Effects of Multi-scale Environmental Characteristics on Agricultural Stream Biota in the Midwestern USA 5th National Monitoring Conference May 9, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Lawyer Creek Steelhead Trout Habitat Improvement Project presented by: Lewis Soil Conservation District.
Advertisements

Information Needs for the Integrated F&W Program (ESA and Power Act) Jim Geiselman - BPA.
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS for ANTIDEGRADATION
Yakama Nation Pacific Lamprey Recovery Project Core Data And Monitoring Framework.
Effects of Land Use and Associated Factors On Biological Communities of Small Streams in the Illinois River Basin of Arkansas by James C. Petersen, Billy.
Step 1: Valley Segment Classification Our first step will be to assign environmental parameters to stream valley segments using a series of GIS tools developed.
Clearwater River Habitat/Bioassessment
Soil Mapping and Erosion
Minnesota Watershed Nitrogen Reduction Planning Tool William Lazarus Department of Applied Economics University of Minnesota David Mulla Department of.
Erosion Control Short Course Monday, April 23, 2012 San Luis Obispo City/County Library Ron Harben, Project Director California Association of Resource.
Adem.alabama.gov Incorporating NPS Intensive Surveys into ADEM’s Monitoring Strategy Southeastern Water Pollution Biologists’ Association Meeting Lake.
The central theme of this project is to attempt to quantify the effect of riparian cover on stream water temperature at small spatial scales, with a view.
Conclusion -Velocity affects the temperature, pH and DO of a stream; the greater the velocity, the greater the water quality -The positive correlation.
Lewis Creek Reach M19 Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3.
Goals Develop models to relate “stream health” to land use change and climate change Parameterize models using data from study sites, past work, and newly.
Moving the NAWQA habitat data through time Jeffrey Steuer Hydrologist - USGS Middleton, WI.
A landscape perspective of stream food webs: Exploring cumulative effects and defining biotic thresholds.
Bioassessment 1.0. Stream Visual Assessment Protocol 1. Turbidity 2. Plant growth 3. Channel Condition 4. Channel Flow Alteration 5. Percent Embeddedness.
Development of Aquatic Ecosystem Models Lizhu Wang, Shaw Lacy, Paul Seebach, Mike Wiley Institute for Fisheries Research MDNR and U of M.
EEP Watershed Planning Overview August 12, Ecosystem Enhancement Program Nationally recognized, innovative, non-regulatory program formed in July.
Landscape and Urban Planning Volume 79, Issue 1Landscape and Urban Planning Volume 79, Issue 1, 15 January 2007, Pages Biological integrity in.
“Habitat Assessment Using the QHEI “ Edward T. Rankin June 6 City of Columbus, Level 3 Training Course Columbus, Ohio Senior ResearchScientist
The Water Withdrawal Assessment Process Context within regional water policy discussions Context within regional water policy discussions –Aquatic ecosystems.
Greg Jennings, PhD, PE Professor, Biological & Agricultural Engineering North Carolina State University BAE 579: Stream Restoration Lesson.
The Great Lakes Aquatic Gap Analysis Project Overview Jana Stewart U.S. Geological Survey.
Scientific motivation of the CHaMP project: How CHaMP data can be used to answer fish and habitat management questions Chris Jordan – NOAA-Fisheries Brice.
FNR 402 – Forest Watershed Management
Ecology and environment, inc. International Specialists in the Environment The McKinstry Creek & Riparian Area NYSDOT Rt. 219 Mitigation Project Analysis.
Hydrosapiens GIV eSAT of Vermont: Water Group 2013 Ben DeJong, Nina Brundage, Caitlin Beaudet, Julie Rickner, Mariah Ollive, Hannah VanGuilder, Heather.
Water Quality Associated with Urban Runoff: Sources, Emerging Issues and Management Approaches Martha Sutula and Eric Stein Biogeochemistry and Biology.
Improvement of Meadow Stream Health due to Livestock Distribution Efforts K.W. Tate, T.A. Becchetii, C. Battaglia, N.K. McDougald, D.F. Lile, H.A. George,
Nevada Bioassessment Program Statewide & on the Truckee River Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Quality Planning Karen Vargas.
Habitat Restoration Division Coastal Program Partner For Wildlife Program Schoolyard Habitats Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Habitat Presentation 1 Phil Kaufmann --- USEPA, Corvallis, OR
