Measuring Restoration Success at Installations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Transcription

1 Measuring Restoration Success at Installations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Leslie Orzetti Bob Murphy Ecosystem Solutions, Inc.

2 Why measure success? Important component of any restoration monitoring program Assess the functionality of your restoration project Provides cost benefit analysis =

3 How measuring success can help you.. Justify funds for further restoration programs Demonstrate commitment to Chesapeake 2000 goals Meet regulatory requirements

4 How measuring success can help you.. Provide important data for variety of state and federal laws and statutes: Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act Coastal Zone Management Act Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 Alert installation commanders of natural resource success on their installation

5 How to measure success Data collection of specific parameters that indicate a change or response in the system Calculate metrics based on collected data Track changes in parameters and metrics over time Statistically or graphically compare data collected before and/or after your restoration project

6 Current Projects Riparian Buffer Restoration Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Restoration Shoreline modification

7 Riparian Buffer Restoration DoD Legacy funded project An Analysis of Forest Riparian Buffer Zones on Military Installations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 2006/2007 Goal: Assess the effectiveness of restored forest riparian zone buffers on military installations

8 Riparian Buffer Restoration Why is measuring riparian buffer success important? Help managers know the extent to which buffers are performing desired functions Help managers know the time required for the return of biological integrity Overall, help managers justify the need for and success of restoration activities on their installations

9 Riparian Buffer Restoration Why is measuring riparian buffer success important? Help identify watersheds in need of TMDL s and secure funding to mitigate TMDL s. Ensure habitat requirements for endangered species within aquatic and riparian areas

10 Riparian Buffer Restoration APPROACH Used database from AEC to locate restored areas Sites were located from Carlisle Barracks in PA to Sugar Grove in WVA to Norfolk Naval Base in VA Visited 30 different sites 22 sites were deemed sampleable 8 sites were either missing or unsampleable

11 Riparian Buffer Restoration Data Collected Water quality: temperature, oxygen, salinity/conductivity, nutrients, solids Benthic Macroinvertebrates Habitat Assessment Amount of data collected: Water quality: 22 sites Habitat Assessment: 20 sites Benthic Macroinvertebrates: 18 sites

12 Water Quality Results Trend shows improving ammonia concentrations with age of buffer Water Quality: Graphic shows grouping of sites based on physiographic region

13 Benthic Invertebrate Results Trend shows improving stonefly community over time. Stoneflies are not tolerant of pollution, therefore, this indicates improving water quality. Trend shows less dominance of 1 organism over time. A more diverse community is indicative of improving water quality.

14 Habitat Results 200 Habitat score Buffer age (years) Results show improving habitat scores with age of buffer. Improved habitat scores will support a more diverse benthic community. From Orzetti 2004.

15 Riparian Buffer Restoration Conclusions: Some sites are performing well E.g.: Fort Detrick,, Fort Meade, NWS Yorktown, Carlisle Barracks, NWSC Carderock Others are in need of further restoration or site management E.g.: St. Julien s Creek Annex, NWSC Carderock Some no longer exist or need extensive reworking: E.g.: NWSC Carderock,, Langley AFB, NMC Portsmouth

16 Riparian Buffer Restoration Recommendations: Ensure proper site selection and planting programs. Keep good and consistent records. Institute a monitoring program. Ensure proper maintenance of sites. Provide working definition of riparian forest buffer zone

17 SAV Restoration & Monitoring Project Title: Continued Development and Coordination of DoD Installation Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Funding: Legacy Program Partners: CRC, AEC Goal: To evaluate long-term status of DoD-sponsored SAV restoration in the Chesapeake Bay watershed

18 SAV Restoration & Monitoring Why is measuring SAV restoration success important? Without knowledge of success/failure, we cannot improve restoration methodologies Help managers justify the need for and success of restoration activities on their installations Encourage installations to implement water quality monitoring programs Show commitment to Chesapeake 2000 Agreement

19 SAV Restoration & Monitoring Project and site descriptions Army Navy Air Force Ft. Eustis (2) NSWC Indian Head (1) Ft. Monroe (2) NSWC Dahlgren (1) Langley AFB (2-4) Aberdeen Proving Ground (2-4) NAS Patuxent River; Solomons Annex (1) NAS Patuxent River; Webster Field (2) US Naval Academy (3) NAB Little Creek (3)

20 SAV Restoration & Monitoring Data collections- Water quality (temperature, oxygen, salinity) Stem counts at 8 randomly picked 1 m 2 square plots to estimate density

21 SAV Restoration & Monitoring Results All but two installations have been visited Most restorations have failed Likely due to water quality issues Success at : Little Creek and APG suggests large-scale restorations there

22 SAV Restoration & Monitoring Conclusions and Recommendations Implement Water Quality Monitoring Benefits - restoration targeting, TMDL, etc. Deploy test plots at appropriate locations Continue work with regional installations to encourage restoration where potential for success is high

23 Impacts of Shoreline Modification Project Title: Biological Assessment in a Nearshore Aquatic Ecosystem Associated with Shoreline Construction Funding: NAVFAC Goal: To assess the nearshore fish community in response to shoreline modification

24 Impacts of Shoreline Modification Why is measuring the impacts of shoreline modification important? Help determine the positive and negative impacts of your project. If a restoration project, help managers know if restoration is performing desired functions. Ensure proper habitat availability for both aquatic and terrestrial species affected by modification. Alert base commanders of success of projects, and help justify more funding.

25 Impacts of Shoreline Modification NSWC Indian Head 6 sites along project length 4 impact sites 2 control sites Data Collected Based on BACI design Water quality Seine fish samples Trawl fish samples

26 IHPR01 IHPR04 IHPR03 IHPR02 IHMC01 IHMC02

27 Impacts of Shoreline Modification Results to date First year of data describing ichthyofauna Collected over 2044 organisms, 25 species Species Total White Perch 562 Spottail shiner 343 Banded killifish 179 Eastern silvery minnow 99 Striped bass 83 American shad 62 Alewife 53 Blue catfish 42 Bay anchovy 41 Golden shiner 29 Bluegill 26 Pumpkinseed 26 Tesselated Darter 21 Gizzard shad 14 Largemouth bass 9 Yellow perch 7 Inland silverside 4 Atlantic needlefish 4 Blueback herring 2 Channel catfish 2 Brown bullhead 2 Blue crab 2 Hogchoker 2 Atlantic menhaden 1

28 SEINE TRAWL 1 H' SPRING EARLY SUMMER LATE SUMMER FALL Season CPUE across seasons. CPUE is mean number of fish caught per sample (seine and trawl) Mean diversity of catch by season as measured by the Shannon index, H. H Catch per Unit Effort (No. fish haul -1 ) SEINE TRAWL 10 0 SPRING EARLY SUMMER LATE SUMMER FALL Season

29 Impacts of Shoreline Modification Conclusions: Relatively high abundance of the blue catfish Dominant species offshore is white perch Dominant species nearshore is spottail shiner Dataset is similar in structure to others in this region Data will be compared to post construction collections to determine the impact of the project

30 Impacts of Shoreline Modification Future directions: Researchers can use this type of design to determine impacts of a variety of shoreline restoration projects Currently have DoD Legacy proposal submitted Langley AFB, Aberdeen Proving Ground, NAS Patuxent River

31 Conclusions Important to collect data for: Regulatory information Return on investment Ensure restoration success Determine negative impacts of modification Justify additional funding

32 Contact Information Robert Murphy Leslie Orzetti Website: