1 / 50

Finalizing the Chesapeake Bay Health Index (BHI) Part 1: Water Quality Index Part 2: Biotic Index

Finalizing the Chesapeake Bay Health Index (BHI) Part 1: Water Quality Index Part 2: Biotic Index. Bill Dennison Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, Claire Buchanan, Roberto Llans ó , and Peter Bergstrom On behalf of the Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup (TMAW) & the

leia
Download Presentation

Finalizing the Chesapeake Bay Health Index (BHI) Part 1: Water Quality Index Part 2: Biotic Index

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Finalizing the Chesapeake Bay Health Index (BHI)Part 1: Water Quality IndexPart 2: Biotic Index Bill Dennison Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, Claire Buchanan, Roberto Llansó, and Peter Bergstrom On behalf of the Tidal Monitoring and Analysis Workgroup (TMAW) & the Living Resources Analysis Workgroup (LivRAW)

  2. Major outcomes • Water Quality Index (Chlorophyll, Dissolved Oxygen, Clarity) will be calculated and mapped, but not necessarily included in calculation of Bay Health Index • Bay Health Index (SAV, BIBI, PIBI) will be calculated, tabulated and used to compare reporting regions • Reporting regions will be altered to group smaller tributaries, more aligned with trib strategies • A 0-100 scale will be used with 5 divisions (stoplight color scheme) • A Bay-wide integration will be calculated from the area-weighted individual indices

  3. Strengths of health assessment approach • Rigorous, ecosystem health-related thresholds • Biotic indicators are integrative in nature • SAV (long term) • Benthic IBI (medium term) • Phytoplankton IBI (short term) • Indicators provide assessment of different Chesapeake Bay habitats • Shallow water assessed with SAV • Deep water assessed with Benthic IBI • Open water assessed with Phytoplankton IBI • Mid-channel assessed with water quality • Long term data trends of each indicator available

  4. Key communication issues • Provide individual data maps • Express long term data trends of each indicator • Develop new table: sample size (146 x 12-20; 250 x 1; 25 x 12-13); time frame for integration (chl = Mar-Sep; DO = Jun-Sep; Clarity = Mar-Nov); range of values, etc. • Develop ways to calculate and express variability • Use conceptual diagrams to link indicators and various key living resources & habitats

  5. Index categories

  6. Conceptual diagram

  7. Indicators selection • Proposed indicators for 2006 report

  8. Water quality maps

  9. Water Quality Index 2002 – low flow year Water Quality Index 2003 – high flow year

  10. Biotic indices maps

  11. Future indicator development • Chemical contaminants • Human health threshold (not water quality) • Tissue samples (integrate over time) • Do not respond annually • Uncertain geographic representation • Confusion with EPA Coastal Condition vs. 303(d) listing • Nutrients • Trend data has linear and non-linear trends • Criteria definition needs to be elucidated • Other examples of separating nutrient concentrations from symptom expressions (e.g., National Estuarine Eutrophication Assessment) • Nutrient limitation approach (Fisher et al.) and nutrient concentration approach could be used • PIBI and Chl are good integrators of nutrients • Nutrients are ‘flashy’ vs. more integrative measures

  12. Reporting regions

  13. Reporting regions issues • Use detailed maps of depth contours, residence time • Indicate stations on data maps • Provide station by station data (e.g., pdf) • Develop a hyperlinked data set (2007) • Work toward developing mapping approaches and continuous data distributions so that reporting regions are less important

  14. Revised reporting regions • Upper Bay • Mid Bay • Lower Bay • Patapsco-Back • Patuxent • Potomac • Rappannock • York • James • Elizabeth • Tangier • Choptank • Chester • Lower Eastern shore • Upper Eastern shore • Upper Western shore • Lower Western shore

  15. Benchmark approach issues • Investigate different methods of establishing benchmarks • Percentiles (cumulative frequency distributions) • Link benchmarks to living resources (e.g., DO from BIBI; Clarity from SAV) • Model results • Compare different thresholds (table)

  16. Chesapeake Bay health assessment

  17. Biotic indices: Bay grasses, Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity, Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity

  18. Next steps • Link spatially explicit bay health index with Bay Health & Restoration Assessment • Continue to build technical supporting documentation • Mock up communication product(s) using alternative approaches • Engage communication specialists, IC, STAC and other reviewers and incorporate feedback

  19. Retrospective analysis of biotic indicators

  20. Example cumulative frequency distribution

  21. Indicators selection • Current indicators • Not all indicators can be included at this stage because: • Some are still being developed (tidal wetlands and menhaden) • Timeframe not suitable (chemical contaminants) • Goals and assessment at bay-wide scale (striped bass, blue crab, oysters) • Indicator is for a specific location only (shad)

