Tools for evaluating multiple objectives | Environmental Law Institute

Multi-objective tools

Arkansas MAWPT Standard GIS Method
EPA RPS Recovery Potential Integrated Tool
EPA RPS Social Context Tool
Kauffman-Axelrod and Steinberg (2010) Tidal Wetland Restoration Prioritization Tool
Kramer et al. (2012) Connectivity to Existing Conservation Lands Tool
Kramer et al. (2012) Hydrologic Connectivity Between Wetlands Tool
Kramer et al. (2012) Potential Runoff Index (PRI)
Kramer et al. (2012) Potential Wetland Bank Site Index
Kramer et al. (2012) Water Quality and Quantity Index
Kramer et al. (2012) Wetland Condition Index
Maryland WRR Compromised Stormwater Infrastructure Restoration
Maryland WRR Natural Stormwater Infrastructure Preservation Tool
Maryland WRR Riparian Zone Preservation Tool
Maryland WRR Riparian Zone Restoration Tool
Maryland WRR Wetland Preservation Tool
Maryland WRR Wetland Restoration Tool
NCEEP LWP Subwatershed Focus Area Identification Method
NCEEP RBRP HUC-14 Screening Method
NHDES WRAM Landscape Position Score
NHDES WRAM Net Functional Benefit Tool
NHDES WRAM Site Prioritization Model
NOAA HPP Riparian Buffers (Conservation) Tool
NOAA HPP Riparian Buffers (Restoration) Tool
NOAA HPP Watersheds (River and Stream Conservation) Tool
NOAA HPP Watersheds (River and Stream Restoration) Tool
PLDSS Site-Scale Model
RAMP Marxan Greenprint Analysis
Strager et al. (2011) Stream Banking Site Selection Model
USACE SRWBP Spatial Decision Support System
TNC WBSP Willamette Valley Synthesis Map
TNC-ELI DPWAP Function Variety Assessment
VDCR GIS tool for Identifying Wetland Restoration Opportunities
WSDOE WCT Overall Watershed Characterization Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Biogeochemistry (Flat Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Biogeochemistry (Riverine Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Habitat (Flat Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Habitat (Riverine Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Hydrology (Flat Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Hydrology (Riverine Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Plant Community (Flat Wetlands) Tool
Weller et al. (2007) Plant Community (Riverine Wetlands) Tool

Arkansas Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team (MAWPT) Standard GIS Method for Wetland Analysis:¹ The MAWPT wetland prioritization tool relies on a raster calculator approach in ArcGIS to combine data layers representing prioritization objectives to determine areas that represent wetland restoration or protection priorities. Data factors selected by the MAWPT are overlaid to create wetland inventory maps that rank areas for wetland protection or restoration. This process may, for example, prioritize wetland restoration and protection opportunities in the forested (riparian) corridor along the main streams of the watershed to address water quality or habitat objectives. In addition, the MAWPT may also seek to prioritize habitat connectivity along riparian corridors by promoting "large, connected block[s] of bottomland habitat that [are] of high value to species population viability."

Prioritization objectives assessed:²

Water quality
Habitat quality
Watershed-specific objectives

Factor(s)	Data source(s)
Wetlands in riparian corridor	NHD
Hydric or nonhydric soils	NRCS county soils data
Presence or absence of native vegetation	Satellite-derived vegetation and land cover maps (Arkansas Gap Analysis Project (30m resolution))
Location in a floodplain	Corps of Engineers or other maps of floodplain boundaries
Larger isolated fragments	NWI; NRCS potential farmed wetland map
Proximity to public lands	Public lands (including private lands with public easements/agreements
Isolated wetlands close to the corridor	NWI; NRCS potential farmed wetland map
Wetlands along tributaries of the mainstem	NHD
Cleared wetlands between forest blocks	NWI; NRCS potential farmed wetland map
Sites near functional wetland	NWI; NRCS potential farmed wetland map

Acronym definitions

EPA Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Recovery Potential Integrated Assessment:^3,4 This tool combines the ecological capacity, stressor exposure, and social context indices derived for each hydrologic unit to obtain an overall recovery potential integrated (RPI) score. RPI scores summarize the general restorability of each watershed or impaired water body in comparison with the others being assessed by assessing subwatershed units within HUC-8s. For example, the tool identifies areas that might be targeted for restoration either based on their own restorability alone, or to achieve the largest improvement in condition for the HUC-8 as a whole.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Habitat quality
Feasibility of restoration
Sustainability of restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Ecological capacity	See Ecological Capacity Tool
Stressor exposure	See Stressor Exposure Tool
Social context	See Social Context Tool

EPA Recovery Potential Screening (RPS) Social Context Assessment:^5,6 In contrast to the Ecological Capacity Tool and Stressor Exposure Tool, this tool does not evaluate ecological condition. Instead, it assesses the following factors known to influence restoration success in each hydrologic unit.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Feasibility of restoration
Sustainability of restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
*Leadership, organization, and engagement*
Watershed organization leadership (number of watersheds located in each 303(d) watershed)	EPA-ADOPT online database of watershed groups⁷
Watershed collaboration	Presence/absence of a multi-interest organization or use of a group process to rank watersheds
Corridor owner-occupied residential	Local-level property ownership data
Government agency involvement	Stakeholder input on positive agency involvement
Participation rate in land conservation programs	State-specific sources of spatial data on participation in conservation programs⁸
Large watershed management potential (scores watersheds based on number of impaired waters within them)	Watershed boundary GIS; 303(d) impaired waters; waters with finalized TMDLs⁹
University proximity	Statewide coverage of university from UnivSource¹⁰ or American Universities¹¹
Political support	Available on a statewide basis
*Protective ownership or regulation*
Watershed percent protected land	GAP stewardship data¹²
Applicable regulation	ATTAINS 303(d)-listed waters; EPA identification of impaired waters and waters with completed TMDLs affected by point sources, non-point sources only, or mixed⁴³; state-specific regulations; coastal regulations documented by NOAA's Legislative Atlas¹³; EPA list of regulations¹⁴; zoning maps from county/state sources
*Level of information, certainty, and planning*
Certainty of causal linkages (number of 'cause unknown' waters from 303(d) data; percent of waters with unknown causes of total length of impaired waters)	ATTAINS cause information in attribute tables linked to 303(d) shapefiles for each state's impaired waters²³
Percent identified stressor sources	ATTAINS probable source information²³; other state estimates of probable sources if available
Certainty of restoration practices (from 'no restoration technique applicable' to 'known technique highly applicable and feasible')	Expert judgment; various stream restoration techniques are available by region through the NRRSS¹⁵ and other online sources
TMDL or watershed plan	National mapped dataset of waters with completed or approved TMDLs from ATTAINS^23,55 or RAD¹⁶
Watershed education level	U.S. Census educational attainment data¹⁷
Ratio #TMDLs/#impairments	Number of finalized TMDLs from ATTAINS^23,55 and RAD⁶²; Number of impairments from ATTAINS^23,55
Percent of stream miles assessed	ATTAINS assessed waters GIS national dataset^23,55
Percent of lake acres assessed	ATTAINS assessed waters GIS national dataset^23,55
*Restoration cost, difficulty, or complexity*
Estimated restoration cost	Expert judgment based on impairment type and number and system type/size; NRRSS cost data for stream restoration projects⁶¹
Jurisdictional complexity (total number of cities, counties, and towns within an impaired watershed)	EPA-BASINS city/county polygon shapefile¹⁸; ArcGIS online national administrative boundaries³⁵; data for other jurisdictions involved in land use decisions and restoration actions
Landownership complexity (presence of over half public ownership; percent public/private ownership; number of low, medium, and high density urban land cover polygons per unit area)	Public/private land ownership polygon data; intensity of urban development polygon data
Recovery time frame (indicated by watershed or waterbody size; number of upstream HUCs)	NRCS WBD⁶
*Socio-economic considerations*
Environmental justice area of concern	Project-specific
Local socio-economic stress (based on measured developed by Sonoran Institute)	U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis (long and short term employment change, per capita income, housing affordability)¹⁹; Bureau of Labor Statistics (unemployment rate, natural disaster risk)²⁰; Census Bureau (population change, families living under poverty, educational attainment)²¹; NOAA spatial trends for coastal areas²²; ArcGIS online socio-economic data²³
*Human health, beneficial uses, recognition, and incentives*
Watershed population	U.S. Census Bureau⁶⁷
Recreational resource (water body location relative to recreation land category)	State GIS shapefiles including State Conservation Areas, State Forests, State Fish and Wildlife Areas, State Parks, and other recreational areas; Protected Areas Database²⁴; ArcGIS online recreational areas²⁵
Watershed number drinking water intakes	EPA national data relating drinking water intakes to HUC-12 watersheds
Watershed percent source water protection area	EPA national data relating drinking water intakes to HUC-12 watersheds
Valued ecological attribute (formal recognition by one of several programs aligned with protecting biodiversity, aesthetics, recreational sport, etc.)	NatureServe rarity and biodiversity spatial data¹⁹; State natural heritage databases²⁶; Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers²⁷, CWA Outstanding Natural Resource Waters, ArcGIS online Cultural Datasets²⁸
Funding eligibility	Currently active project information or implied eligibility determined from existing spatial data (e.g. agricultural activities, abandoned mines)
Human health and safety	Site-specific monitoring data from hazardous waste, mining, or other programs; flooding and storm risk data; beach closings information²⁹; searchable data as part of the Toxics Release Inventory³⁰; hazardous waste geographical queries through the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act³¹
Iconic value of resource	Data obtained from local sources
303(d) schedule priority	303(d)-listed waters

Acronym definitions

Kaufmann-Axelrod and Steinberg (2010) Tidal Wetland Restoration Prioritization Tool:^32,33 This technique prioritizes the suitability of 530 tidal wetlands located in the Coos Estuary of Oregon, originally identified by Scranton (2004), by evaluating nine parameters in custom GIS models. These parameters included both site-specific indicators of hydrologic alteration and ecological functionality as well as landscape prioritization data sources. Factors and data sources underlying each parameter are listed in the table below.

The model output was standardized on a zero-one scale, with a score of '1' indicating the site with the highest quantity of a given parameter and a score of '0' representing the lowest. A three-tiered weighting system, in which the most important parameters for restoration are given a weight of 3, parameters of intermediary importance are given a weight of 2, and parameters of lower importance are given a weight of 1, was used to combine all nine parameters and generate an overall prioritization score for each site. These scores were then used to establish relative "restoration priority rankings" for each of the Coos watershed's 530 potential restoration sites.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Feasibility of restoration

Factor used in analysis		Data source(s)
Hydrologic connection to wetlands	Undiked wetlands: palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands	National Wetlands Inventory (US Fish and Wildlife Service-2006)
	Marine sourced high, marine sourced low, river sourced, and potentially forested wetlands	HGM Tidal Wetlands of Oregon's Coastal Watersheds (Scranton 2004)
	Hydrography (streams)	Regional Ecosystem Office (2007)
Area of Adjacent wetlands	Marine sourced high, marine sourced low, river sourced, and potentially forested wetlands	HGM Tidal Wetlands of Oregon's Coastal Watersheds (Scranton 2004)
Area of Adjacent wetlands	Undiked wetlands: palustrine emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested wetlands	National Wetlands Inventory (US Fish and Wildlife Service-2006)
Area of Adjacent water	Open water	HGM Tidal Wetlands of Oregon's Coastal Watersheds (Scranton 2004)
Percentage of perimeter adjacent to filled land	Filled lands	HGM Tidal Wetlands of Oregon's Coastal Watersheds (Scranton 2004)
Wetland vegetation composition	Palustrine forested, scrub/shrub, emergent wetlands, estuarine and emergent wetlands, grasslands	Pacific Northwest Landcover, NOAA Coastal Services Center (2000)
Percent forested in catchment	Deciduous, evergreen, mixed forests, and scrub-shrub	Pacific Northwest Landcover, NOAA Coastal Services Center (2000)
Percent forested in catchment	Catchments (HUC-14s)	USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (2001) watershed maps
Percent impervious surfaces and road density in catchment	High, medium, and low intensity developed; open space developed	Pacific Northwest Landcover, NOAA Coastal Services Center (2000)
	Surfaces with ›1% imperviousness	USGS Impervious Surfaces (2001)
	Highways and roads	Oregon Bureau of Land Management (2006)
	Catchments (HUC-14s)	USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (2001) watershed maps
Number of road-stream intersections in catchment	Highways and roads	Oregon Bureau of Land Management (2006)
	Hydrography (streams)	Regional Ecosystem Office (2007)
	Catchments (HUC-14s)	USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (2001) watershed maps
Number of tidegates in catchment	Tidegates	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Barriers database (2005)
Number of tidegates in catchment	Catchments (HUC-14s)	USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (2001) watershed maps

Acronym definitions

Kramer et al. (2012) Connectivity to Existing Conservation Lands Tool:³⁴ This toolused an area-weighted connectivity function to rank areas higher where they were located in closer proximity to conservation areas identified in the Georgia Conservation Lands Database. This was done for several conservation area layers from this database, which were summed so that higher ranks indicated potential sites that would enhance connectivity among multiple conservation areas. As described by Kramer et al. (2012), prioritization objectives included connectivity, recreation, education, and scenic value.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Social valu

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Conservation areas: local, state, and federal land holdings, existing Corps wetland restrictive covenants, and privately held conservation easements	Georgia Conservation Lands Database

Back to to

Kramer et al. (2012) Hydrologic Connectivity Between Wetlands Tool:³⁴ This tool prioritized potential sites based on their flood storage capacity developed from a map of existing wetlands. Fragstats 3.3 was applied to calculate metrics for contiguity and proximity to each wetland included in this map that were in turn used to obtain connectivity rankings for each area of the landscape. A final layer was generated rating each position in the landscape for its ability to reduce flood volumes while maintaining flows.

Prioritization objectives assessed:³⁵

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis	Data source
Wetland land cover	2008 GLUT database

Acronym definitions

Kramer et al. (2012) Potential Runoff Index (PRI):³⁴ This tool calculated the proportion of runoff produced by a large storm event. In contrast to the PRI calculated for the Water Quality and Quantity Index, here the PRI was subtracted from a reference value so that the metric reflected wetland condition. Factors and data sources underlying calculation of the PRI are listed below:

Prioritization objectives assessed:³⁶

Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis	Data source
Land cover types	2008 GLUT database
Hydrologic soils groups	SSURGO
TR-55 curve numbers	USDA (1986)
Two-year 24-hour storm event data	Isopluvial maps

Acronym definitions

Kramer et al. (2012) Potential Wetland Bank Site Index (PWBSI):³⁴ The PWBSI valued each 30m² pixel in terms of its suitability for wetland creation and reestablishment for mitigation banking based on prioritization objectives identified by a technical steering committee. Inputs for the PWBSI included restorable land cover and hydric soils layers, which accounted for 'ease of restoration', in addition to the outputs for seven landscape prioritization tools, which accounted for eight other objectives. All individual layers were weighted equally in the PWBSI, though because many layers incorporated water quality, water quality was more highly valued than other functions. Factors and associated data sources used to prioritize the PWBSI for these objectives are provided below.

Prioritization objectives assessed:³⁷

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation
Feasibility of restoration
Social values

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
*Restorable land cover classes*
Area was wetland in 1974 but was not in 2005	1974 and 2008 Georgia Land Use Trends (GLUT) database
Land cover was urban, open water › 5 acres, or wetland in 2008	1974 and 2008 Georgia Land Use Trends (GLUT) database
*Hydric soils*
Hydric soil classification	USDA Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO)
Elevation 2m or less above nearest stream	2008 1:100,000 NHD; NRCS USGS DEM
Jurisdiction	See below
Water Quality and Quantity Index	See below
Connectivity to Existing Conservation Lands	See below
Terrestrial Dispersal Corridors between Potential Wetland Banks	See below
Hydrologic Connectivity between Wetlands	See below
Natural Upland Habitat Surrounding Site	See below
Maintenance of High Biodiversity Streams	See below

Acronym definitions

Kramer et al. (2012) Water Quality and Quantity Index (WQQI):³⁴ The WQQI assesses each pixel for water quality protection and flood regulation by evaluating the ability of potential sites to accumulate runoff from non-point sources of pollution. The WQQI is calculated by multiplying the proportion of runoff following a large storm event (i.e., Potential Runoff Index) by a measure of the ability of potential restoration sites to limit non-point source pollution based on landscape position (i.e., Distance to Impairment Index). Factors and associated data sources used to calculate the WQQI are detailed below.

Prioritization objectives assessed:³⁸

Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis		Data source
*Potential Runoff Index (PRI)*
Land cover types	2008 GLUT database
Hydrologic soils groups	SSURGO
TR-55 curve numbers	USDA (1986)³⁹
two-year 24-hour storm event data	Isopluvial maps
Distance to Impairment Index (DII)
*Distance to Impairment Index (DII)*
Streams and rivers (especially small first order and ephemeral streams missed in NHD)	Digital elevation model (DEM)
Lakes and large rivers	NHD
Land use types	2008 GLUT database

Acronym definitions

Kramer et al. (2012) Wetland Condition Index (WCI):³⁴ The WCI combined five of the layers used for the Potential Wetland Bank Site Index : 'connectivity to existing conservation areas', 'terrestrial dispersal corridors between potential wetland banks', 'hydrologic connectivity', 'natural upland habitat surround site', and 'maintenance of high biodiversity streams'. These layers are combined with the potential runoff index (deviation from reference) layer, in addition to three wetland condition layers: 'percent impervious surface within a basin', 'percent of impaired streams and river per HUC-12', and 'percent wetland change'. All individual layers were weighted equally in the WCI, though because many layers incorporated water quality, water quality was more highly valued than other functions. Data sources underlying each of these factors are provided below.

