Finalizing the chesapeake bay health index bhi part 1 water quality index part 2 biotic index
Download
1 / 50

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


  • 134 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Finalizing the Chesapeake Bay Health Index (BHI) Part 1: Water Quality Index Part 2: Biotic Index' - leia


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
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 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)


Major outcomes
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


Strengths of health assessment approach
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


Key communication issues
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




Indicators selection
Indicators selection

  • Proposed indicators for 2006 report



Finalizing the chesapeake bay health index bhi part 1 water quality index part 2 biotic index

Water Quality Index

2002 – low flow year

Water Quality Index

2003 – high flow year



Future indicator development
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



Reporting regions issues
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


Revised reporting regions
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


Benchmark approach issues
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)



Finalizing the chesapeake bay health index bhi part 1 water quality index part 2 biotic index
Biotic indices: Bay grasses, Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity, Phytoplankton Index of Biotic Integrity


Next steps
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




Indicators selection1
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)


Reporting regions1
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)


Methods biotic index
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)


Aquatic grasses goals
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)


Aquatic grasses compliance assessment
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)


Benthic ibi data
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


Benthic ibi goals
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.


Benthic ibi compliance assessment
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


Finalizing the chesapeake bay health index bhi part 1 water quality index part 2 biotic index

Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity

Metric Scoring System




Benthic ibi compliance assessment1
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.


Phytoplankton data
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)


Phytoplankton ibi goal
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%?)




Findings
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


Recommendations
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







Question to address
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


Question to address1
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…