Current research in the assessment of the condition and integrity of an aquatic ecosystem: a bibliography

Dr. Donna Marie Bilkovic Virginia Institute of Marine Science

Gloucester Point, VA 23062 donnab@vims.edu

7 June 2001

2

Introduction

As demand for information on the status and trends of national ecological resources increases, the development of indictors that assess the condition and integrity of an ecosystem has become an integral and widespread part of numerous research projects. The use of indicators in assessments of ecosystem health promises to become an essential tool for the management of complex systems. Current assessments projects may be classified into three major categories based on the parameters measured and indicator type developed: integrated, watershed and landscape assessment.

1) Integrated Assessment: an assessment that brings together data about the condition (both current and future) of ecosystems; the impact of humans and our lifestyles on the ecosystems and the effects upon humans of the changed environment. Integrated assessments combine ecology, social sciences, health science and engineering.

2) Watershed assessment: an assessment that may examine a variety of factors throughout a watershed describing the condition (current and/or future), but does not extensively examine human impact or socioeconomic aspects. Parameters measured and indicators developed may include biological, chemical and/or physical factors.

3) Landuse/landscape Assessment: an assessment that has a primary goal of developing indicators applicable to a specific land use type or landscape. The parameters measured may include biological, chemical, physical and/or socioeconomic factors.

Indicator Types Assessments of the condition and integrity of an ecosystem often incorporate indicators that measure two different aspects of aquatic integrity: condition and vulnerability.

Condition indicators are designed to show existing water quality across the country. These indicators include such things as waters meeting state or tribal designated uses, contaminated sediments, ambient water quality, and wetlands loss.

Vulnerability indicators are designed to indicate where pollution discharges and other activities put pressure on the watershed. These could cause future problems to occur. Activities in this category include such things as pollutant loads discharged in excess of permitted levels, pollution potential from urban and agricultural lands, and changes in human population levels.

3

In 2000 the United States Environmental Protection Agency established five Estuarine Indicator Research Programs, “to identify, evaluate, recommend and potentially develop a suite of new, integrative indicators of ecological condition, integrity, and/or sustainability that can be incorporated into long-term monitoring programs and which will complement Office of Research and Development’s (ORD) intramural coastal monitoring program” throughout the coastal United States. The Atlantic Slope Consortium (ASC) is an Estuarine Indicator Research Program comprised of researchers from Pennsylvania State University, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, East Carolina University, and The Environmental Law Institute (http://www.epa.gov/emap/star/html/asc.html). The overall objective of the ASC research project is to develop and test a set of indicators in freshwater and coastal systems that are ecologically appropriate, economically reasonable, and relevant to society. To aid in the progress of ASC research, this document summarizes on-going projects that have guided the evolution of indicator development in coastal systems. Current assessment projects are classified in Appendix I (Classification of Assessment Programs) into one of three major categories (integrated, watershed or landscape) and the associated primary data types and indicators were noted.

4

Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) have played important roles in the development of several significant research initiatives focused on the assessment of aquatic ecosystem health. Many of these initiatives were integrated assessments that incorporated data about the condition (both current and future) of ecosystems and the impact of humans and our lifestyles on the ecosystems and the effects upon humans of the changed environment. Integrated assessments combine ecology, social sciences, health science and engineering. Additional efforts exist through United States Geological Survey (USGS), universities, international programs (WRI, UNEP, the World Bank, and UNDP), State government programs, and Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP).

Integrated Assessments The Chesapeake Bay watershed and Mid-Atlantic region have been the focus of major integrated watershed assessment activities: Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) (USEPA, 1993) and the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA). EMAP was an initial EPA effort that addressed the development of the tools necessary to monitor and assess the status and trends of national ecological resources. MAIA is a regional effort, worked on jointly by EPA and the Office of Research and Development (ORD), which is attempting to produce an assessment of the condition of surface water and estuarine resources in the Mid-Atlantic Region. In 1997 and 1998 the EMAP Surface Waters Program became a collaborator in the MAIA project. The MAIA completed and published the first regional ecological assessment to incorporate landscape pattern and landscape metrics for the mid-Atlantic region. Their publication An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas describes environmental conditions of the Mid-Atlantic region using geographic information system (GIS) and census based information, as well as environmental indicators relating to the pattern and distribution of land use and water resources.

EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) program is to apply a regional-scale approach to priority-setting assessment being developed by EPA's ORD. ReVA is attempting to expand cooperation among the laboratories and centers of ORD (e.g. EMAP and MAIA), by integrating research on human and environmental health, ecorestoration, landscape analysis, regional exposure and process modeling, problem formulation, and ecological risk guidelines. The overall goal of ReVA is to develop and demonstrate an approach to comprehensive, regional-scale assessment that effectively informs decision-makers as to the magnitude, extent, distribution, and uncertainty of current and anticipated environmental vulnerabilities.

EPA also funds The Mid- Atlantic Regional Assessment (MARA) as part of a nationwide assessment of the impacts of global climate change. MARA aims to analyze and evaluate the potential consequences of climate variability and change for the Mid-

5

Atlantic region's people and resources, in the context of other existing and anticipated pressures. The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 by amendments to the Clean Water Act to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant estuaries of the United States. The program focuses not just on improving water quality in an estuary, but on maintaining the integrity of the whole system, including its chemical, physical, and biological properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. There are currently several programs in the Mid-Atlantic under the NEP including: Delaware Estuary, Delaware Inland Bays, Albemarle-Pamlico Sound and Maryland Coastal Bays. Maryland Department of Natural Resources initiated landscape/watershed assessment efforts similar to MAIA called the Integrated Natural Resources Assessment (INRA) in 1996. Its primary focus is twofold: a comparative watershed, and a land conservation network or “green infrastructure” assessment tool. Other approaches utilizing the INRA include, Maryland’s Strategic Forest Lands Assessment and Delmarva Conservation Corridor (MDDNR). Additionally, the need for a comparative watershed assessment approach for the INRA led to the development of Maryland’s Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) which is required of states by the Clean Water Action Plan. In Maryland, the UWA used a subset of INRA watershed indicators to establish watersheds in need of restoration, protection or preservation. The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program (USGS) is designed to describe the status and trends in the quality of the Nation's ground- and surface-water resources and to provide a sound understanding of the natural and human factors that affect the quality of these resources. Programs are currently underway throughout the Mid-Atlantic region and watershed assessments of water quality (some programs examine geology, land use, hydrography, and other watershed characteristics as well). In 1996, the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Change and History Project began research to determine how Chesapeake Bay is affected by climatic and hydrologic variations as well as human land use practices over various time scales. The project is a cooperative effort between the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Maryland Geological Survey, University of Rhode Island, Naval Research Lab, Duke University, the Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations. Sediment cores, climatic, hydrologic, and geological data are used to discern patterns of climate and environmental changes in the Chesapeake Bay.

As part of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, the resource lands of the Chesapeake Bay will be assessed (Chesapeake Bay Resource Lands Assessment). This assessment will cover all resource lands, including forests and farms and the final product will be a Chesapeake Resource Lands Atlas with maps that characterizes the status, trends and condition of resource lands, as well as indicates areas of high value and vulnerability is scheduled for December 1, 2001.

6

The project “Application of Patuxent and Gwynn Falls Landscape Models to design a sustainable balance between humans and the rest of nature” investigates, with the application and expansion of the Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM), the interactions among physical, biological and socioeconomic dynamics of the watershed. One of their major objectives is to link ecological models to economic models, which predict a spatial distribution of probability of land use change within the watershed.

The objectives of the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS) Research Program are to document ecosystem function, tease apart the forces acting upon it, identify those that can be managed with greatest effect, and design and implement a series of management tools allowing for sustained ecological and socioeconomic health.

On a global scale, the stated goal of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) is to strengthen the capacity to manage ecosystems sustainably for human well-being. The MA consists of a global scientific assessment as well as 10 catalytic regional, national, and local assessments and has the aim of building capacity at all levels to undertake integrated ecosystem assessments and to act on their findings. In the first year, the focus will be the development of an internally consistent set of methodologies for conducting assessments on numerous scales.

Additional Estuarine and Great Lakes Program (EAGLES) projects underway to develop indicators to measure the health of ecosystems include: 1) Great Lakes: Development of Environmental Indicators of Condition, Integrity, and Sustainability in the Coastal Regions of the US Great Lakes Basin, and 2) West Coast: Western Center for Estuarine Ecosystem Indicator Research (CEEIR).

Watershed Assessments

The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) (EPA and USDA) which was released in 1998 required states to: 1) develop a Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) to assess the condition of their watersheds; 2) set watershed restoration priorities based on the UWA (i.e., selecting those watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals that are most in need of restoration actions); and, 3) develop Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) that identify the most important causes of water pollution and resource degradation and detail the actions needed to address these problems, and set milestones by which to measure progress. As guidance to States that were preparing UWAs, an Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI) was developed by EPA. The Index of Watershed Indicators characterizes the condition and vulnerability of aquatic systems in each of the 2,262 watersheds in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. This involves an assessment of condition, vulnerability, and data sufficiency. Another EPA program, released in 1996, to address the need for integrated analysis of point and nonpoint sources for watershed assessment is called Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS). It integrates GIS,

7

national watershed data, and state-of-the-art environmental assessment and modeling tools into one system. It is designed to provide an integrated watershed and modeling framework and to support analysis of point and nonpoint source management alternatives.

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was revised in 1990 to include a new section 6217, which requires that States with approved coastal zone management programs develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (Coastal Polluted Runoff Program) (NOAA and EPA). By combining the water quality expertise of State 319 agencies with the land management expertise of coastal zone agencies, section 6217 was designed to more effectively manage nonpoint source pollution in coastal areas. The ultimate goal being to develop and fully implement a cooperative watershed management program that integrates a comprehensive basin management and targeted sub-basin approach to implementing nonpoint source pollution control.

In order to fulfill components of the Coastal Zone Act an effort was made in Delaware entitled the Coastal Zone Environmental Goals & Indicators Project to develop a set of environmental goals specific to the Delaware Coastal Zone and a set of prioritized Environmental Indicators (EIs) that will be used to assess and track progress toward achieving these environmental goals. The project design also establishes a continuous process that will allow changes or updates to the initial set of Delaware Coastal Zone Environmental Indicators over time. These CZA goals and indicators will become an integral part of the Coastal Zone permit process in accordance with the Regulations Governing Delaware’s Coastal Zone.

USGS uses The Spatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes (SPARROW) method to model of surface-water quality in watersheds. This method uses spatially referenced regressions of contaminant transport on watershed attributes to support regional water-quality assessment goals, including descriptions of spatial and temporal patterns in water quality and identification of the factors and processes that influence those conditions.

Landscape Assessments

Since 1999, collaborative research between by the Landscape Ecology Branch at EPA with the Water Resources Division of the USGS on the development of landscape indicator models, also termed "landscape indicators," for pesticides, nutrients, and toxic chemicals in stream water and sediments has taken place. This project, Landscape Indicators for Pesticides Study for Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams (LIPS-MACS) is the first study in a long term, national research program, the Landscape Indicators for Pesticides Studies (LIPS).

Within the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the American Farmland Trust and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation with EarthSat, Inc. developed an approach for assessing the economic, productive, nonagricultural and strategic significance of farmland. This program modeled farmland strategic value for farmland protection planning in Maryland

8

statewide and focused on the location, distribution, association, and interaction of farmland in the region.

The stated goal of the terrestrial and aquatic Virginia GAP Analysis Project (VA-GAP) programs is to provide the habitat, species, and land management information necessary to protect biodiversity in Virginia. The terrestrial project examines and identifies wildlife species that are currently protected by the existing reserve systems in Virginia. What remains are the species and habitats not found on public lands or preserves. There are "gaps” in data and protection of species off-reserves and public lands that will be identified with this program. GIS maps have been produced for the terrestrial component and the aquatic component has just begun.

The Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) (USDA Forest Service) is a national multi-agency program designed “to determine the status, changes, and trends in indicators of forest condition on an annual basis”. The FHM program uses data from a variety of sources, such as ground plots and surveys, aerial surveys, and other biotic and abiotic data, and develops analytical approaches to address forest health issues that affect the sustainability of forest ecosystems.

In 1998, NASA supported the formation of seven Regional Earth Science Applications Centers (RESAC's). Each RESAC received a 3-year grant to apply state-of-the-art technologies to aid in decision-making processes, and support regional assessments. The Mid-Atlantic RESAC has several goals that support watershed assessments, for example the development of high-accuracy riparian buffer mapping protocol.

Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (B.E.A.C.H. Act) establishes a national program for monitoring beach water quality and notifying the public of unsafe conditions. Surfrider Foundation developed a 2001 State of the Beach Report that discusses the management of coastal resources, develops beach health indicators and describes each state’s beach status.

Watershed Assessment Projects summarized have similar aspects as the Estuarine Indicator Research Programs, and are described in further detail with appropriate sources of information, such as web addresses and/or literature, listed. The projects described are typically applicable to the Mid-Atlantic Region with a few exceptions, such as other EAGLES projects. Additionally, Appendix I depicts the described assessment programs classified with contact information in table form.

9

Current Watershed Assessment Programs

Integrated Assessments 1) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) 2) Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) 3) Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) 4) The Mid- Atlantic Regional Assessment (MARA) 5) The National Estuary Program (NEP) 6) Integrated Natural Resources Assessment (INRA) and Maryland’s strategic Forest

Lands Assessment and Delmarva Conservation Corridor 7) The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program (USGS) 8) The Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Change and History Project 9) Chesapeake Bay Resource Lands Assessment 10) Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM) 11) Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS) Research

Program 12) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 13) Estuarine and Great Lakes Program (EAGLES)

Watershed Assessments 14) Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP)

14a) Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) 14b) Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) 14c) Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI)

15) Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) 16) Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program (CNPCP) 17) Coastal Zone Environmental Goals & Indicators Project 18) Spatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes (SPARROW)

Landscape Assessments 19) Landscape Indicators for Pesticides Study for Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams (LIPS-

MACS) 20) American Farmland Trust and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation with EarthSat, Inc. 21) Virginia GAP Analysis Project (VA-GAP) 22) Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) 23) Regional Earth Science Applications Center (RESAC) 24) Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACHES Act)

10

Integrated Assessments 1) Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/dataI/surfwatr/data/ The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is developing the tools necessary to assess and monitor the status and trends of national ecological resources. EMAP's goal is to begin to translate environmental monitoring data from multiple spatial and temporal scales into ecological condition assessments and future risks forecasts to the sustainability of natural resources.

EMAP’s main objectives are “to advance the science of ecological monitoring and ecological risk assessment, guide national monitoring with improved scientific understanding of ecosystem integrity and dynamics, and demonstrate the CENR framework through large regional projects”. EMAP is developing indicators to monitor the condition of ecological resources, and investigating the significance of multi-scale data.

Available data sets for the Surface Waters Data Group are offered by years 1993-96 and 1997-1998 and include benthic data (invertebrate counts and metrics), geographic location data (watershed characteristics, habitat metrics, site info), water chemistry, fish data (assemblage metrics data, counts data and fish tissue contaminants data), sediment (metabolism and toxicity), stream velocity, and periphyton (counts and chlorophyll). The Region III R-EMAP project is part of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA), which includes the EMAP Mid-Atlantic Streams monitoring project. Sites are typically located in Delaware, Susquehanna, Potomac rivers, and Chesapeake Bay mainstem, with a few stations located in the York, Rappahannock and James rivers. Contact: EMAP Director: Mike McDonald, email: mcdonald.michael@epa.gov. Literature:

1) Barbour, M.T., J. Gerritsen, B.D. Snyder, and J.B. Stribling. 1999. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish, Second Edition. EPA 841-B99-002. U.S. EPA, Office of Water; Washington D.C.

2) Jackson, Laura E., Janis C. Kurtz, and William S. Fisher, eds. 2000. Evaluation Guidelines for Ecological Indicators. EPA/620/R-99/005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. 107 pp.

3) Kepner, William G., K. Bruce Jones, Deborah J. Chaloud, James D. Wickham, Kurt H. Riitters, Robert V. O’Neill. 1995. Mid-Atlantic landscape Indicators Project Plan Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA 620/R-95/003. Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC. 37 pp.

4) Riitters, K. H., et al., 1996. A Landscape Atlas of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Second Edition. Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, TN 37828. 29 pp.

5) Schimmel, S.C., B.D. Melzian, D.E. Campbell, C.J. Strobel, S.J. Benyi, J.S. Rosen, and H.W. Buffum. 1994. Statistical Summary: EMAP-Estuaries

11

Virginian Province-1991. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Laboratory, Narragansett, RI. EPA/620R-94/005.

2) Mid-Atlantic integrated assessment (MAIA) http://www.epa.gov/emfjulte/tpmcmaia/index.html http://www.epa.gov/emap/maia/html/data.html The Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) is a research, monitoring, and assessment initiative. Its main goal is to develop high-quality scientific information on the condition of the natural resources of the Mid-Atlantic region of the eastern United States, including the watersheds of the Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, and the Delmarva Coastal Bays. Scientific activities conducted in the MAIA region focus on assessment issues of critical importance to resource managers and environmental decision-makers. In three years, MAIA has helped forge alliances between federal and state agencies, producing reports on estuaries, ground water, streams, land use, landscape attributes, and other related topics. Data are formatted in two EPA standards; ASCII Text files and ARC/INFO Export files. Several software packages are available to help the public use EPA data. In 1997 and 1998 the Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Surface Waters Program became a collaborator in the Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment (MAIA) project, which is attempting to produce an assessment of the condition of surface water and estuarine resources. The MAIA project represents a follow-up to the MAHA study, with an expanded geographic scope (southern New York to northern North Carolina, with more sites located in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain regions) and a different index period (July-September). Coverages and datasets include: station locations, MAIA boundary, Mid-Atlantic landscape coverages, MAIA land-use change, water quality physical measurements, water quality nutrients, sediment grain size, sediment toxicity, sediment chemistry, benthic community grain size, benthic abundance, biomass, and community, fish trawl abundance and length data, fish spleen data and fish and crab tissue chemistry. Contact: Tom DeMoss, EPA/Region 3, email: demoss.tom@epa.gov, phone: 410-305-2739. Literature:

1) Jones, K. Bruce, K.H. Riitters, J.D. Wickham, R.D. Tankersley, Jr., R.V O’Neill, D.J. Chaloud, E.R. Smith, and A.C. Neale. 1997. An Ecological Assessment of the United States Mid-Atlantic Region: A Landscape Atlas. U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC. EPA/600/R-97/130.

2) Paul, J.F., J.A. Kiddon, C.J. Strobel, B.D. Melzian, J.S. Latimer, D.J. Cobb, D.E. Campbell and B.S. Brown. 2000. Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries: Production of a State of the Environment Report. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 115-129.

3) Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Estuaries 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. 20460 EPA-60-/R-98-147.

12

4) MAIA Project Summary. Birds Indicate Ecological Condition of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC, 20460. EPA-620-R-00-003.

3) Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) http://www.epa.gov/ReVA/index.html.

EPA's Regional Vulnerability Assessment (ReVA) program is a regional-scale approach to priority-setting assessment being developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). ReVA is attempting to expand cooperation among the laboratories and centers of ORD (e.g. EMAP and MAIA), by integrating research on human and environmental health, ecorestoration, landscape analysis, regional exposure and process modeling, problem formulation, and ecological risk guidelines. ReVA is part of the Integrated Science for Ecosystem Challenges Initiative for FY 2000 sponsored by the White House Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources (CENR). The stated scope of ReVA is to conduct pilot assessments focusing on one geographic region that has detailed biological information. The ReVA program is responsible for the collection, management, and analysis of multiple data sources to evaluate environmental conditions and known stressors within the Mid-Atlantic region. The overall goal of ReVA is to develop and demonstrate an approach to comprehensive, regional-scale assessment that effectively informs decision-makers as to the magnitude, extent, distribution, and uncertainty of current and anticipated environmental vulnerabilities.

ReVA is being developed to identify those ecosystems most vulnerable to being lost or permanently harmed in the next 5 to 25 years and to determine which stressors are likely to cause the greatest risk. The goal of ReVA is the identification of potential undesirable environmental changes expected over the coming years.

ReVA’s objectives are the sequential steps needed to achieve the goal:

1. Provide regional-scale, spatially explicit information on the extent and distribution of both stressors and sensitive resources.

2. Develop and evaluate techniques to integrate information on exposure and effects so that relative risk can be assessed and management actions can be prioritized.

3. Predict potential consequences of environmental changes under alternative future scenarios.

4. Effectively communicate economic and quality of life trade-offs associated with alternative environmental policies.

5. Develop techniques to prioritize areas for ecological restoration. 6. Identify information gaps and recommend actions to improve monitoring and

focus research.

Contact: ReVA Program Director: Dr. Betsy Smith, USEPA-Research Triangle Park, NC, phone: 919-541-0620, email: smith.betsy@epa.gov Literature: ReVA uses EPA's Environmental Information Management System (EIMS)

13

to manage its library of projects, data sets, models, and documents. The EIMS database is a comprehensive resource for parties interested in environmental information and can be accessed at the website: http://www.epa.gov/ReVA/documents.html.

4) The Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment (MARA) http://www.essc.psu.edu/mara/ MARA is one of nineteen regional assessments being funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as part of a nationwide assessment of the impacts of global climate change. Researchers from Pennsylvania State University are charged with assessing future changes in the climate of the Mid-Atlantic Region that may occur as a result of rising atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations, and the impacts of those potential climate changes on the hydrology of the region. The emphasis of the group's assessment is on the impacts that affect human and ecological systems.

MARA’s goal is to evaluate the potential consequences of climate variability and change on humans and natural resources within the Mid-Atlantic region, in context to existing and anticipated pressures.

Contact: Team Coordinator: Ann Fisher, email: fisherann@psu.edu Literature:

1) Abler, D.G., and J.S. Shortle. 2000. Climate change and agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Climate Research 14(3):185-194.

2) Benson, K. P. Kocagil, and J. Shortle. 2000. Climate change and health in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Climate Research 14(3):245-253.

3) Fisher, A. 2000. Preliminary findings from the Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment. Climate Research 14(3):261-269.

4) Fisher, Ann, David Abler, Eric Barron, Richard Bord, Robert Crane, David DeWalle, C. Gregory Knight, Ray Najjar, Egide Nizeyimana, Robert O’Connor, Adam Rose, James Shortle, and Brent Yarnal. 2000. Preparing For A Changing Climate-The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change A Report of the Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment Team. http://www.geog.psu.edu/gcimpacts/ (electronic format only).

5) Fisher, A. R. Neff, and E.J. Barron. 2000. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Assessment: motivation and approach. Climate Research 14(3):153-159

6) McKenney-Easterling, M., D.R. DeWalle, L.R. Iverson, A.M. Prasad, and A.R. Buda. 2000. The potential impacts of climate change and variability on forests and forestry in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Climate Research 14(3):195-206.

7) Najjar, R.G., H.A. Walker, P.J. Anderson, E.J. Barron, R.J. Bord, J.R. Gibson, V.S. Kennedy, C.G. Knight, J.P. Megonigal, R.E. O'Connor, C.D. Polsky, N.P. Psuty, B.A. Richards, L.G. Sorenson, E.M. Steele, R.S. Swanson. 2000. The potential impacts of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coastal region. Climate Research 14(3):219-233.

14

8) Neff, R., H. Chang, C.G. Knight, R.G. Najjar, B. Yarnal, and H.A. Walker. 2000. Impact of climate variation and change on Mid-Atlantic Region hydrology and water resources. Climate Research 14(3):207-218.

9) O'Connor, R.E., P.J. Anderson, A. Fisher, and R. J. Bord. 2000. Stakeholder involvement in climate assessment: bridging the gap between scientific research and the public. Climate Research 14(3):255-260.

10) Polsky C. J. Allard, N. Currit, R. Crane, and B. Yarnal. 2000. The Mid-Atlantic Region and its climate: past, present, and future. Climate Research 14(3):161-173.

11) Rogers, C.E., and J. P. McCarty. 2000. Climate change and ecosystems of the Mid-Atlantic Region. Climate Research 14(3):235-244.

12) Rose, A., Y. Cao, and G. Oladosu. 2000. Simulating the economic impacts of climate change in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Climate Research 14(3):175-183.

5) The National Estuary Program http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/ The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established in 1987 by amendments to the Clean Water Act to identify, restore, and protect nationally significant estuaries of the United States. The program focuses on improving water quality in an estuary and maintaining the integrity of the whole system, including chemical, physical, and biological properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. The National Estuary Program is designed to encourage local communities to take responsibility for managing their own estuaries. Each NEP is made up of representatives from federal, state and local government agencies responsible for managing the estuary's resources, as well as members of the community. These stakeholders work together to identify problems in the estuary, develop specific actions to address those problems, and create and implement a formal management plan to restore and protect the estuary. Twenty-eight estuary programs are currently working to safeguard the health of some of our Nation's most important coastal waters including those in the Mid-Atlantic region: Delaware Estuary (http://www.delep.org/), Delaware Inland Bays (http://www.udel.edu/CIB/), Albemarle-Pamlico Sound (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nep/), Maryland Coastal bays (http://www.dnr.state.md.us/coastalbays/).

The Delaware Estuary Program (DELEP) is a partnership of governmental agencies, non-profit organizations, the private sector, and citizens, working together to restore and protect the Delaware Estuary. It was established in 1988 to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) to protect and enhance the natural resources of the Delaware Estuary. DELEP is comprised of implementation teams and advisory committees that meet on a regular basis to address DELEP priorities, including environmental indicators, fish consumption advisories, habitat restoration, horseshoe crabs, PCBs, and watersheds. Delaware Estuary Program Partners include: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Delaware River Basin Commission, New Jersey DEP, Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Inc., Pennsylvania DEP, Philadelphia Water Department, U.S.F.W.S, U.S. EPA, Region II, and U.S. EPA, Region III.

15

Contact: Forsyth Kineon, Director, Delaware Estuary Program, Delaware River Basin Commission, 25 State Police Drive (P.O. Box 7360), West Trenton, NJ 08628-0360, phone: 609-883-9500 ext. 217, e-mail: fkineon@drbc.state.nj.us.

Delaware Inland Bays: State, federal and local governmental agencies have combined efforts and funds to support the implementation of the Comprehensive conservation and Management Plan in Delaware’s thirty square mile coastal bays. Current demonstration projects include reintroduction of submerged aquatic vegetation, increasing the acquisition of open space and developing alternatives for excess poultry manure. Shoreline stabilization programs have increased wildlife habitat and reduced erosion. Contact: Bruce Richards, Director, Center for the Inland Bays, 467 Highway 1 (P.O. Box 297), Lewes, DE 19958, phone: 302-645-7325, e-mail: brichard@udel.edu.

The Albemarle-Pamlico National Estuary Program (APNEP), formerly known as the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study (APES), was among the first National Estuary Programs established by the US EPA in 1987. The mission of the APNEP is to identify, restore, and protect the resources of the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine system. The APNEP is a cooperative effort jointly sponsored by the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that targets a broad range of issues and engages local communities in the process. Important components of the APNEP are the consideration of water quality, fisheries resources, land and water habitats, and the interaction of humans with the natural resources of the estuarine system. The APNEP is designed to encourage local communities to take responsibility for managing the resources in their respective jurisdictions and is made up of representatives from federal, state and local government agencies responsible for managing the region's resources, as well as members of the community. Contact: Guy Stefanski, Director, Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds Estuary Program, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 512 North Salisbury Street, Room 625 (1617 Mail service Center), Raleigh, NC 27699-1617, phone: 919-733-5083 ext. 585, e-mail: guy.stefanski@ncmail.net.

The Maryland Coastal Bays Program is a Federal, state and local partnership charged with developing a community driven action plan to preserve and protect Isle of Wight, Assawoman, Sinepuxent, Newport and Chincoteague Bays plus the 23 creeks and tributaries that feed the bays. An environmental characterization of the bays finds excessive levels of nitrogen resulting in algal blooms that reduce oxygen levels in bay waters; loss of natural habitats for fish, crabs, birds and other wildlife; declines in numbers of fish, clams, crabs and other important species; local bacterial contamination; and negative impacts from boating, dredging, and other water-based activities. In a collaborative partnership of citizens and elected officials from Worcester County, Ocean City and Berlin, Maryland with representatives from various federal and state governmental agencies, applicable solutions to those problems will be developed during the next few years. Contact: David Blazer, Director, Maryland Coastal Bays Program, 9609 Stephen

16

Decatur Highway, Berlin, MD 21811, phone: 410-213-2297 , e-mail: director@mdcoastalbays.org

6) Integrated Natural Resources Assessment (INRA) “Green Infrastructure” http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/ http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/ (Maryland example)

The Green Infrastructure Assessment (GIA) provides information on where key natural lands and corridors are situated and can be used to identify a greenway network that will protect the most critical lands in the state before they are gone forever.

The GIA starts by looking at all the undeveloped lands in the state. By utilizing the latest computer technology and data now available, the GIA can rapidly identify large, ecologically valuable areas (hubs) and a potential system of connecting corridors. The GIA can serve as a blueprint for conservation and can be used at the local, regional or statewide level. The parts of the green infrastructure that actually achieve permanent protection through acquisition or easement will make up the state greenway network.

The GIA builds on the groundwork laid by many preceding land conservation efforts. It most directly complements the work of the Maryland Greenways Commission. The Commission has been working with government agencies and private organizations since 1990 in an effort to establish a statewide network of protected lands for ecological and/or recreational benefits. The Commission saw the need for a comprehensive assessment of the landscape that could be used as a guide to both conservation efforts and future development. The Commission has been working jointly with the Department of Natural Resources to create this approach.

Green Infrastructure is a broad array of public and private natural resource land that: 1) are undeveloped or largely undeveloped (e.g. forests, parks, wetlands, wildlife preserves, etc.); 2) contain significant ecological, recreational and cultural features; and 3) may or may not be protected for conservation purposes.

Greenway Network is a statewide and regional system of interconnected lands that: 1) provide multiple ecological and recreational benefits; 2) are primarily protected through acquisition or easements; and 3) is recognized by the Maryland Greenways Commission. The GIA considers the following factors: land cover, wetlands, sensitive species, roads, streams, terrestrial and aquatic conditions, floodplains, soils, development pressure, and zoning.

For more information and a detailed information package or to set up a briefing on the GIA, contact Teresa Moore, executive director of the Maryland Greenways Commission at 410-260-8780. Additional contacts: John Wolf, email: jwolf@dnr.state.md.us or Ted Weber, email: tweber@dnr.state.md.us. Watershed Management and Analysis Division,

17

Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tawes State Office Building, E-2, Annapolis, MD 21401, phone: 410-260-8790.

a) Maryland’s Strategic Forest Lands Assessment combines the data for forest resource land characteristics by watersheds with data from the INRA to identify forest lands that are ecologically and economically significant. In other words, those parts of the state where forest conservation efforts would make the greatest contribution toward achieving a sustainable (ecologically and economically) forest resource land base. Components include: forest lands characterization, socioeconomic assessment, vulnerability assessment, forest conservation programmatic assessment, public forest land conservation, private forest lands conservation, forest legacy areas, integration with other efforts.

b) Delmarva Conservation Corridor (MDDNR): The Green Infrastructure is the basic method used for this assessment. It is an integrated approach that characterizes watersheds and identifies ecologically and economically important resource lands using existing data common across Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. It is based on a review of the scientific literature and will identify areas of significant habitat quality and minimum areas needed to support viable agricultural business. Congressman Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) commissioned the study as a tool to help define initiatives and focus federal program implementation.

7) The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/

NAWQA is designed to describe the status and trends in the quality of the Nation's ground- and surface-water resources and to provide a sound understanding of the natural and human factors that affect the quality of these resources. As part of the program, investigations will be conducted in about 60 areas-- called study units-- throughout the Nation to provide a framework for national water-quality assessment. Regional and national synthesis of information from study units will consist of comparative studies of specific water-quality issues using nationally consistent information provided by the study units. Study units are the building blocks of NAWQA. A framework has been established to ensure nationwide consistency in the approach to each study-- in field and laboratory methods, in water-quality measurements, and in the supporting data requirements. Budget limitations required NAWQA to be rotational in nature with up to 20 study units in a high-intensity sampling phase per 3-year cycle. The first set of study units began in 1991, the second set started in 1994, and the third set began in 1997.

Contact: NAWQA, U.S. Geological Survey, 413 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, Phone: 703-648-5716, email: nawqa_whq@usgs.gov.

Literature: Publications associated with NAWQA may be accessed through the website http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pubsmain.html

18

Study sites in the Mid-Atlantic: Delaware River http://nj.usgs.gov/nawqa/ Currently, there are two NAWQA studies being coordinated from the West Trenton, New Jersey office. The Long Island-New Jersey (LINJ) coastal drainages study began in 1994 and the Delaware River Basin (DELR) study started in 1997). Contact: NAWQA Project Chief, USGS, 810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628, phone 609-771-3943. The Long Island-New Jersey (LINJ) coastal drainages NAWQA study (http://nj.usgs.gov/nawqa/linj.html) began intensive data collection in 1996-98. The intensive efforts include multi-scale study approaches to collect samples of water, suspended and bed sediment, biologic tissues, and aquatic communities. The LINJ NAWQA study is scheduled to enter a low-intensity phase of monitoring and report writing in 1999 and return to another 3 years of intensive study again in 2005-7. Contact: Mark A. Ayers, Study-unit chief, New Jersey District, USGS, 810 Bear Tavern Road, Suite 206, West Trenton, New Jersey 08628, phone: 609-771-3943, email: mayers@er.usgs.gov. The Delaware River Basin (DELR) NAWQA study (http://nj.usgs.gov/delr/index.html) began in 1997 and is a multi-district effort. Coordinated from the West Trenton, New Jersey office, the study also includes participation by the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Troy, New York offices. Plans for three years (1999-2001) of intensive data collection were developed and the intensive efforts includes multi-scale study approaches to collecting samples of water, suspended and bed sediment, biologic tissues, and aquatic communities. The DELR NAWQA study is scheduled to enter a low-intensity phase of monitoring and report writing in 2002 and return to another 3 years of intensive study again in 2008-2010. Contact: Jeff Fischer--Project chief, U.S. Geological Survey, 810 Bear Tavern Road, West Trenton, NJ 08628, phone: 609-771-3953, email: fischer@usgs.gov. Potomac River Basin http://md.usgs.gov/pnawqa/ http://md.water.usgs.gov/pnawqa/datarpt/ In 1991, the Potomac River Basin study unit began planning assessment activities. The basin was subdivided into eight subunits based on physiographic and geologic characteristics, which were determined to be the most influential natural factors affecting water quality. Water-quality sampling began in 1992. The first high-intensity data-collection phase of the study unit spanned from 1993 to 1995; much of the data collection focused on the Great Valley Carbonate, Piedmont, Triassic Lowlands, and Valley and Ridge subunits. Hundreds of water-quality characteristics were measured in different media during this time, including ground water, streamwater, streambed sediments, and aquatic biological tissues. Fish communities and stream habitat also were sampled. In addition, spatial data such as geology, land use, hydrography, and other watershed characteristics were compiled into GIS to support the assessment. After 1995 the project entered a period of less frequent sampling called the low-intensity phase. Contact: Potomac NAWQA Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, 8987 Yellow Brick Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21237, phone: 410-238-4200.

19

Literature: 1) Ator, S.W., J.D. Blomquist, J.W. Brakebill, J.M. Denis, M.J. Ferrari, C.V.

Miller and H. Zappia. 1998. Water quality in the Potomac River Basin, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, 1992-1996. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1166. USGS. Reston, Virginia.

Albemarle-Pamlico Basin http://nc.water.usgs.gov/albe/index.html The Albemarle-Pamlico Drainage Study Unit is located in portions of Virginia and North Carolina and includes four major river basins, the Chowan, Roanoke, Tar-Pamlico and Neuse. More than 65 surface water sites were sampled between 1993 and 1995 for nutrients, pesticides and other chemical constituents. More than 57 ground water sites were sampled for these same constituents during the same period. Wells were less than 50 feet in depth and located in the surficial aquifer of the Coastal Plain. Wells in the surficial and Yorktown aquifers were selected because these aquifers are the shallowest and are the most likely to become contaminated by human activities on the land surface. The assessment of aquatic biology included sampling contaminants in tissues at 19 sites and in bed sediment at 22 sites, intensely surveying biological communities at 6 sites, and reviewing communities in less detail at 46 sites.

To facilitate study of the relation between the environmental-setting factors and water-quality issues, all land in the study area was classified into 12 strata, using a geographic information system. Each stratum represents homogeneous combinations of natural, cultural, and hydrologic factors. The classification reveals large areas of poorly drained agricultural lands and wetlands in the Coastal Plain that can have significant general influences on water quality. Large areas of agricultural and forested land and smaller areas of developed land can exert a significant influence on Piedmont water quality due to associated point-source discharges.

Contact: District Information Officer: Ramona Traynor, phone: 919-571-4096, email: rtraynor@usgs.gov.

Delmarva Peninsula (started in 1999) http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/map/DLMV.html Delmarva was one of the NAWQA pilot studies started in 1986. Delmarva is planned as a FY 1999 NAWQA study. Contact: Robert Shedlock, U.S. Geological Survey, 8987 Yellow Brick Road, Baltimore, MD 21237, Phone: 410-238-4203, email: rjshedlo@usgs.gov.

8) The Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Change and History Project http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/ches/bayhome.html In 1996, the Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem Change and History Project began research to determine how the Chesapeake Bay is affected by climatic and hydrologic variations as well as human land use practices over various time scales. The project is a cooperative

20

effort between the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Maryland Geological Survey, University of Rhode Island, Naval Research Lab, Duke University, the Environmental Protection Agency and other organizations. Sediment cores, climatic, hydrologic, and geological data are used to discern patterns of Chesapeake Bay climate and environmental changes. Contact: Dr. Thomas Cronin United States Geological Survey National Center; 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 20121; email: tcronin@usgs.gov. Literature:

1) Cronin, T. M. Climate Control. Chesapeake Bay Journal. May 1997, p. 1, 4-7. 2) Cronin, T. M., R. S. Wagner, M. Slattery. (eds.).1999. Microfossils from

Chesapeake Bay sediments: Illustrations and species database. USGS Open-file report 99-45. (includes 5 chapters, one on each major microfossil group. Also available on WWW: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pdf/of/of99-45/).

3) Cronin, T., S. Colman, D. Willard, R. Kerhin, C. Holmes, A. Karlsen, S. Ishman, J. Bratton. 1999. Interdisciplinary environmental project probes Chesapeake Bay down to the core. EOS, AGU Transactions v. 80, no. 21, p. 237, 240-241.

4) Cronin, T. M., Willard, D. A., R. T. Kerhin, A. W. Karlsen, C. Holmes, S. Ishman, S. Verardo, J. McGeehin, S. Colman, A. Zimmerman. 2000. Climatic variability in the eastern United States over the past millennium from Chesapeake Bay sediments. Geology v. 28, p. 3-6.

5) Karlsen, A.W., T. M. Cronin, S. E. Ishman, D. A. Willard, C. W. Holmes, M. Marot, R. Kerhin. In press. Historical trends in Chesapeake Bay dissolved oxygen based on benthic foraminifera from sediment cores. Estuaries.

6) Kerhin, R. T., C. Williams, T. M. Cronin. 1998. Lithologic descriptions of piston cores from Chesapeake Bay, Maryland. USGS Open-file report 98-787.

9) Chesapeake Bay Resource Lands Assessment http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/agree99.htm

As part of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, a commitment in its Sound Land Use section includes an assessment by 2001 of the Bay's resource lands including forests and farms, emphasizing their role in the protection of water quality and critical habitats, as well as cultural and economic viability. They also hope to provide technical and financial assistance to local governments to plan for or revise plans, ordinances and subdivision regulations to provide for the conservation and sustainable use of the forest and agriculture lands. The overall goal of this program is to develop, promote and achieve sound land use practices which protect and restore watershed resources and water quality, maintain reduced pollutant loadings for the bay and its tributaries, and restore and preserve aquatic living resources. The completion of a Chesapeake Resource Lands Atlas with maps that characterizes the status, trends and condition of resource lands, as well as indicates areas of high value and vulnerability is scheduled for December 1, 2001.

Contact: Bill Jenkins (MDDNR), Chair of Technical Team, email: WJENKINS@dnr.state.md.us.

21

10) Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM) http://kabir.cbl.umces.edu/PLM

Project Title: Application of Patuxent and Gwynn Falls Landscape Models to design a sustainable balance between humans and the rest of nature. Investigators: Robert Costanza (P.I.), Roelof Boumans, Thomas Maxwell, Ferdinando Villa, Alexey Voinov, Helena Voinov, and Josh Farley.

Researchers have developed an integrated, spatially-explicit model of the Patuxent watershed, Maryland. This research expands upon and applies the developed models to Gwynns Falls watershed. The Patuxent Landscape Model (PLM) was designed to analyze interactions among physical, biological and socioeconomic dynamics of the watershed. One of their major objectives is to link ecological models to economic models, which predict a spatial distribution of probability of land use change within the watershed. The probability of land conversion based on land values and the cost of conversions will be assessed and maps of the relative likelihood of conversion will be used with information about growth pressures to predict residential development. Project Period: March 1, 1999 - February 28, 2002.

Contact: University of Maryland, Institute for Ecological Economics, Box 38, Solomons, MD 20688-0038, phone: 410-326-7263, email: costza@cbl.umces.edu. Literature: Reports and publications from the Phase 1 and 2 of the project may be found at the website http://iee.umces.edu/PLM/PLM1.html.

11) Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS) Research Program http://www.pncers.org/

The objectives of the PNCERS Research Program are to document ecosystem function, tease apart the forces acting upon it, identify those that can be managed with greatest effect, and design and implement a series of management tools allowing for sustained ecological and socioeconomic health. The Research Team, comprised of teams of oceanographers, fisheries scientists, economists, sociologists, biologists and others from the University of Washington, University of Oregon, Oregon State University and Battelle Northwest Laboratories, has defined the primary research system as two coupled components of a watershed-to-open ocean ecosystem: the estuaries and the coastal environment out to 50 meters of depth. Rather than identify a single indicator of coastal ecosystem function and health, they have chosen a broader systems approach in the belief that sustainable management of such a complex and diverse system will be possible by integrating a physical-biological understanding of the ecosystem and the impacts on it with the current and future socioeconomics driving human activities in, and attitudes towards, the system. Currently, the teams are gathering data on natural systems and social and economic influences in and around Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor in Washington, and Coos Bay and Yaquina Bay in Oregon. They are also sponsoring studies of the

22

nearshore and estuarine ecosystems of the Pacific Coast between the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Cape Mendocino.

PNCERS is a joint effort of the Oregon Coastal Management Program, the Washington Sea Grant Program, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Funding is by the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Contact: PNCERS Research Office, School of Aquatic and Fishery Science, University of Washington, Box 355020, Seattle, WA 98195, phone: 206-221-5935, e-mail: kalitle@u.washington.edu. Literature: Reports and publications associated with this project may be accessed at the website: http://www.pncers.org/publications.htm.

12) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) http://ramsar.org/key_millennium_summary_e.htm.

On a global scale, the stated goal of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is to strengthen the capacity to manage ecosystems sustainably for human well-being. This is a four-year project that began in June 2001. The MA has been recognized by governments as a mechanism to meet the assessment needs of three international environmental treaties – the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. This project was designed to meet policy-maker's needs for "state of the art" scientific information about how changes in the world's ecosystem will affect their ability to meet human demands for food, clean water, health, biodiversity and other ecosystem goods and services. The MA consists of a global scientific assessment as well as 10 catalytic regional, national, and local assessments and has the aim of building capacity at all levels to undertake integrated ecosystem assessments and to act on their findings. The MA will engage the scientific community to synthesize scientific data and information pertaining to pressures, conditions, trends, future scenarios, and response options to meet the expressed needs of policy-makers and other users. The products of the MA will include summary reports for policymakers (tailored to different user groups), technical reports, datasets, maps, and indicators and will be published on the Internet as well as in print publications. The primary users of the MA will be the international ecosystem-related conventions, regional institutions, national governments, civil society, and the private sector. In the first year, the focus is on the development of an internally consistent set of methodologies for conducting assessments on numerous scales.

Contact: Valerie Thompson, Millennium Assessment Interim Secretariat, c/o World Resources Institute, 10 G Street NE, Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 20002, USA (phone: 202-729-7600, e-mail valeriet@wri.org). Literature: Publications associated with this project may be accessed from the website http://www.ma-secretariat.org/en/publications/index.htm.

23

13) Estuarine and Great Lakes Program (EAGLES) projects http://es.epa.gov/ncer/grants/envind00.html

a) Great Lakes: Development of Environmental Indicators of Condition, Integrity, and Sustainability in the Coastal Regions of the US Great Lakes Basin Investigators: Gerald J. Niemi (gniemi@d.umn.edu), Richard P. Axler, JoAnn M. Hanowski, George E. Host, Robert W. Howe, Lucinda B. Johnson, Carol A. Johnston, John C. Kingston, Ronald R. Regal, Carl Richards, and Deborah L. Swackhamer. Institution: Center for Water and the Environment, Natural Resources Research Institute; University of Minnesota Duluth; Minnesota Sea Grant College Program; University of Minnesota Twin Cities; University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. EPA Project Officer: Barbara Levinson Project Period: February 1, 2001 – January 31, 2005 Research Category: Environmental Indicators in the Estuarine Environment Research Program

The goal of the cooperative project, which consists of eight universities and U.S.E.P.A. ORD, primarily the Mid-continent Ecology Division, is to identify, evaluate, and recommend a portfolio of multi-scaled environmental indicators relevant to the coastal regions of the U.S. Great Lakes basin. The major question to be addressed is "what environmental indicators will most efficiently, economically, and effectively measure the condition, integrity, and long-term sustainability of the basin". Objectives are: 1) identify environmental indicators that define the condition, integrity, and change of the ecosystems within the Great Lakes basin; 2) test these indicators with a rigorous combination of existing data and field data to link stressors with environmental responses; and 3) recommend a suite of hierarchically-structured indicators to guide managers toward informed management strategies. Researchers will test the indicators with a combination of existing data, a pilot study, and a more comprehensive field study in years 2 and 3 that are linked with stressors of the basin. Year 4 will be dedicated to analysis and recommendation of a suite of hierarchically structured indicators. They will use EPA's ecological risk assessment paradigm to: 1) illustrate the development of indicators, 2) test cause and effect between stressors and endpoints, and 3) provide essential linkages with EPA initiatives and programs. Indicators are divided into pressure (stressors) and state indicators (individual, population, community, and landscape-level endpoints or responses to the stressors). Major stressors include land use change, climate change, point and non-point discharges, exotic species, atmospheric deposition, and hydrological modifications. State indicators focus on biotic populations and communities (amphibians, birds, diatoms, fish, macroinvertebrates, and aquatic plants), land cover, and water quality (contaminants, nutrients). The expected results are the identification of the relationship between stressors and ecosystem response, which would allow predictions of stressor impacts to be made. They

24

will then be able to recommend the most efficient, cost-effective, reliable, and understandable indicators to scientists and managers. These indicators will be easily visible, simple to monitor, and will allow managers to easily communicate the environmental condition of the Great Lakes nearshore and coastal areas to the general public. The Great Lakes Sea Grant network will provide support and communicate these results to the Great Lakes community.

b)West Coast: Western Center for Estuarine Ecosystem Indicator Research (CEEIR) Investigators: Susan Anderson1(susanderson@ucdavis.edu), Principle Investigator; Steven Morgan1, Gary Cherr1, and Roger Nisbet2, Co-Principle Investigators. Institution: University of California Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory1 and University of California Santa Barbara2. EPA Project Officer: Barbara Levinson Project Period: 0/1/00-9/30/04 Research Category: Environmental Indicators in the Estuarine Environment Research Program

The first and overarching objective is to develop indicators of wetland ecosystem health that are both simple aggregations of data as well as more complex expressions of overall ecosystem health. Other secondary objectives are to develop a) indicators of integrity for specific plant, fish, and invertebrate populations within wetlands, and b) indicators of toxicant-induced stress and bioavailability for wetland biota. Integration among proposals is achieved using: 1) integrative laboratory experiments to determine bioavailability of toxicants in tandem with biomarker responses; 2) field sampling at nine common sites ranging from the Oregon border to Mexico; 3) model species including wetland plants, gammarid amphipods, and a species of goby; 4) overlapping experimental and sampling designs that permit tests of interdisciplinary hypotheses; 5) common data management and GIS capabilities, which will be used to integrate ongoing monitoring studies with their own census data; and 6) modeling and statistical studies that compare indicator ranking procedures to model projections. The extensive integration among proposals enables cost-effective yet rigorous development of indicators on multiple scales across a broad geographic region with characterization of both ecologic health and stressors. The five proposals include the Ecosystem Indicators Component (EIC), the Biological Responses to Contaminants Component (BRCC), the Biogeochemistry and Bioavailability Component (BBC), the Remote Sensing Component (RSC) and the "Center Proposal". The research teams are comprised of over 20 scientists from two University of California campuses as well as several other agencies and institutions. The expected outcome of this project is the development of indicators of biotic integrity, and the evaluation their applicability among sites. Researchers will also address urgent local problems, such as wetland degradation and fish population declines in San Francisco Bay, ecological assessment of mercury contamination in Tomales Bay, pesticide contamination of northern and southern California watersheds.

25

Watershed Assessments

14) Clean Water Action Plan On February 14, 1998, the EPA and USDA jointly released the Clean Water Action Plan. The Clean Water Action Plan is a Federal initiative with the intent to guide all states in their renewed efforts to restore and protect their water resources. The Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) required states to: 1) develop a unified watershed assessment (UWA) to assess the condition of their watersheds; 2) set watershed restoration priorities based on the UWA (i.e., selecting those watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals that are most in need of restoration actions); and, 3) develop watershed restoration action strategies (WRASs) that identify the most important causes of water pollution and resource degradation and detail the actions needed to address these problems, and set milestones by which to measure progress. Under the Clean Water Action Plan, watershed assessments can be made at several different scales, including the hydrologic unit "basins" that have been established by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

14a) The Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) A key element in the clean water action plan calls for a new cooperative approach to watershed protection in which state, tribal, federal, and local governments and the public identify the watersheds with the most critical water quality problems and agree to focus resources and implement strategies to solve those problems. This approach is called the Unified Watershed Assessment and Restoration. The Unified Watershed Assessment (UWA) provides the foundation for setting watershed restoration, protection, and preservation priorities. Accordingly, the UWA needs to consider all components of the watershed related to aquatic systems including biological, physical, and chemical characteristics and related landscape factors. The Clean Water Action Plan outlines several steps in the UWA. The first charges states to identify watersheds with the most critical water quality problems. Secondly, specific projects are to be identified in these critical watersheds for available funding for restoring impaired waters. For more information on the Clean Water Action Plan and UWA see the EPA’s web site at http://www.cleanwater.gov

Unified Watershed Assessments by State 1) Delaware Unified Watershed Assessment Delaware Department of Environmental Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Water Resources, Watershed Assessment Section URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/de_icon.html URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/de.pdf Reference URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/

Delaware uses the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit watersheds as the spatial framework for defining its watershed assessment categories and targeting the watersheds it views as its

26

highest restoration priorities for FY 1999-2000. Delaware's assessment focus is on its inland watersheds. A mapping approach based on individual waterbodies is currently underway to document individual problem areas due to water quality and illustrate specific high priority restoration targets. In preparation of the UWA report, The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and the USDA NRCS headed a core team of state, federal, and local agencies that assisted by inputs from various industry and advocacy groups. Major information sources include pollution impairments for waterbodies documented in their 1998 305(b) Report and their 1998 303(d) list.

Contact: John Schneider, phone: 302-739-4590, email: jschneider@state.de.us.

2) North Carolina Unified Watershed Assessment North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/nc_icon.html URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/nc.pdf Reference URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/

North Carolina uses the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit watersheds as the spatial framework for defining its watershed assessment categories and targeting the watersheds it views as its highest restoration priorities for FY 1999-2000. Major information sources include North Carolina's 303(d)/TMDL list, available Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan documents, the current list of Section 319 NPS impaired waters, information on USDA EQIP priorities, and information on priorities under the USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. In preparation of the UWA report, the North Carolina Department of Health and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality and the USDA NRCS led a core agency team. Contact: Greg Thorpe, phone: 919-773-5083, ext. 557, email: greg.thorpe@ncmail.net.

3) Maryland unified watershed assessment Maryland Department of Natural Resources http://www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/cwap.htm#UWA URL: http://www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/ URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/md_icon.html Reference URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/

The purpose of the Unified Watershed Assessment is to assess the condition of Maryland’s watersheds and, based on watershed condition, classify the watersheds into the following categories: Category 1 - Watersheds not meeting clean water and other natural resource goals and needing restoration; Category 2 - Watersheds currently meeting goals that need preventive actions to sustain water quality and aquatic resources; Category 3 - Pristine or sensitive watersheds that need an extra level of protection; and Category 4 - Insufficient data. This provides the foundation for setting watershed restoration, protection, and preservation priorities. Accordingly, the UWA considered all

27

components of the watershed related to aquatic systems including biological, physical, and chemical characteristics and related landscape factors.

Maryland uses a set of State-defined small watersheds (its Maryland 8-digit basins) as the preferred spatial framework to define its watershed assessment categories and to target the watersheds viewed as the highest restoration priorities for FY 1999-2000. There are 135 inland basins defined in the Maryland small watershed framework. In presenting its UWA classification information, there was a division of labor between the Maryland Department of the Environment, that addressed issues related to Water Quality Standards attainment and the UWA Category I and Category II classifications, and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, that focused on issues regarding high quality waters. The Maryland DNR also identifies 31 small watersheds that are their high priority candidates for protection initiatives. While the current focus of the UWA process targets high priority Category I watersheds for restoration attention, there will be opportunities in the future to address concerns related to high quality areas. The Category I assignments, under the leadership primarily of the Department of Environment, were largely derived from Maryland's 1998 303(d) list. The Category III assignments, which were largely the work of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, tapped an extensive set of GIS data layers plus the biological integrity indicator work available though the Maryland Biological Stream Survey.

Maryland used the Maryland Bay Cabinet to pool the inputs of several state agencies and University Institutes that, along with the USDA NRCS, were the core workgroup that put together Maryland's UWA Report. Key players at the state level included: MD Department of Natural Resources, MD Department of the Environment, MD Department of Agriculture, MD Office of Planning, University of Maryland, College of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Maryland, Center for Environmental Science. Contact: Paul Massicot, phone: 410-260-8685, email: pmassicot@dnr.state.md.us. Literature:

1) Roth, N.E., M.T. Southerland, J.C. Chaillou, P.F. Kazyak, and S.A. Stranko. 2000. Refinement and validation of a fish index of biotic integrity for Maryland Streams. Report no. CBWP-MANTA-EA-00-2. Versar, Inc. Columbia, MD. And MDDNR, Annapolis, MD.

2) Stribling, J.B., B.K. Jessup, J.S White, D. Boward and M. Hurd. 1998. Development of a Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity for Maryland Streams. Report no. CBWP-EA-98-3. Tetra Tech, Inc. Owing Mills, MD and MDDNR, Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, Annapolis, MD.

4) Virginia Unified Watershed Assessment Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Soil and Water Conservation URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/va.pdf URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/va_icon.html

28

Virginia uses the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit watersheds as the spatial framework for defining its watershed assessment categories and targeting the watersheds it views as its highest restoration priorities for FY 1999-2000. The UWA classifications represent an aggregation of information from a system of 494 smaller watershed units similar to the USDA NRCS's 11-digit watersheds. The agency task force relied heavily on the priority findings from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality's 305(b) Report and 1998 303(d) list in defining watershed categories. This was supplemented with findings in a recent update to the Virginia Nonpoint Source Watershed Assessment Report. Category and priority assignments at the HUC watershed level were developed and a Best Professional Judgment approach was applied to pick the highest restoration priorities. The factors considered in this screening process were: watersheds with impaired waters; areas with major NPS impacts; watersheds with high nutrient levels; and watersheds rated as high priorities in Virginia's Natural Heritage Resources lists.

The Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation and the USDA NRCS led a core agency team in preparing the UWA Report. Support also came from Virginia's Nonpoint Source Advisory Committee, which includes numerous state and federal agencies or organizations.

Contact: Karl Huber, phone: 804-371-7484, email: klh@dcr.state.va.us.

5) Pennsylvania Unified Watershed Assessment Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Water Management, Bureau of Watershed Conservation URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/pa.pdf URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/pa_icon.html Reference URL: http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/

Pennsylvania uses the USGS 8-digit hydrologic unit watersheds as the spatial framework for defining its watershed assessment categories and targeting the watersheds it views as its highest restoration priorities for FY 1999-2000. Pennsylvania relied on a consensus approach using findings from existing major priority-setting documents. Their 1998 draft 305(b) Report and information in their 1998 303(d) list were the basis for the category assignments. A ranking analysis of the watersheds was conducted using 3 variables: the percent of assessed stream miles found to be impaired; the number of agency initiatives; and the extent of local interest and participation. A combined ranking score was determined for each watershed, and the top 23 ranked watersheds were selected as priorities. This includes 18 watersheds as priorities for FY1999-2000 and 5 watersheds as priorities for FY 2001 and beyond. Pennsylvania held a meeting in May of 1998 soliciting the help of a number of important stakeholder entities to assist the PA Department of Environmental Protection and the USDA NRCS in preparing the UWA Report. Contact: Michael Sherman, DEP, Bureau of Watershed Conservation, phone: 717-787-5259, email: sherman.michael@a1.dep.state.pa.us.

29

14b) Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS) –Maryland Example http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/wras/ Under the Clean Water Action Plan, watershed restoration action strategies (WRASs) must be developed that identify causes of water pollution and resource degradation, and establish actions needed to address problems. Maryland is developing WRASs to help focus actions within ten large Chesapeake Bay Tributary Basins, including Upper Potomac, Middle Potomac, Patapsco/Back, Lower Western Shore, Lower Eastern Shore, Upper Eastern Shore and Choptank basins. The Tributary Basin WRASs address several elements including:

• The implementation of existing Tributary Strategies for the basin including specific best management practice (BMP) targets toward nutrient reduction;

• Helping to address Maryland’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program requirements;

• Restoring aquatic and other physical habitat to reach living resource goals.

In partnership with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR)-Coastal Zone Management Program, five Maryland counties are initially developing local WRASs at the eight-digit watershed level. Elements of each WRAS will address the protection, conservation and restoration of shorelines and stream corridors, riparian forest buffers and wetlands for the purposes of improving habitat and water quality. Local WRASs are designed to complement other state-wide watershed initiatives, including the new interstate Chesapeake Bay 2000 Agreement and the Coastal Bays’ Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. WRASs are being developed under the leadership of local governments within the following Maryland watersheds: 1) Allegany County: Georges Creek in the Upper Potomac Tributary Basin, 2) Howard County: Little Patuxent River in the Patuxent Tributary Basin, 3) Kent County: Middle Chester River in the Upper Eastern Shore Tributary Basin, 4) Somerset County: Manokin River in the Lower Eastern Shore Tributary Basin, and 5) Worcester County: Coastal Bays. DNR’s Coastal Zone Management Program, in partnership with the Nonpoint Source Program, is leading the WRAS Initiative. Contact: Katharine Dowell, DNR’s Coastal Zone Management Division, phone: 410-260-8741, e-mail: kdowell@dnr.state.md.us. Literature: The publication "Maryland Streams - Take a Closer Look" (MD DNR Watershed Restoration Division ) is available from the website http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/bays/md_streams_wrd.pdf.

30

14c) EPA Index of Watershed Indicators http://www.epa.gov/iwi/ In an effort to support the States as they prepare their Unified Watershed Assessments, EPA issued an improved version of the Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI). The Index of Watershed Indicators characterizes the condition and vulnerability of aquatic systems in each of the 2,262 watersheds in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. This involves an assessment of condition, vulnerability, and data sufficiency. First, indicators of the condition of the watershed are scored and assigned to one of three categories: better water quality, water quality with less serious problems, and water quality with more serious problems. Second, indicators of vulnerability are scored to create two characterizations of vulnerability: high and low. These two sets of indicators are then combined. Contact: T. Dabolt, phone: 202-260-3697. 15) Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) http://www.epa.gov/OST/BASINS/ Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) is a system (originally released in September 1996) developed to meet the needs of agencies attempting to integrate analysis of point and non-point sources. It integrates a geographic information system (GIS), national watershed data, and environmental assessment and modeling tools into one program.

BASINS addresses three stated objectives: (1) “to facilitate examination of environmental information, (2) to provide an integrated watershed and modeling framework, and (3) to support analysis of point and nonpoint source management alternatives”. It supports the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), which require a watershed-based approach that integrates both point and nonpoint sources, and it can support the analysis of a variety of pollutants at multiple scales.

Contact: Ed Partington by email at partington.ed@epa.gov.

16) Coastal Polluted Runoff Program http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/6217/.

The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was expanded in 1990 to include section 6217 entitled "Protecting Coastal Waters” that requires states with approved coastal zone management programs develop Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs (coastal nonpoint programs). Nonpoint source programs developed under section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) were to be combined with existing coastal management programs. The ultimate goal was to develop and implement a cooperative watershed management program that integrates a comprehensive basin management and targeted sub-basin approach to implementing nonpoint source pollution control. Administration of section 6217 at the federal level was assigned to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For more information, contact Peyton.Robertson@noaa.gov.

31

a) Virginia Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program http://www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/index.htm

The long-term goal of this program (15 years) is to develop and fully implement a cooperative watershed management program that integrates a comprehensive basin management and targeted sub-basin approach to implementing nonpoint source pollution control.

Objective 1: By 2004, establish well integrated and coordinated basin planning and management programs that minimize program overlap and leverage program resources to address contaminants that may pose risks to either the environment or public health. Objective 2: By 2005, establish well integrated and coordinated assessment and reporting programs that minimize program overlap and duplication. Objective 3: By 2003, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the Department of Conservation and Recreation will develop the protocols and data needed to prioritize total maximum daily load (TMDL) development based on severity of impact.

b) North Carolina Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program

http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/arep/non_pt.html http://dem.ehnr.state.nc.us/nps/czara.htm

In North Carolina, the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) is responsible for administering the state's coastal management program, while the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) has primary responsibility for implementing the state's water quality programs. As a result, the Coastal NPS program is being developed jointly by DCM and DEM in cooperation with other state and local agencies with water quality and other natural resource responsibilities. Responsibilities of the state’s CNPCP coordinator will include development of the 15-year strategy plan, and a 5-year implementation plan, and participation in both the NPS Workgroup and North Carolina’s 2001 NPS Management Program Update, to represent coastal water quality interests. The Update is envisioned as a tool to identify nonpoint source management resource needs and goals for each of the management agencies, and to provide a single document incorporating this information. The CNPCP Coordinator will also participate in the development and implementation of the basinwide management plans for coastal draining rivers; serve as a liaison between DWQ and DCM; and participate in the development of nonpoint source educational materials.

c) Maryland Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/nps/index.html

In Maryland, The Coastal Zone Management Division in the Chesapeake and Coastal Watershed Service of the Department of Natural Resources oversees the implementation of the Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program. The program is multi-disciplinary providing not only financial assistance, but also nonpoint source related

32

policy, technical and educational assistance. Keys to the Program's success rely on creating open partnerships with other nonpoint source entities and developing long and short term goals that will advance the Program in the nonpoint source pollution control arena. Maryland provides reimbursable grants to state and local governments, non-profit organizations, and institutions of higher learning to implement nonpoint source pollution control projects and programs in accordance with Section 319(h) of the CWA.

d) Delaware Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Library/NPS/NPSPlan.pdf http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/ELibrary.htm http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000/Divisions/Soil/CNPC/CNPC.htm

Delaware’s Nonpoint Source (NPS) Management Plan identifies the pollution management programs, strategies and resources that are currently in place or that are needed to minimize or prevent nonpoint source pollution effects. Delaware’s Nonpoint Source Management Program was established in 1988 following submission of the State’s first NPS Management Plan and Assessment Report to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Division of Soil and Water Conservation has the responsibility of overseeing and implementing the State’s NPS Management Program by coordinating with many local, state and federal agencies and organizations throughout the State of Delaware.

The Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP) now coordinates the network of state agencies with regulatory authority over coastal nonpoint pollution control. DCMP works cooperatively with the 319 Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program and other state agencies to implement this program. Delaware utilizes a combination of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. Since the area managed by DCMP encompasses the entire state and coincides with the statewide NPS Program, the two programs coordinate to eliminate duplication in their nonpoint pollution control work. The pollution categories addressed by the CNPCP are not identical to those addressed by the 319 NPS Program. However, the CNPCP and NPS chose to incorporate the 6217 Program elements into the 319 NPS Management Plan. The DCMP will use a technology-based approach to address activities that generate NPS pollution, including agriculture, forestry, urban sources, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification. Monitoring of the extent of implementation, success of pollutant reduction, and improvement in water quality resulting from the management measures is required.

Contacts: Dr. Michael Crosby, NOAA, Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone: 301-713-3155 x114; email: mcrosby@coasts.nos.noaa.gov.

David B. Carter, Delaware Coastal Management Program, 89 Kings Highway, PO Box 1401, Dover, DE 19903; phone: 302-739-3451; email: dcarter@dnrec.state.de.us.

33

d) Pennsylvania Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/DEPUTATE/Watermgt/WC/subjects/czmp.htm

NOAA and EPA issued final approval May 16 for Pennsylvania's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program, submitted in 1995 in accordance with Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. Pennsylvania was the fifth state of the 33 coastal program states and territories to receive full approval. The program covers practices to reduce nonpoint source pollution from five types of activities: forestry, agriculture, urban runoff, hydromodification, and marinas and recreational boating. Pennsylvania is addressing these sources largely through existing programs. Final approval qualifies Pennsylvania for additional Coastal Zone Management Program funding to address nonpoint pollution sources to our coastal waters and their tributaries. Contact: Pat Pingel at 717 772-5637 or e-mail ppingel@state.pa.us. 17) Coastal Zone Act Environmental Goals & Indicators http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/Library/CZA/eitacfinaldoc.pdf The purpose of the Coastal Zone Environmental Goals & Indicators Project is to develop tools to assist resource managers in measuring and monitoring the health of the Delaware Coastal Zone. These tools include a set of prioritized Environmental Indicators (EIs) that will be used to assess and track progress toward achieving specified environmental goals. The project is designed to allow changes or updates to the initial set of Delaware Coastal Zone Environmental Indicators over time. The CZA goals and indicators will become an integral part of the Coastal Zone permit process. Contact: Dave Carter or Carl Yetter, Delaware Coastal Programs, Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, Dover, DE 19901, phone: 302-739-3451, emails: dcarter@dnrec.state.de.us or cyetter@dnrec.state.de.us.

18) SPARROW (Spatially Referenced Regressions On Watershed Attributes) http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/

The SPARROW method (USGS) uses spatially referenced regressions of contaminant transport on watershed attributes to support regional water-quality assessment goals, including descriptions of spatial and temporal patterns in water quality and identification of the factors and processes that influence those conditions. The method is designed to reduce the problems of data interpretation caused by sparse sampling, network bias, and basin heterogeneity.

Literature: SPARROW Related Publications can be accessed by the website http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/intro/pubs.html

34

Landscape Assessments

19) Landscape Indicators for Pesticides Study for Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams (LIPS- MACS) http://md.usgs.gov/publications/fs-157-00/.

This project is the first study in a long term, national research program, the Landscape Indicators for Pesticides Studies (LIPS). The project is being conducted in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams (since 1999) in an effort between by the Landscape Ecology Branch at EPA with the Water Resources Division of the USGS. The main goal of the project is to develop landscape indicator models for pesticides, nutrients, and toxic chemicals in stream water and sediments. Landscape indicator model development involves the statistical comparison of physical or biological data characterizing streams (e.g., nutrient, pesticide, or toxic chemical concentrations, or biotic community composition and abundance), with corresponding spatial information for the stream and its valley. Besides surficial landscape features such as land cover, slope, and stream features, this study will include data on soils and hydrogeologic conditions in the analyses.

Contacts: Ann Pitchford, Landscape Ecology Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, NERL/ORD, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV 89193-3478. pitchford.ann@epa.gov and Judy Denver, Maryland-Delaware-District-of-Columbia District Office, Water Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, 1289 McD Drive, Dover, DE 19901 jmdenver@usgs.gov.

Literature:

1) Ator, S.W., and M.J. Ferrari, 1997. Nitrate and selected pesticides in ground water of the Mid-Atlantic Region. Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4139, 8 pp. http://md.water.usgs.gov/maia/97-4139.

2) Ferrari, M.J., S.W. Ator, J.D. Blomquist, and J.E. Dysart, 1997. Pesticides in surface water of the Mid-Atlantic region. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4280, 12 pp. http://md.water.usgs.gov/maia/97-4280.

3) Jones, K.Bruce., Llewellyn R. Williams, Ann M. Pitchford, E. Terrence Slonecker, James D. Wickham, Robert V. O’Neill, Donald Garofalo, William G. Kepner et al., 2000, A National Assessment of Landscape Change and Impacts to Aquatic Resources, a 10-year Research Strategy for the Landscape Sciences Program. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-00/001. http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/land-sci/pdf/157leb00.pdf.

4) Pitchford, Ann M. et al. 2000. Testing Landscape Indicators for Stream Condition Related to Pesticides and Nutrients: Landscape Indictors for Pesticides Study for Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams (LIPS-MACS) EPA/600/R-00/087.

5) US Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Field and laboratory methods for macroinvertebrate and habitat assessment of low gradient nontidal

35

streams; Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup, Environmental Services Division, Region 3, Wheeling, WV; 23 pages with appendices.

20) American Farmland Trust and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation with EarthSat, Inc. http://www.farmland.org/ or http://www.earthsat.com/ This program modeled farmland strategic value for farmland protection planning in Maryland statewide and focused on the location, distribution, association, and interaction of farmland in the region. The approach developed concepts for assessing the economic, productive, nonagricultural and strategic significance of Chesapeake Farmland. Maps produced: protected agricultural lands and productive agricultural soil, and projected increase in households per acre on agricultural land, Data from 1995-2020 was used to determine the number of increased households market value of agricultural products sold (by county), agriculture land with significant environmental, cultural, and historical features, and strategic characteristics of farmland. The map themes and spatial databases serve as decision support tools for farmland protection management. These models served as inputs to a strategic farmland model that represents farmlands of high potential value as protected farmland in controlling the conversion of farmland to developed land cover. EarthSat also developed a GIS model to index the potential value of landscapes for agricultural use. The model uses two weighted criteria (physical and socio-economic factors) to map agricultural suitability. Soil quality, slope, access to moisture, land cover, and agriculture supply center access to demand centers for agricultural products, are modeled to produce a composite assessment of the primeness of agricultural lands. Contact: Gregory Koeln, Vice-President, Director of Environmental/GIS services, email: gkoeln@earthsat.com.

21) Virginia GAP analysis project (VA-GAP) http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/vagap/frames.html.

The stated goal of the terrestrial and aquatic VA-GAP programs is to provide the habitat, species, and land management information necessary to protect biodiversity in Virginia. The terrestrial project examines and identifies wildlife species that are currently protected by the existing reserve systems in Virginia. What remains are the species and habitats not found on public lands or preserves. There are "gaps” in data and protection of species off-reserves and public lands that will be identified with this program. VA-GAP is a cooperative effort between the GIS Division of the Conservation Management Institute (CMI, formerly FWIE) of Virginia Tech and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). VA-GAP is funded primarily by the National Gap Analysis Program of the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resource Division and VDGIF.

The specified products of the VA-GAP that will be available to the public include: 1) A digital land cover/land use map based on Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery and other ancillary data sources, 2) Maps of predicted species distributions for over 600

36

species (terrestrial, the aquatic component is just beginning), and 3) A stewardship map showing land ownership and levels of biodiversity protection on public land. Contacts: Scott Klopfer (GIS/RS Project Coordinator) or Jefferson Waldon (Principal Investigator), Fish and Wildlife Information Exchange, 203 W. Roanoke St. Blacksburg, VA 24061, phone: 540-231-7348, emails: sklopfer@vt.edu or fwiexchg@vt.edu. Copies of the final report and products can be ordered on CD-ROM from Rebecca Wajda, VDGIF, bwajda@dgif.state.va.us. Literature: A list of GAP-Related Publications is available at: http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/vagap/frames.html.

22) Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm

FHM is a national multi-agency program designed “to determine the status, changes, and trends in indicators of forest condition on an annual basis”. The FHM program uses data from a variety of sources, such as ground plots and surveys, aerial surveys, and other biotic and abiotic data, and develops analytical approaches to address forest health issues that affect the sustainability of forest ecosystems. The Forest Health Monitoring program is built on a partnership between the National Association of State Foresters, State and Private Forestry, Forest Service Research, and the National Forest System. The program includes all forest ownerships: federal, state, and private.

Contact: Bill Burkman, Program Manager, Southern Forest Health Monitoring Program, USDA Forest Service, PO Box 2680, Asheville, NC 28802, phone: 828-259-0522, email: bburkman/srs_fia@fs.fed.us.

23) Regional Earth Science Application Center (RESAC) http://www.crsp.ssc.nasa.gov/scripts/resac/resacmain.asp

The mission of NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) focuses on building an improved scientific understanding of the total Earth system. In 1998, NASA selected nine geographically distributed, academic/government/industry consortia to form seven Regional Earth Science Applications Centers (RESAC's), including the Mid-Atlantic. Each RESAC received a 3-year grant to conduct several missions including (1) apply NASA’s advanced Earth Science research to well-defined problems and issues of regional significance, (2) integrate remote sensing and its attending technologies into the local decision-making process, and (3) support regional assessments associated with the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The seven RESAC’s each engage in key regional issues, including precision farm management, land cover/use mapping, urban sprawl, and fire hazard management.

37

Mid-Atlantic RESAC The Mid-Atlantic RESAC has several specific stated goals: 1) develop more accurate landcover maps to distinguish cropland from other grassy cover and classify crop species; 2) create precision environmental database for farm chemical management; 3) use high-resolution imagery to improve accuracy of riparian buffer mapping; 4) improve forest mapping to better predict nitrogen delivery into the bay; 5) develop and test methods for a national environmental monitoring framework; 6) provide improved land use and soil moisture data for climate models used in pollution studies; 7) use high-resolution imagery to drive regional land conversion models; and 8) provide remote-sensing applications to help model regional NPP, water yield, and N retention. Contact: Principal Investigator Dr. Stephen D. Prince, Department of Geography, University of Maryland, email: sp43@umail.umd.edu.

25) Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act (B.E.A.C.H. Act) http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/

The BEACH Act establishes a national program for monitoring beach water quality and notifying the public of unsafe conditions. Surfrider Foundation developed a 2001 State of the Beach Report that discusses the management of coastal resources, develops beach health indicators and describes each state’s beach status.

Contact: Surfrider Foundation USA, 122 S. El Camino Real #67, San Clemente, CA 92672, phone: 949-492-8170.

Concluding Remarks This annotated bibliography on watershed assessment projects currently being conducted is not all-inclusive. It is merely a guide to some initiatives with similar goals and study area as the EAGLES-Atlantic Slope Consortium project. If there are any suggestions for the addition of pertinent assessment projects/literature not included, or questions/corrections, please contact Donna Marie Bilkovic, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, PO Box 1346, Gloucester Point, VA, 23062, phone: 804-684-7331, email: donnab@vims.edu.

38

APPENDIX I Classification of Assessment Programs Primary Primary

1. INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT URL Data types1 Indicator types2

EMAP http://www.epa.gov/emap/html/dataI/surfwatr/data/ L,S,C,P,B C,V MAIA http://www.epa.gov/emfjulte/tpmcmaia/index.html L,S,C,P,B C,V INRA http://www.dnr.state.md.us/greenways/ L,S,C,P,B C,V MARA http://www.essc.psu.edu/mara/ L,S,C,P,B C,V ReVA http://www.epa.gov/ReVA/index.html L,S,C,P,B C,V NEP-DELEP http://www.delep.org/ L,S,C,P,B C,V NEP-Delaware Inland Bays http://www.udel.edu/CIB/ L,S,C,P,B C,V NEP-Albemarle-Pamlico Sound http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nep/ L,S,C,P,B C,V NEP-Maryland Coastal bays http://www.dnr.state.md.us/coastalbays/ L,S,C,P,B C,V NAWQA http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/ L,S,C,P,B C,V NAWQA-Delaware River http://nj.usgs.gov/delr/index.html L,S,C,P,B C,V NAWQA-LINJ http://nj.usgs.gov/nawqa/linj.html L,S,C,P,B C,V NAWQA-Potomac River http://md.usgs.gov/pnawqa/ L,S,C,P,B C,V NAWQA-Albemarle-Pamlico http://nc.water.usgs.gov/albe/index.html L,S,C,P,B C,V NAWQA-Delmarva Peninsula http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/map/DLMV.html L,S,C,P,B C,V CB Ecosy. Change & History Proj http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/ches/bayhome.html L,S,C,P,B C,V Patuxent Landscape Model http://kabir.cbl.umces.edu/PLM L,S,C,P,B C,V PNCERS Research Program http://www.pncers.org/ L,S,C,P,B C,V Millennium Ecosystem Assessment http://ramsar.org/key_millennium_summary_e.htm L,S,C,P,B C,V EAGLES-Great Lakes http://es.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/grants/00/envind/niemi.html L,S,C,P,B C,V EAGLES-West Coast http://es.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/grants/00/envind/anderson.html L,S,C,P,B C,V CBP- Resource Lands Assessment http://www.chesapeakebay.net/pubs/agree99.htm L,S,C,P,B C,V 2. WATERSHED ASSESSMENT Clean Water Action Plan http://www.cleanwater.gov C,B,P,L C,V UWA-Virginia http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/va.pdf C,B,P,L C,V UWA-Maryland http://www.dnr.state.md.us/cwap/ C,B,P,L C,V UWA-Delaware http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/de_icon.html C,B,P,L C,V UWA-North Carolina http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/states/nc_icon.html C,B,P,L C,V UWA-Pennsylvania http://www.epa.gov/owow/uwa/pa.pdf C,B,P,L C,V WRAS http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/wras/ C,B,P,L C,V Index of Watershed Indicators http://www.epa.gov/iwi/ C,B,P,L C,V BASINS http://www.epa.gov/OST/BASINS/ C,P,L C CNPCP http://www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/6217/ C,L,P C Coast. Zone Env. Goals & Indic. Proj. http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/DNREC2000/ C C SPARROW http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/ C C 3. LANDUSE ASSESSMENT LIPS-MACS http://md.usgs.gov/publications/fs-157-00/ C,L,P,B C Amer. Farmland Trust, CBF, EarthSat. http://www.earthsat.com/ P,L,S C,V VA-GAP http://fwie.fw.vt.edu/WWW/vagap/frames.html B,L C FHM http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/fhm/index.htm C,B,P,L C,V RESAC http://www.crsp.ssc.nasa.gov/scripts/resac/resacmain.asp C,L C,V BEACHES (Surfrider Foundation) http://www.surfrider.org/stateofthebeach/ C,L C 1 Data types: L= landuse, S= socioeconomic, C=chemical, P=physical, B=biological 2 Indicator type: C= condition, V= vulnerability

39