Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1:...
Transcript of Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1:...
![Page 1: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
TennesseeRiverBasinReportCard
Methodsreportondatasources,calculation,andadditionaldiscussion
December4,2017
![Page 2: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
TableofContentsGoalsandobjectivesoftheTennesseeRiverBasinReportCard..............................................3
Processfordevelopingthereportcard...................................................................................3
PotentialImprovementstothereportcardprocess................................................................4
Howarethegradescalculated?..............................................................................................4
ScoringandLetterGrades......................................................................................................5
StressorIndicators..................................................................................................................9Indicator:Development...................................................................................................................9Indicator:Drought..........................................................................................................................11Indicator:Wildfire..........................................................................................................................12Indicator:ForestInsectsandDisease..............................................................................................13Indicator:SedimentSources...........................................................................................................14
ConditionIndicators..............................................................................................................15Indicator:ForestConnectivity.........................................................................................................15Indicator:Aquaticconnectivity.......................................................................................................16Indicator:Aquaticbiodiversity.......................................................................................................17Indicator:BenthicMacroinvertebrateCondition............................................................................18
ResponseIndicators..............................................................................................................19Indicator:Agriculturalbestmanagementpracticesforrunoff.........................................................19Indicator:Agriculturalbestmanagementpracticesforleaching.....................................................21Indicator:ProtectedConnectedForest...........................................................................................22Indicator:Protectedwetlands........................................................................................................23
Indicatorsandcategoriesconsideredbutnotabletobeincluded..........................................24
![Page 3: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
GoalsandobjectivesoftheTennesseeRiverBasinReportCardTheTennesseeRiverBasinReportCardwasdevelopedasatoolforprioritizationandrestorationdecisionsmadeintheTennesseeRiverBasin.Thereportcarddocumentisalsomeanttoserveasanoutreachtoolforusebymanagerstohighlightparticularissuesofimportancewhencommunicatingconservationandrestorationwiththepublic.ToachieveareportcardthatisrelevanttothegoalsandobjectivesofthewiderTennesseeRiverBasinmanagement,conservation,andrestorationcommunity,theprojectteamsolicitedfeedbackfromparticipantsattheTennesseeRiverBasinPlanningNetworkannualmeetinginChattanooga,TennesseeinAugust2017.TheseparticipantsidentifiedBiodiversity,Recreation,SenseofPlace,WaterQuality,andHabitatasthemostimportantvaluestoconsiderforassessingenvironmentalcondition,andUrbanizationandPopulationGrowth,HabitatFragmentation,PollutionandContaminants,andClimateChangeasthemostimportantstressors.Additionally,thereareparticularmanagementactivitiestrackedbylocalandregionalgroupssuchastheAppalachianLandscapeConservationCooperative(AppLCC)thatrelatetoprotectingthesevaluesandreducingstressorimpacts.ThereportcardwasdesignedtoreflectoneachofthesecomponentsoftheTennesseeRiverBasintoprovideaholisticassessmentofenvironmentalstressors,conditionandmanagement.Theresultsofthereportcardreflectthesethreegroupsofindicators.Overallregionandbasinconditionultimatelyisthegoalofstressorreductionandmanagement,andsoisportrayedasamorecentraltothereportcardresultsandistheelementthatprovidesthegradesforeachregion.TheTennesseeRiverBasinReportCardismeanttoserveasaninitialassessmentofenvironmentalstressors,condition,andmanagementresponseintheBasin.ThereportcardteamattheUniversityofMarylandCenterforEnvironmentalSciencerecognizesthattherearemanyimprovementsthatcanbemadetothereportcard,indicators,datasources,andmethods.
ProcessfordevelopingthereportcardFollowingtheTennesseeRiverBasinPlanningMeetinginAugust2017,theUMCESreportcardteamworkedcloselywithAppLCCandTennesseeRiverBasinPlanningNetworkstafftoidentifydataprovidersandregionalexpertsforeachpotentialvalue,stressor,andmanagementindicator.UMCESprovideddataanalysisforeachoftheindicatorsoncedatawasidentifiedandobtainedfromproviders.InOctober2017,theUMCESreportcardteampresentedthedraftreportcardresultstomembersoftheAppLCCSteeringCommitteeinavirtualmeetingandreceivedextensiveandconstructivefeedbacktoimprovetheutilityandvalueofthereportcardandtheaccompanying
![Page 4: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
methodsreport.Thereportcardandthismethodsdocumentareinlargepartareflectionofthefeedbackanddirectionreceivedatthatmeeting.
