for multiple project types. For example, channel excavation was employed for flow modif ication and in stream habitat projects. Projects also varied in scale; 87% were reach scale projects while 12% took place at the in stream scale and 7% were implemented at the basin scale (Figure 4). Basin scale projects include several large projects com prising multiple phases and/or many sub projects dispersed throughout a watershed but with a single unifying goal. For example, the Old Tampa Bay Tidal Tributaries Project consists of several sub projects to reduce sediment flowing into the Bay. Spatial D istribution Trends S tream restoration projects in Florida were distributed across much of the state (Figure 2 2). In total, 47 projects were identified in the peninsula region, comprising a variety of project types (Figure 2 5). In the panhandle region, 44 restoration projects have been completed. The largest number of projects was found in the west central region with 87 of the 178 projects. These projects are further split between 32 stream reclamation projects and a variety of projects focused on impro ving water quality in Tampa Bay. After excluding stream reclamation projects from the west central region,
98 there were approximately 30% of projects in each region. However, the types of projects were not evenly distributed spatially (Figure 5). Projects in the panhandle and peninsula regions were dominated by in stream habitat and flow modification projects, respectively. As noted above, the panhandle region also contained the only dam removal projects identified in the FSRB, as may be expected based on the greater relief (and therefore greater incidence of dam construction) in this region. In the west central region, projects were primarily riparian management. Regarding other spatial attributes, a total of 12% of projects were located in tidally influen ced streams, while another 28% of projects were located within two kilometers from the coast (for a total of 40% of all identified projects). These projects were dominant in the Tampa Bay area. A third of those 71 projects were categorized as riparian mana gement. Throughout the state, p rojects were located predominantly in rural areas, with only 18.5% of projects located with in city boundaries In addition, due to Florida's aggressive acquisition of lands for conservation and environmental restoration, many stream restoration projects -approximately 60% -were located on public lands including state parks, water management district lands, and local parks. An additional 19% of projects were located on lands owned by phosphate mine companies, and the remaining 21% were distributed between private land owners and unknown ownership. Project Cost Table 2 6 summarizes the costs associated with the nine restoration project types in the FSRD. Project types with the most cost data available included in stream habitat, riparian management, floodplain reconnection, and channel reconfiguration projects (Table 2 6). Project cost data were found in funding program databases, project
99 management databases, or practitioner data sources. In some cases, costs reported by funding agencies (i.e., through grants) may not reflect total project costs, particularly for projects funded by multiple agencies or granting programs. Moreover, grants often only fund a portion of the project, with other funds provided by local matches (cash an d/or in of a restoration project that are difficult to quantify including planning, design, implementation, monitoring and maintenance, which may be funded through ex isting staff salaries. The costs of reclamation of streams on mined lands were not available because it is proprietary information held by the mining company and incorporated into regular mining activities. Similarly, extracting restoration project cost wa s difficult for some projects on state managed lands because restoration projects are often lumped together with routine park management activities. Despite these challenges, we identified data describing project costs for 35% of the 178 projects in the FSRD. Approximately $28K is spent on stream restoration annually in Florida (averaged over the 36 years covered in the FSRD). The average project cost was approximately $1M. However, the median cost was $180K, reflecting a strongly skewed distribution of project costs driven by the channel reconfiguration of the Kissimmee River (a $980 million project; Bousquin 2013). This project is 130 times larger than the project with the next highest cost, Big Escambia Creek; both are channel reconfiguration projects, the costliest average project type (Table 2 6). Based on available data, stream reclamation and flow modification represented the lowest average cost per project type. The least expensive projects (all under $15K) included
100 riparian management, invasive sp ecies removal, and a single inexpensive channel reconfiguration (Figure 2 6). R estoration funding comes from various sources including grants, appropriations, bonds, fees, cooperative agreements and private funding. In several cases, local and state agenc ies applied for federal, state, and local grants (e.g., EPA 5 Star Wetland Restoration Grant, Tampa Bay Mini Grants US Fish and Wildlife Service Small Grants, FDEP 319 Grants, etc .) to cover part or all of the restoration cost. Cooperative agreements or grant matching from multiple levels of government is the most common mechanism to fund stream restoration (Chris Metcalf, Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, personal communication, 11 March 2013). Other projects were funded through large basin wide i nitiatives such as the Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay Estuary Programs. Stream reclamation projects on mined lands are generally privately funded by the owner of the mine where reclamation is being performed and is estimated at $24 per linear feet ($79 per lin ear meter) of channel creation (Dr. John Kiefer, Principal Engineer, AMEC, personal communication, 27 September 2013). Temporal Trends Projects in the FSRD were completed between 1979 and 2015 (projected) (Figure 2 4), and 83% of projects reported complet ion dates. Since 1983 at least one project has been completed each year (with the exception of 2008), and there is an overall increasing trend of the number of projects completed annually (p<0.0001). The tream restoration: an early era from 1979 to 1999 and a recent era from 2000 to 2015. Differences in the number of projects completed and the variety of project types were observed between these two time periods. First, the quantity of projects increased s ubstantially from an average of 1.7
101 (from 1979 to 1999) to 4 projects per year (after 2000). Second, the variety of project types also increased over time. Early projects were dominated by stream reclamation projects, followed by invasive removal. In later years, flow modification, riparian management, and bank stabilization projects became dominant. On average, there were two project types being completed annually before 2000, while in the past decade, there were an average of four pro ject types completed per year. Discussion A national synthesis of river restoration by Bernhardt et al. (2005) included a wide range of direct and indirect activities considered to be restoration. Since then, there have been a number of regional or specialized sources of data that catalogue stream restoration. However, the practice has not been previously evaluated in the state of Florida. Failure to systematically catalogue stream restoration projects as a body has had several management and practical implications. First, it was difficult to assess the current state of stream restoration in the state because there was not a central repository for stream restoration data. Second, without this first step, it would be difficult to evaluate the success of restoration activities t o improve the practice. Third, we were unable to transfer restoration knowledge holistically since data were compartmentalized. In this work, we have started the process of addressing these issues through the development of the Florida Stream Restoration D atabase (FSRD) to synthesize stream restoration efforts in Florida. Through this effort, we have identified the major sources of stream restoration data in Florida and compiled data on 178 in stream and reach scale restoration projects, including informati on describing project types and spatial, temporal, and cost trends.
102 Restoration project data were derived from a variety of sources including: 1) permit application data from state and federal agencies (e.g., EPA ACE, FDEP, and Florida Water Management D istrict ); 2) federal, state, and regional governmental and NGO grants databases ( e.g., EPA, FDEP, US Fish and Wildlife Foundation Gulf of Mexico Foundation, Sarasota Bay Estuary Program etc. ) ;. 3) i ndividual restoration practitioners. Because these data s ources were developed for specific purposes, the quantity and quality of information they provided varied from the very basic (i.e., name, location, and description) to the very detailed (i.e., name, location, cost, objectives, size, etc.).The compilation of these varied data sources is inherently limited by these differences, highlighting the need for a centralized and standardized platform for the reporting and the archiving of stream restoration data (discussed further below). Despite these limitations, this effort succeeded in identifying major spatial and temporal trends in the implementation of stream restoration in Florida. Projects were predominantly located on public lands, with fewer than 20% located in urban areas. This finding is in concordance with the work of Sud d uth et al. (2007) who synthesized southeastern US stream restoration efforts (but included few projects in Florida). When excluding stream reclamation projects (see below), the number of projects completed was relatively evenly distrib uted spatially; however, project types varied across the state. Overall, reach scale riparian management and stream reclamation were the most common restoration types. Regional clustering of project types was a reflection of both physiogeography (i.e., dam removal was limited to the panhandle) and specific priorities and funding sources (i.e., tidal stream restoration, focused on improving water quality and habitat, and phosphate mine reclamation to mitigate strip mining practices in the
103 central peninsula). Additional examples include habitat restoration projects in the Northern Panhandle to protect the Okaloosa Darter (funded by the US FWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission) and a number of stream and wetland restoration projects on state forest l ands (funded by the Florida Forest Service). National stream restoration studies did not include stream reclamation on mined lands, yet this type of restoration is an important category in central costal Florida. In central Florida, stream reclamation pro jects specific to the phosphate mining industry represented a substantial proportion (19%) of restoration activities across the state. Stream reclamation on mined lands benefit from years of research and previous pilot projects that are now in later stage (Hawkins & Ruesch 1988; Lewelling & Wylie 1993; Blanton et al. 2010) Recent format s of stream reclamation utilize integrated surface water and groundwater modeling, stringent monitoring requirements, improved stream characterization and innovative stream channel creation techniques. An example of that innovation is using hydrological an d mechanical stream creation techniques The mechanical stream creation techniques have the potential of reducing the time for full stream maturity from 15 to 20 years to 7 to 12 years (John Kiefer, Principal Engineer, AMEC, personal communication, 2 Feb 2013). These techniques are a key example of the convergence of restoration practice and science needed for successful ecological function (Wohl et al. 2005; Palmer & Bernhardt 2006; Beechie et al. 2009; Bennett et al. 2011) It is difficult to quantify the exact sum spent on stream restoration in Florida, but this analysis synthesized all currently available data. Total expenditures over the 36
104 ye ars covered in the FSRD were approximately $1B, equal to the estimated annual spending on restoration nationally (Bernhardt et al. 2005) which was averaged between 1994 and 2006 Two large proj ects skewed the restoration cost distribution; mean project cost was $15M while median cost was $180K. The generally bimodal distribution of project costs reflects an abundance of low cost projects (funded primarily through granting agencies and implemente d at the small scale by land management agencies) and high cost projects (multi agency projects with or without external grant funding implemented at much larger scales), with fewer moderate cost projects (Fig. 2 5). As priorities in restoration efforts s hift over time, funding for certain types of restoration projects fluctuate However, we found a general trend indicating an increase in the number and type of projects completed over time. T hese temporal trends are a function of both environmental priori ties and available funding with the greatest number of projects likely to occur when priorities and funding sources are well aligned; if regional priorities are out of synch with funding opportunities, new restoration projects are difficult to initiate. T o overcome a general paucity of funding, other strategies for funding restoration are increasingly being sought, such as market based restoration or restoration for mitigation purposes (Lave et al. 2010) These activiti es have the potential to change the way restoration is conducted and distributed across the country. There were several challenges in identifying projects to include in the FSRD. These challenges highlight the need for an improved restoration project cata loging mechanism. In most instances, projects were embedded in larger databases (i.e., ERP databases, 319 database, or FERI database) with limited or no identifying markers. In cases where descriptive fields did exist, they were often mislabeled. For examp le, a
105 permits; therefore, users of those databases are unable to easily identify restoration projects. Second, projects are sometimes embedded in permits for larger projects such as suburban development subdivisions, mitigation banks, conservation projects, or routine agency land resources management efforts; restoration efforts within these projects are easily missed. Stream restoration projects may also be part of a multi year effort where projects are conceptualized, designed and permitted before financing is secured. In some cases multiple permits are filed describing the same project with differing information. These projects are then implemented in stages, compl eted in segments over a number of years, or delayed until funding is secured. Finally, this methodology does not capture the thousands of volunteer hours that come from environmental organizations each year to remove invasive species to improve in stream h abitat, remove trash from stream channels or replant riparian vegetation to improve bank stabilization. These efforts are difficult to quantify since they are localized efforts and are typically only catalogued by individual organizations. Quantifying pro jects in each of these categories would change the final project count and enhance the understanding of stream restoration in the state. Restoration tracking becomes particularly important as more stringent water quality and mitigation rules come into effe ct. As a solution to the incomplete and unstandardized nature of current data sources, a restoration tracking database is a useful tool for planning and management purposes (Palmer & Allan 2006) The development of a National River Restoration Center is an ultimate goal for the development of restoration sciences in the US There are already several continental
106 restoration centers in Europe, Australia, and Asia that could serve as models. Here we present a standardi zed restoration database for Florida with a number of tangible benefits to the practice: 1) it improves institutional memory regarding restoration activities because anecdotal data are so easily lost; 2) it improves the ability to assess the success of re storation on a variety of scales within the state; 3) it raises awareness that various types of restoration are occurring across the state; and 4) it identifies restoration practitioners and their specific areas of expertise. Future Work The relationship of environmental organizations on the numbers and the levels of success of restoration projects need to be examined More specifically looking at these environmental groups in the context of their level of influence, how they exercise their influence and the level of activity within the project timeline would generate valuable information on where effective strategies to influence restoration Also interesting is their involvement in other areas of environmental conservation and restoration. Evaluating how restoration projects are initiated: triggered by noncompliance of a restoration regulation, identified by routine assessments or citizen groups. Are they associated with a larger watershed plan such as the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP)? Measuring t he success of restoration projects is another necessary enterprise Now that projects have been cataloged, their success can be measured. Specific restoration activities in various types of projects can be assessed to develop best practices.
107 Table 3 1. C omparison of restoration categories identified in prior studies (Bernhardt et al. 2005; Sudduth et al. 2007) and this study. Project Type Prior Studies This Study Description Water Qualit y Management X Practices that protect existing water quality or change the chemical composition and /or suspended particulate load Riparian Management X X Revegetation of Riparian zone/ removal of exotic species Channel Reconfiguration X X Alteration of channel plan form or longitudinal profile and converting culverts to open channels. Land Acquisition X Obtain lease/title/easements for the explicit purpose of preservation, removal of impacting agents or restoration Bank Stabilization X X Reduce or eliminate erosion In stream Habitat Improvement X X Altering the structural complexity to increase habitat availability and diversity for target organisms. Fish Passage X Removal of barriers to migration of fishes Storm water Management X Construct ion and management of structures in urban areas to modify the release of storm runoff. Aesthetics/Restoration/Education X Activities that increase community value: use, appearance, access, safety, knowledge In stream Species Management X Directly alter aquatic native species distribution and abundance eg. stocking Flow Modification X X Practices that alter the timing and deliver of water quantity and canal backfilling Flood Plain Reconnection X X Practices that increased the flood frequency of flood plain areas or promote flux of organisms and materials between riverine and floodplain areas Dam Removal/Retrofit X X Removal of dams and weirs or retrofits to reduce negative ecological impacts. Stream Reclamation X Recreation of streams on previously strip mined phosphate lands. Invasive Removal X Removal of Invasive species
108 Table 3 2. Restoration projects d ata s tructure Project Summary Table GIS Attribute Attribute Attribute Description Related Data Source ID Project ID Project ID Projec t Name Project Name Name of the project Project Info Data Source Data Source Source of Project Information Project Info Restoration Restoration Project Type Project Type (See Table 1) Project Info Description Description Project Description Projec t Info Cost Cost Total Project Cost Project Info Fund Source Funding Program Primary Funding Source ( Grant Name or Organization) Project Info Fund Source TYP Program Type Primary Funding Source Type (Federal, State, Local, Private, Non Profit, Inter governmental Agency) Project Info Start Year Start Year Year project started Project Info End Year Completion Year Year project was complet e d Project Info Grant Applicant Applicant Grant Applicant Project Info Applicant Type Applicant Type Grant Ap plicant Type (Federal, State, Local, Private, Non Profit, Inter govermental Agency, Academic) Project Info Waterbody Type Waterbody Type Restoration waterbody type (stream, wetland) IWR WBID 47 Tidal Tidal Is the projected within the saltwater interfa ce Y or N? DEP Salt Water Interface Reclamation Reclamation Is the project a reclamation project Y or N? Project Info Mitigation Mitigaiton Is the project considered Mitigation Y or N? Project Info Wetland Size ac Project Size (wetland) acres Size of we tland portion of project in acres Project Info
109 Table 3 2. Continued Project Summary Table Stream Length ft Project Size (stream) (ft) Linear feet of stream restoration Project Info Wetland size m2 Project Size (Wetland) (m^2) Size of wetland por tion of project in m^2 Project Info Stream Length m Project Size (stream) (m) meters of stream restoration Project Info Managed lands Public Lands Is the project within publicly managed lands. (state park, water management district lands, Federal park) Florida Managed Lands, State Parks, Water Management District lands, Florida Forever Lands, Regional Groups Regional Groups Regional Group of projects (Panhandle, Peninsula, Central Florida) Project Info County County County Name County Watershed Watershed Watershed Name IWR WBID_47 HUC HUC 8 HUC 8 basin IWR WBID_47 PARAMETERS_ 303(d) Listed Parameters List of impaired parameters for the WBID impaired_waters_oct12 City City Name of city project is located in. parcity_ limits2010 WBID Water bo dy ID Name of WBID project is located in IWR WBID_47 FCODE FCODE Waterbody Type IWR WBID_47 STATUS Basin BMAP Status Basin Management Plan Development Status bmap_area_oct11 Scale Project Scale Scale of project (Reach, Basin, In stream) Project Info Longitude Longitude Longitude of Project Project Info Latitude Latitude Latitude of Project Project Info
110 Table 3 3 Data sources that contributed to the stream restoration database in this study. Data Source Source Type Frequency Gulf Base Webs ite Funding Database 1 National Fish And Wildlife Foundation Funding Database 1 Pinellas County Project Database 1 Nature Conservancy Project Management Database 1 Suwannee River Water Management District Practitioner Source 2 FDOT Mitigation Report 2 319 Grant Database Funding Database 3 News Sources Literature 4 Army Corp ERP Database Permit Database 5 5 Star Wetland Restoration Grant Funding Database 8 South West Florida Water Management District Permit Database 9 Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Website Project Management Database 10 Water Management District Permit Portal Permit Database 11 FDEP ERP Database Permit Database 12 Private Data* Practitioner Source 23 Tampa Bay Estuary Program Database Project Management Database 25 Florida Ecolo gical Restoration Inventory (FERI) Project Database 29 FDEP Mining Report Report 31 Total 178 Projects discovered by personal communication with a restoration practitioner.
111 Table 3 4 Restoration activities commonly associated with each project t ype. Restoration Project Type Commonly Associated Activities Bank Stabilization gabion mat/basket, natural vegetation community restoration, stairs to protect bank, vegetation, grading Channel Reconfiguration diverting flows to natural channel, diversio n structure, canals to natural channels, riparian wetland grading, regrading, channel excavation Dam Removal dam removal Flow Modification restoration of ditches, culverts, channel excavation/dredging, construct weir, berm removal, canal restoration, I n stream Habitat Improvement logs, root wads, large stone redirects stresses, stabilizing stream bank, remove beaver dam, dredging Invasive Removal removal of wild taro and Brazilian pepper, planting of Spartina alterniflora in tidal wetlands Stream Recl amation Stream creation using natural weathering, mechanical construction, hydrologic construction Riparian Management Replanting vegetation habitat improvement, invasive removal, road closing, vegetation planting, reconnect wetlands Floodplain Reconnect ion Grading banks, vegetation planting
112 Table 3 5 Summary of project costs by project type. Project Type Count of Restoration Count of Cost Percent Sum Average Min Max Bank Stabilization 22 5 23% $1,721,458 $ 344,292 $ 15,000 $ 1,168,558 Ch annel Reconfiguration 19 8 42% $ 988,164,682 $ 123,520,585 $ 4,994 $ 980,000,000 Dam Removal 2 2 100% $ 482,000 $ 241,000 $ 32,000 $ 450,000 Floodplain Reconnection 10 5 50% $7,383,033 $ 1,476,607 $ 1,009,979 $ 2,000,000 Flo w Modification 24 3 13% $1,539,869 $ 513,290 $ 30,000 $ 1,060,412 In stream Habitat Improvement 20 18 90% $9,172,691 $ 509,594 $ 30,000 $ 2,453,249 Invasives Removal 7 3 43% $31,313 $ 10,438 $ 4,938 $ 21,375 Riparian Management 41 20 49% $6,962,583 $ 348,129 $ 8,000 $ 3,126,000 Stream Reclamation 33 0% Total 178 64 36% $ 1,015,457,629 $ 15,866,525 $ 4,938 $ 980,000,000
113 Figure 3 1 Restoration project types summarized by scale.
114 Figure 3 2 T he distr ibution of restoration projects in Florida
115 Figure 3 3 Project type distribution. Bank Stabilization 12% Channel Reconfiguration 11% Dam Removal 1% Floodplain Reconnection 6% Flow Modification 13% In stream Habitat Improvement 11% Invasives Removal 4% Riparian Management 23% Stream Reclamation 19%
116 Figure 3 4 Distribution of projects by basin, reach, or in stream scale. Basin 7% In stream 12% Reach 81%
117 Figure 3 5 Regional distribution of restoration projects. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Panhandle Peninsula Central Florida Grand Total Percent of Project Regional Distribution of Projects Riparian Management Invasives Removal In stream Habitat Improvement Flow Modification Floodplain Reconnection Dam Removal Channel Reconfiguration Bank Stabilization
118 Figure 3 6 Number of projects distributed by cost 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Under 15K 15K 50K 50K 100K 100K 250K 250K 1M 1M 750M 750M 1B Number of Projects Project Cost (USD) Riparian Management Invasives Removal In stream Habitat Improvement Flow Modification Floodplain Reconnection Dam Removal
119 Figure 3 7 Timeline of restoration completion dates by project type for the 147 projects where completion data were available y = 0.2253x + 0.2239 R = 0.3581 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 Number of Projects Year Stream Reclamation Riparian Management Invasives Removal In stream Habitat Improvement Flow Modification Floodplain Reconnection Dam Removal Channel Reconfiguration Bank Stabilization Linear (Series1)
120 CHAPTER 4 DEVELOPMENT OF A TECHNIQUE TO PRIORITIZE STREAM RESTORATION BASED ON RECOVERY POTE NTIAL Background An inconsistent approach to restoration prioritization has been noted to contribute to failure of stream restoration efforts (Roni & Beechie 2012a) Generally, p rioritization schemes are a common to ol used for planning resources, time and money to accomplish a goal and increase the likelihood of success Prioritization schemes have been developed for an array of resource management and restoration applications including protecting natural resources (McBride et al. 2010) enhancing species habitat or biodiversity (Luck et al. 2009) and ecosystem restoration (Stewart K oster et al. 2010) River restoration prioritization uses similar techniques as conservation planning (McBride et al. 2010) and t he application of prioritization schemes for river restoration is an active ar ea of research (Kiker et al. 2005; Change 2007; Marsh et al. 2007; Marsh et al. 2007; Beechie et al. 2008; Stringfellow 2008; Corsair et al. 2009; Norton et al. 2009; McBride et al. 2010; Beechie et al. 2013) Beechie et al. (2008) identified six prioritiza tion schemes that can be utilized for stream restoration (Figure 4 1) They are grouped into two approaches logic al and analytical and are differentiated by t he level of detail regarding watershed processes and habitat changes. Logic approaches generally require less detail than analytical approaches (Beechie et al. 2008; Stringfellow 2008; Corsair et al. 2009; Norton et al. 2009) while analy tical approaches depend on a greater detail and effort (Stewart Koster et al. 2010) Others have suggested specific metrics to develop a prioritization scheme (Norton et al. 2009; Petty et al. 2010; Abell et al. 2011b; Merem et al. 2011) Many more have applied prioritization techniques to a given restoration goal
121 (Llewellyn et al. 1996; Roni et al. 2002; Verdonschot & Nijboer 2002; Reynolds & Hessburg 2005; Evans et al. 2006; Hermoso et al. 2012) P rioritization schemes frequently lead to several common outcomes. Rest oration literature indicates that location is a primary driver for stream restoration activities. Agricultural and undeveloped watersheds on private rural and agricultural lands are typically where most restoration projects occur (Bernhardt et al. 2007) Several factors contribute to these results. Land acquisition is extremely expensive ; i n agricultural areas it is easier and cheaper to acquire land for stream restoration. These lands are then acquired and usua lly converted into public parks and conservation areas. The second reason for setting high priority for a particular project is by tackling the worst problem first (Bernhardt et al. 2007) In contrast to these si mple approaches Norton et al. ( 2009) suggested prioritizing eas ily recovered targets using the idea of recovery potential: the likelihood of an impaired water to reattain Water Quality Standards or other valued attributes, given its ecological capacity to regain lost functionality, its exposure to stressors, and the social context affecting efforts to improve its condition Restoration Recovery Potential Concepts Beechie et al. (2008) cite three reasons for restoration project failure : misunderstanding of the natural potential of the site, lack of understanding of geomorphic controls on habitat responses, and p resence of undetected water quality impairments Norton et al (2009) propose a method of calculating recovery potential and social context. Recovery potential is a n ecological concept that has been utilized in varied settings, including coastal waters (Lotze et al. 2006) and streams (Fuchs &
122 Statzner 1 990; Fryirs & Brierley 2000; Hansen & Budy 2011) to measure the ability of a system to recover once a disturbance is removed (Niemi et al. 1990; Norton et al. 2009) There are few cases, h owever, where this technique has been applied explic itly for restoration planning. Restoration Prioritization in Florida Florida has several programs that drive ecosystem restoration planning (Milano 1999; Sheikh & Carter 2006; FWC 2008a; Oetting et al. 2009; FDEP 2012; FWC 2012; Beavers et al. 2013; Rains et al. 2013; Koebel Jr & Bousquin) These prioritization strategies vary in scale from statewide (Hoctor et al. 2008; Oetting et al. 2009; Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2012; Florida Fish and Wildlife C ommission 2012) to regional (Milano 1999; Beavers et al. 2013; Beavers et al. 2013; Rains et al. 2013) and address a variety of restoration an d conservation needs including habitat protection (Mixon 2012) wetland restoration (Rains et al. 2013) water quality impairment (FDEP 2012) and stream reclamation on mined lands (Beavers et al. 2013) protection strate gy. The River Federation and National Park Service compiled a comparison of river conservation practices across the United States. These data were based on self reporting from each state. During the 1996 budget year Florida expended over 60% of funds spen t on conservation on land acquisition (River Federation 1996) Additionally, since 2001 the state has acquired 683,000 acres of conservation land costing $2.87 billion dollars. Improved data on areas needing stre am restoration and their restoration recovery potential will ensure that these investments are primed to improve stream habitat in the areas that need it the most.