Prioritization objectives assessed:⁴⁰

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation
Social values
Suitability for preservation

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Percent of impervious surface within a basin	2008 Georgia Impervious Surface Cover (NARSAL, 2009)
Percent of impaired streams and river per HUC-12	NHD; Impaired streams and rivers data (GAEPD, 2007)
Percent wetland change	1974 GLUT; 2008 GLUT
Jurisdiction	See below
Potential runoff index (deviation from reference)	See below
Connectivity to existing conservation lands	See below
Terrestrial dispersal corridors between potential wetland banks	See below
Hydrologic connectivity between wetlands	See below
Natural upland habitat surrounding site	See below
Maintenance of high biodiversity streams	See below

Acronym definitions

Maryland Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Compromised Stormwater Infrastructure Restoration:⁴¹ This tool rates the suitability of each 30m² area throughout the state for compromised stormwater infrastructure restoration by scoring and combining data layers representing a variety of relevant features, such as 'not on karst geology', 'within 100 or 500 feet of a 303(d) listed stream', and 'is in area of high imperviousness'. This final score for the model is converted to a ranking of 1-5 stars, which can be queried as part of an interactive map on WRR's website.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Groundwater supply
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factors used in analysis	Data source(s)
In a wetland (discouraged)	DNR/NWI wetlands
In a floodplain (discouraged)	Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Maryland Department of the Environment and FEMA)
Forested (discouraged)	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
On karst geology (discouraged)	Karst quadrangle maps, Maryland Geological Survey
Within area likely developed pre-1985, between 1985-2000, undeveloped/developed after 2000	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
100 or 500 feet from 303(d) listed stream	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
Area of relatively high impervious surface	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
In Tier II watershed	Watersheds containing high quality (Tier II) waters (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a Blue Infrastructure priority watershed	Blue Infrastructure Near-Shore Assessment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Biological Restoration Initiative watershed	Biological Restoration Initiative watersheds (MDE)
In a stronghold watershed	Stronghold watersheds (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In an area that drains to a Stream Classification use II, III, or IV	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)

Acronym definitions

Maryland Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Natural Stormwater Infrastructure Preservation Tool:⁴¹ This tool rates the suitability of each 30m² area throughout the state for natural stormwater infrastructure preservation by scoring and combining data layers representing a variety relevant features, such as 'cannot already be preserved', 'has well-drained soils', and 'is currently forested (not farmed or urban)'. This final score for the model is converted to a ranking of 1-5 stars, which can be queried as part of an interactive map on WRR's website.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Groundwater supply
Flood mitigation

Factors used in analysis	Data source(s)
Not protected	Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Easements, County Lands, DNR Lands and Conservation Easements, Environmental Trust Easements, Federal Lands, Forest Conservation Easements, Private Conservation Properties, Rural Legacy Properties
Not in a water body	NHD
A wetland	DNR/NWI wetlands
A floodplain	Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Maryland Department of the Environment and FEMA)
Has well-drained soils	SSURGO (NRCS)
In Tier II watershed	Watersheds containing high quality (Tier II) waters (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a stronghold Watershed	Stronghold watersheds (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Currently forested (not farmed, urban)	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
Forested in or near (200 feet) an impervious surface area	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
Forested within 125 feet, 250 feet, or 500 feet of a stream or water body	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View); NHD
In an unprotected Targeted Ecological Area (GreenPrint)	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Near (200 feet) but not in a protected Targeted Ecological Area	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Blue Infrastructure priority watershed	Blue Infrastructure Near-Shore Assessment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In Priority Funding Area	Priority Funding Areas (Maryland Department of Planning)
In an area that drains to Stream Classification use II, III or IV	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)

Acronym definitions

Maryland Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Riparian Zone Preservation:⁴¹ This tool rates the suitability of each 30m² area throughout the state for riparian zone preservation by scoring and combining data layers representing a variety relevant features, such as 'area cannot already be protected', 'in a 100-year or 500-year floodplain', and 'in a Chesapeake Bay Commission Critical Area'. The final score for the model is converted to a ranking of 1-5 stars, which can be queried as part of an interactive map on WRR's website.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factors used in analysis	Data layer used
Not already protected	Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Easements, County Lands, DNR Lands and Conservation Easements, Environmental Trust Easements, Federal Lands, Forest Conservation Easements, Private Conservation Properties, Rural Legacy Properties.
Within 500 feet of a stream or water body but not in the water body	NHD
Within 125 feet, 250 feet, or 500 feet of a stream	NHD
In an area that drains to a Stream Classification Use II, III or IV	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
Forested	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
In a WSSC	Wetlands of Special State Concern ( Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Salisbury State Univ.)
In 100- or 500-year floodplain	Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Maryland Department of the Environment and FEMA)
In Tier II watershed	Watersheds containing high quality (Tier II) waters (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In stronghold watershed	Stronghold watersheds (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a SSPRA	Sensitive Species Project Review Area (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service)
Is in a Green Infrastructure area (hub/corridor)	Green Infrastructure maps (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In Chesapeake Bay Commission Critical Area	Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission critical area maps
In an unprotected Targeted Ecological Area (GreenPrint)	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Near (200 feet) but not in a protected area	Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Easements, County Lands, DNR Lands and Conservation Easements, Environmental Trust Easements, Federal Lands, Forest Conservation Easements, Private Conservation Properties, Rural Legacy Properties.
Near (200 feet) but not in a protected Targeted Ecological Area	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Priority Funding Area	Priority Funding Areas (Maryland Department of Planning)
In a Blue Infrastructure priority watershed	Blue Infrastructure Near-Shore Assessment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)

Acronym definitions

Maryland Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Riparian Zone Restoration Tool:⁴¹ This tool rates the suitability of each 30m² area throughout the state for riparian zone restoration by scoring and combining data layers representing a variety relevant features, such as 'within 500 feet of a stream or water body', 'in an area that drains to a Stream Classification Use II, III, or IV', and 'in a Biological Restoration Initiative watershed'. This final score for the model is converted to a ranking of 1-5 stars, which can be queried as part of an interactive map on WRR's website.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factors used in analysis	Data layer used
Within 500 feet of a stream or water body	NHD
Not directly in water	NHD
Not forested	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
Within 125 feet, 250 feet, or 500 feet of stream	NHD
In a WSSC	Wetlands of Special State Concern ( Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Salisbury State Univ.)
In an area that drains to Stream Classification Use II, III, or IV	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a 100- or 500-year floodplain	Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Maryland Department of the Environment and FEMA)
Within 100 or 500 feet of a 303(d) listed stream	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a Tier II watershed	Watersheds containing high quality (Tier II) waters (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a stronghold Watershed	Stronghold watersheds (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Biological Restoration Initiative (BRI) watershed	Biological Restoration Initiative watersheds (MDE)
In a Blue Infrastructure priority watershed	Blue Infrastructure Near-Shore Assessment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Trust Fund priority watershed	Maryland Chesapeake & Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund priority watersheds (Maryland DNR)
In a SSPRA	Sensitive Species Project Review Area (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service)
In a Green Infrastructure area (hub/corridor)	Green Infrastructure maps (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Near (200 feet) but not in a Targeted Ecological Area (GreenPrint)	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In Priority Funding Area	Priority Funding Areas (Maryland Department of Planning)

Acronym definitions

Maryland Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Wetland Preservation:⁴¹ Maryland's WRR tool rates the suitability of each 30m² area throughout the state for wetland preservation by scoring and combining data layers representing a variety relevant features, such as 'must be a wetland', 'is a wetland of state concern', and 'is in a Sensitive Species Project Review Area'. The final score for the model is converted to a ranking of 1-5 stars, which can be queried as part of an interactive map on WRR's website.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality

Factors used in analysis	Data source(s)
Is a wetland	DNR/NWI wetlands
Not protected	Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Easements, County Lands, DNR Lands and Conservation Easements, Environmental Trust Easements, Federal Lands, Forest Conservation Easements, Private Conservation Properties, Rural Legacy Properties
Forested	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
In a wetland of special state concern (WSSC)	Wetlands of Special State Concern ( Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Salisbury State Univ.)
In a Blue Infrastructure watershed	Blue Infrastructure Near-Shore Assessment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Is in a Chesapeake Bay Commission Critical Area Limited Development Area (LDA) or Resource Conservation Area (RCA)	Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission critical area maps
In an area that drains to Stream Classification use II, III or IV but is not a water body	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a Sensitive Species Project Review Area (SSPRA)	Sensitive Species Project Review Area (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service)
In a Tier II watershed	Watersheds containing high quality (Tier II) waters (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a stronghold watershed	Stronghold watersheds (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Green Infrastructure area (hub/corridor)	Green Infrastructure maps (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In an unprotected GreenPrint Targeted Ecological Areas	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Not in a Priority Funding Area	Priority Funding Areas (Maryland Department of Planning)
Near (200 feet) but not in protected lands	Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Easements, County Lands, DNR Lands and Conservation Easements, Environmental Trust Easements, Federal Lands, Forest Conservation Easements, Private Conservation Properties, Rural Legacy Properties

