1. Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, and Dave Nemazie
Regional and Local Report Cards Aid in Environmental Problem Solving
UMCES Integration and Application Network
Bill Dennison, Ben Longstaff, Michael Williams, and Dave Nemazie

2. Outline
UMCES Integration and Application Network (IAN) Overview and Philosophy
Review of ecosystem health parameters
Integrating monitoring data to focus restoration efforts through Report Cards
Conclusions

3. IAN Mission and Philosophy
Create an environmental campaign toward solving the problem not just studying the problem to a higher resolution
STUDY
SOLVE
Dispassionate
Embrace complexity
Publish & funding via peer review
Getting it right
Passionate
Simplify
Publish & funding via stakeholders
Getting it done
In order to both study and solve problems, the following attributes are needed:
Credibility, tenacity, creativity, and wisdom

4. Solving environmental problems
Shared vision
Organized participation
Leadership
Varied communication
Effective actions
Management
Research
Monitoring

5. IAN philosophy: Combining knowledge, power & passion to stimulate paradigm shifts

6. What is “ecosystem health”?
Key processes operate to maintain stable & sustainable ecosystems
Zones of human impacts are minimal
Critical habitats remain intact
Use indicators to asses and monitor health
Healthy ecosystem
Unhealthy ecosystem

7. Ecosystem Management objective health Reference indicator value
Clear water Turbidity Secchi > 1.7 m
Maintain seagrass Seagrass area Historical
habitat distribution
Reduce sewage Sewage plume d15N < 4 ppt.
inputs mapping
Reduce nutrients Total phosphorus <1.6 mM
Reduce Chlorophyll a <1.0 mg/L
phytoplankton
Reduce harmful Extent of bloom Historical
algal bloom distribution

8. Ecosystem health report cards
Provide a performance derived letter or numeric grade to a component of the ecosystem or a geographic region
Enable large and often complex amounts of information to be communicated to a broad audience
Can provide accountability; measuring the success of a particular effort
Identify regions or issues of concern
Focus research and management actions
Use peer pressure to affect change

9. Report card requirements
Spatially explicit - grades for different Bay or river regions
Robust and defendable
Underpinned by quality data
Produced each year
Responsive to changes in conditions

10. Report card approach Reporting progress towards thresholds:
Capitalizes on effort taken to develop thresholds
Provides consistency  defendable and simple index values
Linked to management objectives

11. Water quality and biotic indicators combined into indices
Data integrated
Compared to thresholds
Combined into indices

12. 2007: Bay health slightly improved
Health remains generally poor
Health varied from region to region
Lowest grade: Western Shore Tributaries (D-)
Highest grade: Upper Bay (B)
Overall Bay grade: C-

13. Outcomes of Chesapeake Bay report card
Broad media coverage
Newspapers, TV and radio
Local, national and international
Focus on what needs to be done
Editorials and OpEds
In-depth follow-up media articles
Many requests from educators (grade 8 to university)
Meetings with local governments to discuss restoration future actions
Adopted and used by BayStat
Health portion of website
Prioritization for restoration funding including Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund

14. Need to provide local and regional synthesis
Local: All data for one waterway analyzed, synthesized and presented
e.g. What’s happening in my backyard
Regional: Comparison between regions based on maps, graphs and report card
e.g. How does my backyard compare to yours

15. Chesapeake Bay local ecosystem health report cards

16. Background of local report cards
Funded by Chesapeake Bay Trust
CBT funded community monitoring data rarely analyzed, communicated or used
Provide framework/focus for monitoring and analysis
Provide communication and outreach products
1-year collaborative program
UMCES, EcoCheck
Patuxent Riverkeeper
Chester River Association
NOAA, MD DNR,
Partners involved in releasing Magothy and South Report cards in 2009

17. Objectives of developing local report cards
Produce annual report card for Patuxent and Chester Rivers. Build upon the experience of the Chesapeake Bay, South River and Magothy River report cards;
Start developing a guiding document that can be used by other organizations (i.e. RiverKeepers, watershed associations) to produce report card – with the aim of ensuring comparable and similar report cards produced for many of the Bay tributaries;
Use existing community networks to help communicate results and focus restoration efforts.
Use local report card product to drive broader needs of the organization.

18. The tributaries Chester River
Extensive citizen monitoring program already established
Little synthesis, communication and outreach of the data
Patuxent River
Significant professional monitoring programs
Augmentation with volunteer monitoring will begin in 2008
Established website for data entry and presentation

19. Report cards have benefits to all stages of community monitoring
Chester report card project
Stages addressed in project
Patuxent report card project

20. Selecting Indicators Recognize that:
Indicators available or applicable to report cards are not consistent between tributaries
Establish standard indicators but in the meantime, work with what is available
Need indicator framework to help consistency between report card methods

21. Tidal / estuarine regions
Same indicators and methods as Chesapeake Bay report card
Based on CBP data (augmented by citizen monitoring data)
Divided tidal area into smallest possible units based on available data
Boundaries based on CBP segmentation
Chester: Upper and lower Estuary
Patuxent: Upper, mid and lower

22. Chester River Report Card
Chester Tester Data
Selected water quality indicators (DO, turbidity, PO4-, NH4+, NO3-)
Defined reporting regions (mostly hydrologic units)
Sourced appropriate thresholds
Combined into overarching indices for report card grade (average all scores)

23. Patuxent River Report Card
Estuarine regions only in 2007
Expand to non-tidal creeks in 2008

24. Report Cards provided more than just grades
Provided estuary health assessment
report card grades
Linked report card grades to land use
Why report card grades
Told some stories
Marsh N removal & aquatic grasses
Solicited help for monitoring
Focused on areas for further action

25. Regional Report Card Media Rollout
Chester River
Anchored by Chester River Association
UMCES plays supporting role as science experts
Released as part of their annual “Chester Tester” citizen monitoring summit
Covered in Easton Star Democrat
Patuxent River
Anchored Patuxent Riverkeeper
Media event held on the banks of the Patuxent
Coverage in Washington Post, Annapolis Capital and Prince Frederick Independent

26. Regional report card process
Current Lessons
Worked with community group to develop methods and approaches
Indicators
Reporting regions
Threshold etc
Analysis and report card production conducted by UMCES
Report card reviewed by entire group
Release coordinated and run by community group
Next Steps
Transition Chester and Patuxent Report card production to RiverKeepers
Work with two additional community groups to produce report card
Develop guidance document
Develop and facilitate workshops on report card methods and approaches

27. Conclusions Indicators useful in assessing Environmental report cards
ecosystem health
Environmental report cards
provide focus & feedback
Effective communication
elicits management actions
Targets actions
restoration, protection, and policies