PotentialImprovementstothereportcardprocess
TheUMCESreportcardteamrecognizesthatthecurrentTennesseeRiverBasinreportcardprocesswasimperfect.TheinitialprojectplanincludedascopingprocesstodevelopareportcardforthewholeoftheAppLCCgeography.TheprojectwasredirectedtoachieveapreliminaryreportcardfortheTennesseeRiverBasin,essentiallybeginningwiththeevaluationofvaluesandstressorsattheTennesseeRiverBasinPlanningNetworkmeetinginAugust2017.Theseprojectdirectionchangesarementionedsolelytosuggestthatafutureprocesscanbeimprovedtoproduceareportcardthatincludessomeelementsthatwereseentobeimportant,butwhichwerenotabletobeincludedinthisreportcardwithoutadditionalanalysis,time,anddeliberation.
TheUMCESteamenvisionsaprocessthatmorecloselyadherestothereportcardprocessthathassuccessfullycreatedreportcardsinnumerouslocationsworldwide.Thisprocessincludesco-designandco-developmentofthereportcardproductwithstakeholdersandend-usersoftheproductfromtheinitialdiscussionsabouttheprocessgoalsandobjectives.Thesestepswerenotachievablewiththelimitedtimeandresourcesavailableforthecurrentproject,butwouldgreatlyenhanceengagementwithstakeholdersandend-userstocreateareportcardthatiswidelyacceptedbytheTennesseeRiverBasinenvironmentalconservationandprotectioncommunity,andisseenasavaluabletoolforenvironmentaldecisionmakingbyregionalandlocalmanagersandoutreachtotheircommunities.Thecurrentreportcardpresentsafirststepincreatingthisoutcome.
Howarethegradescalculated?
Thisreportdocumentsthedatasources,calculationsforeachindicator,interpretation,calculationandassignmentofscoresforindicatorsintheTennesseeRiverBasin.Italsoenumeratesdataidentifiedforindicatorsnotincludedinthereportcard.
![Page 5: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator definitions.
ScoringandLetterGrades
Allmeasurementswerestandardizedtoa0-100scaletoenableaggregationofindividualindicatorresultstothegoalscore.Scoresweredistributedinevenincrementstoenableeaseofaggregation.Itisimportanttonotethatthescoringschemeisnotareflectionofa“curve”oralenientgradingsystem;thegoalteamsandexpertadvisorsdeterminedthroughdataanalysiswhatdatavaluesrepresentedgoodandbadgrades,andthoseweretranslatedtothefinalscoringschemedistributedintothe0-100scalein20-pointincrements.Finalscoresweregivenagradebasedonthesimplegradingschemeasbelow:
![Page 6: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Figure 2: Scoring scheme for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card.
Therewereseveralpotentialscoringmethodsthatwereappliedforreportcardindicators,including:
1. Pre-determinedscoring.Forsomeindicators,thedataproviderhadalreadyprovidedaratingofobservationsorresults.Thesemayhavebeenmeasuredagainstaregionallyspecificdesiredcondition,orsomeothermethod.Weusethismethodwhentheassessmentmethodswerefromanacceptedsource,usinggenerallyacceptedpractices.
2. Comparisontogeographicrangeofdata.Forseveralindicators,datawerecomparedtotheregionalrangeofdata.Themostdesirable(forexample,lowestpercentofforestthreatenedbywildfire)wasthetopscore,andtheleastdesirablevaluebecamethelowestpossiblescore.
![Page 7: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Figure3.Examplecomparisonofanindicatoracrosstwodifferentgeographicranges.Thedatapresentedarethepercentofeachsub-watershedexpectedtoexperienceanincreaseinhousingdensityinforestedareasbetween2000and2030.
3. Comparisontonationalaverage.Whereestablishedgoalsandthresholdshadnotbeenpreviouslydefined,datawerenormalizedbytheaverageandstandarddeviationofeachindicatorcalculatedoveralargerrepresentativegeography(e.g.,nationally,orovertheTRBitself).TheresultingZ-Score,wasdividedinto5levelsboundedbythestandarddeviationofthedatafromthemeanoverthelargerrepresentativegeography.IfthebasinaveragewaswithinonestandarddeviationoftheUSaverage,theresultingscorewasa“C”,forexample.Thistechniqueassumesthatthemostdesiredconditionexistssomewhereinthereferencegeography.
Figure4.Exampleschemeforcomparisontothenationalaverage.
![Page 8: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Table 1: Indicator data sources and scoring schemes.