Watershed Assessment and Planning. Review Watershed Hydrology Watershed Hydrology Watershed Characteristics and Processes Watershed Characteristics and.
Water Quality Data, Maps, and Graphs Over the Web · Chemical concentrations in water, sediment, and aquatic organism tissues.
Assessing Alternative Policies for the Control of Nutrients in the Upper Mississippi River Basin Catherine L. Kling, Silvia Secchi, Hongli Feng, Philip.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Quantifying tolerance indicator values for common stream fish species of the United States Michael.
Ecological responses of streams to urbanization: A review of results from the U.S. Geological Survey's urban streams studies North Carolina Water Science.
Kentucky’s comprehensive Water Monitoring and Assessment Program addresses water quality management objectives outlined in the Clean Water Act, as well.
Assessing Linkages between Nearshore Habitat and Estuarine Fish Communities in the Chesapeake Bay Donna Marie Bilkovic*, Carl H. Hershner, Kirk J. Havens,
Dry Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study Current Conditions Summary.
Timeline Impaired for turbidity on Minnesota’s list of impaired waters (2004) MPCA must complete a study to determine the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Using Monitoring Data from Multiple Networks/Agencies to Calibrate Nutrient SPARROW* Models, Southeastern.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey The use of remotely sensed and GIS-derived variables to characterize urbanization in the National.
Biologically based urban response models for the South Atlantic gulf and Tennessee River basins T.F. Cuffney, E.M. Giddings, and M.B. Gregory North Carolina.
Stream macroinvertebrate responses to landscape variables; an evaluation of rapid bioassessment techniques using a statistical modeling approach. Declan.
Response of benthic algae communities to nutrient enrichment in agricultural streams: Implications for establishing nutrient criteria R.W. Black 1, P.W.
Stream Ecosystem Assessment Group 1 Camp Caesar August 2003.
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for low gradient streams) for species richness, composition and pollution tolerance, as well as a composite benthic macroinvertebrate.
Volunteer-collected data can provide important baseline information to assist with decision making and improve watershed management. In this study, data.
Physical and chemical factors controlling mercury and methylmercury concentrations in stream water Mark E. Brigham and Dennis A. Wentz 5 th National Monitoring.
ORSANCO Biological Programs Extra-curricular Updates EMAP-GRE ORBFHP NRSA.
Identifying Changes to Stream Condition caused by Urbanization How understanding the responses can improve ecological risk characterization
National Monitoring Conference May 7-11, 2006
Assessing Crayfish Habitat Dan O’Brien John Meredith Leroy Mims.
Mercury cycling and bioaccumulation in streams in Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida Mark E. Brigham 5 th National Monitoring Conference San José, California.
Detecting Ecological Effects of Development in the Wappingers and Fishkill Watersheds Karin Limburg, Karen Stainbrook, Bongghi Hong SUNY College of Environmental.
Case Study Development of an Index of Biotic Integrity for the Mid-Atlantic Highland Region McCormick et al
Iowa Rivers Information System Inventory, Modeling, and Evaluation of Basin, In-Stream Habitat, and Fishery Resource Relationships Kevin Kane, Iowa State.
Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index Bradley Hansen John Nieber Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering For BBE 4535/5535 Fall 2011.
Effects of timber harvest on baseflow yield in the Mica Creek Experimental Watershed Wes Green, Will Drier, Tim Link (College of Natural Resources), John.
Effects of Stream Restoration: A Comparative Study of Pine Run in Felton, Pennsylvania Luke Mummert, Department of Biological Sciences, York College of.
Watershed Health Indicators
Riparian Management Effectiveness Evaluations
J. M. C. K Jayawardhana1, W. D. T. M Gunawardhana 1, E. P
Lotic Communities What is a community? A) The Dictionary B) The Ideal
Streams Hydrodynamics
Streams Hydrodynamics
Cain, DJ, Carter, JL, Buchwalter, DB, and Luoma, SN
Presentation transcript:

Effects of Multi-scale Environmental Characteristics on Agricultural Stream Biota in the Midwestern USA 5th National Monitoring Conference May 9, 2006 San Jose, California Julie A. H. Berkman, Barbara C. Scudder, Michelle A. Lutz, Mitchell A. Harris Julie A. H. Berkman, Barbara C. Scudder, Michelle A. Lutz, Mitchell A. Harris U.S. Geological Survey

Outline Purpose Purpose Overall approach Overall approach Geographical setting and site selection Geographical setting and site selection Data collection and analysis: Data collection and analysis:  What is meant by multiple scales?  Which environmental characteristics were used as variables?  What aspects of the biological assemblages were used?  How were environmental and biological data brought together?  What are our results at multiple spatial scales? Relating BMPs and biological-assemblage responses Relating BMPs and biological-assemblage responses

Purpose Evaluate responses of stream biological assemblages to environmental variables across multiple-scales in agricultural watersheds Evaluate responses of stream biological assemblages to environmental variables across multiple-scales in agricultural watersheds Identify the strongest relations between biological and environmental data that can be applied to assessing water-quality improvements in agricultural watersheds throughout the Midwest Identify the strongest relations between biological and environmental data that can be applied to assessing water-quality improvements in agricultural watersheds throughout the Midwest Assess which physical variables are the best focus for improvements in water quality through agricultural BMPs, for which we spend about $4,000,000,000 per year nationally (Shields et a l., 2006) Assess which physical variables are the best focus for improvements in water quality through agricultural BMPs, for which we spend about $4,000,000,000 per year nationally (Shields et a l., 2006)

OH ND MI WI IA IL IN MN

Steps in Assessment 1. Organize assessment approach a. Identify agricultural practices for improvement of water quality b. Develop assessment endpoints c. Define geographic scope 2. Build scientific foundation for assessment a. Evaluate biological assemblages in relation to environmental variables at multiple spatial scales b. Identify relations between biota and agricultural BMPs c. Develop a conceptual model or index for measuring improvement due to specific agricultural BMPs 3. Verify 4. Calibrate and validate 5. Publicize—Outreach and implementation

Basin SegmentReach What is meant by scale? Why does scale matter in monitoring streams? Sample collection substrate

Reach Reach Segment SegmentWatershed Photo of watershed by Mitch Harris

Land cover characterization

Segment margin “Riparian buffer” 15 m from bankfull Percent land cover length Percent land cover length Average land cover length Average land cover length Percent disturbed vs. natural Percent disturbed vs. natural Number of fragments Number of fragments

Algae Photo by Robert Sheath Photos by Rich Frehs

Invertebrates Photo by Debby Murphy

Fish Photos by Mac Albin

PRIMER BioEnv analysis Samples Species percent abundance Abiotic variables Bray-Curtis Euclidean Rank correlation p s p s = An index of agreement of the two triangular matrices

An example of the results of reach variables & algae assemblages Best results out of 28 reach variables rank correlation p s = Average stream velocityAverage stream velocity Percent rifflesPercent riffles Percent fine silty substratePercent fine silty substrate Percent stream bank erosionPercent stream bank erosion Percent 50-m buffer in woody vegetationPercent 50-m buffer in woody vegetation Percent bank covered by vegetationPercent bank covered by vegetation

Summary of correlations between biological assemblages and environmental variables at each physical scale ReachSegmentWatershedCombined Algae Invertebrates Fish With n=86, the 5% two-tailed significance level occurs when > % two-tailed significance level occurs when >0.275

Reach variables Best reach variables AlgaeInvertsFish Average stream velocity ++ Percent riffles +++ Percent fine silty substrate -* Percent bank covered by vegetation +++ Percent stream bank erosion +- Percent 50-m buffer in woody vegetation ++ Average wetted channel width +/-

Segment variables Best segment variables AlgaeInvertsFish Percent woody vegetation in margin ++ Stream sinuosity - Segment gradient + No. of fragments/km in margin --- Avg. length of undisturbed buffer/km + Percent 150-m buffer in woody vegetation +++ Percent 250-m buffer in cropland ---

