Physical habitat is more than a sediment issue: A multi-dimensional habitat assessment indicates new approaches for river management

• Published in: Journal of environmental management 2024-12, Vol.371, p.123139, Article 123139
• Main Authors: Cashman, Matthew J., Lee, Gina, Staub, Leah E., Katoski, Michelle P., Maloney, Kelly O.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: artificial intelligence; Assessment; biological assessment; Chesapeake Bay; Flow alteration; habitats; Hydromorphology; Physical habitat; rivers; Sediment; sediments; Stressors; watershed management; watersheds
• ISSN: 0301-4797; 1095-8630; 1095-8630
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123139

Degraded physical habitat is a common stressor affecting river ecosystems and typically addressed in the United States (US) through a regulatory focus on sediment. However, a narrow regulatory focus on sediment may overlook other aspects of physical habitat and the processes for its creation, maintenance, and degradation. In addition, there exist few “ready-to-use” regional assessments of the multiple dimensions of physical habitat to better understand continuous patterns of condition and prioritize management efforts across a large spatial scale. In this study, we use rapid habitat monitoring data to train a machine-learning (i.e., random forest) model to predict twelve physical habitat metrics for nearly 120,000 km of nontidal rivers and streams across the Chesapeake Bay watershed, US. We capture a range of habitat conditions driven by both natural variables and anthropogenic pressures. Covariation among habitat metrics indicated two major dimensions of habitat variation: 1) coarse bed substrate and hydromorphic heterogeneity and 2) bank stability and riparian condition. The model predicted localized changes from 2001 to 2019, and the predicted areas of deterioration roughly balanced improvements across the watershed, indicating little progress towards long-term watershed management goals. To evaluate connections to regulatory and management endpoints, we compared our physical habitat predictions to paired estimates of sediment and flow alteration across the region. Sediment concentrations were greater in reaches with less bank stability and lower riparian quality; however, the relation was weak for coarse bed condition metrics, including embeddedness, which is frequently used for establishing regulatory sediment restrictions. For flow alteration, most habitat metrics had lower scores with altered flow metrics, but metrics of instream habitat heterogeneity and coarse substrate condition were most strongly affected. Increased flashy, high flows negatively affected most metrics, but coarse substrate metrics were also negatively affected by greater low flow severity. This study highlights a potential disconnect between a narrow focus on regulatory sediment targets given the multiple dimensions and responses of physical habitat. A more holistic approach to physical habitat in management interventions – one that considers hydromorphic processes, diversity and variability in microhabitats, and explicit consideration of alterations to both low and high flows –