![Page 9: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
StressorIndicators
Indicator:Development
Datasource:Weidner,E.&Todd,A.(2011)FromtheForesttotheFaucet:DrinkingWaterandForestsintheUS.USDAForestService.Availableontheweb:http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml
Calculationmethod:TheForesttotheFaucetdatasetprovidesaprojectionofthethreatofdevelopmenttoforests,summarizedbyHUC12watershed.ThisprojectionisderivedfromDavidTheobald’sSpatiallyExplicitRegionalGrowthModel(SERGoMv3),whichtakesintoaccountlandprotectionstatus,censusblockpopulationandchangeovertime,roaddensity,andtraveltimealongmajorroadstopopulationcenterstomaphousingdensityin2000andprojectitto2030.Themodelresultswerevalidatedbyhindcastinghousingdensityfor2000usingdatafrom1980and1990andcomparingwithobservedhousingdensitypatternsfor2000.Theobald’sworkclassifiedhousingdensityinto12classesspanningUrbantoUndevelopedprivateland.Later,Steinetal.2009collapsedtheseintothreecategories:Rural1(>40acresperhousingunit),Rural2(10-40acresperhousingunit),andExurbanRural(lessthan10acresperhousingunit).Forthisreportcard,thedifferenceinhousingdensitybetween2000and2030wasusedtoidentifyareasprojectedtochangecategories(e.g.,fromRural2toRural1,orfromExurbanRuraltoRural2).AswasimplementedfortheForesttoFaucetsanalysis,allforestsprojectedtochangecategorieswereclassifiedashighlythreatenedbydevelopment.WhenexpressedasapercentofallforestsineachHUC12watershednationally,thenationalmeanwascalculatedas14.6%andthenationalstandarddeviationas22.6%.
ForeachHUC12watershedintheTRB,wecalculatedaZ-scoreforforeststhreatenedbydevelopmentusingthenationalaverageandstandarddeviation:
DevelopmentZscore=(Development%-14.6)/22.6
TheDevelopmentZ-scorewasthenscaledfrom0to100representingaZ-scoreof2.5(highlythreatened)to-2.5(notthreatened).
Citations:Stein,S.R.McRoberts,L.Mahal,M.Carr,R.Alig,S.Comas,D.Theobald,andA.Cundiff.2009.PrivateForests,PublicBenefits:IncreasedHousingDensityandOtherPressuresonPrivateForestContributions.USDAForestService,PacificNorthwestResearchStation,PNW-GTR-795.December2009.
Theobald,D.2005.LandscapepatternsofexurbangrowthintheUSAfrom1980to2020.EcologyandSociety.10(1):32.
![Page 10: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Figure1:DevelopmentthreatinforeststhroughouttheTRB.
![Page 11: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Indicator:Drought
Data source: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers/
Calculation method: The Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) is based on a physical water-balance model, uses both precipitation and surface air temperature as input, and takes the precedent condition into account. It is generally considered superior to other statistically based drought indices, that are often based purely on past statistics of limited climate variables. While the PDSI is not without criticisms, it is reliably used in the context needed for this report card. The PDSI is a continuous value but is often classified monthly to describe drought conditions as moderate, severe, or extreme.
We downloaded monthly PDSI values by climate division for the lower 48 US states. We then calculated the number of months of extreme drought (i.e., months with PDSI values < -4) over the past 10 years for each climate division. For the lower 48 states, the mean number of months of extreme drought was 9.2 with a standard deviation of 9.4. We then identified the 19 climate divisions that overlapped the TRB. We intersected the TRB with the climate divisions to assign data to each HUC12 watershed. The number of months of extreme drought ranged from 1 to 20 across HUC12 watersheds. We used the national statistics to calculate an extreme drought Z-score, which was scaled from 0 to 100 using -2.5 and 2.5 as endpoints.
Citations:Dai, A., 2011b: Drought under global warming: A review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2, 45-65
Figure2:Monthsofextremedrought,evaluatedviathePalmerDroughtSeverityIndex,overthepast10years.
