Claire Buchanan Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin CBP Habitat Goal Implementation Team October 14 2015 meeting Chesapeake B asinwide I ndex of B iotic I ntegrity ID: 624658
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Stream Health Outcome" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Stream Health Outcome
Claire BuchananInterstate Commission on the Potomac River BasinCBP Habitat Goal Implementation Team October 14, 2015 meeting
Chesapeake
B
asin-wide
I
ndex of
B
iotic
I
ntegrity (“
Chessie
BIBI”) for StreamsSlide2
Update and Refine Index
Management Approach 1, #1 Updated database (add 2011–present data)Metric and index calculations Index sensitivity
Bioregion under-representationGenus-level metrics
Final Report expected September 2016Slide3
Establish 2008 Baseline and Trend Approach
Management Approach 1, #2Required for CBP goal:Continually improve stream health and function throughout the watershed. Improve health and function of
10 percent of stream miles above the 2008 baseline
for the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Will be done in conjunction with
Technical
Advisory
Group
Results will be included in September 2016
Final ReportSlide4
"Figures
often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'“Mark Twain (1906) from
Chapters From My Autobiography
Q: How to report stream health for an entire region
? Measure change?Slide5
A
B
C
D
E
Three examples from the same hypothetical
data set
Samples from 26 random-stratified
sites are collected in
5 hypothetical
watersheds (A-E
), and
represent an entire
region
Several overlapping monitoring programs collected the data
Watersheds
C and D have small areas but lots of samples. Watersheds A and E are larger but
each only has a
few
samples
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Station Rankings
Q: How
to report stream health for an entire
region
? Measure change?Slide6
Watershed
Watershed area
# Excellent
# Good
# Fair
# Poor
# V. Poor
A
100
1
1
B
75
1
2C701231D80334E1401111SUM34955%11.5%15.4%34.6%19.2%19.2%Example CSimple summation - current CBP pie chart methodConclusion: 38.5% of stream sites are Poor or Very Poor61.5% are Fair or better
A
B
C
D
ESlide7
Watershed
Watershed area
% of total area
Average BIBI score
Ranking
Avg
Score x Area
A
100
21.5%
71
Excellent
7100
B
7516.1%54Good4050C7015.1%49Fair2030D8017.2%22Poor1760E14030.1%33Fair4620SUM465100%19630Conclusion: 17.2% of region’s area has an average score of Poor; none are V. Poor82.8% has an average score of Fair or betterArea-weight average for region is 45.1% (Fair)Example BArea-weighting by watershed area using the average score – current CBP mapping approach
A
B
C
D
ESlide8
Watershed
Tot # Stream
Miles
# Excellent
# Good
# Fair
# Poor
# V. Poor
A
159
1
1
B
98
12C831231D102334E2401111SUM68218.2%28.1%23.9%15.0%14.8%Conclusion: 29.8% of stream miles are Poor or V. Poor60.2% are Fair or betterMile-weighted average score for region is 45.2% (Fair)Example AWeighting by stream miles using proportions of scores
A
B
C
D
ESlide9
1. You are stuck with the data you have...
2. The choice of statistic -- and how that statistic is calculated -- will reflect the underlying question. Be sure of the underlying question.Question being addressed:
“Poor”
or
“Very Poor”
“Fair” or better
C. How many
monitoring sites
are ….?
38.5%
61.5%
B. How much
area
of an entire region has an average condition of ….?17.2%82.8%A. How many stream miles in the entire region are probably ….?29.8%70.2%Slide10
2015
2016
Activity
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
DecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepUpdate Database (#1)
Metric and Index Calculations (#2)
Index Sensitivity (#3)
Bioregion Under-Representation (#4)
Genus-level metrics (#5)
2008
Baseline
Trends (Measure Change)
Confer with
TAG
Draft and Final Reports
Slide11
QUESTIONS?Slide12
Watershed
Station
Station Score
W'shed
Avg
Score
Stream miles in watershed
Stream miles
represented
by
station
Station Rating
A1667115979.5GoodA2767115979.5ExcellentB335549832.667FairB442549832.667FairB585549832.667ExcellentC670498311.857
ExcellentC755498311.857GoodC855498311.857GoodC946498311.857FairC1045498311.857FairC1149498311.857FairC1223498311.857PoorD
13392210210.2FairD14402210210.2FairD15322210210.2FairD16202210210.2PoorD17242210210.2PoorD18292210210.2PoorD1982210210.2V.PoorD20102210210.2V.PoorD21
42210210.2V.PoorD22142210210.2V.PoorE23583324060GoodE24403324060FairE25253324060PoorE2693324060V.Poor
Example data