123 The 2012 State Wildlife Action Plan, Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP) and the Florida Forever Tool for Efficient Resource Acquisition and Conservation ( F TRAC ) are statewide habitat protection and land conservation multi criteria decision support tools that prioritize lands for conservation (Oetting et al. 2009; FWC 2012; Oetting et al. 2012) They aggregate metrics in various categories including habitat corridors, key species habitat, water resource restorati on. In the 2012 State Wildlife Action Plan and CLIP (Figure 4 2) the surface water restoration categor y is being explored for further development. B oth programs require a statewide logic prioritization approach, with readily available data and ability to be integrated into the existing framework prioritization framework. This study investigated techniques to develop a logic decision support system tool using a restoration recovery potential approach. This approach evaluate d six weighting scenarios that p rioritize d areas most suitable for restoration based on the calculation of a Restoration Recovery Potential (RRP) Score. Six weighting scenarios ( Equal Role, Nature Wins, Society Wins, Stressor Wins, Hydrologic Alteration and Ecologic Alteration ) were cha racterized and evaluated to demonstrate their overall RRP S core, sensitivity to change and spatial distribution. Method s Subwatersheds labeled by Water body Identification (WBID) numbers were used to calculate Restoration Recovery Potential (RRP) for str eams watersheds in Florida Each WBID w as evaluated for restorability based on a comparison of their ecological capacity, stressor exposure and social context scores. WBIDs were used as the scale of interest since stream water quality and biological impair ments are measured at the WBID scale by the Florida Department of Environmental (FDEP 2012) The calculated
124 habitat threats and a count of impairment types (Chapter 2) were incorporated into the calculation of Restoration Recovery Potential Score s Metric Selection Twenty recovery relevant metrics were selected to calculate the Restoration 1). These metrics were derived from wi dely used geographic datasets which meet the criteria outlined by Norton et al. (2009) namely common and consistent data and adaptability to variation in impairments and program goals. Additionally, metrics were classes that included ecological capacity, stressor exposure, and social context. Five metrics were s elected for ecological capacity and social context respectively and ten metrics were chosen for the stressor exposur e indictor class. The ecological exposure metrics ( continuity with green infrastructure, percent wetland, percent forest, natural c h annel form and watershed size ) measured the ability to re establish or maintain primary structural and functional components On the other hand, stress exposure metrics (discussed in detail in Chapter 2) measure d the role played by ecologic and hydrologic alteration that may deter system recovery. Finally, the social context metrics ( number of environmental organizations, prese nce of a TMDL plan, median residential home price, presence of recreational resources and water body iconic significance ) attempt ed to quantify the how social involvement and access influences successful restoration. Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ca lculation Restoration Recovery Potential (RRP) regain ecological structure and function after impairment. RRP Score was calculated by first standardizing the magnitude of each metric to a range of zero to one ( standa rdized
125 metric value or SM). Next, the scores were weighted by one of six weighting schemes (Table 4 2). Finally, the standardized weighted ecological and social capacity metrics were summed and the standardized, weighted stress exposure metrics were subt racted (Equation 4 1). (4 1) RRP scores have a possible range of 10 to 10, where a score of 10 would indicate the maximum (i.e., best) possible ecological and social capacity and minimum possible stress exposure for each metric ; likewise a score of 10 would indicate minimum values for ecological and social capacity and maximum values for stressors. An RRP score of zero indicates that the combination of ecological capacity and social context metrics balance the effects of stressor exposure. Six different w eighting scheme s (Table 4 2 ) explored how changes in the importance of each metric change d calculated RRP scores The Equal Role scenario assigned the same weight (1.0) to each metric. Nature Society Wins scenarios assigned greater weighting (1.5) on their respective indicator classes and reduced weighting (0.5) on the other indicato r classes. The Hydrologic Alteration and Ecologic Alteration scenarios assigned higher weighting scores to either the five hydrologic or ecologic stressor metrics over the other five stressor metrics respectively. Histograms were created to describe d istribution of the RRP Score for each weighting scheme (Figure 4 9).
126 Restoration Recovery Potential Ranking As an alternative to using the numeric Restoration Recovery Potential Score for restoration prioritization, a Restoration Recovery Potential Rank (R RP Rank) was calculated for each WBID for each weighting scenario. The RRP Rank provides an option to easily compare RRP between WBIDs and between the six weighting scenarios. Five categories (good, above average, average, below average, and poor ) were cho sen to classify RRP score s. score relative to zero (Table 4 3) The number of WBIDs attaining each ranking was summarized based on weighting scenario and restoration region. Change Analysis The top ten scoring WBIDs were analyzed to determine which specific WBIDs remained highly ranked across weighting scenario s WBIDs with the ten highest RRP scores under the Equal Role s cenario were compared to the top scoring WBIDs under the remaining five scenarios. The com parison was achieved by evaluating whether the WBID s remained one of the 10 highest ranked WBIDs and if so assessing if their RRP scores changed significant ly Additionally t he RRP score from each weighting scheme was subtracted from the RRP score under the Equal Role scenario to measure sensitivity of each WBID to the weighting schemes In this case, a positive score indicates an improvement in RRP relative the base case and a negative score indicates a decrease in RRP score. The maximum, minimum avera ge and range (maximum minimum) of score changes were also calculated for each scenario A small change in rank score would indicate low sensitivity to change while a high change in rank score indicates a high sensitivity to changing metric conditions.
127 Re gional Analysis As indicated in the previous chapters, there are regional differences in types of impairment and the habitat threats that influence those impairments as well as types of restoration projects performed in the three restoration regions. Resto ra tion Recovery Potential may fol low similar trends. To evaluate whether there were regional differences in the magnitude of RRP scores, RRP ranking, and sensitivity to change, these values were evaluated using the three restoration regions (panhandle, pen insula and central). Results Restoration Potential Score Distribution Six weighting scenarios were explored for calculating restoration recovery potential The application of different weighting schemes transformed the distribution of the RRP scores from the Equal Role scenario in varied ways (Table 4 2 and Figure 4 9 ). The distributions of all weighting scenarios were similar with ranges within 0 .62 points of each other and standard deviations of approximately 1 .0, with the exception of Stressor Wins (Ta ble 4 3 ) While the range of the Stressor Wins scenario was similar to the others, the distribution reflected the strong emphasis on stressors over the other two indicator classes. Additionally, the means of the RRP Scores shifted depending on the effect o f weighting scenarios. Stressor Wins had a mean RRP of 0.6 indicating a greater number of negative RRP Scores. The remaining scenarios have positive RRP means ranging from 0.13 for Society Wins to 0.73 Nature Wins scenarios. Society Wins has a slightly b imodal distribution (Fig. 4 9 ) potentially suggesting the presence of areas with high stressor exposure with and with out high values in the social and ecological capacity metrics.
128 When looking at RRP ranking, s imilar trends were evident as with the distr ibution of RRP Base Scores (Table 4 5). In each of the six weighting schemes 30 to 41% of WBID were assigned an verage RRP Score. The remaining WBIDs were skewed either to above average or below average depending on the weighting scheme. All scenar io s ha d a higher percentage of WBIDs in the above average category relative the Equal Role scenario, with the exception of the Stressor Wins. Only small percentages of WBIDs good or poor RRP s cores. Change Analysis There was little differen ce i n RRP scores among the ten highest ranked WBIDs, regardless of weighting scenario. The difference between the hig h est and 10 th highest scores varied from 0.144 to 0.736 (Table 4 6) The remaining four WBIDs averaged 0.051 points out of a possible ten point range. Only No WBID attained top scores in all six scenarios. Blackwater Creek (WBID 1024) in the p anhandle had the highest RRP score in the Equal Role, Society Wins, Hydrologic Alteration and Ecological Alteration scenarios For the Nature Wins and Stres sor Wins Scenarios, the Slave Canal (WBID 3505) also in the Panhandle, attained the t op score. When comparing the top ten WBIDs from the Equal Role Scenario, t here were five WBIDs that attained top RPP Scores in five of six scenarios three WBIDs that atta ined top scores in four out of six and two that attained top scores for only two scenarios The Nature Wins, Hydrologic while, Stressor Wins contained five similar WBID s and Society wins only contained two similar WBIDs. The change in magnitude of RRP Scores between Equal Role and the other five weighting scenarios revealed an overall negative effect with an average change of 0.21
129 points of all the weighting scenarios combined (Figures 4 10 to 4 13). The change in magnitude can be up to 1.16 points in either the positive o r 3.45 in negative direction. This situation represents less than 1% of WBIDs in the positive direction for each weighting scenario with the excepti on of the Nature Wins scenario where 9.5 % of WBID increased RRP score by .75 points or more (Table 4 7 ). On the other end of the s pectrum, in the Nature Wins, Hydrologic Alteration and Ecologic Alteration scenarios less than 1% of WBIDs decreased their RR P score by more than .75 while 9.5 % of WBIDs had a similar decrease in Society Wins and Ecologic Alteration and 69.4 % in the Stressor Wins scenario. The change in RRP score occurred primarily between 0 .5 and 0 .5 in a majority of the scenarios with more t han 50% of WBIDS with change scores within this range for all scenarios with the exception of the Stressors Win Scenario Spatial Summary Based on the evaluation of the RRP score s within three restoration regions of the state, Central Florida, Panhandle, and Peninsula, the Hydrologic Evaluation weighting scenario had the largest percent of good WBIDs in each region (Table 4 9 ). The Panhandle Florida has higher overall RRP scores as indicated with higher p roportion of good WBIDS in each of the scenarios wh en compared to Peninsula or Central Florida Regions. On average the percent of WBIDs with a good rank in the Panhandle region was more than the double percentage points than the Peninsula r egion and six times higher than the Central Florida region. The P a nhandle region was also the only region with at least one WBID in the good rank. The Society Wins scenario had the most distinct negative effect on WBIDs in the Panhandle with the largest percent change from the Equal Role scenario in that region. In the other two regions the negative effect existed but in the average and below
130 average ranked WBIDS (Table 4 9 ). The above average WBIDs were less influenced by the application of the Society Wins Scenario. After the Stressor Wins scenario, Society Wins had t he lowest average RRP scores with 0 .41 in Central Florida, 0 .53 in the Panhandle and 0 .01 in the Peninsula (Table 4 8 ). The WBIDs in Central Florida consistently ranked between average and below average in each of the weighting scenarios The average RRP Scores between 0.08 for the Nature Wins scenario to 1.22 for the Stressor Wins Scenario (Table 4 8 ). In contrast the average RRP score for the P anhandle ranged between 0.53 for the Society Wins Scenario and 1.28 in the Nature Wins Scenario. WBIDs in th e Peninsula were in the average rank for four scenarios and below average for the stressor wins scenario. Using the average change in RRP scores for each scenario, sensitivity to change from the Equal Role Scenario was assessed in each region. Higher magni tude of change in RRP Scores indicates higher sensitivity to transformation by changes in the 3 indicator classes while low magnitude of average change scores indicates low sensitivity. Additionally, positive average change scores indicate an increase in R RP scores while negative average scores indicate a decrease in RRP scores. In each region different scenarios showed the lowest sensitivity to transformation for example ; Nature Wins for the Central Region, Stressors Win for the Panhandle, and Society W ins for the Peninsula. More resources would need to be expended on these set of metrics to improve the likelihood of restoration success. Not only were the Central and Peninsula regions most sensitive to changes in the Stressor Wins scenario but those cha nges were negative. In contrast, the Peninsula region was most sensitive to the
13 1 Nature Wins scenario and in a positive direction. Furthermore, the Peninsula r egion had the highest magnitude of RRP s core change in eac h of the scenarios indicating the highes t probability to changing RRP scores depending on the weighting scenario applied (Table 4 8 ). Discussion The choice of appropriate metrics for the calculation of recovery potential has been identified as a challenge to stream restoration practitioners pa rticularly in the southeastern United States (Palmer et al. 2005; Poff et al. 2006; King et al. 2009) Prioritization approaches which fail to consider the varied influ ences of ecological capacity, stressor exposure or social context reduce the possibility of successful restoration (Palmer et al. 2005; Norton et al. 2009; Mat thews et al. 2010) This study developed a logic approach to quantifying stream restoration prioritization by developing a Restoration Recovery Potential (RRP) score at the WBID scale. The RRP score distribution, sensitivity to change and spatial distrib ution were evaluated using six weighting scenarios for integration into other relevant statewide multi criteria decision support system s such as the State Wildlife Action Plan (FWC 201 2) and CLIP (Oetting et al. 2012) produce the best restoration outcomes. The Equal Role Scenario provided the baseline when evaluati ng the RRP Score mean, standard distribution, range and standard deviation of each weighting scenario (Table 4 4). Distributing the magnitude of the weights between positive influences of recovery potential (ecological capacity and social context) and the negative (stressor exposure) highlighted i nnate biases of each scenario. Ecological capacity underscored more pristine areas of the state found in the
132 panhandle region as evidenced by increased mean RRP Score for the Nature Wins scenario In contrast, the S tressor W in s scenario reduced the mean RRP s cores by emphasizing the stressor exposure including invasive aquatic animals, riparian agricultural landuse and waterway modification, found in the P eninsula of Florida. Only a few WBIDs remained ranked as good after applying this scenario making it difficult to identify areas that are more likely to succeed in restoration (Table 4 5) Additionally, the low standard deviation suggests that this scenario calls attention a smaller variation in RRP scores than in t he base case. The emphasis of social context revealed a dual contrasting effect on RRP s cores through its bimodal distribution in the histogram and lower mean value. A small portion of WBIDs benefited from higher number of environmental organizations or be ing in proximity to Florida Outstanding Waters or state parks. On the other hand a large number of WBIDs were penalized for having low residential values or organized environmental stewards. Instead of emphasizing the good or bad indicator groups, the Hyd rologic Alteration and Ecologic Alteration scenarios highlighted two distinct groups of stressor exposure. While the standard deviations were the same, differences in the means, ranges, maximum and minimum values suggested Ecological Alteration has a more negative effect on RRP scor es than Hydrologic Alteration. Furthermore the effects of Hydrologic Alteration were concentrated to regions around Lake Okeechobee while the effects of Ecological Alteration were dispersed statewide. Resistance to change may b e an indicator of the effort needed for self repair of a system, or the amount of active versus passive restoration that would be necessary to achieve the best restoration outcomes. Each weighting scenario provided varied
133 magnitude of change to the RRP sco re for each WBID both on an individual scale (Table 4 6) and at a regional scale (Table 4 7). On the individual scale the Society Wins Scenario had the most pronounce impact on the top ten WBIDs. Only two of Equal cores in the Society Wins Scenario. Similarly, the Stressors Win Scenario contained five of the top WBIDs in the Equal Role Scenario. The range of change in RRP scores between the top WBID and the tenth WBID in each scenario ranges from 0.14 in the Stress or Wins Scenario and 0.76 for the Society Wins Scenario and an average magnitude of 0.50. This confirms that emphasis on the Society Wins Scenario in a weighting scheme has the most dramatic change in overall prioritization of restoration efforts. WBIDs ar e separated between the haves (higher RRP scores) and the have nots (lower RRP Scores). On a regional scale, WBIDs in each region showed negative average RRP score change for Society Wins, Stressors Win and Hydrologic Alteration while Nature Wins and Eco logical Alteration had positive average change in RRP scores. Of note, the Nature Wins and Ecological Alteration Scenarios are exactly equal in magnitude but opposite sign of the Society Wins and Hydrologic Alteration Scenarios respectively. These are attr ibuted applying similar weights to each indicator class An alternative would be to give each indicator its own weight using agency or community derived values. When comparing each the average change between WBIDs in each region, Panhandle Florida has the l argest average RRP score changes for each scenario with the exception of the Stressor Wins Scenario. This indicates an average lower sensitivity to changes in indicators such as road density, water withdrawal and aquatic invasive. Alternatively, the max imum changes in RRP scores when compared to the Equal Role Scenario, occurred in the Panhandle
134 Region. This is with the exception of the Stressor Wins Scenario which had the highest change in the Peninsula Region. A potential implication of this is that WB IDs in South Florida (below Lake Ocheechobee) had negative average RRP scores and (Figure 4 15). Therefore, it would potentially require a large influx of resources for restoration activities as is evident by the $980 million spent on the Kissimmee and the $10 billion it is costing to restore the Everglades. In contrast, restoration projects in the Panhandle, where there was high restoration recovery scores and higher sensitivity to change, had lower average restoration project costs as described in Chapter 3 of this dissertation. Selection of a weighting scenario when considering restoration recovery potential on a statewide level should consider the inherent bias introduced due to the metrics selected and emphasis of one indicator group over another Resto ration Potential Scores is versatile and can be used directly to compare particular WBIDs over another or ranked to be incorporated into other decision tools. Either of these strategies can be incorporated into restoration or conservation planning to optim ize restoration success. Management Implications A Restoration Recovery score could be used in connection with other prioritization schemes as a measure of where restoration may be more successful. Overemphasizing one group of indicator classes may provide a biased evaluation on recovery potential ultimately impacting restoration success. Future Work Further testing and analyzing metric and weighting combinations to improve the calculation of recovery potential. Quantify s takeholder influence in restorat ion/environmental decision making
135 Run correlation/regression analysis to determine the contribution each metric played in the RRP score. Since RRP scores are continuous and they can also be correlated with other metrics that may help to explain recovery potential. Develop application techniques for Restoration Recovery Potential s cores in conservation and restoration planning.
136 Table 4 1. Metrics for restoration recovery potential prioritization. Metric Name Layer Name Description Ecological Capacity Area of Proposed Green Corridor Florida Ecological Greenway Network Area per WBID (km 2 ) Percent Forest CLC_2_3 Area per WBID (km 2 ) Percent Wetland CLC_2_3 Area per WBID (km2) Natural Channel Form National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Length of Natural Channel (Stream Ftype) Watershed Size WBID_47 Area (km) Stress Exposure (FWC 10 Threats and Impairment Status REF E RENCE APPENDIX B 2 ) Social Context Watershed Leadership Water_Leadership Count of Organizations Headquartered in the WBID TMDL Plan Total Maximum Daily Load_ Dec 2012 Yes, No or Scaled on Plan status Residential Value Home Values from Average Home Values ($) Recreational Resource Stream length intersected by Public Park (state federal or local). NHD Lengt h (km) Iconic Significance Florida Outstanding Water Status Length of Outstanding Waters (km)
137 Table 4 2 Matrix of metric weighting schemes Weighting #1 Weighting #2 Weighting #3 Weighting #4 Weighting #5 Weighting #6 Metric Equal Role Nature Win s Society Wins Stressor Wins Hydrologic Alteration Ecologic Alteration Area of Proposed Green Corridor 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 Percent Wetland 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 Percent Forest s 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 N atural Channel Form 1 1.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 Watershed Size 1 1.5 0. 5 0.5 1 1 Non Invasive/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Plants 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1. 5 Waterway Modification 1 1 1 1.5 1. 5 0.5 Federal Dam Storage 1 1 1 1.5 1. 5 0.5 Groundwater Withdrawal 1 1 1 1.5 1. 5 0.5 Non native/Exotic Invasive Aquatic Animals 1 1 1 1. 5 0.5 1. 5 Riparian/Freshwater Buffer Zone Agricultural Land cover Analysis 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1. 5 Surface Water Withdrawal 1 1 1 1.5 1. 5 0.5 Weighted Road Density 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1. 5 NPDES Dischargers 1 1 1 1.5 1. 5 0.5 Impairment Intensity 1 1 1 1.5 0.5 1. 5 Watershed Leadership 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1 TMDL Plan 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1 Residential Value 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1 Recreational Resource 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1 Iconic Significance 1 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1
138 Table 4 3 RRP Scores used for ranking scheme. RP Score Ra nk < 1.5 Poor 1.5 Below Average 0.5 Average 0.5 Above Average 1.5 Good
139 Table 4 4 Descriptive statistics of the Recovery P otential S core Equal Role Nature Wins Society Wins Stressors Win Hydrologic Alteration Ecologic Alteration Ma x 3.34 3.62 3.49 1.53 3.55 3.14 Min 3.54 3.40 3.68 5.62 3.67 3.46 Range 6.88 7.02 7.17 7.15 7.22 6.60 Mean 0.43 0.73 0.13 0.60 0.58 0.27 Std Dev 1.04 1.13 1.04 1.00 1.06 1.04
140 Table 4 5 Distribution of stream WBIDs by Recovery Potential (RP) Score Equal Role Nature Wins Society Wins Stressor Wins Hydrologic Alteration Ecologic Alteration Good 637 965 475 1 814 526 Above Average 1081 1218 769 473 1166 978 Average 1456 1158 1573 1459 1280 1444 Below Average 543 396 846 1248 448 759 Poor 117 97 171 653 126 127
141 Table 4 6: Top RRP Scoring WBIDS for each scenario. Rank Comparison WBID Basin Restoration Region Equal Role Nature Wins Society Wins Stressors Win Hyrologic Alteration Ecologic Alteration Sum of Ranked Scenarios 1 024 BLACK CREEK Panhandle 1 1 1 1 4 3505 THE SLAVE CANAL Panhandle 2 1 1 4 2 5 2905 JUNIPER CREEK Peninsula 3 2 5 3 4 2918F BUCK LAKE DRAIN Peninsula 4 3 3 6 4 5 728 SWEETWATER CREEK Panhandle 5 2 3 9 4 3534 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF Panhandle 6 5 2 7 5 5 2918A ALEXANDER SPRINGS DRAIN Peninsula 7 4 8 8 7 5 3565 DIRECT RUNOFF TO GULF Peninsula 8 8 4 10 6 5 1358 OTTER SLOUGH Peninsula 9 6 2 299 WOLFTRAP BRANCH Panhandle 10 7 2 Number of Equal Role Ranked WBIDs 8 2 5 8 8 Peninsula 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.50 0.60 Panhandle 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.50 0.40 Range ( Top Score 10th Score ) 0.47 0.32 0.76 0.14 0.60 0.69
142 Table 4 7 Rank Change Analysis from Equal Role RP Scores Scenario < .75 .75 to .55 0.5 to .25 0 to 0.25 0 to 0.25 0.25 to 0.5 0.5 to 0.75 >.75 Nature Wins 0.1% 0.4% 3.9% 10.2% 29.8% 30.3% 15.9% 9.5% Society Wins 9.5% 15.9% 30.3% 29.8% 10.2% 3.9% 0.4% 0.1% Stressor Wins 69.4% 21.1% 8.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hydraulic Alteration 0.7% 5.7% 17.4% 20.9% 17.5% 27.1% 10.4% 0.3% Ecologic Alteration 0.1% 1.8% 30.3% 50.7% 14.3% 2.7% 0.1% 0.0%
143 Table 4 8 Distribution of RRP Score and Change Analysis Summary per Region Central Florida Panhandle Peninsula Average RRP Score Equal R ole 0.24 0.91 0.30 Nature Wins 0.08 1.28 0.59 Society Wins 0.41 0.53 0.01 Stressor Wins 1.22 0.02 0.82 Hydrologic Alteration 0.15 1.11 0.45 Ecologic Alteration 0.33 0.71 0.15 Average RRP Score Change Nature Wins 0.17 0.37 0.2 9 Society Wins 0.17 0.37 0.29 Stressor Wins 0.98 0.92 1.11 Hydraulic Alteration 0.09 0.20 0.15 Ecologic Alteration 0.09 0.20 0.15 Max RRP Score Change Nature Wins 0.83 1.01 1.16 Society Wins 0.78 0.68 0.99 Stressor Wins 0. 16 0.18 0.02 Hydraulic Alteration 0.77 0.72 0.76 Ecologic Alteration 0.50 0.43 0.61
144 Table 4 9 Regional Comparison of Recovery Potential Score Rankings Central Florida Panhandle Peninsula Equal Role Good 4.1% 26.3% 13.7% Above Average 12 .7% 37.1% 26.7% Average 43.5% 35.1% 38.3% Below Average 34.9% 1.5% 16.7% Poor 4.8% 0.0% 4.6% Nature Wins Good 4.1% 26.3% 13.7% Above Average 19.1% 36.7% 32.1% Average 45.7% 23.1% 30.5% Below Average 27.1% 0.5% 12.1% Poor 3.7% 0.0% 3.9% Society Wins Good 3.9% 18.0% 11.1% Above Average 12.7% 25.3% 18.7% Average 29.2% 50.7% 38.0% Below Average 47.3% 6.0% 25.5% Poor 6.9% 0.0% 6.7% Stressor Wins Good 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% Above Average 1.6% 22.4% 8.7% Average 18.2% 53.6% 33.4% Below Average 43.7% 23.3% 35.5% Poor 36.5% 0.6% 22.4% Hydrologic Alteration Good 5.1% 33.9% 17.4% Above Average 15.0% 38.3% 29.5% Average 44.4% 26.8% 34.6% Below Average 29.9% 0.8% 13.7% Poor 5.5% 0.1% 4.8% Ecologic Alteration Good 2.3% 21.8% 11.6% Above Average 13.1% 33.7% 23.6% Average 41.2% 36.4% 37.5% Below Average 37.5% 8.1% 22.5% Poor 5.8% 0.0% 4.8%
145 Figure 4 1 Classification of decision support tools Project Type Refugia Decision Support System Logic Single Species Mutliple Species Cost Effectiveness Analytical
146 Figure 4 2 CLIP core data Layers with R estorati on Priority layer which will be added based on my research. Source: Adapted from Hoctor et al. 2008.
147 Figure 4 3 Equal Role Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking.
148 Figure 4 4 Nature Wins Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking.
149 Figure 4 5 Society Wins Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Ranking.
150 Figure 4 6 St ressor Wins Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking
151 Figure 4 7 Hydrologic Alterations Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking
152 Figure 4 8 Ecologic Alteration Scenario Restoration Recovery Potential Score Ranking
153 Figur e 4 9 Histograms of RRP Scores for each weighting scenario
154 Figure 4 1 0 Comparison of nature wins ranking to equal role ranking
155 Figure 4 1 1 Comparison of society wins ranking to equal role ranking
156 Figure 4 1 2 Comparison of Stressor W ins ranking to equal role ranking
157 Figure 4 1 3 Comparison of hydrologic alteration ranking to Equal role ranking
158 Figure 4 14 Comparison of ecologic alteration ranking to equal role ranking
159 Figure 4 15 Maximum restoration recovery potential score change.
160 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS Florida has one of the globe's few warm latitude deranged stream networks, with numerous discontinuous streams punctuated by in line lakes and wetlands. After nearly a century of trying to simplify and tame Florida's water environmen t, water managers have largely come full circle and billions of dollars are now being spent to undo the effects of projects with unintended consequences. New restoration projects are subject to regulations that recognize the ecological and commercial valu e of our surface water resources. Prior to this study, much was to be learned about the drivers of impairment, the current state of the practice of impairment and strategies to prioritize restoration. T his study developed and extended techniques to quanti tatively and comprehensively assess the relationship between stream impairment and ten habitat threats ; it developed the Florida Str eam Restoration Database (FSRD) and it created a ranki ng system for prioritizing restoration efforts Ultimately, the results of this work can be utilized as a tool to enhance conservation and restoration efforts by various agencies across the state. A combination of statistical and geospatial techniques wer e used to gain an understand ing of the relationship between stream impairment and habitat threats in the state of Florida for conservation and restoration policy decision making. There were four primary goals of this work : (1) to i dentify the spatial relat ionships between impairment metrics ( Clean Water Act 303 [ d ] Numeric Nutrient Criteria TP and TN and Stream Condition Index ); (2) to evaluate whether there is a statistical correlation between impairment status and identified threats; (3) to identify areas of impairment concentration, which would be need restoration; and (4) to evaluate the spatial
161 relationship between impairment status and observed habitat threats. In summary, this analysis shows that there are differences between the spatial distributions of impairment type Furthermore, there are statistical differences between identified threats to stream habitat threats in WBIDs with and without impairment. Additionally, the hotspots and grouping analyses isolated a small percentage of impairment cluste rs, suggesting impairment may be influenced by localized rather than regional phenomena. Several management considerations may be influenced as a result of this analysis. It is a step towards further understanding the spatial context of stream impairment. S tudies summarizing stream restoration practices in the US are now dated and omit many stream restoration projects in Florida. This study synthesizes stream restoration practices in Florida by compiling information from a variety of data sources and chara cterizing projects by type spatial distribution, temporal trends and costs. The Florida Stream Restoration Database (FSRD) presented here contains 178 projects categorized by restoration type including: riparian management (23%), stream reclamation (19%) flow modification (13%), bank stabilization (12%), channel reconfiguration (11%), in stream habitat improvements (11%), floodplain reconnection (6%), invasive species removal (4%), and dam removal (1%). Projects types were clustered spatially into three geographic regions based on agency initiatives, need s and funding sources : projects in the Florida panhandle emphasized in stream habitat restoration peninsular projects were dominated by flow modification, and projects in the west central region predomi nantly focused on improving water quality and habitat in tidal streams and stream reclamation to mitigate surface mining practices In contrast with earlier works, which did not fully utilize databases and practitioner knowledge, this
162 study found that Flor ida is spending much more money on stream restoration than previously documented. Between 1979 and 2015 (projected), the mean and median stream restoration project costs in Florida accrue to $15.9 million and $180 thousand, respectively, indicating a stron gly skewed distribution due to the large scale Kissimmee River restoration project in central Florida. This work highlights the need for, and utility of, statewide and national restoration databases to improve restoration tracking. This need will become ev en more critical as more stringent water quality and habitat mitigation rules are implemented across the country. The r estoration recovery potential approach was evaluated for six weighting scenarios that prioritize d areas most suitable for restoration bas ed on the calculation of a Restoration Recovery Potential (RRP) Score. Six weighting scenarios Equal Role, Nature Wins, Society Wins, Stressor Wins, Hydrologic Alteration and Ecologic Alteration were evaluated to demonstrate their overall RRP Score, sensi tivity to change and spatial distribution. Each weighting scenario provided a distinctive profile of a Selection of a weighting scenario for restoration prioritization when considering recovery p otential on a statewide level should consider the implications of the inherent bias introduced due to the metrics selected and emphasis on one indicator group over. Particularly, whether the scenario over emphasizes a particular area over another or partic ular type of metric if that is not the original intent. Ultimately the selection of a weighting scenario will be specific to the needs of the region or overall restoration objectives. No one scenario is right. Restoration Recovery Potential Scores are vers atile and can be used directly to compare particular WBIDs over another or ranked to be incorporated into other decision
163 tools. Either of these strategies can be incorporated into restoration or conservation planning to optimize restoration success. In con clusion, this work addressed the assessment of stream water quality and habitat: 1) W quality problems ? 2) W hat is the magnitude of those problems and are they worsening? 3) W hat are the causes of impairment; and 4) A re we making smart restoration investments? Each chapter addressed a particular question and provided Florida specific data that restoration managers and practitioners can utilize in their daily work. Most importantly, Florida is no longer an empty spot on the map for statewide stream restoration synthesis
164 APPENDIX A AWRA REQUEST LETTER Dear Colleagues, I am currently a PhD student at UF working on my dissertation on stream restoration in Florida. I am in the phase of collecting information on stream restoration projects across the state. I know that many of these project reports may be stored in a box on a bookshelf or with some small environmental organizations. This is why I am reaching out to people in my network for assista nce. For now, I am looking for the name of projects on which you may have worked on or of which you are aware. If you only have a name of a project, that will work as well. The goal is to catalog and categorize projects that have been completed across th e state with their associated information. My definition of stream restoration would be any physical alteration or change to the stream channel or adjacent wetlands. More specifics about the data I would like to gather are listed below: Location (Coordina tes if Possible) Project Name Start Year Completion Year Funding Source Description Project Size Program Funding Monitoring Plan Any assistance you can give with information on restoration projects you know of would be greatly appreciated e ven if it is a recommendation of another source. Thanks in Advance,
165 APPENDIX B GIS DATA LAYERS AND SOURCES Table B 1. GIS Layers and data sources. Name Description Source Category County Counties in the S tate of Florida http://www.fgdl.org/metadat aexplorer/full_metada ta.jsp?docId=%7B3D78BF5B 6579 498B 9508 7E8C0AEFE6D9%7D&loggedIn=false County WBID_47 Watershed Boundary ID http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/dow nload.htm W atershe d NHD_dec2 012 Florida National Hydrography Dataset http://nhd.usgs.gov/ http://nhd.usgs.gov/NHDv2.0_poster_6_2_201 0.pdf Stream Type WMDBND Boundaries of the 5 Water Management Distircts http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/full_metada ta.jsp?docId= %7B51F90735 164F 40C0 9633 61DD791B493E%7D&loggedIn=false Water Managem ent Districts WMDL_JAN 13 District Lands http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/full_metada ta.jsp?docId=%7B46DB5FAB 80F6 4087 AE03 78E9AD17DA7E%7D&loggedIn=false State Parks FLMA State P arks and C onservation P roperties http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/full_metada ta.jsp?docId=%7B14FB1345 3641 412E BB9A B90B2531BDDB%7D&loggedIn=false State managed Lands STPARK_ MAY11 Florida State Parks http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/full_metada ta .jsp?docId=%7B3D78BF5B 6579 498B 9508 7E8C0AEFE6D9%7D&loggedIn=false State Parks FSD FWC Florida Stream Habitat Classification: Hydrography 2008 http://myfwc.com/research/gis/data maps/freshwater/mapping threats fl freshwater habitats/ Geomorp hologic Data BMAP_dec _2012 Statewide BMAP www.dep.state.fl.us/metadata.jsp?layer=dep.st atewide_bmap_areas BMAP Impaired_ waters_oct 12 Impaired WBIDS http://ca.dep.state.fl.us/www.dep.state.fl.us/m etadata.jsp?layer=dep.wbids_verified_impaired Impaired Waterbod ies Flo rida Adopted TMDLS Florida Adopted TMDL http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/dow nload.htm TMDL Basin
166 Table B 2. Data Sources for FWC Threat Data (Jennifer Bock, FWC, Personal Communication). Data Layer/ (Shapefile) Data Sources Data Source Locatio ns Invasive aquatic plants 1. Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council (FLEPPC) http://www.fleppc.org/EDDMapS/webservices/i ndex.cfm 2. FSU Herbarium http://herbarium.bio.fsu.edu/projects.php 3. FL DEP 20 11 public waterbody survey personal communicati on with Elizabeth Miller at FL DEP 4. Mapping threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats (Ricketts, 2008) FWC Center for Spatial Analysis Waterway modification 1. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 2010 Flowlines USGS 2. Bureau of Transportation Stat istics Navigable Waterways 20 11 Florida Geographic Data Library at http://www.fgdl.org/ 3. South Florida WMD Canals Florida Geographic Data Library at http://www.fgdl.org/ Storage of federal dams 1. 2010 National Inventory of Dams, US Army Corps of En gineers (USACE) National Inventory of Dams, USACE at: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:12: Permitted average daily groundwater withdrawal rate 1. Northwest Florida WMD personal communication with Lauren Connell, NWFWMD 2. Suwannee River WMD personal communication with Glenn Hovarth SRWMD 3. St. Johns River WMD http://webapub.sjrwmd.com/agws/sjrwmdpermit / and personal communication with Ellen Dean SJRWMD 4. Southwest Florida WMD http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis/layer_lib rary/categ ory/regulatory 5. South Florida WMD https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=734, 1546097&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL; also personal communication with Juan Tobar, SFWMD
167 Data Layer/ (Shapefile) Data Sources Data Source Locatio ns Land cover analysis 1. Cooperative Land Cover Map 2010 ( clc_v1_1_grid) Florid a Natural Areas Inventory http://www.fnai.org/LandCover.cfm Invasive aquatic animals 1. FWC Exotic Species Database personal communication with Larry Connor 2. FWC Freshwater Fisheries Sampling Database FWC Fish & Wildlife Research Institute ( FWRI) database 3. Mapping threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats (Ricketts, 2008) FWC Center for Spatial Analysis 4 USGS NAS personal communication with Pam Fuller at USGS NAS Riparian buffer zone analysis 1. Cooperative Land Cover Map 2010 ( clc_v1_1_grid) Florida Natural Areas Inventory http://www.fnai.org/LandCover.cfm 2 National Hydrography Dataset 2010 (NHD) Flowlines FWC Center for Spatial Analysis 3. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 2010 Waterbodies and Areas FWC Center f or Spatial Analysis Road/stream crossings 1. TIGER roads 200 8 FWC Center for Spatial Analysis 2. National Hydrography Dataset 2010 (NHD) Flowlines FWC Center for Spatial Analysis Permitted average daily surface water withdrawal rate 1. North west Florida WMD personal communication with Lauren Connell, NWFWMD 2. Suwannee River WMD personal communication with Glenn Hovarth SRWMD 3. St. Johns River WMD http://webapub.sjrwmd.com/agws/sjrwmdpermit / and personal communication with Ellen Dean S JRWMD 4. Southwest http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/data/gis/layer_lib
168 Data Layer/ (Shapefile) Data Sources Data Source Locatio ns Florida WMD rary/category/regulatory 5. South Florida WMD https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=734, 1546097&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL; also personal communication with Juan Tobar, S FWMD Impaired water quality 1. FL DEP Sept. 6 20 11 version downloaded from http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/downl oad.htm Water control structures: non federal 1. Northwest Florida WMD personal communication with Lance Laird, NWFWMD 2. Suwannee River WMD personal communication with Jerry Bowden SRWMD 3. St. Johns River WMD personal communication with Ed Carter SJRWMD 4. Southwest Florida WMD personal communication with David Crane, SWFWMD 5. South Florida WMD http://my.sfwmd.g ov/gisapps/sfwmdxwebdc/dat aview.asp?query=unq_id=1576 personal and communication with Maryam Mashayeki SFWMD Weighted road density (wtd_rd_dens) 1. TIGER roads 200 8 FWC Center for Spatial Analysis 2. Florida Dept. of Transportation (FDOT) http://www .dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/gis/ default.htm#roads
169 APPENDIX C GROUPING ANALYSIS RESULTS Figure C 1: Grouping Analysis Output
170 Figure C 1 continued
171 Figure C 1 continued
172 Figure C 1 continued
173 Figure C 1 continued
174 Figure C 1 continued
175 Figure C 1 continued
176 Figure C 1 continued
177 Figure C 1 continued
178 Figure C 1 continued
179 Figure C 1 continued
180 Figure C 1 continued
181 Figure C 1 continued
182 Figure C 1 continued
183 Figure C 1 continued
184 Figure C 1 continued
185 APPENDIX D D ISSERTA TION CHAPTER DATASETS Object D 1. Chapter 2 Impairment Geospatial Assessment Dataset (. zip file 8 0.6 M B) Object D 2 Chapter 3 Florida Stream Restorat ion Database (. zip file 9 73 MB ) Object D 3 Chapter 4 Restoration Recovery Potential Dataset (. z ip file 3 2.5 M B)
186 LIST OF REFERENCES Abell R., M. Thieme and B. Lehner. 2011a. Indicators for assessing threats to freshwater biodiversit y from humans and human shaped landscapes. pages103 124 in Anonymous Human Population. Springer. Abell R., M. Thieme and B. Lehner. 2011b. Indicators for assessing threats to freshwater biodiversity from humans and human shaped landscapes. pages103 124 in Anonymous Human Population. Springer. Adler R.W., J.C. Landman and D.M. Cameron. 1993. The Clean Water Act 20 Years Later. Island Press. Anderson J.R.,Jr, E.A. Fernald and D.J. Patton. 1998. Water Resources Atlas of Florida. Institute of Science and Public Affairs, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Fla. Ankersen T., Hemann, R., King, R. and Wegerif, M. 2009. Enhanced Water Quality Protection in Florida: An Analysis of the Regulatory and Practical Significance of an Outstanding Florida Water Des ignation. Sea Grant Law and Policy Journal 2 :74. Without Water? Disproportionality in Headwater Regions Impacting Water Quality. Environmental management 50 (5):849 860. Bak er M.E., Wiley, M.J. and Seelbach, P.W. 2001. GIS Based Hydrologic Modeling of Riparian Areas: Implication for Stream Water Quality. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37 (6):1615 1628. Beal Hodges M. 2012. Conservation Land Acquisition Li sts and Nearby Property Values: Evidence from the Florida Forever Programme. Studies in Agricultural Economics 114 (1). Beavers C., Ellis, R., Hanlon, C.D.E. and MacDonald, G. 2013. An Overview of Phosphate Mining and Reclamation in Florida. Beechie T., P ess, G., Roni, P. and Giannico, G. 2008. Setting River Restoration Priorities: A Review of Approaches and a General Protocol for Identifying and Prioritizing Actions. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28 (3):891 905. Beechie T.J., Pess, G.R., Pollock, M.M., Ruckelshaus, M.H. and Roni, P. 2009. Restoring Rivers in the Twenty First Century: Science Challenges in a Management Context. The Future of Fisheries Science in North America:697 717.
187 Beechie T., G. Pess, S. Morley, L. Butler, P. Downs, A. Maltby, P. Skidmore, S. Clayton, C. Muhlfeld and K. Hanson. 2013. Watershed Assessments and Identification of Restoration Needs. pages50 113 in Anonymous Stream and Watershed Restoration: A Guide to Restoring Riverine Processes and Habitats. Wiley Onlin e Library. Bennett S.J., Simon, A., Castro, J.M., Atkinson, J.F., Bronner, C.E., Blersch, S.S. and Rabideau, A.J. 2011. The Evolving Science of Stream Restoration. Geophysical Monograph Series 194 :1 8. Bernhardt E.S. and Palmer, M.A. 2007. Restoring Stre ams in an Urbanizing World. Freshwater Biology 52 (4):738 751. Bernhardt E.S., Sudduth, E.B., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Meyer, J.L., Alexander, G., Follastad Shah, J., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R. and Lave, R. 2007. Restoring Rivers One Reach at a Time: Res ults From a Survey of US River Restoration Practitioners. Restoration Ecology 15 (3):482 493. Bernhardt E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C., Follstad Shah, J., Galat, D., Gloss, S., Goodwi n, P., Hart, D., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Katz, S., Kondolf, G.M., Lake, P.S., Lave, R., Meyer, J.L., O'Donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Powell, B. and Sudduth, E. 2005. Synthesizing U.S. River Restoration Efforts. Science 308 (5722):pp. 636 637. Blanton K., Mossa, J., Kiefer, J. and Wise, W. 2010. Bankfull Indicators in Small Blackwater Streams in Peninsular Florida. Southeastern Geographer 50 (4):422 444. Blanton K. M. 2008. Development of Bankfull Discharge and Channel Geometry Regressions for Peninsular Fl orida Streams. Dissertation / Thesis. University of Florida. Boon P. 1998. River Restoration in Five Dimensions. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8 (1):257 264. Borisova T., Racevskis, L. and Kipp, J. 2011. Stakeholder Analysis of a Collaborative Watershed Management Process: A Florida Case Study1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Brown T.C. and Froemke, P. 2012. Nationwide assessment of nonpoint source threats to water quality. Bioscience 62 (2):136 146. Ca rlisle D.M., Falcone, J. and Meador, M.R. 2009. Predicting the biological condition of streams: use of geospatial indicators of natural and anthropogenic characteristics of watersheds. Environmental monitoring and assessment 151 (1 4):143 160. Carpenter D. P. Louise Slate, J. Schwartz, S. Sinha, P. Kelly Brennan and P. James MacBroom 2004. Regional Preferences and Accepted Practices in Urban Stream
188 Restoration: An Overview of Case Studies. Protection and Restoration of Urban and Rural Streams. American Soc iety of Civil Engineering. Caruso B.S. 2011. Science and Policy Integration Issues for Stream and Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations in a Semi arid Region of the Western US. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19 (4):351 371. Change C. 2007. Impacts, Adapt ation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Corsair H., Ruch, J.B., Zheng, P.Q., Hobbs, B.F. and Koonce, J.F. 2009. Multicriteria De cision Analysis of Stream Restoration: Potential and Examples. Group Decision and Negotiation 18 (4):387 417. Craig L.S., Palmer, M.A., Richardson, D.C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E.S., Bledsoe, B.P., Doyle, M.W., Groffman, P.M., Hassett, B.A., Kaushal, S.S., Mayer, P.M., Smith, S.M. and Wilcock, P.R. 2008. Stream Restoration Strategies for Reducing River Nitrogen Loads. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (10):pp. 529 538. Davies N.M., Norris, R.H. and Thoms, M.C. 2000. Prediction and Assessment of Loc al Stream Habitat Features Using Large Scale Catchment Characteristics. Freshwater Biology 45 (3):343 369. Dooley J.H. and J. Fridley 1998. Stakeholder Influence on Design of Aquatic Habitats. American Society of Agricultural Engineers Annual Meeting, Paper. Doyle M.W. and BenDor, T. 2011. Ev olving Law and Policy for Freshwater Ecosystem Service Markets. William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 36 :153. Doyle M.W. and Douglas Shields, F. 2012. Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redi recting Policy1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 48 (3):494 509. Drozd E. 2011. The 2010 Federal Proposal of Numeric Nutrient Criteria: A Necessity for Florida's Waters. Nova L.Rev. 35 :777 803. Duggan D.E., Farnsworth, K.D. and K raak, S. 2013. Identifying Functional Stakeholder Clusters to Maximise Communication for the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management. Marine Policy 42 :56 67. Entrix C. 2010. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Florida. Techn ical Document prepared for the Florida Water Quality Coalition. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). ArcGIS Help 10.1 Hotspots Analysis (Spatial Statistics), 2013. URL http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.2/index.html#/Hot_Spot_Analysis_G etis_Ord_Gi/005p00000010000000/ [accessed on Oct. 25].
189 Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI),. ArcGIS Help 10.1 Grouping Analysis (Spatial Statistics), 2013. URL http://resources.arcgis.com/en/help/main/10.1/index.html#//005p0000005100000 0 [acces sed on Oct. 25]. Evans N., Thom, R., Williams, G., Vavrinec, J., Sobocinski, K., Miller, L., Borde, A., Cullinan, V., Ward, J. and May, C. 2006. Lower Columbia River Restoration Prioritization Framework. Report PNWD 3652 of Battelle Marine Sciences Labora tory prepared for the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership.Portland, Oregon. Falcone J.A., Carlisle, D.M. and Weber, L.C. 2010. Quantifying Human Disturbance in Watersheds: Variable Selection and Performance of a GIS based Disturbance Index for Predic ting the Biological Condition of Perennial Streams. Ecological Indicators 10 (2):264 273. Recreation Land Acquisition. Sustain 14 (Spring/Summer 2006):35 44. Federal Interagen cy Stream Restoration,Working Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration : Principles, Processes, and Practices. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group, Washington, D.C. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2010. Integrated Water Qu ality Assessment for Florida: 2010 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update, Tallahasse, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2012. Integrated Water Quality Assessment for Florida: 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List Update Tallahasse, Fl orida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Florida Forever, 2013a. URL http://www.dep.state.fl.us/lands/fl_forever.htm [accessed on 11/15]. Florida Department of Enviro nmental Protection. 2013b. Implementation of Florida's Numeric Nutrient Standards. FDEP, Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, FDEP. Watershed Management Basin Rotation Project: Basin Downloads, 2013. URL http://dep.state.fl.us/water/basin411/download.htm [accessed on May 3]. Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Bureau of Reclamation. 2007. Riparian Wetland Mitigation: Development Of Assessment Methods, Success Criteria And Mitigation Guidelines Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 2008a. Florida Stream Habitat Classification. F2167 04F. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, Tallahasse, FL.
190 Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 2008b. Mapping Threats to Florida Freshwater Habitats. Project # CWT 0708 03. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, Tallahasse, FL. Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 2012. 2012 State Wildlife Action Plan: A Comprehensive Wildlife Management Strategy, Talahassee, Florida. Fore L.S., Frydenborg, R., Miller, D., Frick, T., Whiting, D., Espy, J. and Wolfe, L. 2007. Development and testing of biomonitoring tools for macroinvertebrates in Florida streams (Stream Condition Index and Bio Recon). Florida Department of Environmental Protection.110pp 5 (3.0):91.3. Frappier B. and Eckert, R.T. 2007. A New Index of Habitat Alteration and a Comparison of Approaches to Predict Stream Habitat Conditions. Freshwater Biology 52 (10):2009 2020. Fryir s K. and Brierley, G. 2000. A geomorphic approach to the identification of river recovery potential. Physical Geography 21 (3):244 277. Fuchs U. and Statzner, B. 1990. Time scales for the recovery potential of river communities after restoration: lessons t o be learned from smaller streams. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 5 (1):77 87. Gilvear D.J., Casas Mulet, R. and Spray, C.J. 2012. Trends and Issues in Delivery of Integrated Catchment Scale River Restoration: Lessons Learned from a National River Restoration Survey Within Scotland. River Research and Applications 28 (2):234 246. Griswold R.F. 2011. A Local Perspective on Florida's Numeric Nutrient Criteria. Water Environment & Technology 23 (10). Hansen E.S. and Budy, P. 2011. The Potential of Pas sive Stream Restoration to Improve Stream Habitat and Minimize the Impact of Fish Disease: A Short term Assessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 30 (2):573 588. Hansen H., O. and T. Iversen M. 1998. The European Centre for River Rest oration River. Session Lectures, 1996. Hansen W.F. 2001. Identifying Stream Types and Management Implications. Forest Ecology and Management 143 (1 3):39 46. Harrison S., Pretty, J., Shepherd, D., Hildrew, A., Smith, C. and Hey, R. 2004. The Effect of Ins tream Rehabilitation Structures on Macroinvertebrates in Lowland Rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 41 (6):1140 1154. Hawkins C.P., Paulsen, S.G., Sickle, J.V. and Yuan, L.L. 2008. Regional Assessments of Stream Ecological Condition: Scientific Challenges Associated with the USA's
191 National Wadeable Stream Assessment. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27 (4):805 807. Hawkins W.H. and K.J. Ruesch 1988. Reclamation of Small Streams and Their Watersheds at Mobil's Central Florida Phosphate Min es. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Wetlands Restoration and Creation. Hermoso V., Pantus, F., Olley, J., Linke, S., Mugodo, J. and Lea, P. 2012. Systematic Planning for River Rehabilitation: Integrating Multiple Ecological and Economic Objec tives in Complex Decisions. Freshwater Biology 57 (1):1 9. Hilderbrand R.H., Watts, A.C. and Randle, A.M. 2005. The Myths of Restoration Ecology. Ecology and Society 10 (1):19. Hinck J.E., Chojnacki, K., Finger, S., Linder, G. and Kilbride, K. 2011. A Geos patial Approach to Identify Water Quality Issues for National Wildlife Refuges in Oregon and Washington. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 2 (1):12 21. Hoctor T., J. Oetting and S. Beyeler. 2008. Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project: Repo rt on the Completetion of the CLIP Database Version 1.0 (Final Draft). Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, Tallahasse, FL. Houck O.A. 1989. Hard Choices: The Analysis of Alternatives Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Similar Environme ntal Laws. U.Colo.L.Rev. 60 :773. Hupp C., Walbridge, M. and Lockaby, B. 2005. Fluvial geomorphic processes and landforms, water quality and nutrients of bottomland hardwood forests of southeastern USA. Ecology and Management of Bottomland Hardwood Systems .University of Missouri, Gaylord Laboratory Special Publication(10):37 56. Jablonski D. 2011. An Assessment of CWA Section 303 (D) Prioritization of Impaired Water Bodies in Illinois. Jenkinson R.G., Barnas, K.A., Braatne, J.H., Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A. and Allan, J.D. 2006. Stream Restoration Databases and Case Studies: A Guide to Information Resources and Their Utility in Advancing the Science and Practice of Restoration. Restoration Ecology 14 (2):177 186. Kiefer J. 2010. Hydrobiogeomorphology of Fluvial Systems in Peninsular Florida: Implications to Classification, Conservation, and Restoration. Dissertation / Thesis. University of Florida. Kiker G.A., Bridges, T.S., Varghese, A., Seager, T.P. and Linkov, I. 2005. Application of Multicriteria Dec ision Analysis in Environmental Decision Making. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 1 (2):95 108.
192 King S.L., Sharitz, R.R., Groninger, J.W. and Battaglia, L.L. 2009. The Ecology, Restoration, and Management of Southeastern Floodplain Ecosys tems: A Synthesis. Wetlands 29 (2):624 634. Joseph W. Koebel Jr and Stephen G. Bousquin. The Kissimmee River Restoration Project and Evaluation Program, Florida, USA [accessed on June 22, 2013]. Kondolf G.M. 1998. Lessons Learned From River Restoration Pr ojects in California. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 8 (1):39 52. Kondolf G.M. and Micheli, E.R. 1995. Evaluating Stream Restoration Projects. Environmental Management 19 (1):1 15. Kupfer J.A. and Gao, P. 2011. Spatial Patterns of E cological Integrity in South Carolina Watersheds. Southeastern Geographer 51 (3):394 410. Lave R., Doyle, M. and Robertson, M. 2010. Privatizing Stream Restoration in the US. Social Studies of Science 40 (5):677. Leckie D.G., Cloney, E., Jay, C. and Paradi ne, D. 2005. Automated Mapping of Stream Features with High Resolution Multispectral Imagery: An Example of the Capabilities. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 71 (2):145 155. Leibowitz S.G., Wigington Jr, P.J., Rains, M.C. and Downing, D.M. 2 008. Non navigable Streams and Adjacent Wetlands: Addressing Science Needs Following the Supreme Court's Rapanos Decision. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6 (7):364 371. Leopold L.B. and J.P. Miller. 1956. Ephemeral Streams: Hydraulic Factors and their Relation to the Drainage Net. US Government Printing Office. Lewelling B. and R. Wylie. 1993. Hydrology and Water Quality of Unmined and Reclaimed Basins in Phosphate Mining Areas, West Central Florida. US Geological Survey. Lewis R. R. 1990. Creat ion and Restoration of Coastal Plain Wetlands in Florida. pages73 102 in Anonymous Wetland Creation and Restoration, The Status of the Science. US Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory. Llewellyn D.W., Shaffer, G.P., Craig, N.J., Creasman, L., Pashley, D., Swan, M. and Brown, C. 1996. A Decision Support System for Prioritizing Restoration Sites on the Mississippi River Alluvial Plain. Conservation Biology 10 (5):1446 1455. Lotze H.K., Lenihan, H.S., Bourque, B.J., Bradbury, R.H., Cooke, R.G., Kay, M.C., Kidwell, S.M., Kirby, M.X., Peterson, C.H. and Jackson, J.B. 2006. Depletion, degradation, and recovery potential of estuaries and coastal seas. Science 312 (5781):1806 1809.
193 Luck G.W., Chan, K. and Fay, J.P. 2009. Protecting Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity in the World's Watersheds. Conservati on Letters 2 (4):179 188. Malakoff D. 2004. The River Doctor. Science 305 (5686):937 939. Marcus W.A. and Fonstad, M.A. 2008. Optical Remote Mapping of Rivers at Sub meter Resolutions and Watershed Extents. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 33 (1):4 24. Marsh N., S. Linke, R. Ogden, P. Wettin and P. Cottingham 2007. River and Catchment Restoration Prioritization Tools. 5th Australian Stream Management Conference. Australian Rivers: Making a Difference, Charles Sturt University, Thurgoona, New South Wales. Matthews J., Reeze, B., Feld, C.K. and Hendriks, A.J. 2010. Lessons from Practice: Assessing Early Progress and Success in River Rehabilitation. Hydrobiologia:1 14. and Possingham, H.P. 2010. Mathematical problem definition for ecological restoration planning. Ecological Modelling 221 (19):2243 2250. Merem E., Yerramilli, S., Ri chardson, C., Wesley, J., Walker, T., Foster, D., Williams, J., Romarno, C. and Nwagboso, E. 2011. Using Geospatial Information Systems in Analyzing Urbanization Impacts on Stream Habitats in Southern Mississippi Coastal Ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Science and Engineering 5 (12):1624 1641. Milano G.R. 1999. Restoration of coastal wetlands in southeastern Florida. Wetland Journal 11 :15 24. Mixon S. 2012. Stream Condition Index: Understanding and Use of this Biomonitoring Tool for Florida Streams an d Rivers (In press.). Nadeau T. and Rains, M.C. 2007. Hydrological Connectivity between Headwater Streams and Downstream Waters: How Science can Inform Policy. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43 (1):118 133. National Research C ouncil (US). 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Niemi G.J., DeVore, P., Detenbeck, N., Taylor, D., Lima, A., Pastor, J., Yount, J.D. and Naiman, R.J. 1990. Overview of case studies on recovery of aquatic systems from disturbance. Environmental management 14 (5):571 587. Norgart C.D. 2003. Florida's Impaired Waters Rule: Is There a Method to the Madness. Journal of Landuse and Environmental Law 19 :347.
194 Norton D.J., Wick ham, J.D., Wade, T.G., Kunert, K., Thomas, J.V. and Zeph, P. 2009. A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning. Environmental Management 44 (2):356 368. Ode P.R., Hawkins, C.P. and Mazor, R.D. 2008. Compa rability of Biological Assessments Derived from Predictive Models and Multimetric Indices of Increasing Geographic Scope. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27 (4):967 985. Oetting J., T. Hoctor and B. Stys. 2012. Critical Lands and Waters Identification Project (CLIP):Version 2.0. Florida Natural Resources Inventory, http://www.fnai.org/pdf/CLIP_2_Tech_Report.pdf Oetting J., Knight, A. and Inventory, F.N.A. 2009. Florida Forever Tool for Efficient Resource Acquisition and Conservation. Palmer M.A. 2009. Reforming Watershed Restoration: Science in Need of Application and Applications in Need of Science. Estuaries and Coasts 32 (1):1 17. Palmer M.A. and Bernhardt, E .S. 2006. Hydroecology and River Restoration: Ripe for Research and Synthesis. Water Resources Research 42 (3):W03S07. Palmer M., Bernhardt, E., Allan, J., Lake, P., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., Carr, J., Clayton, S., Dahm, C. and FOLLSTAD, S. 2005. Standard s for Ecologically Successful River Restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 42 (2):208 217. Palmer M.A. and Allan, J.D. 2006. Restoring Rivers: The Work Has Begun, But We Have Yet to Determine What Works Best. Issues in Science and Technology(Winter):40 48 Palmer M.A., Menninger, H.L. and Bernhardt, E. 2010. River Restoration, Habitat Heterogeneity and Biodiversity: A Failure of Theory or Practice?. Freshwater Biology 55 (s1):205 222. Paulsen S.G., Mayio, A., Peck, D.V., Stoddard, J.L., Tarquinio, E., Hol dsworth, S.M., Van Sickle, J., Yuan, L.L., Hawkins, C.P. and Herlihy, A.T. 2008. Condition of stream ecosystems in the US: an overview of the first national assessment. Journal Information 27 (4). Pena Tijerina A., Bhattarai, R., Reardon, R. and Childs, D. 2010. Numeric Nutrient Criteria Development: Challenges and Impacts. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 2010 (10):6306 6333. Petty J.T., Fulton, J.B., Strager, M.P., Merovich Jr, G.T., Stiles, J.M. and Ziemkiewicz, P.F. 2010. Landscape indica tors and thresholds of stream ecological impairment in an intensively mined Appalachian watershed. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 29 (4):1292 1309.
195 Poff N.L., Bledsoe, B.P. and Cuhaciyan, C.O. 2006. Hydrologic Variation with Land Use A cross the Contiguous United States: Geomorphic and Ecological Consequences for Stream Ecosystems. Geomorphology 79 (3):264 285. Rains M., Landry, S., Rains, K., Seidel, V. and Crisman, T. 2013. Using Net Wetland Loss, Current Wetland Condition, and Planned Future Watershed Condition for Wetland Conservation Planning and Prioritization, Tampa Bay Watershed, Florida. Wetlands 33 (5):949 963. Reiss K.C. 2006. Florida Wetland Condition Index for Depressional Forested Wetlands. Ecological Indicators 6 (2):337 352 Reynolds K.M. and Hessburg, P.F. 2005. Decision support for integrated landscape evaluation and restoration planning. Forest Ecology and Management 207 (1):263 278. River Federation. 1996. Funding River Conservation in the States: Diverse Sources Promis ing Trends. National Park Service. River Restoration Center. The River Restoration Centre Project Data Base, 2011. URL http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_nrri.php [accessed on July 1, 2013]. Roni P. Beechie, T.J., Bilby, R.E., Leonetti, F.E., Pollock, M.M. and Pess, G.R. 2002. A review of Stream Restoration Techniques and a Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds. North American Journal of Fisheries Managem ent 22 (1):1 20. Roni P., Hanson, K. and Beechie, T. 2008. Global Review of the Physical and Biological Effectiveness of Stream Habitat Rehabilitation Techniques. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28 (3):856 890. Roni P. and T. Beechie. 2012a. Stream and Watershed Restoration. Wiley, Chicester. Roni P. and T. Beechie. 2012b. Stream and Watershed Restoration. Wiley, Chicester. Roy A.H., Dybas, A.L., Fritz, K.M. and Lubbers, H.R. 2009. Urbanization Affects the Extent and Hydrologic Permanence o f Headwater Streams in a Midwestern US Metropolitan Area. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 28 (4):911 928. Shapiro M.H., Holdsworth, S.M. and Paulsen, S.G. 2008. The Need to Assess the Condition of Aquatic Resources in the US. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 27 (4):808 811. Sheikh P.A. and N.T. Carter 2006. South Florida Ecosystem Restoration and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
196 Stewart Koster B., Bunn, S., Mackay, S.J., Poff, N., Naiman, R. and Lake, P. 2010. The Use of Bayesian Networks to Guide Investments in Flow and Catchment Restoration for Impaired River Ecosystems. Freshwater Biology 55 (1):243 260. Stringfellow W.T. 2008. Rankin g Methods to Set Restoration and Remediation Priorities on a Watershed Scale. Water Science & Technology 58 (10):2025 2030. Sudduth E.B., Meyer, J.L. and Bernhardt, E.S. 2007. Stream Restoration Practices in the Southeastern United States. Restoration Ecol ogy 15 (3):573 583. Tech E. 2004. The Status of Urban Stream Restoration in the United States. Local Government Financial Information Handbook, Tallahassee, Florida. Thomps on D.M. 2005. The History of the Use and Effectiveness of Instream Structures in the United States. Humans as Geologic Agents 16 :35. Thompson D.M. 2006. Did the Pre 1980 Use of In stream Structures Improve Streams? A Reanalysis of Historical Data. Ecologi cal Applications 16 (2):784 796. U.S. Census Bureau. Cumulative Estimates of Resident Population Change for the United States,Regions, States and Puerto Rico and Region and State Rankings:April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009 (NST EST2009 02), 2009. URL http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/ [accessed on May 14, 2013]. UK River Restoration Center. River Restoration Center, 2013. URL http://www.therrc.co.uk/rrc_links.php [accessed on June 22, 2013]. US Army Corps of Engineers and US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/regulatory/final_mitig_rule.pd f (Thursday, April 10, 2008):325 322. US Census Bureau. 2012. Population and Housing Unit Counts,CPH 2 11, Florida US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wadeable Stream Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams. EPA 841 B 06 002. Environmental Pro tection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC. US Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Water Quality Assessments for each Waterbody Type, 2010. URL http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_index.control#status_of_data [accessed on March 1, 2011].
197 US Environmental Protection Agency. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results: Florida Water Quality Assessment Report, 2013 a. URL http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_state.control?p_state=FL [accessed on 11/15]. US Environmental Protection Agency. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Envi ronmental Results: National Summary of State Information, 2013b. URL http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_nation_cy.control [accessed on 11/15]. Verdonschot P. and R. Nij boer. 2002. Towards a Decision Support System for Stream Restoration in the Netherlands: An Overview of Restoration Projects and Future Needs. pages131 148 in Anonymous Ecological Restoration of Aquatic and Semi Aquatic Ecosystems in the Netherlands (NW Europe). Springer. Visit Florida Research. Historic Economic Impact, 2012. URL http://www.visitflorida.com/en us/media/research.html [accessed on September 20, 2013]. Wang X. 2011. Exploring Trends, Sources, and Causes of Environmental Funding: A Study of Florida Counties. Journal of Environmental Management 92 (11):2930 2938. Wenerick W.R., Fritz, K.M. and Kostich, M.S. Indicators of Hydrologic Permanence in Headwater Streams of South Carolina. Wilkinson J. 2009. In lieu Fee Mitigation: Coming into Compliance with the New Compensatory Mitigation Rule. Wetlands Ecology and Management 17 (1):53 70. Wohl E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M., Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L.R. and Tarboton, D. 2005. River Restoration. Water Resources Research 41 (10):W10301. Womble P. and Doyle, M. 2012. The Geography of Trading Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Wetland and Stream Compensatory Mitigation Market s. Harvard Environmental Law Review 36 :229. Xie Y., Sha, Z. and Yu, M. 2008. Remote Sensing Imagery in Vegetation Mapping: A Review. Journal of Plant Ecology 1 (1):9.
198 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Darina was born in the beautiful country of Belize then moved to California where Sacramento. Darina earned her both her and PhD degree at University of Florida in the department of Environmental Engineering Sciences. Her research entails synthesizing the stream restoration projects in the state of Florida and using geospatial analysis techniques to evaluate stream impairment and prioritize stream restoration. Darina work ed part time with the environmental law firm, Earthju stice, as a water quality researcher. She has also interned with the City of Sacramento, HDR Inc and US Geological Survey. She has won numerous fellowships and awards. Most noteworthy, she is the 2012 AWRA 2012 Wi lliam V. Storch Award recipient and a Pre sidential Management Fellowship Semifinalist.