Watershed variables Best watershed variables AlgaeInvertsFishLatitude+-- Percent low-permeable soils +-+ Drainage area -++ Percent total forest land cover +++ Percent mixed forest land cover ++ Average watershed slope ++

Combination of the Best selected variables Best watershed variables AlgaeInvertsFishLatitude+-- Percent low-permeable soils ++ Drainage area -++ Percent total forest land cover +++ Percent fine silty substrate - Average watershed slope + Percent bank covered by vegetation ++

Summary of correlations between biological assemblages and environmental variables at each physical scale ReachSegmentWatershedCombined Algae Invertebrates Fish

Steps in Assessment 1. Organize the assessment approach a. Identify agricultural practices for improvement of water quality b. Develop assessment endpoints c. Define geographic scope 2. Build a scientific foundation for the assessment a. Evaluate biological assemblages in relation to environmental variables at multiple spatial scales b. Identify relations between biota and agricultural BMPs c. Develop a conceptual model or index for measuring improvement due to specific agricultural BMPs 3. Verify 4. Calibrate and validate 5. Publicize—Outreach and implementation

Agricultural BMP Bank stabilization Bank stabilization (percent bank erosion) Bank vegetative cover Bank vegetative cover Riparian buffer Riparian buffer (avg. length of undisturbed buffer/km) (avg. length of undisturbed buffer/km) Woody vegetation, 50 m Woody vegetation, 50 m Reduce sediment runoff (percent fine substrate) Reduce sediment runoff (percent fine substrate) Algae and Invertebrates Algae, Invert., and Fish Fish Algae and Invertebrates Algae* (from rock substrates) Biological response At which scale are the BMPs being applied? At which scale should the effects be assessed?

Conservation Effects Assessment Project

Summary The responses of stream biological assemblages to environmental characteristics across multiple scales revealed the importance of the larger scale watershed variables for all three groups, but especially the fish. The responses of stream biological assemblages to environmental characteristics across multiple scales revealed the importance of the larger scale watershed variables for all three groups, but especially the fish. The strongest relations between biological and environmental data were identified and whether the biological assemblage had positive or negative response. For example sensitive fish, cobble fish, and the alga Achnanthidium minutissimum (Kützing) Czarnecki were all positively associated with stream velocity, percent riffles, and bank vegetative cover while tolerant algae and invertebtrates, as well as omnivorous fish were negatively correlated with these features. The strongest relations between biological and environmental data were identified and whether the biological assemblage had positive or negative response. For example sensitive fish, cobble fish, and the alga Achnanthidium minutissimum (Kützing) Czarnecki were all positively associated with stream velocity, percent riffles, and bank vegetative cover while tolerant algae and invertebtrates, as well as omnivorous fish were negatively correlated with these features. Physical variables that can be managed through Best Management Practices such as bank vegetative cover and woody vegetation in riparian buffer at the reach scale and undisturbed buffer at the segment scale, were matched with biota that could be used to assess improvements in water quality. Physical variables that can be managed through Best Management Practices such as bank vegetative cover and woody vegetation in riparian buffer at the reach scale and undisturbed buffer at the segment scale, were matched with biota that could be used to assess improvements in water quality.

Next steps are to identify 1. Relations between biota and agricultural BMPs 2. Scale at which the BMPs are applied, and 3. Which biologic endpoints would be best for assessing water-quality improvements in agricultural watersheds throughout the Midwest.

Thank you Coauthors: Barbara Scudder, Michelle Lutz, and Mitchell Harris Others who have provided valued assistance: USGS Wisconsin WSC Amanda Bell Faith Fitzpatrick James Kennedy Jana Stewart USGS National Research Program, Menlo Park, CA James L. Carter USGS Nebraska Water Science Center Michaela Johnson

For more information on this study contact: Julie A. Hambrook Berkman, Ph.D. U.S. Geological Survey 6480 Doubletree Ave. Columbus, OH Barbara C. Scudder U.S. Geological Survey 8505 Research Way Middleton, WI