Benchmarking Watershed Condition for Aquatic Biointegrity Outcomes and Nutrient Criteria Development

Paul E. Stacey NAB Conference Principal Scientist 5 March 2020 Footprints In The Water LLC Newport, RI [email protected] Management Perspective for Changing Times: Value of Nature to Canadians Study Taskforce. 2017. Management Perspective for Changing Times: Value of Nature to Canadians Study Taskforce. 2017.

An Ecosystem Approach A social-ecological system framework for both analysis and management that accounts for the complex interrelationships of human society, economics, and the environment GOAL – Achieve Structural and Functional Integrity: The Path to Making Nature Great Again is Fostering ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY “NOBODY KNEW ECOSYSTEMS COULD BE SO COMPLICATED.” DPSIR Framework in the SES Context:

DRIVER Land Cover Change, Climate Change D Agriculture, Habitat Destruction PRESSURE Forcing Factors (Stressors): P Chemical, Physical, Biological Chemical, Physical, STATE S Biological Condition Loss of Structural and IMPACT I Functional Integrity R Management RESPONSE Action

- Smeets and Weterings (1999) Assessing Collective Stress: Five Major Factors that Determine Biological Condition

USEPA. 2016. Assessing Collective Stress: Five Major Factors that Determine Biological Condition

D P S/I

USEPA. 2016. GOAL – Achieve Structural and Functional Integrity: The Path to Making Nature Great Again is Fostering ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY “NOBODY KNEW ECOSYSTEMS COULD BE SO COMPLICATED.”

“NOBODY KNOWS ECOSYSTEMS BETTER THAN NATURE… THAT’S WHY NATURE ALONE CAN FIX THEM.” BCG Pressure-Response in SES:

X Axis (Pressure): ➢ Ecosystem Stress Level (GS) 1 ➢ Percent Natural Cover ➢ Watershed Structure POPULATION ➢ Watershed Condition Index (WCI)

Y Axis (Response): ➢ Biological Condition

➢ Ecosystem Integrity (WFI) Index

➢ Watershed Function Index (WFI)

Ecosystem Integrity Ecosystem Integrity

BiologicalCondition Watershed Function Watershed

0 1 0 WatershedEcosystemPercentWatershed Condition Natural Stress Structure CoverLevel Index (GS) (WCI) USEPA. 2016. A Practitioner’s Guide to the Biological Condition Gradient BCG Pressure-Response in SES:

X Axis (Pressure): ➢ Ecosystem Stress Level (GS) 1 ➢ Percent Natural Cover ➢ Watershed Structure ➢ Watershed Condition Index (WCI) SITE-SPECIFIC

NATURAL VARIATION Y Axis (Response): ➢ Biological Condition

➢ Ecosystem Integrity (WFI) Index

➢ Watershed Function Index (WFI)

Ecosystem Integrity Ecosystem Integrity

BiologicalCondition Watershed Function Watershed

X Axis (Pressure): ➢ Ecosystem Stress Level (GS) 1 ➢ Percent Natural Cover ➢ Watershed Structure ➢ Watershed Condition Index (WCI) ➢WCI = STRESSOR Y Axis (Response): ➢ Biological Condition

➢ Ecosystem Integrity (WFI) Index

➢ Watershed Function Index (WFI)

Ecosystem Integrity Ecosystem Integrity

BiologicalCondition Watershed Function Watershed ➢WFI = RESPONSE 0 1 0 WatershedEcosystemPercentWatershed Condition Natural Stress Structure CoverLevel Index (GS) (WCI) USEPA. 2016. A Practitioner’s Guide to the Biological Condition Gradient SES Along the BCG: HIGH Natural Assets LOW 1 HIGH

Ecosystem Approach 0.8 Conservation Watershed Structure 0.6 is the Independent Variable Management 0.4 (Pressure Metric)

Mitigation 0.2

Watershed Function Natural Functions (WFI)

is the Dependent LOW Variable 0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 (Response Metric) HIGH Watershed Natural Structure (WCI) LOW Setting Land Cover – Biointegrity Benchmarks: > 80% > 50% Biointegrity Threshold:

• Buffers • >80% Tree Cover

• Watershed • >50% Tree Cover < 5% • Impervious Cover • <5% IC

Goetz et al. 2003 GOAL – Achieve Structural and Functional Integrity: The Path to Making Nature Great Again is Fostering ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY “ NOBODY KNEW ECOSYSTEMS COULD BE SO COMPLICATED.”

“NOBODY KNOWS ECOSYSTEMS BETTER THAN NATURE… THAT’S WHY NATURE ALONE CAN FIX THEM.”