![Page 12: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Indicator:Wildfire
Datasource:Weidner,E.&Todd,A.(2011)FromtheForesttotheFaucet:DrinkingWaterandForestsintheUS.USDAForestService.Assessableviatheweb:http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml
Calculationmethod:WeusedwildfireriskassessmentssummarizedintheForeststotheFaucetdataset,whichwerebasedonthewildfirehazardpotential(WHP)mapproducedbytheUSDAForestService,FireModelingInstitute.Thesedataareusedtohelpinformevaluationsofwildfireriskorprioritizationoffuelsmanagementneedsacrossverylargelandscapes(millionsofacres).Areasofhighwildfirepotentialaredescribedashavingfuelsandrecurringweatherconditionsconducivetofireconditions,particularlythosedifficultforsuppressionresourcestocontain.Themapisintendedtobepairedwithspatialdatadepictinghighlyvaluedresourcesandassetssuchascommunities,structures,andpowerlines.AsintheForeststotheFaucetanalysis,areascategorizedasthreatenedbywildfirepotentialwererankedashavinghighorveryhighwildlandfirepotentialintheWHPmap.Theseareasweresummarizedbysub-watershed(HUC12-level)acrosstheTRBtoarriveatthepercentofforeststhreatenedbywildfire.AcrosstheentireUS,themeanwildfirepotentialwas25.0%withastandarddeviationof38.8%attheHUC12level.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-scoreandscaledtheZ-scorefrom100to0using-2.5(lowwildfirepotential)to2.5(highwildfirepotential)endpoints.
Citations:Dillon,GregoryK.;Menakis,James;Fay,Frank.2015.Wildlandfirepotential:Atoolforassessingwildfireriskandfuelsmanagementneeds.In:Keane,RobertE.;Jolly,Matt;Parsons,Russell;Riley,Karin.Proceedingsofthelargewildlandfiresconference;May19-23,2014;Missoula,MT.Proc.RMRS-P-73.FortCollins,CO:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,ForestService,RockyMountainResearchStation.p.60-76.
Figure3:Wildfirepotential
![Page 13: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Indicator:ForestInsectsandDisease
Datasource:Weidner,E.&Todd,A.(2011)FromtheForesttotheFaucet:DrinkingWaterandForestsintheUS.USDAForestService.http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices/FS_Efforts/forests2faucets.shtml
Calculationmethod:TheForesttotheFaucetdatasetprovidesasummaryoftheNationalInsectandDiseaseRiskMap(NIDRM)createdbytheForestHealthTechnologyEnterpriseTeam(FHTET).WeusedthesedatatosummarizetheriskofforestinsectanddiseaseacrosstheTRB.TheNIDRMdefinesinsectanddiseaseriskasforeststhat"withoutremediation,25percentormoreofthestandinglivebasalarea(BA)oftreesgreaterthan1inchindiameterwilldieoverthenext15years(startingin2005)duetoinsectsanddiseases”(Krist,etal,2006).TheForesttotheFaucetdatasetsummarizedthesedataasthepercentofforestsineachHUC12watershedhighlythreatenedbyinsectanddisease.Wecalculatedanationalaveragescoreof4.0%andstandarddeviationof11.3%,whichwereusedtocalculateaZ-score.WescaledtheZ-scorefrom100to0using-2.5(lowthreatlevel)to2.5(highlythreatened).
Citations:Krist,F.,F.Sapio,B.Tkacz.2006.MappingRiskfromForestInsectsandDiseases.ForestHealthTechnologyEnterpriseTeam,USDAForestService.FHTET2007-06.
Figure4:Threatofforestinsectsanddisease.
![Page 14: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Indicator:SedimentSources
Datasource:TheSoilVulnerabilityIndex(SVI)isnotapublisheddataset.ThedatarepresentgeospatiallayersrepresentingsoilvulnerabilityandtreatmentneedsoncultivatecroplandcurrentlyunderdevelopmentbytheRADGISLabandCEAPmodelingTeam.TheresultsarebasedonfindingsfromtheCEAPCroplandReports.
Formoreinformation,pleasecontact:KevinIngram,RADGISLabCoordinatorResourceAssessmentDivision-SSRAUSDA-NaturalResourcesConservationService5601SunnysideAvenueBeltsville,MD20705-5410
Calculationmethod:TheUSDAprovidedtheSoilVulnerabilityIndexforcultivatedcropland(SVI-cc)attheHUC12levelfortheentireTRB.Thesedatausesoilandtopographiccharacteristicsforcultivatedcroplandtoestimatesoilvulnerabilitytosedimentgenerationduringrunoff.Vulnerabilitytorunoffisprovidedin4classes,withclasses3and4consideredpriority1lands(highlyvulnerable).Priority1landsaretargetedfortreatmentandmanagementprogressisassessedagainstthefractionofprioritylandsthathavebeentreatedforrunoff(e.g.,viaagriculturalbestpracticessuchaswintercovercropimplementationandriparianbufferplacement.)Therefore,theSVI-ccwasevaluatedbycalculatingthepercentofeachHUC12watershedthatwasreportedaspriority1croplandforrunoff.Thisvaluerangedfrom0to46.2%acrosstheTRBwithameanof4.3%andastandarddeviationof6.2%.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-scorethatrescaledthepercentpriority1databetween0and100basedontheZ-scorerangeof2.5to-2.5.
