Team 3—Ecological Monitoring

1. Team 3—Ecological Monitoring • Targeted field sampling for groundtruthing of modeling results • Evaluate current condition at reach scale • Macroinvertebrates—IBI (Aquatic Life Use attainment) • IBI (biological condition tiers) • SWR (site-specific habitat & other physical features) • SWR (site-specific stressors, reach hydrology) • Define reference domains for realistic management goals • Range of SWR/IBI data

2. Team 3 – Ecological Assessment • STEP 1: Compile readily available data [Spr ‘14] • Monitoring Data • PA watersheds: PADEP macroinvertebrate data; selected studies • Manokin: Maryland Biological Stream Survey data; selected studies • Management Data • Watershed coordinators • Research centers • Regulatory Data • Impaired streams • PADEP Data (e.g., water withdrawal permits)

3. Existing Monitoring Data • WE-38 Data • Long-term stream data • Biological data (Genito et al. 2002) • PADEP Macroinvertebrate Data • 40 SSWAP sites • 17 6D200 sites (riffle IBI) • Habitat Assessments for all

4. Long-term Stream Data: WE38 • Precipitation • 1968-present • Mean annual precipitation 1080 mm • Highest monthly precipitation June (125 mm) • Lowest February (60 mm) • Stream Discharge • 1968-present • Mean annual streamflow 500 mm • Highest flows in March, lowest flows in August • Water Quality • 1983-present • Nitrate-N, ammonium-N, orthophosphate-P • 3x per week, irrespective of hydrologic events

5. PADEP Macroinvertebrate Data

6. Existing Management Data • BMP’s implemented and where • Crop management • Interpret ecological monitoring results

7. Mahantango BMPs • Active Groups: Tri-Valley Watershed Association, Conservation Districts for Schuylkill and Northumberland Counties • Past projects: 110 acres riparian buffer planting; >1400 acres of contour plowing; 6 grassed waterways, and >200 acres conservation cover • Suggested by DEP: streambank stabilization and fencing; riparian buffer strips; strip cropping; conservation tillage; stormwater retention wetlands; and heavy use area protection (etc.) • Limitations: lack of interest and connection with local population Source: PADEP 2013

8. Regulatory Data—Impaired Streams Source: PADEP 2013

9. Mahantango (Sub-watershed Info) • Designated use: CWF, MF • 74.82 miles of Mahantango Creek Subwatershed impaired by sediment (siltation) from agricultural land use practices (based on SSWAP data) • Mean annual sediment loadings for 2013 were estimated at 100,752.6054 lbs/day • Sediment reduction can be achieved through reductions in sediment loadings from cropland, hay/pasture, developed areas, and streambanks.

10. Possible Pollutants of Concern (water withdrawals, landfills, discharge points, etc.) Source: PASDA (www.pasda.psu.edu)

11. Team 3 – Ecological Assessment • STEP 2: Conduct landscape assessment on sub-watersheds to identify probable areas of high and low ecological integrity [Spr ‘14] • STEP 3: Conduct rapid assessments on selected sites on all 4 watersheds (~20 sites per) [Su/Fa ‘14] - 3 summer interns hired for fieldwork - conduct SWR Index boot camp in early June • STEP 4: Conduct intensive biological assessments using aquatic macroinvertebrates (& vascular plants) to ascertain baseline condition, ALU attainment, etc. [Spr & Fa ‘14; Spr ‘15]

12. Site Selection Process • Gradient of high nutrients/sediment to low nutrients/sediment (Mahantango) • Land use gradient • Stratified by stream size (1st/2nd vs. 4th/5th) & weighted for headwaters (about 2/3 to 1/3) • Prioritize wetland sites & sites with existing data

13. Portion of Mahantango (ex.)

14. Close-up Example (WE-38)

15. Pollution Hotspots: Linking CSAs of Aquatic Nutrient Pollution with Biological Integrity in WE38 Claire Regan Master’s Thesis in Geography

16. Overview • Create the link between SWAT-VSA outputs and benthic macroinvertebrates • Provide supplemental information for CNS • SWR Index compared to SWAT-VSA • Grab sample utility • Sampling design • High resolution and long-term data in WE38

17. Collick et al. 2014 • Modeled WE38 for 1999-2010 • High resolution management information • Compared SWAT and SWAT-VSA • Amy and Tamie have shared model outputs

19. Questions • What is the optimal way to use SWAT model outputs to predict ecological integrity? • How do macroinvertebrate communities correlate with upstream critical source areas of sediments, phosphorus, and nitrogen? • At what scale, spatially and temporally?

20. SPATIAL SCALE

21. SPATIAL SCALE

22. Temporal scale • All years (1999-2010) • Recent years only • Extreme years excluded (e.g. drought years)

23. Questions • How does SWAT compare with SWR Index? • Rapid field assessment developed by Brooks et al. (2009), can be used in conjunction with macroinvertebrate sampling • Final SWR Index Score? • Components of SWR? • E.g. habitat assessment, stressor checklist

24. Questions • How have macroinvertebrate communities changed over time? • A study by Genito et al. (2002) also studied macroinvertebrates in WE38 • Can changes be explained using SWAT-VSA outputs?

25. Genito et al. 2002

26. Questions • How do water chemistry samples match with SWAT-VSA modeled values? • Grab samples of nutrients and/or sediment will be collected if possible

27. Questions • What is the effect of forested buffer areas? • What is the effect of dilution at stream confluences?

28. Methods Empirical • Macroinvertebrates • Water Chemistry • SWR Index Acquired • SWAT Outputs • Genito et al. (2002)

29. Sources • Brooks, R.,McKenney-Easterling, M., Brinson, M., Rheinhardt, R., Havens, K., O’Brien, D., Bishop, J., Rubbo, J., Armstrong, B., and Hite, J. 2009. A Stream-Wetland-Riparian (SWR) Index for Assessing Condition of Aquatic Ecosystems in Small Watersheds along the Atlantic Slope of the Eastern U.S. Environ Monit Assess 150: 101-117. • Collick, A.S., Fuka, D.R., Kleinman, P.J., Buda, A.R., Weld, J.L., White, M.J., Veith, T.L., Bryant, R.B., Bolster, C.H., and Easton, Z.M (2014). Predicting phosphorus dynamics in complex terrains using a variable source area hydrology model. Hydrological Processes. • Genito, D., Gburek, W. J., & Sharpley, A. N. (2002). Response of Stream Macroinvertebrates to Agricultural Land Cover in a Small Watershed. Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 17(1), 109–119.

30. Team 3 – Ecological Assessment Timeline • Level 1 – Landscape Analyses (Yr 1) • Level 2 – Rapid (Yr 1 Su-Fa) • Level 3 – Intensive (Mahantango Yr 1 Spr; Conewago Yr 1 – Fa; Spring Creek & Manokin Yr 2 Spr.)