1. Coastal development impacts on biological communities in the Chesapeake Bay Examples from the Atlantic Slope Consortium R-82868401

2. Cast of many… Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC): Bill Deluca, Pete Marra, Don Weller, Tom Jordan, Tuck Hines, Chuck Gallegos, Ryan King, Matt Baker Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS): Donna Marie Bilkovic, Carl Hershner, Molly Roggero Penn State University: Rob Brooks, Denice Wardrop Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC) = An Estuarine Indicator Research Program Goal: To develop a suite of ecological and socioeconomic indicators for assessing and managing the condition of the vital resources in the Mid-Atlantic region

3. Coastal development leads to disruption of ecosystem services… Coastal development and deforestation reduce the filtration capacity of the riparian zone which impacts the littoral zone

4. Loss of ecosystem function and structure due to coastal development Developed=Broken Links Littoral Shoreline Biota Littoral Shoreline Biota Natural System Water clarity DO Terrestrial inputs Aquatic vegetation Wetland loss Forest loss Nutrient input Biodiversity Functional groups Resilience Broken Links lead to decreases in biodiversity and functional groups that reduce resilience, and the ability of the communities to respond to external drivers such as climatic events

5. “Estuarine segments”: Watersheds and subestuaries of a larger estuarine ecosystem “Estuarine segments”: Watersheds and subestuaries of a larger estuarine ecosystem Segment land-use ranges from forested to highly agricultural or developed Segment land-use ranges from forested to highly agricultural or developed ASC Goal: to identify linkages between patterns of land use and environmental indicators in estuarine habitats. Developed Agricultural Mixed-Developed Mixed-Agricultural Forested

6. IndicatorWatershed Local land use Stream nutrients X Stream macroinvertebrates XX Estuarine water quality X Benthic IBI X X Fish IBI X X Phragmites abundance X X Blue crab abundance X X PCB in White perch X Waterbird IBI X X Wetland Bird IBI X SAV abundance X Potential environmental indicators of the health of the Bay

7. Higher FCI scores were associated with increasing abundance of subtidal habitat FCI scores were lower at sites with highly altered shorelines versus natural shorelines. Bilkovic et al. 2005 p<0.001; all different p=0.003; High vs. Minimal Fish Communities and Habitat

8. r 2 = 0.61,P< 0.001 % Developed Land in Watershed 020406080 Phragmites abundance estimate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Developed Mixed-Dev Agricultural Mixed-Ag Forested r 2 = 0.61,P< 0.001r 2 = 0.61,P< 0.001 % Developed Land in Watershed 020406080 Phragmites abundance estimate 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Developed Mixed-Dev Agricultural Mixed-Ag Forested Whigham et al. 2005 Invasive Species and Development

9. Total PCBs in white perch in relation to percent developed land in the watershed. USEPA (1999) guidelines for cancer health endpoints. King et al. 2004 White Perch and PCBs

10. Juvenile blue crabs ( 16 ppt. King et al. 2005 Juvenile Blue Crabs and Habitat

11. Negative macrobenthic community responses occurred when developed shorelines were 10% or higher. Cumulative Probability Curve Changepoint Analysis — Assessing Ecological Thresholds Bilkovic et al. 2006

12. King et al. 2005 Cumulative Probability of A Threshold Stream macroinvertebrate dissimilarity scores Increasingly positive scores=more diverse, pollution-sensitive taxa Increasingly Negative score = taxa associated with impaired streams Development appeared to have its greatest effect on stream macroinvertebrates when close to the sampling station, where it contributes to riparian degradation and reduced woody-debris input. 21-32% Dev. threshold 1-22% Local Dev. threshold Stream Macroinvertebrates and Development

13. When 15% of the land within 500 m of a marsh was developed there was a significant decline in Marsh Bird Community Integrity. Marsh Bird Integrity and Development DeLuca et al. 2004

14. Sources (SERC; VIMS): Dennis Whigham, Donna Marie Bilkovic, Ryan King, Bill Deluca, Peter Marra, Matt Baker, Don Weller, (Figure from Dennis Whigham) Threshold analyses: Qian et al. 2003 ( Ecol. Mod.); King and Richardson 2003 ( Env. Man. ) 15 101520 25 3035404550556065707680859095 100 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Probability of Change % Development Invert IBI Phrag abundance Water bird index Wetland bird index Benthic IBI Ecological Thresholds of Communities

15. YES -- Our research indicated that structural and functional changes in biological communities occurred in relation to alterations in subtidal habitat, shoreline condition, and/or land use. Do Biota Respond to Variations in Nearshore Condition?

16. ► Both the amount of development and its proximity to the estuary or wetland contributes to degradation of aquatic resources. ► In general, > 20% development (at local and/or watershed levels) was related to shifts in biological communities (indicators), revealing possible ecological thresholds ► Forest buffers were also noted to reduce sediment and nutrient loads along stream corridors or around wetlands ► In many instances, local development had stronger links with the aquatic resource than watershed development FINAL ASC REPORT ONLINE: http://www.asc.psu.edu/public/pubs/_Final%20Report_AtlanticSlopeConsortium.pdfSUMMARY