Acronym definitions

Maryland Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) Wetland Restoration:⁴¹ Maryland's WRR tool rates the suitability of each 30m² area throughout the state for wetland restoration by scoring and combining data layers representing a variety relevant features, such as 'areas cannot be a wetland', 'near but not in a stream/water body or wetland', and 'near a green infrastructure hub or corridor. The final score for the model is converted to a ranking of 1-5 stars, which can be queried as part of an interactive map on WRR's website.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factors used in analysis	Data layer used
Not a wetland	DNR/NWI wetlands
Not forested	2010 LULC data (Maryland Department of the Environment; derived from 2007 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) aerial imagery and parcel information from the 2008 Edition of MDProperty View)
On somewhat poorly, poorly, or very poorly drained soils	SSURGO (NRCS)
Near (within 200 feet) but not in a stream/water body or wetland	DNR/NWI wetlands; NHD
Drains to a Stream Classification Use II, III or IV	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
Near (within 200 feet) but not in a WSSC	Wetlands of Special State Concern ( Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Salisbury State University)
Near (within 200 feet) but not in a SSPRA	Sensitive Species Project Review Area (Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service)
Near or in (within 200 feet of) a Green Infrastructure hub or corridor	Green Infrastructure maps (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
Near (200 feet) but not in protected lands (including any GreenPrint Targeted Ecological Areas)	Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Easements, County Lands, DNR Lands and Conservation Easements, Environmental Trust Easements, Federal Lands, Forest Conservation Easements, Private Conservation Properties, Rural Legacy Properties; Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources).
In a Green Infrastructure gap	Green Infrastructure maps (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In or near (200 feet) of a GreenPrint Targeted Ecological Area	Targeted Ecological Areas (Maryland Department of Natural Resources).
In a 100- or 500-year floodplain	Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (Maryland Department of the Environment and FEMA)
Within 100 feet or 500 feet of an impaired stream	2010 Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a Tier II watershed	Watersheds containing high quality (Tier II) waters (Maryland Department of the Environment)
In a Stronghold Watershed	Stronghold watersheds (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In a Trust Fund Watershed (High or Medium Priority)	Maryland Chesapeake & Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund priority watersheds (Maryland DNR)
In a Biological Restoration Initiative (BRI) watershed	Biological Restoration Initiative watersheds (MDE)
In a Blue Infrastructure priority watershed	Blue Infrastructure Near-Shore Assessment (Maryland Department of Natural Resources)
In Chesapeake Bay Commission Critical Area	Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission critical area maps

Acronym definitions

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Local Watershed Planning (NCEEP LWP) Subwatershed Focus Area Identification Method:⁴² As part of Phase 1 and 2 of its Local Watershed Plan (LWP) analysis, the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program NCEEP identifies priority subwatersheds within the priority HUC-14 watersheds that it identified using its RBRP HUC-14 analysis.

During Phases 1 and 2, NCEEP collects field-based information (e.g., from windshield surveys), which it applies to delineate subwatershed boundaries for target HUC-14s using GIS software (e.g., ArcHydro). NCEEP characterizes each of these subwatersheds using readily available data from national, regional, and local sources in addition data obtained from other state agencies that it uses to fill key data gaps (e.g., aerial imagery, parcel information, etc.).

To characterize the subwatersheds it delineates, NCEEP undertakes intensive assessments to collect the following types of data:

Data from windshield surveys to verify subwatershed land cover information and assessments of the general condition of streams and the intensity of land use, among other observations.
GIS data that are particularly important for identifying watershed priorities.
Biological community and physical/chemical/toxicological data for assessing stream habitat, integrity, specific stressors, and water quality.
Channel and riparian zone assessment data for assessing watershed functional integrity and stressors.
Wetland assessments to identify the locations, sizes, and features (soils, hydrology, vegetation) of wetlands in each HUC-14 using the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Routine Wetland Determination method and the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM).
Nutrient loading model data (e.g., Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)) to understand the impact of particular stressor(s).

Based on this information, NCEEP reapplies its RBRP HUC-14 Screening Method to rank subwatersheds in target HUC-14s in terms of water quality, hydrologic, and habitat functions based on sets of indicators associated with each function. For example, in its Bald Creek LWP, NCEEP identified quantitative indicators associated with a series of functions, including bank erosion potential, channel incision, forest area extent, and extent of stream channelization.

NCEEP then assigns points to each indicator based on the indicator's overall range of values across subwatersheds. These point values are weighted based on stakeholder input and EEP priorities and summed to obtain a total score for each subwatershed indicator. NCEEP assigns a rank of high, moderate or low to each indicator before combining these rankings to calculate each subwatershed's overall ecological condition (also using a scale of high, moderate and low) (see below). The resulting rankings, which are presented in each LWP as a table and map, are used to identify "focus areas." Focus area are defined by NCEEP as "subwatersheds identified as priority areas for the development and implementation of management strategies to address concentrated areas... of key problems or assets." NCEEP may assign descriptors to each subwatershed ranking such as "high preservation potential" or "highest probable need for restoration."

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
*Habitat function*
Overall Aquatic Habitat Quality	Mean total habitat score, NCDWQ stream habitat protocol (Equinox field survey)
Pool Frequency and Variety	Mean pool score, NCDWQ stream habitat protocol (Equinox field survey)
Microhabitat Diversity and Abundance	Mean microhabitat score, NCDWQ stream habitat protocol (Equinox field survey)
Riparian Forest Area Extent	% of stream length with forested riparian zone 100 ft* wide (GIS analysis)
*Water quality function*
Specific Conductance	Mean specific conductance (Equinox field measurement)
Bacterial Contamination	Geometric mean fecal coliform concentration (NCDWQ sampling)
Riparian Forest Area Extent	% of stream length with forested riparian zone 30 ft* wide (GIS analysis)
Housing Density	Homes per square mile (Equinox windshield survey)
*Hydrologic function*
Stream Bank Erosion Potential	Mean BEHI score (Equinox field survey)
Channel Incision	Mean bank height ratio (Equinox field survey)
Forest Area Extent	% total sub-watershed area forested (GIS analysis)
Extent of Stream Channelization	% of low gradient streams channelized (GIS analysis)

*Width of forested riparian zone used should vary depending on data available, ecoregion, and stream and watershed characteristics.
Acronym definitions

The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program River Basin Restoration Priorities (NCEEP RBRP) HUC-14 Screening Method: As part of its River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) analysis, NCEEP applies a screening method to identify Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) within HUC-8 watersheds that serve as the basis of further prioritization.

Using desktop GIS analysis, NCEEP ranks potential TLWs (HUC-14) within each cataloguing unit (HUC-8) based on various measures of watershed problems (i.e., restoration objectives), assets (preservation objectives), and opportunities. Problem and asset measures are weighted by water quality, flood retention, and aquatic and riparian habitat functions/values, while opportunity measures receive no weighting by watershed functions/values. Those measures that directly support these functions/values (e.g., percent impervious land use for "water quality improvement potential") receive a weight of two and those measures that indirectly support the functions/values (e.g., projected population change for "water quality improvement potential") receive a weight of one. Based on the HUC-14 measures and weightings, final scores are obtained for each category (problems, assets and opportunities). The categories are weighted and added to obtain final ranks for each HUC-14 within its containing HUC-8.⁴³

It should be noted that the watershed measures and associated datasets used in the RBRP analysis are base datasets only and are not exhaustive. NCEEP emphasizes that as additional datasets become available they are incorporated into the process. Per legislative mandate, RBRPs are updated at least every five years consistent with the Department of Water Quality (DWQ) Basinwide Planning cycle.²

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor(s)	Data source(s)
*Watershed problems*
Percent impervious/developed land use	NLCD⁴⁴ and APES (1988) for coastal areas
Percent agricultural land use	NLCD⁵ and APES (1988) for coastal areas
Percent non-forested/disturbed buffer land cover	NLCD⁵ and APES (1988) for coastal areas
Percent impaired	N/A
Number of animal operations	NCDENR and NCDWQ data available through NC One Map⁶
Projected population change	US Dept. of Commerce available through NC One Map⁶
Number of shellfish closures	NC One Map⁴⁵
*Watershed assets*
Percent forest and wetland land cover	NWI and NCDCM CREWS data available through NC One Map 6
Percent conserved land use	NC OneMap CPT⁴⁶
Percent significant natural heritage area	NC Natural Heritage Program data available through NC One Map
Miles of water supply waters	NC Division of Water Quality data available through NC One Map⁶
Miles of high quality waters
Miles of outstanding resource waters
Miles of trout streams	NCWRC data available through NC One Map
Number of natural heritage element occurrences	NC One Map⁶
*Watershed opportunities*
Percent Hydric A Soils	NRCS and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
TIP project miles	NCDOT
Number of other NCEEP Projects	NCEEP
Number of CWMTF Projects	NC CWMTF⁴⁷
Number of §319 Projects	NCDENR §319 program data⁴⁸
Percent WRC Priority Area	NCWRC⁴⁹
Percent of HUC-14 area covered by Phase II Stormwater Area	NC Division of Water Quality available through NC One Map⁶
Number of agricultural BMPs	NC Division of Soil and Water Conservation⁵⁰
Number of mitigation banks	NCDWQ and USACE RIBITS⁵¹
Number of Land Trust Conservation Properties	CTNC and NC One Map⁶
Number of dams	American Rivers data⁵²

