Overview of Phase II & Multiple Indicators To Assess Baseline Conditions At Conservation Projects In The Delaware River Watershed Initiative

Transcription

1 Overview of Phase II & Multiple Indicators To Assess Baseline Conditions At Conservation Projects In The Delaware River Watershed Initiative Stefanie A. Kroll, Ph.D., Carol Collier, Alison Minerovic, Meghan O Donnell, David Keller, Richard Horwitz, Ph.D., John Jackson, Ph.D. NJ DEP, November 4, 2016

2 THINGS TO THINK ABOUT o Are these issues that you are dealing with? o Are there water quality problems upstream of major intakes? Is this a way to approach source water protection? o Are there potential NGO partners in your priority watersheds or jurisdiction? o Is this a way to build local support? o Can it be uses as Alternative TMDL or TMDL avoidance? o How could this process help me?

3 DRWI 8 critical areas (clusters of watersheds) 4 key threats Ag Runoff Suburban Stormwater Forest Loss and Fragmentation Aquifer WQ & Depletion Aligned priorities for Land Protection, Restoration Projects Monitoring & Assessment ~50 conservation nonprofits

4 Phase 1 Planning Priority Stressors Delineate Geographic Targets (Clusters) Laboratories of Action Institutional Capacity On the Ground Action 14,000+ acres critical headwaters forest protected 6,000+ acres restored Embed Monitoring ~300 Stations Trust Building

5 Phase 2 Planning Plan: (6 yrs) Action: (3 yrs) Lessons Learned Explicit Goal Setting Threat Analysis Theory of Change Metrics 2 Strategies Capital Complementary Moving Toward More Dataderived Decisions Stronger Scientific Basis Must answer Why??

6 Threats Model Point source discharge Acid mine drainage Incompatible stewardship ethic Organizations working in isolation Lack of economic and policy incentives Incompatible agricultural practices Pollutants Poor water quality Lack of understanding of watershed systems Incompatible sub/urbanization Energy infrastructure Impact of development & growth Dams, barriers Impacts to the natural flow regime Lost, degraded and fragmented habitat Altered hydrology Reduced natural cover and functionality Goal Key Contributing Factors Direct Threats Ecosystem stressors Conservation Target

7

8 Metrics Development Performance Metrics Outcome Metrics

9 Monitoring and analyses # sites Habitat & chemistry 144

10 Objectives of monitoring and analyses Baseline As much before project information as is possible Interannual variation Predicting change Assemblage composition/ types Metric values from IBIs Projected reduction in inputs Best guess at how much assemblages might change short- and long-terms

11 Potential Change Metrics

12 Small streams Protection Lehigh & Poconos (for fish) Large streams Restoration Cluster New Jersey Highlands Brandywine- Christina Middle Schuylkill Upstream Philadelphia Schuylkill Highlands Upper Lehigh Poconos- Kittatinny Now Future Now Future Now Future High nutrient and pollution-tolerant taxa Range of percentages of tolerant taxa All sites have low % nutrient and ion tolerant taxa Algae Indicators of high nutrient and ion concentrations Range of percentages of tolerant taxa, some sites low quality Reduce dominance by tolerant taxa Low quality sites: higher index range, Good sites: maintain quality Maintain high scores Low quality sites: higher index range, Good sites: maintain quality Macroinvertebrates Tolerant, low mayfly, low diversity, low flowsensitive taxa All metrics low Tolerant, few flowsensitive taxa, low diversity Low % EPT, mayfly, relatively high pollution tolerant Higher in nearly all metrics Fewer pollutiontolerant taxa, higher diversity Improve in EPT, lower pollution tolerant, maintain overall No eels, lamprey, warm water fishes Warm water assemblages, sitedependent, some cool water fishes (reproducing and stocked trout) Low diversity Trout in few sites, warm water fishes No eels, lamprey, some warm water fishes (ponds) Sculpin, natural and stocked trout Fish Greater diversity, more cool water fishes Greater diversity, decreased biomass, more cool water fishes, more reproducing trout, increases inpollutionintolerant insectivores More diversity, stable functioning and biomass More trout & other cool water fishes Maintenance of communities, more reproducing trout Maintenance of communities, more native Brook Trout, more pollution-intolerant fishes

13 Metacommunity analysis example: macroinvertebrates Taxa associated with each group No3n ws_imp Urban Agriculture 71 Streamor Forest Strong response to environmental gradients in most cases (not as cohorts or co-occurrence), typically 3 groups

14 Community analyses Site classifications with 3 different indicator groups Many sites consistently fall in same categories across more than one indicator Subtle differences give us clues about local habitat being more important at sites that differ Fish communities vary but some taxa separate into different quality ratings Macroinvertebrate have several community types along gradient of disturbance-being refined. Diatoms relate to nutrients and ph, less clear on quality but also gives better gradient of complex conditions

15 FAMILY LEVEL ANALYSIS: THRESHOLD PLOT Forested Large substrate Watershed size Habitat index Nitrate Ag Ammonia Phosphorus (SRP) Developed/impervious land

16 The whole picture of stream response to conservation Multiple indicators are allowing us to better connect site conditions with land uses, stressors and where local habitat is more influential Metrics give us a broad goal for recovery Whole community data give a picture of what the future assemblages look like for visioning and connecting with stakeholders, but are messier Publications are in progress!

17 Thank you!