Figure5:Theareaofcroplandsinpriority1riskforrunoff,asassessedbytheSoilVulnerabilityIndex.
![Page 15: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
ConditionIndicators
Indicator:ForestConnectivity
Datasource:AppLCCNatureserveakaLandscapeConservationDesign(LCD2)
Calculationmethod:TheLandscapeConservationDesign(LCD2)projectusedconservationplanningsoftwaretoidentifyareasofthelandscapeimportantforlandscapeconnectivity.Thesewerelabeledlocalandregionalcoresandlinkages,covering22770km2oftheTRB,orabout21.5%ofthebasinarea.Thelandcovertype(e.g.,agriculture,urban,forest)intheseareasisausefulmeasureoftheconnectivityofforestsintheregion.HUC12watershedswithnoconnectedforestscontributetoregionalforestfragmentation,impedingthedispersalofplantsandanimalstonewhabitatandmovementacrosslandscapesinresponsetochangesinclimate.Areasofhighforestcoverinwatershedsdesignatedasimportantforregionalandlocalforestconnectivityhavethehighestdesiredcondition.Therefore,wecalculatedtheareaofforestinregionsdesignatedaslocalorregionalcoresandlinkagesintheLandscapeConservationDesignresults.Thisconnectedforestlayerincludedallforests,privateandpublic,regardlessofprotectionlevel,andwasbasedonthe2011NationalLandCoverDataset.AcrossHUC12watershedsintheTRB,meanlocalandregionalcoreandlinkageforestareawas21.2km2andthestandarddeviationwas32.3km2.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-scorethatscaledtheconnectedforestlayerbetween0(noconnectedforest)to100(ahighareaofconnectedforest)using-2.5and2.5astheZ-scoreendpoints.
Figure6:Connectedforestarea.
![Page 16: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Indicator:Aquaticconnectivity
Datasource:NationalHydrographyDataandTigerroads
Calculationmethod:Aquaticconnectivityisdegradedbydams,primarily,butalsobyroadcrossings.Bothtypesofman-madefeaturesimpedethedispersalofaquaticorganismsalongstreamsandrivers.Weassumedaquaticconnectivitywashighforallstreamswithoutthesefeaturesandlowforstreamswiththem.TheNationalHydrographyDatasetincludesthepointlocationsofalldamsinthebasin,includingbothlargehydroelectricgenerationfacilitiesandsmall“millpond”dams.ForeachHUC12watershed,wecalculatedthenumberofdamsperkmofstreamlength.AcrosstheTRBtherewereanaverageof8.7dams/1000kmofstreamlengthwithastandarddeviationof18.8dams/1000kmofstreamlength.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-scorethatscaledthedams/kmstreamlengthbetween0and100using2.5(ahighnumberofdams)and-2.5alownumberofdamsastheZ-scoreendpoints.
Roadcrossingsalsodegradeaquaticconnectivity.UsingdataonroadsprovidedbytheTigerroadsdatabase,wecalculatedthenumberofroad-streamintersectionsforeachHUC12watershedanddividedbythetotalstreamlengthineachHUC12.Therewerebetween0and5.2roadcrossingsperkmofstream,withameanof0.946andastandarddeviationof0.589crossingsperkm.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-scorethatscaledthedatabetween0and100usingZ-scoresof2.5and-2.5asendpoints.
Afterscalingeachofthesesub-indicatorsbetween0and100wecalculatedanaverageaquaticconnectivityscoreforeachHUC12watershed.Therefore,inthefinalaquaticconnectivityindicator,theweightedscoresfordamdensityandroadcrossingdensityareweightedequally.
Figure7:Aquaticconnectivityscoresthatreflectdataonbothdamandroadcrossingdensity.
![Page 17: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Indicator:Aquaticbiodiversity
Datasource:TennesseeValleyAuthority
Calculationmethod:TheTVAsampled499streams(spanning386differentHUC12watersheds)between2010and2014.FishsamplingfollowedTVA’sIndexofBioticIntegrityprotocol(modifiedfromKarr(1981)),usingmultiplegearsandtechniquestoobtainrepresentativesamplesofthefishcommunityfromalldiscerniblehabitattypeswithinriffle,run,andpoolareas.Fishcapturedwereidentified,counted,checkedforapparentdiseaseandreleased.Somevoucherspecimenswerekepttodocumentnewoccurrencesortoconfirmidentification.SampleswereanalyzedwithTVA’sStreamSurveycomputerprogramtoproduceIBIscoresforeachstation.TheIBIanalysisratedsamplingresultsagainstreferenceconditionsbasedonfishcommunitiesoccurringunderpristineconditionswithinthesameecoregionandsimilardrainagearea.Thisanalysisuses12metricsormeasuresofcommunityattributessuchasspeciesrichnessandcomposition,trophicstructure,fishabundance,fishcondition,andhybridization.IBIscores,rangingfrom12to60,andclassificationswereusedtoindicatethelevelofecologicalconditionreflectedbyfishcommunities.
