Jump to Content

Tools for evaluating multiple objectives

Wetland Prioritization Study Main Page

 

Multi-objective tools

 

 


 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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 ATTAINS23,55 or RAD16

Watershed education level

U.S. Census educational attainment data17

Ratio #TMDLs/#impairments

Number of finalized TMDLs from ATTAINS23,55 and RAD62; Number of impairments from ATTAINS23,55

Percent of stream miles assessed

ATTAINS assessed waters GIS national dataset23,55

Percent of lake acres assessed

ATTAINS assessed waters GIS national dataset23,55

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

 

Back to top

 

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)

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)

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)

Catchments (HUC-14s)

USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (2001) watershed maps

Acronym definitions

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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:

  1. The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
  2. Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

 

Back to top

 

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:

  1. The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
  2. Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

 

Back to top

 

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:

  1. The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
  2. Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Contains impaired streams

EPA-identified impaired streams

Acronym definitions

 

Back to top

 

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:

  1. The CHCT identified ten focal habitat types for which prioritization analyses should be completed - four of these represented aquatic resources.
  2. Staff from The Nature Conservancy and the CSC compiled data from local sources for each of these focal habitat types.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Contains impaired streams

EPA-identified impaired streams

Acronym definitions

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

 

Back to top

 

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


Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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

 

Back to top

 

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
15 National 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 – 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 – 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 – 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/
77
USGS. National Hydrography Dataset National Map. Accessible from: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd