STAC Science Updates Lisa Wainger, PhD, STAC Chair & University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science Three Science Issues with Potential Policy Implications 1. P trends in Bay 2. Lag times being incorporated into Bay watershed model 3. Invasive catfish

Courtesy of Chesapeake Bay Program 76O 75 O 45O CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED BOUNDARY NEW YORK

80O NEW YORK 42O 1. Trends in nutrient Elmira

O PENNSYLVANIA 42

O O 78 40 NJ inputs to Bay N MARYLAND A E C D.C. O DE Scranton C H E S A P E A K E B A WEST C O VIRGINIA I 38 FALL LINE T

Y N (2005-2014) Chesapeake Bay A L Williamsport T A VIRGINIA Rivers included Bob Hirsch, USGS 0 50 100 MILES PENNSYLVANIA 0 50 100 KILOMETERS Susquehanna CHESAPEAKE BAY EXPLANATION WATERSHED Physiographic province Altoona Potomac Data sources BOUNDARY Appalachian Plateau Piedmont Harrisburg Su Valley and Ridge Coastal Plain sq James Cr. u inet e Blue Ridge gu ha do n o na 1. 9 monitoring sites of river on 0O C York Rappahannock 4 R iv e inputs (flow-normalized) r Appomattox Hagerstown 1

Poto MARYLAND mac Pamunkey (78% of watershed) R Baltimore h USGS RIMa ive sites o r EXPLANATION d n . R Mattaponi 1 a WEST n r e r e River Input Monitoring (RIM) e t h v s VIRGINIA S i e 2. Wastewater discharges station and identifier R Annapolis h 2 C 9 8 . Patuxent k P R

r o a k F t n RIVER INPUT u h Front a t Washington, x r k t e o r p DE Royal n NONTIDAL BASINS N o o D.C. t Choptank F (WWTPs) h

R th C C i Susquehanna River u v o e H S E r N E I Potomac River L S 3. Non-point source Harrisonburg A James River P 4 E Potoma R c A M a Rappahannock River p R K a p O tt a iv a h e E 80 p a r o n loads Appomattox River O n n Charlottesville i o 38 ck N R B Pamunkey River 7 i A ve A VIRGINIA r E 6 R Y Mattaponi River P iv C L a m er 4. Atmospheric N deposition 3 L s Jam un O e e A k m s ey Y F Patuxent River Ja Riv o r er rk e iv Richmond R C R iv I Choptank River R Rive e iv r r T er Appo N matto 5 x A L Base modified from NAD 1983 Albers T Equal-Area Conic Projection Norfolk A

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES

0 10 20 30 40 50 KILOMETERS

Figure 1. Location of the 9 River Input Monitoring (RIM) stations in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Station numbers and names are provided in table 1. Changes in nutrient inputs 2005-2014 Hirsch Preliminary Findings • Total nitrogen decreased about 7% • Total phosphorus increased about 10%. • This general pattern is a continuation of trends seen since about 1995. • It is difficult to project this trend into the future, but an upcoming STAC workshop (January 13-14) will focus on the role of Conowingo dam and other factors. Reduced N inputs are reflected in Bay N concentrations but early season chl-a trend varies J. Testa (UMCES) findings Decreasing Spring TN Concentration in Bay Region IV Region VII

Early season chlorophyll-a Early season chlorophyll-a increasing decreasing Management questions and implications

• Sources of P not well understood • bioavailable dissolved P vs particulate P - important for understanding ecological impacts • Concern has been raised that increased P could promote toxic algae but needs further investigation • High P is associated with toxic algae blooms in freshwater lakes • Upper Bay has fresh water – like lakes • BUT – is well-flushed – unlike lakes • STAC is hoping to explore this area more fully at next meeting • Collaboration among researchers (USGS, CBP, UMCES) is ongoing to examine whether in-water P conditions track with P inputs. 2. How groundwater lag times were incorporated into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (CBWM) 1. STAC raised concerns that ignoring lag times could mis-represent Bay response to management efforts 2. Groundwater lag times were being modeled by USGS – but not in a way that the watershed model could use them 3. Ciaran Harman and his team at Johns Hopkins University, stepped in to fill the gap • (leveraged funding from National Science Foundation) USGS modeling provides a detailed map of groundwater lag times

• Colors show time required for water (or soluble N) to move via groundwater into streams • Built using data from numerous wells and age tracer data Sanford et al 2012 • High spatial detail • No temporal detail (steady state) JHU model bridges USGS and CBWM model To capture location & weather effects on nitrate-N discharge

USGS model CBP watershed model Change in Ward Sanford et al land management Gradual decline Nitrate in stream outflows nitrate-N

rSAS function Results now reflect how groundwater age & weather affect nitrate-N delivery to Bay Always drizzling in this model New mathematical approach (weather does not change) captures ages of groundwater Bridge enables CBWM to project how fast groundwater is flushing

• Groundwater flushing rate tells you how quickly a stream can More time to flush respond to nitrogen reductions on the landscape

Less time to flush JHU researchers Ciaran Harman Dano Wilusz Bill Ball Management implications of incorporating groundwater lag times • The watershed model scenarios will still be run without lags • BMPs will not be judged based on the length of time it takes for effects to be realized • Lag times will be included in the P6 model with these benefits 1. Better match between model output and observed data 2. Helps differentiate locations with quick or slow responses (could inform BMP targeting) 3. Provides ability to estimate the time to water quality improvements 4. Informs adaptive management 3. STAC perspective on the invasive catfish management plan

Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus) Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris)

Photos from Bruce Vogt, NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Non-native Blue catfish Flathead catfish catfish concerns 1. They eat everything 2. They outcompete native fish e.g., In the James R. – now make up Scholesser et al. 2011 most of fish 1 2 to 5 biomass 6 to 10 11 to 19 20 or more

BUT USGS & NatureServe 3. Also a highly prized trophy fishery Blue catfish numbers and Flatheads are widespread range are increasing in upper reaches of tributaries Invasive Catfish Task Force Aims: Reduce the spread & minimize impacts Proposed Actions 1. Conduct targeted removals (fishery independent) 2. Develop large-scale commercial fishery 3. Incentivize use of electrofishing gear (to enhance catch) 4. Establish monitoring programs 5. Establish risk-benefit considerations for barrier removal 6. Review current fishing policies and regulations across jurisdictions 7. Coordinated, consistent public outreach - to reduce introductions to new areas STAC concerns about Invasive Catfish Task Force recommendations 1. Did not reflect outstanding science needs • Unanswered questions about toxins – Is there a need for consumption advisories due to mercury and PCBs? • Safety of electrofishing by commercial watermen (human and ecological) 2. Limited management planning across jurisdictions • A management plan would create incentives to work together to address questions and avoid conflicting actions • For example – Dams act as barriers to catfish; What are criteria for risk-benefit analysis of dam removal? 3. No plan to evaluate what is working • Uncertainties of management effectiveness suggest strong need to evaluate actions • For example, evidence from other areas (e.g., Georgia) suggest that targeted removals can have unintended consequences of enhancing fish recruitment and growth rates STAC future priorities and example questions Developed at STAC retreat 1. Climate & other types of system change • Are we identifying and responding to “canaries in the coal mine”? 2. Adaptive management needs to be fully embedded • How can we make restoration cost-effective by learning from implementation? 3. Living resources • What tools are needed to answer: Will fisheries respond to water quality improvements? 4. Human dimensions • How can people be engaged to innovate & promote restoration success? 5. Nutrient & sediment issues • How do we address the issue that former P sinks are becoming P sources due to saturation?