Forthisreportcard,werescaledtheIBIscoresbetween0and100insuchawaythattheclassificationsdefinedbytheTVA(Excellent,Good,Fair,Poor,VeryPoor,andNoFish)werepreservedasgradesofA,B,C,D,andFinthereportcard.
Citations:Karr,J.R.,K.D.Fausch,P.L.Angermier,P.R.Yant,andI.J.Schlosser.1986.Assessingbiologicalintegrityinrunningwaters,amethodanditsrationale.IllinoisNaturalHistorySurvey.SpecialPublication5.28pp.
Karr,J.R.1981.Assessmentofbioticintegrityusingfishcommunities.Fisheries6:21-27.
Figure8:TheIndexofBioticIntegrity(IBI)basedonTVAsamplingcampaignsbetween2010and2014.
![Page 18: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Indicator:BenthicMacroinvertebrateCondition
Datasource:TennesseeValleyAuthority
Calculationmethod:TheTVAsampled499streams(spanning386differentHUC12watersheds)between2010and2014.ThiseffortincludedaBenthicMacroinvertebrateCommunitySamplingprogramthatusedaqualitativeapproachandprovidedanecologicalclassificationbasedondiversityamongthreepollutionintoleranttaxonomicorders(mayflies(Ephemeroptera),stoneflies(Plecoptera)andcaddisflies(Trichoptera),akaEPT)andthedensityoftolerantorganisms.Theprimaryoutputisa“good”,“good/fair”,“fair”,“fair/poor”,or“poor”ratingbaseduponthenumberofEPTfamiliessampledandecoregionclassification.Generalinterpretationofobservedrelativeabundanceoftolerantorganismsandothertaxacanbeusedtohelpdeterminethenatureofenvironmentalproblemsaffectingthecommunity.WerescaledtheEPTscoresfrom0to100inawaythatpreservedtheclassificationsprovidedbytheTVA.
Citations:
Kerans,B.L.andJ.R.Karr.1994.Abenthicindexofbioticintegrity(B-IBI)forriversoftheTennesseeValley.EcologicalApplications4(4):768-785.
Figure9:Ephemeroptera,PlecopteraandTrichopterascores
![Page 19: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
ResponseIndicators
Indicator:Agriculturalbestmanagementpracticesforrunoff
Datasource:TheConservationEffectsAssessmentProject(CEAP)ConservationBenefitsIdentifier(CCBI)arenotpublisheddata,butrepresentgeospatiallayersreflectingtreatmentneedsoncultivatecroplandcurrentlyunderdevelopmentbytheRADGISLabandCEAPmodelingTeam.TheresultsarebasedonfindingsfromtheCEAPCroplandReports:https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/na/?cid=nrcs143_014144.
Formoreinformation,pleasecontact:KevinIngram,RADGISLabCoordinatorResourceAssessmentDivision-SSRAUSDA-NaturalResourcesConservationService5601SunnysideAvenueBeltsville,MD20705-5410
Calculationmethod:TheCEAPConservationBenefitsIdentifier(CCBI)geospatialdatalayerisanattempttotranslatecoreCEAPCroplandstudyfindingsabout“conservationtreatmentneeds”intoactionableinformationsuitableforsupportingagencylandscapeplanningandprogramdeliveryatthefieldlevel.ItisintendedtoaddressthegeneraldesirewithinNRCSandoutsidetheagencythatscientificfindingsfromCEAPbeeffectivelyincorporatedintoagencyconservationimplementationefforts.ThesedatarevealtheextenttowhichhighprioritycroplandsidentifiedbytheSVIhavebeentreatedthroughresourceconservationstrategiesthatavoidmanagementthatleadstoexcessiveerosionornutrientapplications,controllossesofsedimentandnutrientsfromfarmfields,andtrapsedimentandnutrientsthatdoleavethefieldsbeforetheyreachsurfacewaters.
DatafromtheCCBIwereprovidedattheHUC12scale,andrepresentedasummaryoftheareaofhighprioritycroplandandtheareaofthesecroplandsthathavebeentreatedforrunoff.Weusedtheseresultstocalculatethepercentageofhighpriorityareathathasbeentreatedforrunoff.AttheHUC12level,thepercentageoftreatedhighprioritycroplandrangedfrom0to100%,exhibitedameanvalueof62.6%andastandarddeviationof37.6%.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-scorewhichwasscaledfrom0to100using-2.5and2.5asendpoints.
![Page 20: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Figure10:Thepercentageoftreatedhighprioritycropland.
![Page 21: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Indicator:Agriculturalbestmanagementpracticesforleaching
Datasource:TheConservationEffectsAssessmentProject(CEAP)ConservationBenefitsIdentifier(CCBI)arenotpublisheddata,butrepresentgeospatiallayersreflectingtreatmentneedsoncultivatecroplandcurrentlyunderdevelopmentbytheRADGISLabandCEAPmodelingTeam.TheresultsarebasedonfindingsfromtheCEAPCroplandReports:https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/na/?cid=nrcs143_014144.
Formoreinformation,pleasecontact:KevinIngram,RADGISLabCoordinatorResourceAssessmentDivision-SSRAUSDA-NaturalResourcesConservationService5601SunnysideAvenueBeltsville,MD20705-5410
Calculationmethod:DatafromtheCCBIwereprovidedattheHUC12scale,andrepresentedasummaryofthenumberofhighpriorityacresandtheareaofthesecroplandsthathavebeentreatedforleaching.Weusedtheseresultstocalculatethepercentageofhighpriorityareathathasbeentreatedforleaching.AttheHUC12level,thepercentageoftreatedhighprioritycroplandrangedfrom0to100%,exhibitedameanvalueof56.7%andastandarddeviationof41.3%.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateaZ-score,whichwasscaledfrom0to100using-2.5and2.5asendpoints.
Figure11:Thepercentageofhighpriorityareathathasbeentreatedforleaching.
![Page 22: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Indicator:ProtectedConnectedForest
Datasource:(1) USProtectedAreasDatabase(https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/)(2) AppLCCLandscapeConservationDesign(LCD)layersoflocalandregionalforestcores
andlinkages(3) NationalLandCoverDataset(NLCD)(https://www.mrlc.gov/)
Calculationmethod:ManagementprogresstowardscreatingandmaintainingforestconnectivityacrosstheTRBwasevaluatedbycalculatingtheareaofconnectedprotectedforestineachHUC12.ConnectedforestwasdeterminedusingtheAppLCC(LCD)datalayersasdescribedearlier.ThepercentoftheseconnectedforeststhatareprotectedfromdevelopmentwascalculatedusingtheUSProtectedAreasDatabase(PAD)version1.4.ThePADusesGAPStatusCodestodescribethedegreetowhichlandismanagedforconservation.LandinCodes1and2havethehighestdegreeofmanagementforconservation,whilestatus3landssupportmultipleuses,includingresourceextraction(forestry,mining,etc.),butareprotectedfromdevelopment.Status4landshavemoreambiguousprotection,butintheTRBthisdesignationgenerallyreferstoDepartmentofDefenselandandStatelandtrusts.Therefore,weclassifiedalllandsincodes1-4as“protected”forthepurposeofthisreportcard.Werecognizethatmanyactivitiesthathavethepotentialtoinfluencebiodiversityarepermittedintheseprotectedlands.
WecalculatedthepercentageofconnectedforestthatwasprotectedfromdevelopmentforeachHUC12.Percentconnectedforestrangedfrom0to100%withameanvalueof34.7%andastandarddeviationof37.3%.WeusedthesestatisticstocalculateapercentconnectedforestZ-scorewhichwasrescaledbetween0and100using-2.5and2.5asendpoints.
Figure12:EvaluationofprotectedlandstatuswithinconnectedforestsintheTRB.
![Page 23: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Indicator:Protectedwetlands
Datasource:USProtectedAreasDatabasehttps://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/
USNationalWetlandsInventoryhttps://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
Calculationmethod:Wetlandsprovideuniqueecosystemservicesrelatedtohabitat,carbonsequestration,andwaterquality.Managementactionsthatprotectwetlandsfromdevelopmentandotherformsofimpairmentarenecessary.Forthisindicator,weusedtheNationalWetlandsInventorydatatodefinethespatialdistributionofwetlands.WethenintersectedthislayerwiththeprotectedareasdatabasedescribedearliertocalculatethepercentageofwetlandareaineachHUC12thatwasprotected.Theresultingdataonpercentofwetlandsprotectedrangedfrom0to100andexhibitedameanof15.6%andastandarddeviationof24.7%.WeusedthesestatisticstogenerateaZ-scorethatwasrescaledfrom0to100using-2.5and2.5asendpoints.
Figure13:Percentwetlandsprotectedfromdevelopment.
![Page 24: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Indicatorsandcategoriesconsideredbutnotincluded
Throughoutthereportcardprocess,manyindicatorsandindicatorpossibilitiesweresuggestedtothereportcardteamandconsidered.Manyoftheseindicatorsweredroppedforthefinaldraftversionofthereportcardthatwehaveprovidedatthistime.Theindicatorsdroppedwerenotincludedforvariousreasons,whichareoutlinedforeachindicatorinthefollowingsection.
Whenscopingforthereportcard,itwasbroughttothereportcardteam’sattentionthatincludingsocial,economicandculturalindicatorswouldbebeneficialforthemanagementpartiesinvolvedinimprovingthehealthoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.Asthereportcardprogressed,discussionsleadtodatathatwaseithernotrelevanttoamanagementlever,orthedatawasnotabletobeassessedthroughoutthebasinorcomparedtoarelevantthreshold.
Somesocial,economicandhumanhealthindicatorswereidentifiedbutnotincludedastheywerenotdirectlyshowntobelinkedwiththeenvironmentalhealthoftheTennesseeRiverBasinandthereforecouldnotbereadilychangedthroughenvironmentalmanagement.Theseindicatorsareasfollows:
Indicator:RecreationalopportunitiesSourcesconsidered:NationalSurveyofFishingandHuntingNationalParkServiceVisitationStatisticsReasonfornotevaluating:Datawasaggregatedatthestatelevel,andthereforecouldnotbeattachedtothespatiallevelthatwasneededinthisreportcard.TheTRBincludessmallportionsofmanystates.
County-leveldataforhuntingparticipationcouldbepursuedforfurtheriterationsofthereportcard.TheReportCardTeamwasonlyabletogainstatedataforhuntinglicensesforasubsetofthestatesintheTRB.
Indicator:ProtectedCulturalAreasorChangeinCulturalPreservationSourcesconsidered:StateHistoricPreservationOfficesTennesseeHistoricalCommissionGISDatabaseBlueRidgeNationalHeritageAreaManagementPlanTennesseeCivilWarNationalHeritageAreaevaluationNPSTrailofTearsTNDepartmentofTouristDevelopment2016EconomicImpactReportTNHistoricalCommissionReasonfornotevaluating:Culturalresourcesanddatathatwerepreliminarilyevaluateddidnothaverelevantthresholdstobeassessedagainst,orwereonlyforveryspecificstatesorpiecesofthebasin.
![Page 25: Tennessee River Basin Report Card Methods Reportian.umces.edu/pdfs/ian_report_576.pdf · Figure 1: Preliminary results for the Tennessee River Basin Report Card. See Table 1 for indicator](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022022123/5ad2f8597f8b9abd6c8d4ddd/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ItwasalsosuggestedtolookintohowsomeindicatorseffectnativepeopleofWesternNorthCarolina,andtheReportCardTeamthinksthisshouldbepursuedfurtherifthereistobeanotheriterationofthisprocess.Indicator:FoodInsecuritySourcesconsidered:MaptheMealGapReasonfornotevaluating:NotimmediatelyrelevanttotheenvironmentalhealthandmanagementoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.Indicator:AccesstohealthyfoodsSourcesconsidered:USDAFoodEnvironmentAtlasReasonfornotevaluating:NotimmediatelyrelevanttotheenvironmentalhealthandmanagementoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.Indicator:ObesitySourcesconsidered:CDCDiabetesInteractiveAtlasReasonfornotevaluating:NotimmediatelyrelevanttotheenvironmentalhealthandmanagementoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.Indicator:Lifeexpectancy(prematuredeath)Sourcesconsidered:NationalCenterforHealthStatistics–mortalityfilesReasonfornotevaluating:NotimmediatelyrelevanttotheenvironmentalhealthandmanagementoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.Indicator:AccesstoexerciseopportunitiesSourcesconsidered:BusinessAnalyst,Delormemapdata,ESRI,&USCensusTigerlineFilesReasonfornotevaluating:NotimmediatelyrelevanttotheenvironmentalhealthandmanagementoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.Indicator:Educationlevel-somecollegeSourcesconsidered:AmericanCommunitySurveyReasonfornotevaluating:NotimmediatelyrelevanttotheenvironmentalhealthandmanagementoftheTennesseeRiverBasin.