Author
Listed:
- Douglas J. Norton
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503T), Office of Water)
- James D. Wickham
(National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E243-05), Office of Research and Development)
- Timothy G. Wade
(National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (E243-05), Office of Research and Development)
- Kelly Kunert
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4204M), Office of Water)
- John V. Thomas
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1807T), Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation)
- Paul Zeph
(Office of Water Management, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection)
Abstract
Common decision support tools and a growing body of knowledge about ecological recovery can help inform and guide large state and federal restoration programs affecting thousands of impaired waters. Under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), waters not meeting state Water Quality Standards due to impairment by pollutants are placed on the CWA Section 303(d) list, scheduled for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) development, and ultimately restored. Tens of thousands of 303(d)-listed waters, many with completed TMDLs, represent a restoration workload of many years. State TMDL scheduling and implementation decisions influence the choice of waters and the sequence of restoration. Strategies that compare these waters’ recovery potential could optimize the gain of ecological resources by restoring promising sites earlier. We explored ways for states to use recovery potential in restoration priority setting with landscape analysis methods, geographic data, and impaired waters monitoring data. From the literature and practice we identified measurable, recovery-relevant ecological, stressor, and social context metrics and developed a restorability screening approach adaptable to widely different environments and program goals. In this paper we describe the indicators, the methodology, and three statewide, recovery-based targeting and prioritization projects. We also call for refining the scientific basis for estimating recovery potential.
Suggested Citation
Douglas J. Norton & James D. Wickham & Timothy G. Wade & Kelly Kunert & John V. Thomas & Paul Zeph, 2009.
"A Method for Comparative Analysis of Recovery Potential in Impaired Waters Restoration Planning,"
Environmental Management, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 356-368, August.
Handle:
RePEc:spr:envman:v:44:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-009-9304-x
DOI: 10.1007/s00267-009-9304-x
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envman:v:44:y:2009:i:2:d:10.1007_s00267-009-9304-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.