“IT’S A PERFECT CALL!” Benchmarks in BCG Context: HIGH Natural Assets LOW 1 HIGH

Useful Benchmarks: (WFI) FunctionIndex WS Historical Reference 0.8 Historical Reference WCI = 1.0 0.6 Threshold WCI = 0.5 0.4 Threshold

0.2

LOW 0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0

HIGH Watershed Condition Index (WCI) LOW Benchmarks in BCG Context: HIGH Natural Assets LOW 1

HIGH WS Function Index (WFI) FunctionIndex WS Useful Benchmarks: 0.8

Historical Reference WCI = 1.0 0.6 Threshold BAC WCI = 0.5 Current Condition Target Condition 0.4 WCI = 0 – 1.0 Management Target WCI = Current + Increase Current Condition 0.2 Best Attainable Condition (BAC) WCI = Current + Recovery LOW Potential 0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0

HIGH Watershed Condition Index (WCI) LOW Natural Cover WCI Assessment:

10 Football Fields/Day ! Watershed Condition Analysis: Watershed Size Distribution 50000 45000 40000 CT 35000 NY 30000 25000 20000 15000 Watershed Size (acres) Size Watershed 10000 Long Island Sound 5000 0 1 26 51 76 101 126 151 160 Connecticut Coastal Watersheds Benchmarking Watershed Conditions:

WCI for 160 CT Coastal Watersheds Watershed Condition Index (WCI) Index ConditionWatershed Historical 1.0 Reference 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Threshold 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0

7 1

97 91 85 79 73 67 61 55 49 43 37 31 25 19 13

157 151 145 139 133 127 121 115 109 103 Watersheds Benchmarking Town Conditions:

WCI for Coastal Towns Watershed Condition Index (WCI) Index ConditionWatershed Historical 1.0 Reference 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Threshold 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0

9 7 5 3 1

35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 Towns Benchmarking Town Conditions:

WCI for Coastal Towns Watershed Condition Index (WCI) Index ConditionWatershed Historical 1.0 Reference 0.9 0.8 Mitigation (BMPs) 0.7 0.6 Threshold 0.5 0.4 Conservation 0.3 0.2 Management (Recovery) 0.1

0.0

9 7 5 3 1

35 33 31 29 27 25 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 Towns What About Nitrogen? Five Major Factors that Determine Biological Condition

USEPA. 2016. What About Nitrogen? Five Major Factors that Determine Biological Condition NITROGEN ?

BIOINTEGRITY or “WFI”

USEPA. 2016. LIS Applications: LONG ISLAND SOUND STUDY – NITROGEN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2018.

Pressure-Response Framework: LISS –0.53 NITROGEN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

0.30 0.76

0.10 (One Size Fits All)

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2018.

Pressure-Response Framework: LISS –0.53 NITROGEN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

0.30 0.76

Type I Error

10 (One Size Fits All)

Type II Error

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2018. Watershed Condition Index:

WCI for 160 CT Coastal Watersheds Watershed Condition Index (WCI) Index ConditionWatershed 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Threshold 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0

7 1

97 91 85 79 73 67 61 55 49 43 37 31 25 19 13

157 151 145 139 133 127 121 115 109 103 Watersheds Nitrogen! At last: Calculated Nitrogen Loads from WCI 20 20 y = 16.499e-2.883x R² = 0.9851

16 16

)

- -

12 12 /acre

Current = Calculated from WCI /acre

lbs lbs Target (TMDL) = Calculated from WCI 8 8

Recovery (BAC) = Calculated from Recovery Potential WCI

N Yield ( Yield N N Yield ( Yield N Threshold = 4 + 1 ? 4 4 Current “Current” Reference = 2 Reference Historical Reference = 1 0 0 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 Watershed Condition Index (WCI) Managing Nitrogen in SES Context: TMDL NPS/SW + PT S = TMDL REDUCTION TARGET (LA) (WLA) TARGET

Fully Natural Using “Enrichment Reference Factors” the Threshold Exports Load is 5X the 1 lb N/acre-yr Threshold Condition Natural Reference (50% Natural Cover) Load or “Dose” This approach establishes a site-specific Exports 5 lb N/acre-yr Assessment of loading, scalable and Applicable to any watershed or segment. It is harmonized with ecosystem functional Conditions and loads can be estimated in Mass units/time unit (e.g., tons N/yr used Here) or as a normalized “dose” by using Enrichment factors relative to the Reference load, e.g., the EF for the Threshold condition = 416 tons/83 tons = 5 Managing Nitrogen in SES Context: TMDL NPS/SW + PT S = TMDL REDUCTION TARGET (LA) (WLA) TARGET

Fractional Area Current Reference Threshold WCI Current Land Current Point Land + Point Watershed Below/Above Area (acres) Forest Urban (Natural) Load (WCI = 5.0)0.5) Load (Tons Load (Tons Load (Tons Agric Threshold (With Point Sources) (>0.50) (>0.30) (Tons TN/yr) (Tons TN/yr) TN/yr) TN/yr) TN/yr) (Tons TN/yr) Pawcatuck River 166626 0.78 0.10 0.12 83 416 190 77 267 150 Niantic Bay (Enrichment Factors) 18821 0.74 0.10 0.16 1.09 5.047 2.325 0 3.225 22 Mystic Harbor 16598 0.70 0.15 0.15 8 41 24 9 33 9 Saugatuck Estuary 55723 0.67 0.13 0.20 28 139 91 5 96 43 Stonington Harbor 1531 0.61 0.15 0.24 1 4 3 1 4 0 Stony Brook Harbor 4915 0.57 0.13 0.30 4 22 11 0 11 11 Farm River 16648 0.54 0.21 0.25 8 42 38 0 38 3 Southport Harbor/Sasco Brook 27565 0.52 0.22 0.26 14 69 66 0 66 2 Norwalk Harbor 38409 0.52 0.15 0.33 19 96 98 134 232 -136 Oyster Bay/Cold Spring 16500 0.50 0.19 0.31 8 41 43 10 53 -12 Byram River 17364 0.48 0.25 0.27 9 43 46 5 52 -8 Port Jefferson Harbor 3829 0.48 0.12 0.40 2 10 11 18 29 -20 Mt. Sinai Harbor 3285 0.47 0.12 0.41 2 8 10 0 10 -2 New Haven Harbor 145211 0.42 0.21 0.37 73 363 470 642 1112 -749 Northport/Centerport Harbor 5236 0.41 0.12 0.47 3 13 18 3 22 -9 Eastern Narrows 175642 0.40 0.23 0.37 88 439 593 153 746 -307 Pequonnock River 21440 0.38 0.17 0.45 11 54 79 71 150 -96 Nissequogue River 24058 0.37 0.15 0.48 12 60 93 0 93 -33 Mamaroneck River 16426 0.36 0.22 0.42 8 41 62 0 62 -21 Northport/Centerport Harbor Adj. 914 0.26 0.19 0.55 0 2 5 0 5 -2 Hempstead Harbor 12597 0.23 0.30 0.47 6 31 64 34 97 -66 Manhasset Bay 9263 0.18 0.28 0.54 5 23 54 68 121 -98 Western Narrows 100875 0.08 0.06 0.86 50 252 823 16179 17002 -16750 Watershed with higher levels of development, or large point sources generally exceed the threshold. Watersheds with more Natural cover may have excess capacity to accommodate development, but rarely to accommodate a point source. Managing Nitrogen in SES Context: TMDL NPS/SW + PT S = TMDL REDUCTION Threshold TARGET (LA) (WLA) TARGET

Mt. Sinai Harbor 3285 0.47 0.12 0.41 2 8 10 0 10 -2 (Recovery)

New Haven Harbor 145211 0.42 0.21 0.37 73 Management 363 470 642 1112 -749 Northport/Centerport Harbor 5236 0.41 0.12 0.47 3 13 18 3 22 -9 Eastern Narrows 175642 0.40 0.23 0.37 88 439 593 153 746 -307 Pequonnock River 21440 0.38 0.17 0.45 11 54 79 71 150 -96 Nissequogue River 24058 0.37 0.15 0.48 12 60 93 0 93 -33 Mamaroneck River 16426 0.36 0.22 0.42 8 41 62 0 62 (BMPs) Mitigation -21 Northport/Centerport Harbor Adj. 914 0.26 0.19 0.55 0 2 5 0 5 -2 Hempstead Harbor 12597 0.23 0.30 0.47 6 31 64 34 97 -66 Manhasset Bay 9263 0.18 0.28 0.54 5 23 54 68 121 -98 Western Narrows 100875 0.08 0.06 0.86 50 252 823 16179 17002 -16750 Options for Conservation are in the areas with more natural (forest) cover, while more developed watersheds have to rely on Engineered Mitigation, which does not restore the full suite of watershed functions that Recovery Management might provide. Managing Nitrogen in SES Context: Threshold EF Current Current Reference Threshold WCI Current Land Current Point Land + Point Current Watershed Below/Above Below/Above Area (acres) (Natural) Load (WCI = 5.0)0.5) Load (Tons Load (Tons Load (Tons Enrichment Threshold Threshold (With Point Sources) (Tons TN/yr) (Tons TN/yr) TN/yr) TN/yr) TN/yr) Factor (Enrich. Factor) (Tons TN/yr) Stony Brook Harbor 4915 4 22 11 0 11 2.5 11 Niantic Bay 18821 9 47 25 0 25 2.6 22 Pawcatuck River 166626 83 416 190 77 267 3.2 150 Saugatuck Estuary 55723 28 139 91 5 96 3.4 43 Mystic Harbor 16598 8 41 24 9 33 3.9 9 Farm River 16648 8 42 38 0 38 4.6 3 Southport Harbor/Sasco Brook 27565 14 69 66 0 66 4.8 2 Stonington Harbor 1531 1 4 3 1 4 4.8 0 Byram River 17364 9 43 46 5 52 5.9 -8 Mt. Sinai Harbor 3285 2 8 10 0 10 6.0 -2 Oyster Bay/Cold Spring 16500 8 41 43 10 53 6.4 -12 Mamaroneck River 16426 8 41 62 0 62 7.6 -21 Nissequogue River 24058 12 60 93 0 93 7.7 -33 Northport/Centerport Harbor 5236 3 13 18 3 22 8.3 -9 Eastern Narrows 175642 88 439 593 153 746 8.5 -307 Northport/Centerport Harbor Adj. 914 0 2 5 0 5 10.0 -2 Norwalk Harbor 38409 19 96 98 134 232 12.1 -136 Pequonnock River 21440 11 54 79 71 150 14.0 -96 Port Jefferson Harbor 3829 2 10 11 18 29 15.3 -20 New Haven Harbor 145211 73 363 470 642 1112 15.3 -749 Hempstead Harbor 12597 6 31 64 34 97 15.5 -66 Manhasset Bay 9263 5 23 54 68 121 26.2 -98 Western Narrows 100875 50 252 823 16179 17002 337.2 -16750 Ordered by Enrichment Factors, an EF of 5 is the breakpoint at the WCI Threshold. Prospects for Natural Recovery become Limited above EFs of 10 and N TMDLs are probably unattainable at EFs above 15 when Development & Point Sources are high. In Summary: Making Nature Great Again (Occam’s Razor – the rationality of simple explanations)

A viable SES Method! An Ecosystem Application!

• Decision Support for: • Natural Recovery is: • Assessment • Functional • Management Planning • Adaptive • Biointegrity Endpoints • Transitional • WS Condition Targets • Resilient • Buffer Sizing • Low Cost • Recovery Potential • Aimed at Well-being • Nutrient Targets and TMDLs Outcomes

In an Ecosystem Context! In a Changing World! A Changing Planet!

Earth is Suffering from a Disease, Not unlike a Chronic Wasting Disease of Paul E. Stacey our Ecosystems, [email protected] And we are the Driver. 5 March 2020

NASA Earth Observatory References: • Borisoff, S. 2020. January Conditions & Northeast DEWS Discussion By: Samantha Borisoff, Climatologist Northeast Regional Climate Center 20200130 http://www.nrcc.cornell.edu/ • Goetz, S.J., R.K. Wright, A.J. Smith, E. Zinecker, and Erika Schaub. 2003. IKONOS imagery for resource management: Tree cover, impervious surfaces, and riparian buffer analyses in the mid-Atlantic region. Remote Sensing of Environment 88 (2003) 195–208. • Mace, G.M. 2014. Whose conservation? Science. 345(6204):1558-1560 • NASA Earth Observatory “Earth Lights” https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/55000/55167/earth_lights_lrg.jpg • Smeets, E. and R. Weterings. 1999. Environmental indicators: typology and overview. European Environmental Agency Technical Report No. 25. 19 p. • Tetra Tech, Inc. 2018. Establishing Nitrogen Endpoints for Three Long Island Sound Watershed Groupings: Embayments, Large Riverine Systems, and Western Long Island Sound Open Water Subtasks F/G. Draft Summary of Empirical Modeling and Nitrogen Endpoints. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 and Long Island Sound Office. 65 p. • University of Connecticut, Center for Land Use Education and Research. clear.uconn.edu/ • USEPA. 2010. Using stressor-response relationships to derive numeric nutrient criteria. EPA-820-5-10-001. Office of Science and Technology, Office of Water, Washington, DC. • USEPA. 2016. A Practitioner’s Guide to the Biological Condition Gradient: A Framework to Describe Incremental Change in Aquatic Ecosystems. EPA-842-R-16-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. • Wilson, E.O. 2016. Half-Earth. Our planet’s fight for life. Liveright Publishing, New York, NY. 258 p. • Value of Nature to Canadians Study Taskforce. 2017. Completing and Using Ecosystem Service Assessment for Decision- Making: An Interdisciplinary Toolkit for Managers and Analysts. Ottawa, ON: Federal, Provincial, and Territorial Governments of Canada.