A Tool to Evaluate the Health of Streams and Rivers within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman 1, Claire Buchanan 2, Adam Griggs 2, Andrea Nagel.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Moffatt Thomas Lower Boise River Wetlands Restoration Project Sponsor:Pioneer Irrigation District Presenter: Scott L. Campbell Legal Counsel for Pioneer.
Advertisements

Framework for the Ecological Assessment of Impacted Sediments at Mining Sites in Region 7 By Jason Gunter (R7 Life Scientist) and.
Planning for Our Future:
Partnering with watershed organizations to produce tributary-specific report cards Caroline WIcks EcoCheck (NOAA-UMCES Partnership) Virginia Water Quality.
Water Resources Monitoring Strategy for Wisconsin: Building on Experience Mike Staggs, WDNR Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Acknowledgements:
Step 1: Valley Segment Classification Our first step will be to assign environmental parameters to stream valley segments using a series of GIS tools developed.
Effects of urbanization and forest fragmentation on water quality … Rachel Riemann USFS-FIA Karen Murray USGS-NAWQA.
Capitol Hill Oceans Week Wetlands Restoration Panel June 8, 2005 JOHN H. DUNNIGAN Ecosystem Goal Lead Capitol Hill Oceans Week June 8, 2005.
Imperial River: Water Quality Status and Basin Management Action Plan.
Lec 12: Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP’s)
Working with Citizen Scientists: Rogue Basin (Oregon) Watershed Councils Stream Biomonitoring Study Michael Mulvey Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
WRP and Water Quality Monitoring Council: Synergy April 1, 2015 Josh Collins Chief Scientist, SFEI and ASC Co-Chair, CWMW WRP Science Advisor Jon Marshack.
Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Chesapeake Bay Program Monitoring Activities and Monitoring Network Design Stephen.
Final stuff: n Lab practical –Coleoptera, Hemiptera n Final exam: Fri May 2:15 –Assessment with Invertebrates n Lecture material (IDEM protocol) n.
Watershed Management Framework Mission of watershed management –Coordinate and integrate the programs, tools, and resources of multiple stakeholder groups.
Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division Assessing the Effectiveness of Restoration Technologies Elise Striz and Joe Williams.
Metric (Family Level) Standard Best Value (95 th or 5 th percentile) Worst Possible Value Expected Response to Degradation Total Taxa180 EPT Taxa120 %EPT91.90.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWAMP Today Emilie L. Reyes November 29, 2007.
Evaluation of Macroinvertebrate Assemblages in the Marcellus Shale Region of the Susquehanna River Basin, Luanne Steffy Susquehanna River Basin.
ORD’s Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Sound Science for Measuring Ecological Condition
Next The water that falls on the Chesapeake Bay watershed drains to local streams and rivers and then flows to the Chesapeake.
Kyle Abraham Effectiveness Monitoring Coordinator Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board.
Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring National Water Quality Monitoring Council August 20, 2003.
Watershed Assessment and Planning. Review Watershed Hydrology Watershed Hydrology Watershed Characteristics and Processes Watershed Characteristics and.
WRIA 8 Status and Trends Monitoring ( ) Hans B. Berge, Dan Lantz, Scott Stolnack, and Curtis DeGasperi King County Department of Natural Resources.
The Interconnectedness of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Karen Sondak CREST Center for the Integrated Study of Coastal Ecosystem Processes and Dynamics University.
Coastal development impacts on biological communities in the Chesapeake Bay Examples from the Atlantic Slope Consortium R
Support of the Framework for Monitoring Office of Management and Budget March 26, 2003.
The Non-tidal Water Quality Monitoring Network: past, present and future opportunities Katie Foreman Water Quality Analyst, UMCES-CBPO MASC Non-tidal Water.
Development and validation of models to assess the threat to freshwater fishes from environmental change and invasive species PIs: Craig Paukert Joanna.
Wetland Monitoring What Do We Need? Integration of Wetland Monitoring and Wetland Management Wetlands and Waterways Program Maryland Dept. of the Environment.
The Great Miami River Created By: Vidya Misra, Ke’Avonna Williams, and Kristin Cummings.
Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.
Center for Satellite Applications and Research (STAR) Review 09 – 11 March 2010 Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Huan.
Final stuff: n Lab practical: Apr 29 n Final exam: due Fri May 2:15.
Objectives: 1.Enhance the data archive for these estuaries with remotely sensed and time-series information 2.Exploit detailed knowledge of ecosystem structure.
North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,
National Aquatic Resource Surveys Wadeable Streams Assessment Overview November, 2007.
Coordinating Monitoring in the Great Lakes Basin Ric Lawson Project Manager Great Lakes Commission National Water Quality Monitoring Council meeting Ann.
WATERS Network MISSION STATEMENT: To transform understanding of the Earth’s water and related cycles across spatial and temporal scales to enable forecasting.
Response of benthic algae communities to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams: Implications for establishing nutrient criteria R.W. Black 1, P.W.
Chesapeake Bay Program’s Baywide and Basinwide Monitoring Networks: Options for Adapting Monitoring Networks and Realigning Resources to Address Partner.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.
Volunteer-collected data can provide important baseline information to assist with decision making and improve watershed management. In this study, data.
ORSANCO Biological Programs Extra-curricular Updates EMAP-GRE ORBFHP NRSA.
Quantifying Stream Ecosystem Responses to Smart Growth: How to Design an Assessment Allison Roy Cross-ORD Postdoctoral Researcher US Environmental Protection.
Lessons Learned from BMP evaluation studies in the nontidal streams and river in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman University of Maryland Center.
1 Defining Least-Impacted Reference Condition for the National Wadeable Streams Assessment Alan Alan Herlihy (Oregon State University), John Stoddard (U.S.
National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006
State of the Streams Loudoun County: 2005 Loudoun Strategic Watershed Management Planning Conference February 23, 2006 Presented by: Darrell Schwalm Loudoun.
Stream Health Outcome Claire Buchanan Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin CBP Habitat Goal Implementation Team October 14, 2015 meeting Chesapeake.
Detecting Ecological Effects of Development in the Wappingers and Fishkill Watersheds Karin Limburg, Karen Stainbrook, Bongghi Hong SUNY College of Environmental.
PROJECT PLAN: The Nature Conservancy Corps of Engineers ICPRB Presentation Potomac Watershed Roundtable January 9, 2009.
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
Stream Health Outcome Biennial Workplan Neely L. Law, PhD Center for Watershed Protection Chesapeake Bay Program Sediment & Stream Coordinator Habitat.
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
Using Regional Models to Assess the Relative Effects of Stressors Lester L. Yuan National Center for Environmental Assessment U.S. Environmental Protection.
For EBTJV meeting October 26, 2010 Executive Order Strategy for Protecting and Restoring the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Wadeable Stream Assessment Comparability Study: Interim Results Mark Southerland, Jon Vølstad, Ed Weber, Beth Franks, and Laura Gabanski May 10, 2006.
Aquatic Resource Monitoring Overview Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon (541)
COMPARING BIOINDICATORS TO MEASURE THE EFFICACY OF RESTORATION IN MIDDLE FORK JOHN DAY RIVER, OR Robin M. Henderson & James R. Pratt.
K. Bruce Jones EPA Office of Research and Development U.S. EPA Science Advisory Board Regional Vulnerability Assessment Advisory Panel Meeting October,
GREAT BAY and NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
J. M. C. K Jayawardhana1, W. D. T. M Gunawardhana 1, E. P
Score Four: Exploring with Maps
CMC: Who we are and how we can collaborate with the
Intro to Stream Monitoring
Intercalibration progress: Central - Baltic GIG Rivers
Using Bugs and GIS to Assess and Manage Watershed Health
Presentation transcript:

A Tool to Evaluate the Health of Streams and Rivers within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Katie Foreman 1, Claire Buchanan 2, Adam Griggs 2, Andrea Nagel 2, Jacqueline Johnson 2, Caroline Wicks 3, Bill Dennison 4 National Water Quality Monitoring Council 8 th National Monitoring Conference Portland, Oregon April 30-May 4, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science- Chesapeake Bay Program Office 2 Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin 3 Ecocheck/NOAA UMCES partnership 4 University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science

Overview Introduction Methodology for the basin-wide B-IBI Results Management applications

Need for a standardized index 64,000 square mile watershed  6 states, District of Colombia Many different methodologies for monitoring and assessment  benthic, fish, habitat, water quality Need to evaluate stream health in a uniform manner and in the context of the Chesapeake Bay watershed

Benthic macroinvertebrate communities are good indicators of stream health

Developing indicators with 303(d)/305(b) data was insufficient Incomparable results  Different sampling methods, criteria, and scales

Family-Level Regional B-IBI was developed Developed in 2010 by Chesapeake Bay Program’s Nontidal Water Quality Workgroup Adapted from basin-wide B-IBI for the Potomac River Basin (Astin 2006, 2007)  Assumption: A standardized regional B-IBI can be developed from multi- jurisdictional data if family-level benthic data collection and RBP protocols are employed by each organization; differences in sampling size, gear used, etc. are not significant at the family level of assessment.

Large dataset leads to rigor in B-IBI 18 data sources 20,833 stations

Eight steps to develop the B-IBI 1. Compiling data 2. Identifying candidate metrics 3. Classifying by bioregion (non-coastal plain) 4. Identifying reference and degraded sites 5. Testing metrics 6. Selecting the best performing metrics 7. Testing and choosing the best scoring approach 8. Jackknife validation of results

Stream health is mostly very poor or poor

Stream health linked to land use Urban and agricultural footprint most apparent

B-IBI used to determine nutrient response thresholds ** Nutrient response thresholds can be: median TP and median TN of Bin B “Desirable biological communities will occur most of the time when… median [TP] < threshold and median [TN] < threshold and confounding habitat and water quality factors are removed/accounted for.” no impairment most impaired Courtesy of ICPRB 2012

B-IBI used to develop ecologically-based WQ criteria Coastal Plain Piedmont/Valleys Ridges excellent poor Thresholds Indicated in Analysis of Multiple Nutrient-Sensitive Family-Level Metrics * Chessie BIBI is apparently more nutrient sensitive than its component metrics TP (mg/liter) <0.029<0.012<0.013 and TN (mg/liter) <0.58<1.13<0.85 * Courtesy of ICPRB 2012

Conditional Probability of Chessie BIBI Score = “Fair” or Better Chessie BIBI % Alteration in Flashiness * Piedmont, Ridges, and Valleys bioregions of the Potomac River Basin B-IBI used to determine the ecological effects of flow alterations Courtesy of ICPRB 2012

Conditional Probability Probability of Macroinvertebrate Metric Receiving a “Fair” or Better Score  % Scrapers % Chironomidae Hilsenhoff FBI Shannon-Wiener Diversity % EPT % Alteration in Flashiness * Piedmont, Ridges, and Valleys bioregions in the Potomac River Basin Courtesy of ICPRB 2012

B-IBI is an effective tool for stream health assessments Standardizes and utilizes multi-jurisdictional data for regional water quality assessments Provides a tool for managers to:  Determine relative health of local and regional waterways  Investigate the impacts of BMPs and watershed protection measures  Identify areas in need of restoration or protection  Evaluate the impacts of different management decisions on the biological community including water quality standards and flow management

Acknowledgements

References Astin, L.E Data synthesis and bioindicator development for nontidal streams in the interstate Potomac River basin, USA. Ecological Indicators 6: Astin, L. E Developing biological indicators from diverse data: The Potomac Basin- wide Index of Benthic Integrity (B-IBI). Ecological Indicators 7: Buchanan, C., K. Foreman, J. Johnson, and A. Griggs Development of a Basin-wide Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Non-Tidal Streams and Wadeable Rivers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Final Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program Non-Tidal Water Quality Workgroup. ICPRB Report Report prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program. Foreman, K., Buchanan C., Nagel, A Development of ecosystem health indexes for nontidal wadeable streams and rivers in the Chesapeake Bay basin. Report to the Chesapeake Bay Program Non-Tidal Water Quality Workgroup. 12/5/08.