Acronym definitions

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wetland Restoration Assessment Model ( NHDES WRAM) Landscape Position Score:⁵³ NHDES's Technical Advisory Group included this tool in the analysis to reflect the importance of landscape position in selecting restoration sites. This tool rated wetland polygons higher that met the criteria listed in the table below.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Is located in or within 1000 ft of existing conservation easement or publicly owned tract of land	NHGRANIT
Is located in headwaters of its containing watershed (i.e., in the top 20% elevation for its containing subwatershed)	NHGRANIT

Acronym definitions

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wetland Restoration Assessment Model ( NHDES WRAM) Net Functional Benefit Tool:^53,54 Net Functional Benefit score was calculated based on the "NH Method," a well-established tool used to evaluate 14 functions and values based on a set of parameters for each. Of these 14 functions and values, the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) selected those that could be readily measured using available GIS data to obtain five total parameters for this Net Functional Benefit analysis: ecological integrity, significant habitat, sediment trapping and nutrient potential, flood protection, and groundwater use potential. Each of these parameters was scored 0.1-1.0 using various parameter-specific GIS methods to obtain "existing condition" scores for each candidate site, each of which also ranged from 0.1-1.0. To calculate a "restored condition" score for each function/value, parameters determined by wetland ecologists to be amenable to restoration received a score of 1.0 and these parameters were added for each function/value. The Net Functional Benefit was calculated as the difference between the existing and restored condition scores, with additional weightings applied to account for additional functional benefits attributable to the size and density (number of NWI classes) of the site.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Flood mitigation
Groundwater supply
Water quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Significant Habitat Tool output	Significant Habitat Tool
Ecological Integrity Tool output	Ecological Integrity Tool
Sediment Trapping and Nutrient Potential Tool output	Sediment Trapping and Nutrient Potential Tool
Flood Protection Tool output	Flood Protection Tool
Groundwater Use Potential Tool output	Groundwater Use Potential Tool
Size of candidate site	NWI
Density of candidate site (i.e., number of wetland classes present in the system)	NWI

Acronym definitions

The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Wetland Restoration Assessment Model (NHDES WRAM) Site Prioritization Model:⁵³ The NHDES WRAM calculated a final "prioritization score" for each of the 951 candidate sites by summing the Net Functional Benefit Score (weighted 70%), the Restoration Sustainability Score (weighted 20%), and the Landscape Position Score (weighted 10%). Based on its score relative to other sites, each candidate site was then ranked as "high priority," "priority," or "other candidate site."

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Flood mitigation
Groundwater supply
Water quality
Sustainability of restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Restoration Sustainability Score	Restoration Sustainability Tool
Landscape Position Score	Landscape Position Tool

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) Mississippi-Alabama Habitats Tool (MAHT) - Riparian Buffers (Conservation) Tool:⁵⁵ The Coastal Habitats Coordination Team (CHCT), which consisted of more than 60 state and local scientists, non-profit staff, environmental professionals (consultants), and local/state officials, identified priority habitats for protection using the Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) tool. The HPP was designed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) to readily incorporate stakeholder input into planning and was applied by Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) in the following steps to identify priority habitat areas:

The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
CHCT members were provided the list of available data for each focal habitat type in addition to a list of possible metrics (e.g., perimeter-to-area ratio, proximity to other habitat patches, etc.) that could be applied to each. CHCT members used the available data to decide on metrics that could be used to prioritize habitat patches for each focal habitat type.
Using the metrics identified for each habitat type by the CHCT, the CSC used the HPP tool to identify priority habitat areas. After the results were presented, the CSC engaged the CHCT in validating or modifying the results to produce a final set of HPP priority habitat maps.
HHP priority habitat maps were incorporated into the Habitat Mapper tool.

CHCT members prioritized riparian buffers for conservation using four metrics that accounted for buffer width, buffer vegetation, buffer length, and buffer landscape position (see below).

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Suitability for preservation

Factor used in analysis	Data source
Buffer is at least 30m wide on both sides	Alabama GAP land cover data
Buffer is composed of intact (naturally vegetated) vegetation
Buffer is at least 500m long
50% or more of the buffer area lies in a watershed prioritized for river and stream conservation (see below)

Acronym definitions

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) Mississippi-Alabama Habitats Tool (MAHT) - Riparian Buffers (Restoration) Tool:⁵⁵ The Coastal Habitats Coordination Team (CHCT), which consisted of more than 60 state and local scientists, non-profit staff, environmental professionals (consultants), and local/state officials, identified priority habitats for protection using the Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) tool. The HPP was designed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) to readily incorporate stakeholder input into planning and was applied by Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) in the following steps to identify priority habitat areas:

The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
CHCT members were provided the list of available data for each focal habitat type in addition to a list of possible metrics (e.g., perimeter-to-area ratio, proximity to other habitat patches, etc.) that could be applied to each. CHCT members used the available data to decide on metrics that could be used to prioritize habitat patches for each focal habitat type.
Using the metrics identified for each habitat type by the CHCT, the CSC used the HPP tool to identify priority habitat areas. After the results were presented, the CSC engaged the CHCT in validating or modifying the results to produce a final set of HPP priority habitat maps.
HHP priority habitat maps were incorporated into the Habitat Mapper tool.

CHCT members prioritized riparian buffers for restoration using four metrics that accounted for buffer width, buffer vegetation, buffer length, and buffer landscape position (see below).

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Feasibility of restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source
Buffer is at least 30m wide on both sides	Alabama GAP data
Buffer is composed of vegetation that is intact (naturally vegetated) or impaired (able to be restored to naturally vegetated)
Buffer is at least 500m long
50% or more of the buffer area lies in a watershed prioritized for restoration (see below)

Acronym definitions

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) Mississippi-Alabama Habitats Tool (MAHT) - Watersheds (River and Stream Conservation) Tool: The Coastal Habitats Coordination Team (CHCT), which consisted of more than 60 state and local scientists, non-profit staff, environmental professionals (consultants), and local/state officials, identified priority habitats for protection using the Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) tool. The HPP was designed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) to readily incorporate stakeholder input into planning and was applied by Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) in the following steps to identify priority habitat areas:

The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
CHCT members were provided the list of available data for each focal habitat type in addition to a list of possible metrics (e.g., perimeter-to-area ratio, proximity to other habitat patches, etc.) that could be applied to each. CHCT members used the available data to decide on metrics that could be used to prioritize habitat patches for each focal habitat type.
Using the metrics identified for each habitat type by the CHCT, the CSC used the HPP tool to identify priority habitat areas. After the results were presented, the CSC engaged the CHCT in validating or modifying the results to produce a final set of HPP priority habitat maps.
HHP priority habitat maps were incorporated into the Habitat Mapper tool.

CHCT members prioritized watersheds for river and stream protection based on metrics for impervious surface coverage and presence of impaired streams (see below).

Prioritization objectives:

Habitat quality
Suitability for preservation

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Is a 12-digit HUC watershed	Alabama GAP data
Contains 10-25% impervious surface	Alabama GAP data
Contains impaired streams	EPA-identified impaired streams

Acronym definitions

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) Mississippi-Alabama Habitats Tool (MAHT) - Watersheds (River and Stream Restoration) Tool:⁵⁵ The Coastal Habitats Coordination Team (CHCT), which consisted of more than 60 state and local scientists, non-profit staff, environmental professionals (consultants), and local/state officials, identified priority habitats for protection using the Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) tool. The HPP was designed by the NOAA Coastal Services Center (CSC) to readily incorporate stakeholder input into planning and was applied by Mobile Bay National Estuary Program (MBNEP) in the following steps to identify priority habitat areas:

The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
CHCT members were provided the list of available data for each focal habitat type in addition to a list of possible metrics (e.g., perimeter-to-area ratio, proximity to other habitat patches, etc.) that could be applied to each. CHCT members used the available data to decide on metrics that could be used to prioritize habitat patches for each focal habitat type.
Using the metrics identified for each habitat type by the CHCT, the CSC used the HPP tool to identify priority habitat areas. After the results were presented, the CSC engaged the CHCT in validating or modifying the results to produce a final set of HPP priority habitat maps.
HHP priority habitat maps were incorporated into the Habitat Mapper tool.

CHCT members prioritized watersheds for river and stream restoration based on metrics for impervious surface coverage and presence of impaired streams (see below).

Prioritization objectives:

Habitat quality
Feasibility of restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Is a 12-digit HUC watershed	Alabama GAP data
Contains 10-25% impervious surface	Alabama GAP data
Contains impaired streams	EPA-identified impaired streams

Acronym definitions

The Playa Lakes Decision Support System (PLDSS) Site-Scale Model:⁵⁶ At the site scale, the PLDSS prioritizes individual playas based on a set of criteria for each of four factors used to assess ecological value. For example, in evaluating a playa for its 'impacted by roads' factor, the PLDSS adds 100 points to the playa's score if it is located more than 50m from a road ("not impacted") and 50 points to its score if it is less than 50m from a road ("impacted").

The PLDSS next adjusts scores obtained for each factor by applying weightings. Each factor is assigned one of three possible weightings reflecting one of three possible prioritization goals that the PLDSS is seeking to address. One goal, for instance, is to preserve least-impacted playas by helping to inform selection of preservation projects under the North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA). To prioritize for this goal, the model weights scores most heavily for playas in native grasslands with low road impacts. After applying these weights to each factor score for each individual playa, the factor scores are added together and one of four overall prioritization scores, ranging from low to very high, is assigned to each playa.

The site-scale model prioritizes playas based on regional goals for habitat (preserving playas least impacted by humans in support of NAWCA projects), wildlife (avoiding waterfowl migration conflicts due to wind energy development), and water quality (reducing sediment entering impacted playas to help achieve the goals of Farm Bill programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), CRP Practice CP23a, and the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)).

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source
Dominant land cover within 12.56 km² of surrounding area (rangeland, CRP/pasture, cropland)	N/A
Playa size (large, medium, small)	N/A
Impacted by roads (yes, no)	N/A
Connectivity with other playas (high, low)	N/A

Caltrans Regional Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP) MARXAN Greenprint Analysis:^57,58 Thorne et al. (2009) used the MARXAN landscape optimization algorithm to identify a portfolio of habitat restoration and protection sites to serve as compensatory mitigation in advance of future road infrastructure impacts. As applied by Caltrans, the MARXAN optimization procedure uses GIS spatial data inputs for stakeholder conservation values, location of parcels within wildlife corridors, and parcels costs to identify a cluster of parcels ("regional greenprint") that provides maximum benefits in terms of some factors (e.g., achievement of stakeholder habitat values) while minimizing costs in terms of others (e.g., parcel cost). Caltrans incorporates habitat mitigation needs derived from its analysis of the expected habitat "footprint" of anticipated infrastructure impacts to establish a final mitigation portfolio. In practice, priority parcels identified using this method will be used to guide the acquisition of land in order to satisfy Caltrans' compensatory mitigation obligations.

Throughout this process, the UC-Davis RAMP research team was the primary decisionmaker for internal model settings and weightings of the MARXAN model (e.g., boundary length modifiers). Government agencies, non-profit organizations, and academic institutions contributed data used by the MARXAN model to identify a regional conservation design.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Cost-effectiveness

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Land-cover map	High-resolution vector map (‹1 ha) from aerial photography developed for the study by the Elkhorn Slough Foundation (ESF and Scharffenberger, 2002); 2002 100m raster land cover map obtained from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Land-ownership parcel boundaries	Monterey County and San Benito County
Parcel cost data	Monterey County and San Benito County
Existing conservation lands	Elkhorn Slough Foundation and State-wide Public and Conservation Trust Lands data set (California Resources Agency 2007)
Caltrans road construction projects	State-wide Caltrans data set
T & E species known locations	California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) database (CDFG 2007)
Wildlife corridors	Huber et al. 2008
Modeled species distributions	Hollander (unpublished data)

Acronym definitions

Strager et al. (2011) Stream Banking Site Selection Model:⁵⁹ Strager et al. identified potential stream mitigation sites by first delineating subwatershed boundaries around individual stream segments between stream confluences and tributaries. Those stream segments with drainage areas ranging from 1 to 130 km², and which were biologically impaired due to sedimentation, temperature, or animal waste runoff (i.e., listed on WVDEP's 303(d) list of impaired waters), were identified as mitigation priorities (below).

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Water quality
Feasibility for restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source
Uninterrupted stream segments between confluences and tributaries	NHD
Streams that drain between 1 and 130 km²	N/A
Streams impaired due to sedimentation, temperature, or animal waste runoff	WVDEP 303(d) impaired waters list

Acronym definitions

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sunrise River Watershed-Based Mitigation Pilot (USACE SRWBP) Spatial Decision Support System:^60,61 The criteria and weightings that were derived by an expert group were used to identify raster data layer inputs for a raster calculator model that was used to quantify the ability of each 30m² pixel to attain expert-defined criteria. The most highly rated areas in the resulting output map were considered the highest priorities for compensatory mitigation using a watershed approach. Factors and associated data sources used for the GIS analysis reflected each of the criteria identified by the expert team.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Cost-effectiveness

Factor used in analysis		Data source(s)
Hydrologic connection to tributaries	Distance to nearest tributary	NHD
Land costs		Real estate sales data
Potential to reconnect riparian buffers		St. Paul District analysis
Potential beneficial effects on fisheries	Proximity to areas with a low Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) score	N/A.
Threats from urban growth	Distance to urban land use	Land use data
Distance to public lands		State of Minnesota land ownership data
Opportunities to improve or protect areas of significant biodiversity	Distance to native plant communities of sites of high biodiversity significance	MCBS Native Plant Communities; MCBS Site of Biodiversity Significance
Distance from roads and population centers		Minnesota roads and land use data
Locations with the floodplain of a tributary		FEMA floodplain data
Opportunities to improve water quality impairments	Distance to 303(d) impaired waters	State of Minnesota 303(d) list of impaired waters (2008).

Acronym definitions

The Nature Conservancy Willamette Basin Synthesis Project (TNC WBSP) Willamette Valley Synthesis Map:⁶² TNC combined five maps produced by five different conservation planning efforts for the Willamette Valley identifying priority terrestrial and freshwater sites to generate a "Union Portfolio" of Conservation Opportunity Areas (COAs).⁶³ TNC further defined boundaries for each COA using 2005 imagery and current GIS data for rare species, vegetation, soils, ownership/management, land use, and zoning. TNC then compiled a list of discrepancies in the map in which areas of contradictory attributes overlapped, which it reconciled in TNC-facilitated workshops with the help of a steering committee composed of state and federal agencies. During these workshops, TNC visualized the map as well as supplementary data layers (e.g., aerial imagery, soils, land use, etc.) in ArcGIS for committee members. As the committee evaluated and reconciled discrepancies one-by-one, TNC re-digitized the map so that modifications were integrated in real time. Overall, TNC's role was limited to managing the development of the Synthesis Map and TNC did not consider itself to be a primary decisionmaker regarding COAs included in map. By instead emphasizing a process for delineating COAs using a collaborative decisionmaking process involving a variety of state and federal agencies, TNC ensured that stakeholders had adequate buy-in.

The Willamette Basin Synthesis Project is very similar to TNC's broader Ecoregional Assessment process, differing in two ways:

The WBSP went to great lengths to ensure that its Synthesis Map would not be viewed solely as a TNC product. In contrast, final COAs identified in Ecoregional Assessments are decided by TNC alone.
Because the Willamette Valley is highly converted, with about 70% land conversion within the Valley, TNC wanted to ensure that the COAs it defined were smaller than they would normally be defined using a typical Ecoregional Assessment. Land is expensive in the Willamette Valley, with less than three percent in permanent conservation, so defining large swaths as COAs would not have been appropriate. TNC needed to identify COAs that had high ecological integrity but a small footprint.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Feasibility of restoration

Factor used in analysis	Data source
*Union Portfolio base maps*
Willamette Valley Ecoregional Assessment	TNC
Willamette River Basins Alternative Futures Project	Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium
Oregon Conservation Strategy	ODFW
Priority Wetlands	The Wetlands Conservancy
Oregon Biodiversity Project	N/A
*Boundary refinement factors*
Rare species	ReGAP data
Vegetation	State Parks Vegetation data
Soils	N/A
Ownership/management	N/A
Land use	NLCD 2001
Zoning	N/A

Acronym definitions

The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Law Institute Duck-Pensaukee Watershed Approach Pilot Project (TNC-ELI DPWAP) Function Variety Assessment:⁶⁴ For each Potentially Restorable Wetland and preservation wetland, this tool counts the number of functions (out of the seven described below) performing at "high" or "exceptional" levels. The resulting scores (which range from 0 to 7) can be used to identify sites at which conservation investment can be targeted to maximize functional gain.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality
Flood mitigation
Feasibility of restoration
Suitability for preservation
Surface water supply
Carbon storage

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Wildlife habitat	Wildlife Habitat Tool
Flood abatement	Flood Abatement Tool
Surface water supply	Surface Water Supply Tool
Water quality protection	Water Quality Protection Tool
Carbon storage	Carbon Storage Tool
Shoreline protection	Shoreline Protection Tool
Fish habitat	Fish Habitat

The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (VDCR) GIS Model:⁶⁵ This model identified multiple "wetland source layers" for the Pamunkey watershed including data for known wetlands and streams (NWI, NHD, 303(d) impaired streams) and data predicting locations of unmapped wetlands (an analysis of hydric soils attributes and 100-year floodplain data). VDCR also identified "priority source layers" (below), each of which received weightings that indicated the importance of each layer in terms of selecting mitigation sites as well as biodiversity conservation and water quality improvement. Wetland and priority source layers were combined with layers representing parcel and subwatershed boundaries for the Pamunkey watershed to produce a final output layer.

Within this final output layer, a "wetland overlap" metric was calculated by summing the number of overlapping wetland source layers at each location. This metric served as an indicator of both the likelihood of that particular area being a wetland as well as the benefits provided at that location in terms of biodiversity conservation and water quality. In addition, a "mitigation priority" metric added the weights assigned for each priority source layer, and rescaled the result to range from one to five, to produce an overall metric for mitigation potential at each location. Finally, the wetland overlap and mitigation priority metrics were added to produce a "composite prioritization" metric. The maximum values of wetland overlap and mitigation priority metrics present within each wetland and parcel were used to assign values to each wetland and parcel.

In developing the model, VDCR collaborated with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to ensure that the model included basic components that would be important for VDEQ and TNC to consider applying the model for their own purposes. If VDCR has the opportunity to apply the model at the state level it intends to incorporate even broader stakeholder input into model development. A statewide model will also provide clearly differentiated outputs for different types of mitigation (e.g. restoration, creation, enhancement, preservation).

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Habitat quality
Water quality

Factor used in analysis			Data source
Wetland overlap metric	Wetlands		NWI
	Streams		NHD
	303(d) impaired waters		N/A
	100-year floodplain data		DFIRM
	Hydric soils, as well as partially hydric soils that also have one of the following attributes: frequently flooded, occasionally flooded and somewhat poorly drained, minimum depth to water table of zero to 31 cm between April and June, or a ponding frequency of 75-100%		SSURGO
Mitigation priority metric	303(d) Impaired Waters of Virginia		VDEQ
	Healthy Waters of Virginia		VCU-CES
	Natural Heritage Priority Conservation Sites		VDCR
	Ecological cores and corridors		VDCR (theVaNLA)
	Existing wetland mitigation banks		RIBITS
	Farmed wetlands	Agricultural land use	2005 CCAP data

Acronym definitions

The Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Watershed Characterization Tool (WCT) Overall Watershed Characterization Tool:⁶⁶ WSDOE combines the rankings obtained from its Groundwater Discharge Tool, Groundwater Recharge Tool, Water Storage Tool, and Water Delivery Tool to rank the overall importance of hydrologic units.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Surface water supply
Groundwater supply

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Water delivery	Precipitation isohyetal map; Data layers from WNDR⁶⁷; WDFW land use/land cover data⁶⁸
Storage	DNR topography; SSURGO hydric soils⁶⁹; SSHIAP data for floodplain confinement⁷⁰; WDFW land use/land cover data⁶; Pacific Northwest Hydrography Network⁷¹
Groundwater recharge	Precipitation isohyetal map; SSURGO soils data⁸; C-CAP
Groundwater discharge	SSHIAP data for floodplain confinement⁹; Pacific Northwest Hydrography Network¹⁰; DNR topography⁷; SSURGO hydric soils⁸; WDFW land use/land cover data⁶

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Biogeochemistry (Flat Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the biogeochemistry condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for flat wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for presence of microtopographic features, density of standing dead trees, basal area of trees, tree density, and hydrology (flat wetlands) FCI score. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream density, stream proximity, and surrounding land cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Water quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Minimum distance to nearest stream, based on available data (m)	NWI stream and ditch map; 1:24,000 NHD
Stream density (km/km²)	1:24,000 NHD
Percent evergreen forest within 1000m	2001 NLCD
Mean percent tree cover per pixel within 100m	2001 NLCD
Distance to nearest stream (m)	1:24,000 NHD
Percent forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent evergreen forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent wetland within 100m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Biogeochemistry (Riverine Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the biogeochemistry condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for riverine wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for basal area of trees and the hydrology (riverine wetlands) FCI score. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream proximity, nearest stream condition, and surrounding land cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Water quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Condition of nearest stream (0 = excavated, 1 = natural)	NWI stream and ditch map
Distance to nearest stream (m)	1:24,000 NHD
Mean percent tree cover per pixel within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent deciduous forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent wooded wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Habitat (Flat Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the habitat condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for flat wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for vegetation disturbance, basal area of trees, tree density, shrub density, and density of standing dead trees. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream density and surrounding land cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Habitat quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Percent forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent deciduous forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Total stream density within 1000m (km/km²)	NWI stream and ditch map
Percent mixed forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent evergreen forest within 100m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Habitat (Riverine Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the habitat condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for riverine wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for basal area of trees, tree density, shrub density, vegetation disturbance, and stream condition inside the assessment area. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream density, stream proximity, nearest stream condition, and surrounding land cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Habitat quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Distance to nearest stream (m)	1:24,000 NHD
Condition of nearest stream (0 = excavated, 1 = natural)	NWI stream and ditch map
Percent evergreen forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent herbaceous wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD
Natural stream density within 100m (km/km²)	NWI stream and ditch map
Percent wooded wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD
Percent wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD
Strahler order of nearest stream	1:24,000 NHD
Percent cropland and grassland within 100m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Hydrology (Flat Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the hydrological condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for flat wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for presence of anthropogenic-derived sediment and percent of assessment area affected by drainage. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream density, stream proximity, and composition of surrounding land cover into a GIS-based model.⁷³

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Total stream density within 100m (km/km²)	NWI stream and ditch map⁷⁴
Minimum distance to nearest stream based on available data (m)	NWI stream and ditch map; 1:24,000 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)
Percent wooded land cover within 1000m	2001 NLCD⁷⁵
Percent wetlands within 100m	Wetlands from NWI and states of MD and DE⁷⁶
Stream density within 100m (km/km²)	1:24,000 NHD⁷⁷

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Hydrology (Riverine Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the hydrological condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for riverine wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for stream conditions inside the assessment area, floodplain conditions, and stream condition outside the assessment area. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream density, stream proximity, nearest stream condition, and surrounding land cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Water quality
Flood mitigation

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Natural stream density (km/km²)	NWI stream and ditch map
Condition of nearest stream (0 = excavated, 1 = natural)	NWI stream and ditch map
Distance to nearest stream (m)	1:24,000 NHD
Percent herbaceous wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD
Percent evergreen forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent cropland within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent wooded wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Plant Community (Flat Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the plant community condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for flat wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for tree species composition, species of herbs present, and presence of Rubus species. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for surrounding forest cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Habitat quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Percent deciduous forest within 100m	2001 NLCD
Mean percent tree cover per pixel within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent of pixels with zero tree cover within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent mixed forest within 100m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Weller et al. (2007) Plant Community (Riverine Wetlands) Tool:⁷² This landscape assessment predicted the plant community condition Functional Capacity Index (FCI) score for riverine wetlands, which was calculated based on field data for tree species composition, sapling species composition, and presence of invasive species. This tool predicted FCI scores by inputting 30m resolution spatial metrics for stream density and surrounding land cover composition into a GIS-based model.

Prioritization objectives assessed:

Aquatic resource condition
Habitat quality

Factor used in analysis	Data source(s)
Excavated stream density within 100m (km/km²)	NWI stream and ditch map
Percent wetlands within 1000m	Wetlands from NWI and states of MD and DE
Percent cropland and grassland within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent evergreen forest within 1000m	2001 NLCD
Percent grassland within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent herbaceous wetland within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent of pixels with zero tree cover within 100m	2001 NLCD
Percent herbaceous wetland within 1000m	2001 NLCD

Acronym definitions

Wetland Prioritization Study Main Page

¹The Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team. The Standard GIS Methodology for Wetland Analysis. Accessible from: www.mawpt.org/pdfs/Standard_Methodology_of_Analysis.pdf.
² These are only examples of prioritization objectives derived from MAWPT's "Standard GIS Methodology for Wetland Analysis" and are not exhaustive. For each WPA it analyzes, the MAWPT planning team identifies WPA-specific prioritization objectives.
³ Feedback received on 4/6/2012 from Doug Norton, USEPA Office of Water.
⁴ EPA. 2012. Recovery Potential Screening: Tools for Comparing Impaired Waters Restorability. URL: www.epa.gov/recoverypotential . Accessed 4/4/2012, last updated 3/6/2012.
⁵ Feedback received on 4/6/2012 from Doug Norton, USEPA Office of Water.
⁶ U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. Water: Recovery Potential: Social Context Indicators. 2012. Accessible from: http://owpubauthor.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/recovery/indicatorssocial.cfm
⁷ U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. Surf Your Watershed. 2013. Accessible from: http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/locate/index.cfm
⁸USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Regional Boundaries, State Offices & Centers; State Offices and Regions. Accessible from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?ss=16&navtype=SubNavigation&cid=nrcs143_021421&navid=210100000000000&pnavid=210000000000000&position=Not%20Yet%20Determined.Html&ttype=detail&pname=Regional%20Boundaries,%20State%20Offices%20&%20Centers%20%7C%25
⁹ U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. Water Data: Geospatial Data Downloads. 2013. Accessible from: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/tools/waters/data/downloads.cfm
¹⁰ UnivSource. US Colleges, Community Colleges, & Universities by State (by Region). 2004. Accessible from: http://www.univsource.com/region.htm
¹¹ Global Computing. American Universities. 2008. Accessible from: http://www.globalcomputing.com/CollegesContent.htm
¹² GreenInfo Network. Protected Areas Database of the United States. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.protectedlands.net/
¹³ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA Coastal Services Center. Accessible from: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/legislativeatlas/search.jsp
¹⁴ U.S. EPA Environmental Protection Agency. Regulatory Information by Topic. 2013. Accessible from: http://www2.epa.gov/regulatory-information-topic
¹⁵National River Restoration Science Synthesis (NRRSS), via The National Biological Information Infrastructure (now offline)
¹⁶ US EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Watershed Assessment, Tracking & Environmental Results. Reach Address Database (RAD) Download. 2013. Accessible from: http://epamap32.epa.gov/radims/
¹⁷ United States Census Bureau. Educatinoal Attainment, Data. Accessible from: http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/index.html
¹⁸ US EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Water: Basins, Downloads. 2012. Accessible from: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/basins/b3webdwn.cfm
¹⁹ US Department of Commerce: Bureau of Economic Analysis. Accessible from: http://www.bea.gov/
²⁰ US Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, Tables & Calculators by Subject. Accessible from: http://www.bls.gov/data/
²¹ United States Census Bureau. American Fact Finder: Community Facts. Accessible from: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml
²² NOAA. Digital Coast: NOAA Coastal Services Center. Data. Accessible from: http://csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/dataregistry/#/
²³ ArcGIS. Featured Maps and Apps for United States. Accessible from: http://www.arcgis.com/home/gallery.html
²⁴ GreenInfo Network. Protected Areas Database of the United States. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.protectedlands.net/
²⁵ ArcGIS. Maps search results: recreation. 2011. Accessible from: http://www.arcgis.com/home/search.html?q=recreation&t=content
²⁶ NatureServe. Local Program Data. 2010. Accessible from: http://www.natureserve.org/getData/programData.jsp#A
²⁷ National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Explore Designated Rivers Map. Accessible from: http://www.rivers.gov/map.php
²⁸ ArcGIS. Maps search results: cultural. 2011. Accessible from: http://www.arcgis.com/home/search.html?q=cultural&t=content
²⁹ US EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. BEACON 2.0 â€“ Beach Advisory and Closing On-line Notification. Accessible from: http://watersgeo.epa.gov/beacon2/
³⁰ US EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program â€“ TRI Information. 2012. Accessible from: http://www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/index.html
³¹ US EPA: Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts RCRA Info. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html
³² Kauffman-Axelrod, JL, Steinberg, SJ. 2010. Development and application of an automated GIS based evaluation to prioritize wetland restoration opportunities. Wetlands 30(437) 437-448.
³³ Interview on 12/19/2011 with Jennifer Axelrod, FLO Data and GIS.
³⁴ Kramer E, Couch C. Carpendo S., Samples K., Reed, J. 2012. A statewide approach for identifying potential areas for wetland restoration and mitigation banking in Georgia: An ecosystem function approach.
³⁵ As described by Kramer et al. (2012), prioritization objectives included connectivity, flood control and flow regulation, and water quality and quantity.
³⁶ As described by Kramer et al. (2012), prioritization objectives included water quality and quantity, flood control and flow regulation, and wetland rehabilitation, enhancement, or preservation.
³⁷ As described by Kramer et al. (2012), prioritization objectives included: water quality and quantity, flood control and flow regulation, biodiversity conservation, connectivity, ease of restoration, education, recreation, scenic value, wildlife habitat, wetland creation, wetland restoration (reestablishment).
³⁸ As described by Kramer et al. (2012), prioritization objectives include wa ter quality and quantity protection and flood control and flow regulation.
³⁹ USDA. 1986. Technical Report 55, Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, 2nd Edition. P. 162. US Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Services, Conservation Engineering Division, Washington, DC.
⁴⁰ As described by Kramer et al. (2012), prioritization objectives include water quantity quality and quantity protection, flood control and flow regulation, biodiversity conservation, connectivity, education, scenic value, wildlife habitat, wetland condition, wetland restoration (rehabilitation), wetland enhancement, wetland preservation.
⁴¹ Documentation provided on 8/4/2011by Ellen Bryson, USACE Baltimore District.
⁴² North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2011. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program Local Watershed Planning Manual (draft).
⁴³RBRP Weighting Methodology. Accessible from: http://www.nceep.net/pages/Methodology%20for%20Weighting_Attachment%20B_20101122.pdf
⁴⁴ http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k_nlcd.asp
⁴⁵ US Dept. of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Accessible from: http://www.mrlc.gov/index.php
⁴⁶ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. NCDENR. Accessible from: http://www.onencnaturally.org/web/guest
⁴⁷ Clean Water Management Trust Fund. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.cwmtf.net/
⁴⁸ N.C. Division of Water Quality, NC DENR. NC Nonpoint Source 319 Grant Program. Accessible from: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/nps/319program
⁴⁹ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Purchase Licenses & Permits. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.ncwildlife.org/Conserving.aspx
⁵⁰ North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services. Division of Soil & Water Conservation. Accessible from: http://www.ncagr.gov/SWC/
⁵¹ US Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, and USFWS. RIBITS (Regulatory in lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System). Accessible from: http://geo.usace.army.mil/ribits/index.html
⁵² American Rivers. Southeast Region. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.americanrivers.org/region/southeast/
⁵³ Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 2009. Merrimack River Watershed Restoration Strategy. Prepared for New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
⁵⁴Further information for the "NH Method" can be found in Method for the Comparative Evaluation of Nontidal Wetlands in New Hampshire (Ammann and Lindley-Stone, 1991).
⁵⁵ The Nature Conservancy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Mobile Bay National Estuary Program. 2009. Prioritization guide for coastal habitat protection and restoration in Mobile and Baldwin counties, Alabama. Accessed from: http://habitats.disl.org/HabitatMapperGuide.pdf
⁵⁶ PLJV PowerPoint presentation and notes for the PLDS.
⁵⁷ Interview on 8/4/2011 with Jim Thorne, Andrea Williams, and Rebecca Loefller.
⁵⁸ Thorne JH, Huber PR, Girvetz EH, Quinn J, and McCoy MC. 2009. Integration of regional mitigation assessment and conservation planning. Ecology and Society 14(1): 47
⁵⁹ Strager MP, Anderson JT, Osbourne JD, and Fortney R. 2011. A three-tiered framework to selection, prioritize, and evaluate potential wetland and stream mitigation banking sites. Wetlands Ecology and Management 19:1-18.
⁶⁰ Interview in 12/2011 with Tim Smith, Enforcement and Compliance Coordinator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District.
⁶¹ Smith T, Burks-Copes KA. 2010. Development of a GIS-Based Spatial Decision Support System to Target Potential Compensatory Mitigation Sites in Minnesota. National Wetlands Newsletter 32(6) 14-15.
⁶² Interview on 5/22/2012 with Dan Bell, Willamette Basin Conservation Director, The Nature Conservancy.
⁶³ TNC intended to use a sixth layer, Critical Habitat Designations and Recovery Plans for Willamette Valley fish and endemics, as part of its Union Portfolio but this layer was not available at the time. However, USFWS has since completed recovery plans delineating critical habitat for prairie plant species and one endemic butterfly. 2
⁶⁴ Miller, N., T. Bernthal, J. Wagner, M. Grimm, G. Casper, and J. Kline. 2012. The Duck-Pensaukee Watershed Approach: Mapping Wetland Services, Meeting Watershed Needs. The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Law Institute, Madison, Wisconsin. Miller, N., T. Bernthal, J. Wagner, M. Grimm, G. Casper, and J. Kline. 2012. The Duck-Pensaukee Watershed Approach: Mapping Wetland Services, Meeting Watershed Needs. The Nature Conservancy and Environmental Law Institute, Madison, Wisconsin.
⁶⁵ Weber JT, Bulluck, JF. 2010. Methodology for developing a parcel-based wetland restoration, mitigation, and conservation catalog: A Virginia pilot. Natural Heritage Technical Report #10-22. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage. Richmond, Virginia 34 pp.
⁶⁶ Stanley S, Grigsby S, Hruby T, and Olson P. 2010. Chehalis Basin Watershed Assessment: Description of Methods, Models and Analysis for Water Flow Processes. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #10-06-006. Olympia, WA.
⁶⁷ Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Available GIS Data â€“ GIS Data Center. Accessible from: http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/dataweb/dmmatrix.html
⁶⁸ Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife. Washington GAP Analysis Program: Land Cover Data. 2013. Accessible from: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gap/land_cover_data.html
⁶⁹ Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA. SSURGO/STATSGO2 Structural Metadata and Documentation. Accessible from: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/
⁷⁰ Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW). Conservation: SalmonScape. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Asessment Program (SSHIAP). 2013. Accessible from: http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/salmonscape/sshiap/
⁷¹ Northwest Forest Plan, Regional Ecosystem Office. Accessible from: http://www.reo.gov/
⁷² Weller DE, Snyder MN, Whigham DF, Jacobs AD, and Jordan TE. 2007. Landscape indicators of wetland condition in the Nanticoke River watershed, Maryland and Delaware, USA. Wetlands 27(3) 498-514.
⁷³ Whigham DF, Jacobs AD, Weller DE, Jordan TE, and Kentula ME. 2007. Combining HGM and EMAP procedures to assess wetlands at the watershed scale - status of flats and non-tidal riverine wetlands in the Nanticoke River watershed, Delaware and Maryland (USA). Wetlands 27(3) 462-478.
⁷⁴ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. 2013. Accessible from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html
⁷⁵ US Dept. of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. National Land Cover Database (NLCD). Accessible from: http://www.mrlc.gov/index.php
⁷⁶ Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources. GeoSpatial Data Center. Accessible from: http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/gis/data/
⁷⁷USGS. National Hydrography Dataset National Map. Accessible from: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd