1. Developing an Index of Stream – Wetland – Riparian Condition Brooks et al. 2009

3. LEVEL 1 (LANDSCAPE FROM GIS) LEVEL 2 (RAPID FIELD ASSESSMENT) LEVEL 3 (INTENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT) How do our estimates of condition compare across levels of measurement resolution and across geographic scales?

4. Mayer et al. 2005 (EPA)

5. Measurement TypeSite-Level Metric Adjacent Land UseBuffer score Riparian Classification Wetland presence/ absence; Average cover type (~ biomass index) Bankfull ParametersIncision ratio; Width/ depth ratio Wetland ClassificationWetland presence/ absence; # of wetland types Hydrology, Wetland and Soils AssessmentWetness of wettest wetland on site Vegetation Assessment (Trees) Basal area, total and by species; Number of species; Median DBH Invasive Species% cover of invasive species, total and by species Stressor Checklist Total number of stressors, and number of stressor categories, for stream, floodplain, wetlands Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA)SHA score (normalized to a 0 -1 scale) Other reference site (yes/ no); stream order class; beaver site (yes/ no) EXAMPLES OF METRICS COMPUTED FROM SWR DATA

6. SHA Score Incision Ratio # Stream Stressors Stream-Wetland-Riparian (SWR) Index Buff0-300Basal AreaInvasives# FP-WL Stressors Floodplain-Wetland Condition Conceptual Model of Condition Used for SWR Index

7. Stream Habitat Assessment (SHA) variables: (each gets 1-10 BPJ rating) Epifaunal substrate Embeddedness Velocity/Depth regime Sediment deposition Channel flow Channel alteration Frequency of riffles Bank stability Vegetative protection Riparian vegetative zone width

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

9. LEVEL 1 (LANDSCAPE FROM GIS) overall watershed contributing area to sample point 1-km circle centered on sample point LEVEL 2 (RAPID FIELD ASSESSMENT) SWR – single site SWR – average for watershed or contributing area LEVEL 3 (INTENSIVE FIELD ASSESSMENT) – existing data benthic IBI, fish IBI, NO3

10. LANDSCAPE METRICS (FROM GIS) Percent Forest Land Development Intensity coefficient (LDI) Impervious Surface Mean Forest Patch Size [Core Forest/ Total Forest] LANDSCAPE INDEX = AVERAGE [ % forest score + (LDI score + Impervious Surface score)/ 2 + (Forest Patch Size score + Core Forest score) /2 ] LANDSCAPE SCORES

11. 2. contributing area to IBI sample point LEVEL 1 – LANDSCAPE INDEX 1. overall watershed 3. 1-km circle centered on SWR sample point

12. 2. How well does average site-level physical condition in the upstream contributing area reflect biotic condition? rp Benthic IBI0.5490.000*** Fish IBI0.4930.000*** NO30.4000.002** Correlation between SWR Index and MBSS (n=60): Avg. SWR Index in MBSS point contributing area vs. IBI score

14. Within-watershed Variability of SWR Index

15.  Scale comparing social choices  Ref. Std >75% forest Moder ate 40- 75% Low 25- 40% Ref. std 30- 50% forest Ref. Std. 40- 75% tree cover Forest Agriculture Urban Social choice   Scale comparing condition 

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

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

20. Mayer et al. 2005 (EPA)

21. Boyd – Ecosystem Services 2010

22. Hawes & Smith 2005

23. Yetter, IBI slope & stream points

24. Yetter

26. Harte 2013

28. Selected Ecosystem Services – to Final Services (HOUSEHOLD OR INDIVIDUAL FARM/BUSINESS FOCUS; ON-SITE VS. OFF-SITE BENEFITS&COSTS) 1 - WATER PURIFICATION (HAVING CLEANER WATER; IMPROVED WATER QUALITY; RETAIN, REMOVE, TRANSFORM NUTRIENTS - (preventing excess nutrients entering stream – links to healthy stream for fishing, livestock drinking water, avoid or eliminate regulatory “impaired” water determination) 2- WATER-BASED RECREATION (FISHING, MAYBE SMALL BOATING) (need to parse among coldwater, coolwater, and warmwater fisheries) 3- ECOLOGICAL HEALTH (NON-USE VALUES FOR ENTIRE SYSTEM OF STREAM-WETLAND-RIPARIAN BIODIVERSITY) 4- FLOOD STORAGE & DESYNCHRONIZATION (reduced damage to property and crops; need to tie to measurement of flood risk, then $), whereas riparian buffers filter upland sources of nutrients moving toward waterbodies, properly connected flooding regime allows transformation of nutrients by the floodplain and wetlands when stream overflows (therefore, less incised due to land use proportions) 5 – CARBON SEQUESTRATION (ESTIMATES BASED ON LAND USE CONVERSION (e.g., crop to forest) or VEGETATION/SOIL BASED CARBON PER UNIT AREA)

29. Valuation of Ecosystem Services to Final Services

30. Ecosystem Services to be Valued Criteria – Potentially large value – Know linkages between intervention and service – Have estimates of economic value Initial List – Values tied to direct use Fishing/Boating/Swimming – Nonuse Values and indirect use values Existence value for Habitat/Ecosystem Health Carbon Sequestration – Pockeboot Impacts Water Purification Costs Property damage from floods

31. Recreational Use Model of recreational fishing behavior Can calculate benefit to anglers of spatially explicit changes in fishing quality – One quality measure used: National Fish Habitat Partnership Habitat Degradation Risk Index Based largely on landscape upstream – Can value a change in HDRI Need to know linkage between intervention and HDRI Much less info available on swimming and boating, but we are looking

32. NFHP Database

33. Nonuse Values Measure using general population surveys to measure WTP for improvements in stream/river quality – Water Quality – Biological Health Need to know linkages between intervention and water quality and/or biological health

34. Water Quality Scales National Sanitation Foundation WQI 9 water quality measures, including nitrates, total phosphate and turbidity – q i = quantile of that measure – w i = weight for that measure WQI ranges from 0 to 100 Can be calculated based on subset of WQ measures

35. Water Quality Scales Water Quality Ladders – Drinkable95 – Swimmable70 – Fishable50 – Boatable25 – Suitable for outings15 – Not suitable for any use5 Measure WTP to move up ladder Scale comparable to WQI?

36. Biological Health Biotic Indices/scales developed by team 3 WTP for changes in biological health – MidAtlantic Slope Consortium survey Need to be able to link the two

37. Carbon Sequestration Intervention may affect carbon sequestration – Forested buffer vs cropland – No-til vs conventional Fed Govt has standard dollar values for social cost of carbon Need to know carbon seq effect of intervention

38. Others Water Purification – Impact of intervention on criteria water pollutants downstream – Population using surface water supplies downstream of intervention – Average impact on treatment cost Property damage from floods – Change in downstream flood frequency – Downstream properties at risk