|
|
Watershed
Restoration Planning
Information
System—Final Report
Submitted by Vicki Watson and Christine Brick, University of Montana To: Clark Fork Natural Resource Damage Program May,
2002 Project Abstract--The goal of this project was to lay the foundation for a cost-effective information database that would assist restoration project planners and citizens in the Upper Clark Fork River Basin in their efforts to identify and evaluate restoration opportunities, priorities and outcomes. Our project built on the efforts of the Montana State Library’s Natural Resources Information System (NRIS) to develop an online, interactive, map-based clearinghouse of water-related information. The Upper Clark Fork Basin has more information than most watersheds, and has special concerns with respect to large-scale mining and smelting remediation and restoration. We have attempted to identify critical information needs, describe and evaluate available information sources, identify information gaps, and propose a method of delivering information to users that also stimulates the development of new information. A model for that system is presented online, and we hope that a similar system could be housed with NRIS, which is the entity most capable of maintaining such a system and providing the technical services required for its effective use. We recommend that NRDP contract with NRIS to maintain and service such a system. Our findings and recommendations are our responsibility and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the NRDP on these matters. The science of watershed restoration is a young science,
struggling with tasks and expectations that would challenge a much older
science. Yet our best opportunity to push this science forward and to
speed recovery of damaged watersheds is to undertake restoration projects
and learn as we go. Hopefully, through careful planning, based on the best
available information, and rigorous analysis of the outcomes of our
efforts, we will do more good than harm, and our efforts will improve with
time. This is the approach of the Clark Fork Natural Resource Damage
Program. To guide its restoration planning effort, the NRDP seeks to
develop an information system that delivers relevant available information
to a wide variety of users and that also stimulates the development of new
information. To assist the NRDP with this effort, we undertook a
project with the following objectives:
This report summarizes our findings and recommendations
for each of these objectives. Identify Key Information Needed for Watershed
Restoration Planning **Note: Much of the discussion in this section was developed by Watson for a course in Watershed Conservation Ecology at the University of Montana. The discussion was adapted to fit the objectives of this project. Watershed restoration planning must take place in the
context of general watershed conservation planning—otherwise restoration
efforts can be undone by other actions occurring in the watershed. Hence
the information needs of restoration planning are essentially the same as
the information needs of watershed conservation planning. The information needed for
watershed planning can be best described by looking at the steps of the
planning process. Planning steps include:
Each of these steps requires a variety of types of
information. Some key questions associated with each of these steps will
help to illustrate some of those information needs. Develop watershed goals that unify and clarify
values—Citizens and planners ask: Answers to the above questions require information about
watershed services, resource uses, relevant legal standards, and the
system’s ecological and restoration potential (as defined by relevant
reference systems or historical data). With such information, citizens can
better translate broad watershed goals into objectives that are the
SMARTEST-- Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Respectful, Tractable,
Ecological, Sustainable and eThical.
At each step in the planning process, citizens will need
to seek advice of relevant technical advisors – Are our goals/objectives
realistic (given the system’s natural limits)? What is normal and possible
for this area? Are our goals mutually compatible? Is our time frame for
recovery realistic? Identify problems, past and future—Citizens ask themselves and their technical advisors: Analyze the system and causes of
problem—Citizens ask their technical
advisors: Recognize conflicts but seek common
ground—Conflict is almost inevitable in efforts to
restore damaged ecosystems. By the time restoration efforts are begun,
ecosystems are usually damaged by a variety of uses, and all those uses
will likely need to make changes to allow the ecosystem to recover. No one
wants to incur costs or make changes unless they are sure the efforts are
necessary and likely to be successful and that all interests are doing
their part. An information system that generates and delivers relevant
information should reduce some of the uncertainty that stimulates
conflict. In addition, it can be used to store information about
restoration projects that allow all to see the efforts being pursued by
others. Select action strategy and tactics to reduce problems
and conflicts—Because watersheds are highly connected, actions in one
area can have unintended consequences on other areas. Narrowly focused
efforts to address a problem can shift the problem elsewhere or create new
problems. For example, stabilizing banks with riprap degrades habitat and
can worsen bank erosion downstream. Heavy fertilization to encourage
revegetation can create excess nutrient loading to streams. Use of
non-native plants in revegetation can produce weed problems. Increasingly,
restoration specialists recognize that an overall restoration strategy
that strives to understand and work with natural processes is more
cost-effective in the long run than strategies that work against natural
processes. Identifying those natural processes requires information such
as natural flow regimes (and associated natural temperature and sediment
regimes), floodplains and meander zones, erosion rates, and native plant
communities. While a community may wish to restore certain aspects of a
watershed damaged by human uses, frequently many historical changes in the
watershed are considered desirable or at least necessary to achieve safety
or economic goals. Hence the community must determine what is to be
preserved, what is to be conserved and what is to be restored? That is,
which areas or processes need to be kept largely natural in order to
restore and sustain the ‘health’ of the stream and its watershed and
resources associated with these? Which areas or processes can be altered
so as to achieve other human purposes (and what is the limit to change
that can be tolerated without harming the system and other users)? Which
areas and processes have been so damaged, depleted or otherwise altered
that we need to change our practices and allow recovery or even carry out
an aggressive set of restoration actions? Once these areas and processes
have been identified, planners can begin to identify which are likely to
be most cost-effective, which should be pursued first, etc. An information
system could identify and map critical preservation areas (water bodies,
wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains, meander zones, key habitat, etc) as
well as degraded areas (dewatered streams, contaminated floodplains,
etc). Implement actions; track outcomes; rethink earlier
steps— Types of Watershed Information No doubt the reader is thinking – "Enough already with
talking about the kinds of information needed in watershed planning. Just
tell me where I can find the data I need to make decisions." Watershed information exists at several levels of
interpretation. There is information gained by fairly direct observation/measurement at specific points and
times (such as elevation,
soil texture, stream flow, fish counts, etc). Such raw data are collected
by various resource specialists
(soil scientists, hydrologists, biologists, etc) who analyze and interpolate it over space and time to
produce maps of topography, soil type, land cover, groundwater depth,
seasonal flows, or fish distribution for example. Several kinds of
information can be synthesized or
integrated to identify
areas that have a higher potential or risk for some phenomenon of interest
(like erosion risk, groundwater contamination risk, fishery recovery potential, etc).
Watershed scientists also use a variety of information types and complex
models to classify watersheds and water bodies, to describe their
condition, connections, capacities, changes, and causes of problems. Development of
watershed indicators of condition, capacity, etc. is a critical
need, and one that we are currently pursuing. Finally, all these
types of scientifically derived information must be evaluated to determine which areas are higher
priorities for restoration, preservation or conservation practices.
Determining that an area has a higher priority for an action or is less
suitable for a particular type of land use is a value judgment. Such
decisions are informed by scientific information, but must ultimately be
made based on values. Table 1
shows more examples of these several levels of information and
interpretation. Identify, Evaluate and Describe Relevant Available Information With the above in mind, we compiled a list of information potentially useful to watershed restoration decisions. The list includes information types that range from raw data to highly interpreted information and is organized by subject into sections covering climate, land forms and geology, soils, land cover and vegetation, water (surface and ground), fisheries, human systems, known and potential threats to water resources, and efforts to restore and conserve water resources. This is a working list that will never be finished because watershed science continues to advance and information about the basin will continue to evolve over time. (The list is currently available here.) In addition, as the list of relevant information was being
compiled, specific sources of information were sought out and evaluated.
Many government agencies collect data and generate information useful to
watershed planning. Some of that information is stored in databases or
information systems, some of which are now available online. The following
key databases and information systems were evaluated and described (click on link to view description):
In addition a number of information sources were briefly
described under specific information types, including: Western Regional
Climatic Center, NRIS’s drought information site, UM Watershed Health
Clinic algae database, and lists of relevant theses. The Clark Fork
Database Management System is described on under the section on
‘known/potential threats’ but does not appear in the list of key databases
since it was judged to be of limited usefulness.
The descriptions of these databases and information
sources attempted to provide the following information to the extent
possible:
Identify Information Gaps Information considered useful to watershed restoration
planning, but could not be located in the sources surveyed, is listed on
the web site under the same categories as the available information. Brief
descriptions of this information and its potential usefulness appear on
the website under Information Gaps. It is hoped that these
descriptions will stimulate the development of this missing information.
In addition, if the information does exist, it is hoped that those using
the web site will inform those responsible for maintaining the web site of
the location of that information. Some types of information that would be especially useful to current restoration planning efforts: detailed maps of irrigation systems, location of high quality wildlife habitat in need of protection, stream morphology and riparian condition of tributaries. Some types of information that would be useful once the
Superfund work on the main stem is complete would be: post reclamation
metal contamination levels in stream bed, banks and floodplain of the main
stem; post reclamation stream
bank morphology and extent of vegetative cover; nature and location of any
stream bank stabilization that was installed. Consult with potential users and deliverers of this
information on how best to deliver the information
We informally surveyed conservation districts, watershed groups and
natural resource professionals in the upper Clark Fork basin to determine
their information interests as well as their information technology
constraints. In addition, we consulted with NRIS personnel concerning
their thoughts and constraints on providing such information. We also
organized two workshops in collaboration with NRIS personnel to
demonstrate NRIS’s current capabilities for delivering watershed related
information and to discuss with potential user groups their information
needs and preferences on information delivery options. We found that potential users almost universally had access to the internet but had a very wide range of sophistication in the use of information technology. Some users preferred that information be provided as simple static maps, while others preferred to have spatial data that they could manipulate and use to develop their own analyses and interpretations. All the users like the idea of having an online clearinghouse that quickly pointed them to available relevant information and that also provided some indication of how that information could be used. Several of the more sophisticated user groups had their own databases and were interested in integrating those with larger efforts (including Butte-Silver Bow County, Missoula County Health Department and Office of Planning and Grants, and the Tri-State Water Quality Council). Based on the above interactions with potential users and deliverers of information, we developed the following recommendations. Recommend a system to
deliver available information and to stimulate filling of gaps Any information delivery system has to recognize that
potential users range from those with minimal information technology
skills to those with advanced skills. NRIS’s information clearinghouse
recognizes this and provides information in a variety of ways. For the
most basic users, there are static maps
of key information. For more skilled
users, there is NRIS’s online interactive mapper which allows
the user to specify an area of interest and then create a map of some
desired information (like land use) and overlay this information on a base
map of key location information (like roads, towns, county borders,
streams). For the most advanced users,
all the information available in the above maps can be downloaded for use
in a GIS system. In addition, other GIS information is available to
download. In addition to the information available at the NRIS site,
the site provides links to still more information available at other web
sites. A great deal of basic natural resources information is available at
web sites of the USGS, NRCS, etc. The NRIS web site provides links to
these, both in the form of simple lists of info types and also in the form
of interactive maps. This is a particularly helpful approach that allows
the user to select a site on a map, and then access all the various kinds
of information available about that site. Often, one of the greatest
difficulties in accessing natural resource information is the need to know
all the different site identification numbering systems used by many
different agencies. This problem is removed by the linked map approach.
Simply select the kind of information desired and the area of interest;
then, once the map is built, click on the site of interest and you are
passed through to the database containing that information, right to the
information about the site you selected. Information relevant to watershed decisions comes from
many scientific disciplines and exists as voluminous raw data and in a
variety of more summarized and interpreted forms of information. It would
be very difficult for one source to host all this information or to
provide it all in a form useful to every kind of user. NRIS is not a major
repository of raw data, but prefers to store only the more summarized and
interpreted information. As described above, NRIS provides links to the
massive databases with specific data on soils, water quality, flows, etc.
Hence the NRIS site already has powerful information
clearinghouse abilities and a large amount of relevant information. The
main things NRIS needs to meet NRDP’s information needs are some
suggestions for how to organize the information for easier reference by a
wide variety of users, and funding to maintain and expand the available
information. To meet NRDP’s information needs for restoration planning,
we recommend that NRDP
develop a restoration planning web site that contains the following:
NRDP could contract with NRIS to provide all of the above, or just the last two items. This will be a cost-effective investment for NRDP. We recommend that a mere 1% of NRDP’s planned annual expenditure of $7million (or $70,000) be invested in an information management system that assists planners and citizens to identify & evaluate restoration opportunities, priorities and outcomes in the upper Clark Fork basin. In addition, we recommend that 5% of that annual expenditure (or $350,000) be invested in an assessment & monitoring system that gathers the information to populate that information management system.
|