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