1

EMECS9

Baltimore, MD

August 31, 2011

Communicating the Health of Maryland’s Coastal Bays

Involving Citizens With Science

Carol B. McCollough, Carol J. Cain,

Heath Kelsey, Brian Sturgis, Catherine E. Wazniak

2

Where We Are

3

• Coastal Bays monitoring program

– assess (status)

– track (trends)

– 10 years of data

– cooperation among agencies

• federal, State, NGO, university

What We Do

4

What is measured

• Water Quality

– TN

– TP

– CHLa

– DO

– Water Quality Index

• Habitat

– Seagrass

– Macroalgae

– Shoreline

– Wetlands

• Sediment Quality

– Excess organic carbon

– Mean Apparent Effect Threshold

– Ambient Toxicity

• Living Resources

– Phytoplankton

– Finfish

– Shellfish

– Benthic animals

– Exotic species

– Fish kills

• Stream Health

– nitrogen species

– phosphorous species

– BIBI

– FIBI

• Harmful Algae

– Blooms

5

Participants

• Water Quality Monitoring

– Maryland Department of Natural Resources (State)

– Assateague Island National Seashore (federal)

– Maryland Coastal Bays Program (NGO)

• Living Resources Surveys

– Maryland Department of Natural Resources

• Fish, Shellfish, Macroalgae, Harmful Algal Blooms, Benthos

– Virginia Institute of Marine Science (university)

• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)

• Other Information

– US Geological Survey - groundwater inputs (federal)

– Maryland Department of the Environment – wetlands, fish kills (State)

– Maryland Department of Natural Resources – sediments, shoreline change (State)

– University of Delaware – exotic species abundance (university)

6

Products

• Ecosystem Health Report (5 years)

– Level of Complexity • industry/professional standard

• most complex

– Target audience: • Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee

• Resource managers

– Goal• Develop a science agenda to assess ecosystem health, promote

research, and provide recommendations for public policy

– Effectiveness Measures• Reduction in the number of impaired water bodies.

• Provision of documents to support funding for BMPs, implementation & monitoring of 2 year milestones.

• Acres of habitat improvements and conservation easements

7

Products

• State of the Bays Report (5 years)

– Level of Complexity• moderately complex

– Target Audience• Local and State decision makers

– Goals• Easy to understand: “Are the bays healthy & are key species abundant”

• Identify policies and procedures that are necessary to protect and/or improve the ecosystem

– Measures of Effectiveness• Willingness of officials to

– enforce existing regulations

– adopt new policies or procedures that promote sustainable ecosystem health

8

Products

• Coastal Bays Report Card (annual)

– Level of Complexity• lay audience – least complex

– Target Audience• General public (citizens and visitors) and local stakeholders

– Goals• Easy to understand: “Are the bays healthy & are key species abundant”

– Measures of Effectiveness• Citizen participation in Coastal Bays Program initiatives, meetings, or

volunteer opportunities

9

Report Card Purpose

• abbreviated synthesis on a relevant timescale for politicians, tourists and residents - keeps the health of the Bays continuously in the public eye.

• transparent, timely, and geographically detailedannual assessment

– evaluates sub-basins within the Coastal Bays system

• tells stories of successful partnerships and accomplishments, and recommends individual actions and opportunities for citizens and visitors

10

Coastal Bays Report Card

11

• Standard indicators– water quality (DO, TN, TO, CHLa)

– living resources (hard clam abundance, SAV distribution)

• Use of volunteer data - MCBP

• Multi-agency collaboration and data sharing – DNR, ASIS, MCBP, VIMS

• Presentation of results as indices and „grades‟ – standardization of data analysis methods

• Storytelling

• Publication and release to public as a newsworthy event

• Web support

Report Card Methodology

12

Report Card Indicators

• Indicators– relate to management objectives

• established in the Comprehensive Conservation & Management Plan (1999), and which

– represent key ecological processes• Dissolved Oxygen (DO)

• Total Nitrogen (TN)

• Total Phosphorous (TP)

• Chlorophyll a (CHLA)

• Hard Clam Abundance (Mercenaria mercenaria)

• Seagrass / Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Coverage (SAV)

– fulfill practical requirements• data availability

• geographic coverage.

13

Gathering Water Quality Data

Monthly sampling at

84 sites

24 citizen volunteer

42 State agency

18 federal agency

14

Gathering Water Quality Data

Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring

initiated in 1997

organized and began sampling prior to a comprehensive

program being developed

The volunteer program has since been integrated into a

larger MCBP monitoring program

Data collected adds to existing monitoring efforts

provides general long-term data at locations which

are not routinely agency-monitored,

provides more frequent sampling (twice a month) to

provide greater insight on the extent and

duration of algal blooms, and

provides observational information on living

resources

http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/interactive-map

Agency WQ Monitoring

partial federal initiated in 1987, expanded in

1999

partial State initiated in 1999, expanded in 2001

monthly sample collection

majority of sites must be reached by boat

15

Volunteer WQ Monitoring Data

http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/interactive-map

16

Gathering Living Resources Data

Submerged Aquatic Vegetation FlightlinesHard Clam Sampling Stations

State Agency and University

17

Report Card Results

• For each sub-embayment, the Health Index equally

weights (averages) the six indicators into a single

overarching score, which is an overall assessment

of health for each region. This score is converted

to a grade for each region.

• Each region's score is then area-weighted and

averaged to produce the overall Coastal Bays

grade.

18

Report Card Grades

A: All water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. When the water quality in these locations is determined to be very good, the habitat conditions for fish and shellfish are usually favorable as well.

B: Most water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be good, often leading to good habitat conditions for fish and shellfish.

C: There is a mix of good and poor levels of water quality and biological health indicators. Quality of water in these locations tends to be fair, leading to fair habitat conditions for fish and shellfish.

D: Some or few water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be poor, often leading to poor habitat conditions for fish and shellfish.

F: Very few or no water quality and biological health indicators meet desired levels. Quality of water in these locations tends to be very poor, most often leading to very poor habitat conditions for fish and shellfish.

19

Report Card Presentation

from the web

from the print version

20

• Ecosystem health data can be synthesized and distilled in a valid way to communicate to the interested public

• Citizen data collection is a valuable contribution to this process

• http://www.eco-check.org/reportcard/mcb/2010/

• http://www.mdcoastalbays.org/interactive-map

Involving Citizens With Science