Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, and Dave Nemazie
description
Transcript of Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, and Dave Nemazie
Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, and Dave Nemazie
UMCES Integration and Application Network
Regional and Local Report Cards Aid in Environmental
Problem Solving
Outline• UMCES Integration and Application
Network (IAN) Overview and Philosophy
• Review of ecosystem health parameters
• Integrating monitoring data to focus restoration efforts through Report Cards
• Conclusions
IAN Mission and Philosophy• Create an environmental campaign toward solving the
problem not just studying the problem to a higher resolution
• Dispassionate
• Embrace complexity
• Publish & funding via peer review
• Getting it right
• Passionate
• Simplify
• Publish & funding via stakeholders
• Getting it done
STUDY SOLVE
In order to both study and solve problems, the following attributes are needed:
Credibility, tenacity, creativity, and wisdom
• Shared vision
• Organized participation
• Leadership
• Varied communication
• Effective actions
Solving environmental problems
Management
ResearchMonitoring
IAN philosophy: Combining knowledge, power & passion to stimulate paradigm shifts
• Key processes operate to maintain stable & sustainable ecosystems• Zones of human impacts are minimal • Critical habitats remain intact• Use indicators to asses and monitor health
Healthy ecosystem
Unhealthy ecosystem
What is “ecosystem health”?
Management objective• Clear water Turbidity Secchi > 1.7 m • Maintain seagrass Seagrass area Historical
habitat distribution• Reduce sewage Sewage plume 15N < 4 ppt.
inputs mapping• Reduce nutrients Total phosphorus <1.6 M• Reduce Chlorophyll a <1.0 g/L
phytoplankton• Reduce harmful Extent of bloom Historical
algal bloom distribution
Ecosystemhealth
indicatorReference
value
Ecosystem health report cards• Provide a performance derived letter or numeric
grade to a component of the ecosystem or a geographic region
• Enable large and often complex amounts of information to be communicated to a broad audience
• Can provide accountability; measuring the success of a particular effort
• Identify regions or issues of concern
• Focus research and management actions
• Use peer pressure to affect change
Report card requirements
• Spatially explicit - grades for different Bay or river regions
• Robust and defendable
• Underpinned by quality data
• Produced each year
• Responsive to changes in conditions
Report card approachReporting progress towards thresholds:
• Capitalizes on effort taken to develop thresholds
• Provides consistency defendable and simple index values
• Linked to management objectives
Water quality and biotic indicators combined into indices
Data integrated Compared to thresholds Combined into indices
Water quality
Biotic
2007: Bay health slightly improved
• Health remains generally poor
• Health varied from region to region
• Lowest grade: Western Shore Tributaries (D-)
• Highest grade: Upper Bay (B)
• Overall Bay grade: C-
Outcomes of Chesapeake Bay report card
• Broad media coverage– Newspapers, TV and radio– Local, national and international– Focus on what needs to be done– Editorials and OpEds
• In-depth follow-up media articles• Many requests from educators (grade 8 to
university)• Meetings with local governments to discuss
restoration future actions• Adopted and used by BayStat
– Health portion of website– Prioritization for restoration funding
including Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund
Need to provide local and regional synthesis
• Local: All data for one waterway analyzed, synthesized and presentede.g. What’s happening in my backyard
• Regional: Comparison between regions based on maps, graphs and report carde.g. How does my backyard compare to yours
Chesapeake Bay local ecosystem health report cards
Background of local report cards • Funded by Chesapeake Bay Trust
– CBT funded community monitoring data rarely analyzed, communicated or used
• Provide framework/focus for monitoring and analysis• Provide communication and outreach products• 1-year collaborative program
– UMCES, EcoCheck– Patuxent Riverkeeper – Chester River Association– NOAA, MD DNR,
• Partners involved in releasing Magothy and South Report cards in 2009
Objectives of developing local report cards
• Produce annual report card for Patuxent and Chester Rivers. Build upon the experience of the Chesapeake Bay, South River and Magothy River report cards;
• Start developing a guiding document that can be used by other organizations (i.e. RiverKeepers, watershed associations) to produce report card – with the aim of ensuring comparable and similar report cards produced for many of the Bay tributaries;
• Use existing community networks to help communicate results and focus restoration efforts.
• Use local report card product to drive broader needs of the organization.
The tributaries • Chester River
– Extensive citizen monitoring program already established
– Little synthesis, communication and outreach of the data
• Patuxent River– Significant professional monitoring
programs– Augmentation with volunteer monitoring will
begin in 2008– Established website for data entry and
presentation
Report cards have benefits to all stages of community monitoring
Chester report card project
Patuxent report card projectStages addressed in project
Selecting IndicatorsRecognize that:
– Indicators available or applicable to report cards are not consistent between tributaries
– Establish standard indicators but in the meantime, work with what is available
– Need indicator framework to help consistency between report card methods
Tidal / estuarine regions• Same indicators and methods as Chesapeake
Bay report card• Based on CBP data (augmented by citizen
monitoring data)• Divided tidal area into smallest possible units
based on available data• Boundaries based on CBP segmentation
– Chester: Upper and lower Estuary– Patuxent: Upper, mid and lower
Chester River Report Card• Chester Tester Data• Selected water quality indicators (DO, turbidity, PO4
-, NH4+, NO3
-)• Defined reporting regions (mostly hydrologic units)• Sourced appropriate thresholds • Combined into overarching indices for report card grade (average all
scores)
Patuxent River Report Card• Estuarine regions only in 2007• Expand to non-tidal creeks in 2008
Report Cards provided more than just grades
• Provided estuary health assessment– report card grades
• Linked report card grades to land use– Why report card grades
• Told some stories– Marsh N removal & aquatic grasses
• Solicited help for monitoring• Focused on areas for further action
Regional Report Card Media Rollout
Chester River• Anchored by Chester River Association
– UMCES plays supporting role as science experts
• Released as part of their annual “Chester Tester” citizen monitoring summit
• Covered in Easton Star Democrat
Patuxent River• Anchored Patuxent Riverkeeper
– UMCES plays supporting role as science experts
• Media event held on the banks of the Patuxent• Coverage in Washington Post, Annapolis Capital
and Prince Frederick Independent
Regional report card processCurrent Lessons• Worked with community group to develop methods and approaches
– Indicators– Reporting regions– Threshold etc
• Analysis and report card production conducted by UMCES• Report card reviewed by entire group• Release coordinated and run by community group
Next Steps• Transition Chester and Patuxent Report card production to
RiverKeepers• Work with two additional community groups to produce report card• Develop guidance document• Develop and facilitate workshops on report card methods and
approaches
Conclusions• Indicators useful in assessing ecosystem health
• Effective communication elicits management actions
• Environmental report cards provide focus & feedback
• Targets actions restoration, protection, and policies