1. Team 3—Ecological Monitoring Targeted field sampling for groundtruthing of modeling results Evaluate current condition at reach scale o 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 goals o Range of SWR/IBI data

2. 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 studies o Management Data Watershed coordinators Research centers o Regulatory Data Impaired streams PADEP Data (e.g., water withdrawal permits)

3. Existing Monitoring Data WE-38 Data o Long-term stream data o Biological data (Genito et al. 2002) PADEP Macroinvertebrate Data o 40 SSWAP sites o 17 6D200 sites (riffle IBI) o Habitat Assessments for all

4. Long-term Stream Data: WE38 Precipitation o 1968-present o Mean annual precipitation 1080 mm o Highest monthly precipitation June (125 mm) o Lowest February (60 mm) Stream Discharge o 1968-present o Mean annual streamflow 500 mm o Highest flows in March, lowest flows in August Water Quality o 1983-present o Nitrate-N, ammonium-N, orthophosphate-P o 3x per week, irrespective of hydrologic events

5. PADEP Macroinvertebrate Data

6. Existing Management Data BMP’s implemented and where Crop management Interpret ecological monitoring results

7. 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

8. Regulatory Data—Impaired Streams Source: PADEP 2013

9. 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.

10. Source: PASDA (www.pasda.psu.edu ) Possible Pollutants of Concern (water withdrawals, landfills, discharge points, etc.)

11. 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]

12. Site Selection Process Gradient of high nutrients/sediment to low nutrients/sediment (Mahantango) Land use gradient Stratified by stream size (1 st /2 nd vs. 4 th /5 th ) & weighted for headwaters (about 2/3 to 1/3) Prioritize wetland sites & sites with existing data

13. Portion of Mahantango (ex.)

14. Close-up Example (WE-38)

15. Pollution Hotspots: Linking CSAs of Aquatic Nutrient Pollution with Biological Integrity in WE38 Claire Regan Master’s Thesis in Geography

16. Overview Create the link between SWAT-VSA outputs and benthic macroinvertebrates Provide supplemental information for CNS o SWR Index compared to SWAT-VSA o Grab sample utility o Sampling design High resolution and long-term data in WE38 16

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 17

18. 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? 19

20. 20 SPATIAL SCALE

21. 21 SPATIAL SCALE

22. 22 Temporal scale All years (1999-2010) Recent years only Extreme years excluded (e.g. drought years)

23. Questions 2.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 23

24. Questions 3.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? 24

25. 25 Genito et al. 2002

26. Questions 4.How do water chemistry samples match with SWAT-VSA modeled values? o Grab samples of nutrients and/or sediment will be collected if possible 26

27. Questions 5.What is the effect of forested buffer areas? 6.What is the effect of dilution at stream confluences? 27

28. Methods Empirical Macroinvertebrates Water Chemistry SWR Index 28 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. 29

30. 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.)