Team 3—Ecological Monitoring

• Targeted field sampling for groundtruthing of modeling results

• Evaluate current condition at reach scaleo Macroinvertebrates—IBI (Aquatic Life Use attainment)o IBI (biological condition tiers)o SWR (site-specific habitat & other physical features)o SWR (site-specific stressors, reach hydrology)

• Define reference domains for realistic management goalso Range of SWR/IBI data

Team 3 – Ecological Assessment

• STEP 1: Compile readily available data [Spr ‘14]o Monitoring Data

• PA watersheds: PADEP macroinvertebrate data; selected studies• Manokin: Maryland Biological Stream Survey data; selected

studieso Management Data

• Watershed coordinators• Research centers

o Regulatory Data• Impaired streams • PADEP Data (e.g., water withdrawal permits)

Existing Monitoring Data• WE-38 Data

o Long-term stream datao Biological data (Genito et al. 2002)

• PADEP Macroinvertebrate Datao 40 SSWAP siteso 17 6D200 sites (riffle IBI)o Habitat Assessments for all

Long-term Stream Data: WE38

• Precipitationo 1968-presento Mean annual precipitation 1080 mmo Highest monthly precipitation June (125 mm)o Lowest February (60 mm)

• Stream Dischargeo 1968-presento Mean annual streamflow 500 mmo Highest flows in March, lowest flows in August

• Water Qualityo 1983-presento Nitrate-N, ammonium-N, orthophosphate-Po 3x per week, irrespective of hydrologic events

PADEP Macroinvertebrate Data

Existing Management Data

• BMP’s implemented and where

• Crop management

• Interpret ecological monitoring results

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

Regulatory Data—Impaired

Streams

Source: PADEP 2013

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.

Source: PASDA (www.pasda.psu.edu)

Possible Pollutants of Concern (water withdrawals, landfills, discharge points, etc.)

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]

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

Portion of Mahantango (ex.)

Close-up Example (WE-38)

Pollution Hotspots: Linking CSAs of Aquatic Nutrient Pollution with Biological

Integrity in WE38Claire Regan

Master’s Thesis in Geography

16

Overview

• Create the link between SWAT-VSA outputs and benthic macroinvertebrates

• Provide supplemental information for CNSo SWR Index compared to SWAT-VSAo Grab sample utilityo 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

18

19

Questions

1. What is the optimal way to use SWAT model outputs to predict ecological integrity? o How do macroinvertebrate communities

correlate with upstream critical source areas of sediments, phosphorus, and nitrogen?

o 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

Questions2. How does SWAT compare with SWR

Index?o Rapid field assessment developed by Brooks et

al. (2009), can be used in conjunction with macroinvertebrate sampling

o Final SWR Index Score?o Components of SWR?

• E.g. habitat assessment, stressor checklist

24

Questions3. How have

macroinvertebrate communities changed over time? o A study by Genito et al.

(2002) also studied macroinvertebrates in WE38

o Can changes be explained using SWAT-VSA outputs?

25

Genito et al. 2002

26

Questions4. How do water chemistry samples

match with SWAT-VSA modeled values? o Grab samples of nutrients and/or sediment

will be collected if possible

27

Questions

5. What is the effect of forested buffer areas?

6. What is the effect of dilution at stream confluences?

28

MethodsEmpirical• 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.

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.)