Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, and Dave Nemazie

1. Regional and Local Report Cards Aid in Environmental Problem Solving UMCES Integration and Application Network Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, andDave Nemazie

2. 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

3. IAN Mission and Philosophy Create an environmental campaign toward solving the problem not just studying the problem to a higher resolution STUDY SOLVE • Dispassionate • Embrace complexity • Publish & funding via peer review • Getting it right • Passionate • Simplify • Publish & funding via stakeholders • Getting it done In order to both study and solve problems, the following attributes are needed: Credibility, tenacity, creativity, and wisdom

4. Solving environmental problems Management Monitoring Research • Shared vision • Organized participation • Leadership • Varied communication • Effective actions

5. IAN philosophy: Combining knowledge, power & passion to stimulate paradigm shifts

6. What is “ecosystem health”? • 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 Unhealthyecosystem

7. Clear water Turbidity Secchi > 1.7 m Maintain seagrass Seagrass area Historical habitat distribution Reduce sewage Sewage plumed15N < 4 ppt. inputs mapping Reduce nutrients Total phosphorus <1.6 mM Reduce Chlorophyll a <1.0 mg/L phytoplankton Reduce harmful Extent of bloom Historical algal bloomdistribution Management objective Ecosystem health indicator Reference value

8. 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

9. 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

10. Report card approach Reporting progress towards thresholds: • Capitalizes on effort taken to develop thresholds • Provides consistency  defendable and simple index values • Linked to management objectives

11. Water quality and biotic indicators combined into indices Water quality Biotic Data integrated Compared to thresholds Combined into indices

12. 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-

13. 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

14. Need to provide local and regional synthesis Local: All data for one waterway analyzed, synthesized and presented e.g. What’s happening in my backyard Regional: Comparison between regions based on maps, graphs and report card e.g. How does my backyard compare to yours

15. Chesapeake Bay local ecosystem health report cards

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. Report cards have benefits to all stages of community monitoring Patuxent report card project Chester report card project Stages addressed in project

20. Selecting Indicators Recognize 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

21. 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

22. 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)

23. Patuxent River Report Card • Estuarine regions only in 2007 • Expand to non-tidal creeks in 2008

24. 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

25. 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

26. Regional report card process Current 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

27. Conclusions • Indicators useful in assessing • ecosystem health • Environmental report cards • provide focus & feedback • Effective communication • elicits management actions • Targets actions • restoration, protection, and policies