  22. Reporting regions • Discrete regions of the Bay used for purpose of reporting • Not too many in number (currently 14) • Must contain sufficient number of sampling stations for analysis • Based on current CBP segmentation • Group like water bodies • Align, where possible with tributary strategy boundaries, other strata (e.g., B-IBI)

  23. Methods: Biotic Index • Aquatic grasses (SAV) • Michael Williams (CBP/UMCES) • Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity (B-IBI) • Roberto Llansó (Versar) • Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity (P-IBI) • Claire Buchanan (ICPRB) • Biotic and Bay health index • Michael Williams (CBP/UMCES)

  24. Aquatic grasses: goals • Restoration goals for each Chesapeake Bay segment (Use Attainability Analysis) • All segment goals within a reporting region combined  reporting region goal (ha)

  25. Aquatic grasses: compliance assessment • Most recent year data • Compliance of a reporting region • Total area present (acres) as a proportion of the total restoration goal • If SAV acreages exceed the restoration acreages, that segment’s SAV was reduced to equal the restoration acreage (i.e., can only = 100% or less)

  26. Benthic-IBI: data • Chesapeake Bay Benthic Monitoring Program data • Collected August through September • Approximately 250 stratified random sampling stations Location of Benthic monitoring probability-based sites in 2005

  27. Benthic-IBI: goals • Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Programs have adopted Benthic Community Restoration Goals as a monitoring tool • The restoration goals are quantitative benchmarks: They describe the characteristics of benthic assemblages expected in non-degraded habitats • The B-IBI is scaled from 1 to 5, and sites with values of 3.0 or more are considered to meet the Restoration Goals.

  28. Benthic-IBI: compliance assessment • Multi-metric, habitat-specific index of benthic community condition • Selection of metrics and the values for scoring metrics developed separately for each of seven benthic habitat types in Chesapeake Bay • Described in: • Weisberg et al. (1997), Estuaries 20:149-158 • Alden et al. (2002), Environmetrics 13:473-498

  29. Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity Metric Scoring System

  30. Excess Abundance or Excess Biomass Indicative of Stress

  31. Metrics

  32. Benthic-IBI: compliance assessment • Estimate the amount of area in a reporting region that meets the Restoration Goals (B-IBI >=3.0) • Every site that meets the goal assigned a value of 1, otherwise a site is assigned 0 • Proportion of area meeting the goals and its variance is estimated • For some reporting regions, estimates were calculated for subregions and these were then combined using proportion of area as weighting factor.

  33. Phytoplankton: Data • VA and MD Phytoplankton Monitoring Survey Data • Approximately 25 stations • Collected 12-13 times a year • Spring (March, April, May) • Summer (July, August, September)

  34. Phytoplankton IBI - Goal • PIBI interim goal of 4.0 (1.0 - 5.0 scale) • high level of biological integrity is certain • very low risk of harmful algal blooms • assoc. WQ meets SAV habitat requirements • commensurate with Ches Bay water clarity and DO criteria attainment • Not establish how attainment of a PIBI goal of 4.0 should be measured (mean? median? threshold? 10th%?)

  35. Application of BIBI method to PIBI

  36. Application of BIBI method to PIBI

  37. Findings • Pass/fail method currently used to report BIBI status can also be successfully applied to PIBI • Goal of “100% PIBI > 3.0 threshold criterion” is in general agreement with goal of “median or mean PIBI = 4.0” • “% of Goal” method used to report the 3 biotic and 3 water quality indicators differs from “% attainment of water quality criteria” methods

  38. Recommendations • Align methods and goals to that used for the Benthic IBI • % achievement of the threshold criteria • Threshold criteria defined as median PIBI of 3 • Area weighted

  39. Phytoplankton-IBI: compliance assessment

  40. Phytoplankton-IBI: compliance assessment

  41. Biotic Index

  42. 2002 Bay Health Index

  43. 2003 Bay Health Index

  44. Question to address: Do we agree with the proposed approach for assessing compliance for each of the three indicators (Aquatic grass, BIBI, PIBI)? • Data sources? • Goals and thresholds? • Compliance assessment methods? Do we agree that Biotic index is determined as the average of the 3 compliance estimates

  45. Question to address: • Do we agree that Bay health index is determined as the average of the 2 component indices (Water quality index & Biotic index)? • What are the appropriate groupings for the BHI values: Those proposed? Another? • How might the index be improved in the future…

  46. Phytoplankton-IBI: compliance assessment

More Related