Ecological Indicators:

 

 

Indicator	Water Quality: Biotic Indices (stream vegetation, salmonid population, B-IBI, native and non-native species, Benthic algal biomass, aquatic invertebrate diversity & evenness, periphyton, chlorophyll	Water Quality: Multimetric Indices (physical and chemical including fecal coliform levels, alkalinity, nitrate contamination of ground water, temperature, dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus/Zn/DO, total suspended sediment and turbidity	In-stream large woody debris/Riparian Canopy/buffer characteristics (width, height, age, type)	Land cover/land use	Water Consumption	Water flow and discharge, diversions/daylighting (culverts, pipes), barriers to movement of organisms (dams), light
Scale	Stream & River level/community level	Watershed level	Streams in urban and urbanizing areas	Landscape	Community/ Watershed/ Water jurisdictions	State/Stream scale
Strengths	Some data available, site specific, field work	Summarize water quality, Some data available		Data available GIS, aerial photos, needed for calculation of other indicators	Data available, assess human component
Weaknesses	Site specific, field work, limited measurements	Imprecise and based on ‘pre-identified set of water quality constituents,’ not all potentially hazardous indicators taken into consideration, Limited time period for further data collection		First step for calculation, needs to be combined with other indicators	Will need to link information to overall water health
Reference	Karr and Chu, 2000; Karr; Booth; Cuffney et al, 2000	Cuffney et al., 2000; SPU; Booth	Scholz and Booth, 2001	Franklin, Booth
Comments	Biological monitoring in order to gauge health of entire river; imprecise.	Imprecise; Researchers used USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program protocols	Research claims in-stream large woody debris and riparian canopy as parameters that show value as a watershed measurement		Good indicator of human component to the overall watershed health

 

 

Needs: 

• documented use of ecological indicators in aquatic & riparian ecosystems
• JIT lecture: dis/advantages of indicators being used & alternatives
• Do the indicators in use represent the ‘best available science’ or were they chosen based on some other criteria (political, social, economic)?

 

Issues of Scale:

• Range of temporal scales: salmon=annual, water quality=daily, bioaccumulation=lag, climate=annual & global warming, settlement=rapid & continuous, evolutionary adaptability=species specific
• Spatial & temporal scales tend to be human-centered
• Ecological spatial scales span local to global
• Hierarchical nature of levels between scales
• Have indicators been created with scale in mind?
• UGB & jurisdictional boundaries not based on natural or watershed boundaries

 

Resources:

• C. Konrad, D. Booth, M. Brett, J. Karr, Gene Martin (PhD student, geography/gis), J. Marzluff, J. Franklin, L. Brubaker
• Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 37, no. 2, p.407-21, April 2001 (fecal coliforms data)
• Chensheng et. al. A conceptual framework for integrating hydrological and biological indicators into watershed management. Landscape and Urban Planning. Vol. 49, no1-2 p25-34 (discussion of land use/cover and models for determining hydrological and biological indicators)
• Sustainable Seattle
• Washington State Department of Fisheries, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes (salmon data)
• U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Puget Sound
• Department of Ecology Washinton Puget Sount Water Quality Management Plan
• EPA Index of Watershed Indicators 1996
• EPA Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program EMAP
• Integrating Monitoring, Assessment and Management, Elsevier Sicences. On-line. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. National Research Council
• Cuffney, T.F., M.R. Meador, S.D, Porter, and M.E. Gurtz. (2000). Responses of physical, chemical and biological indicators of water quliaty to a gradient of agricultural land use in the Yakima River Basin, Washington. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. 64(1): 259-70
• Scholz, J.G. and D.B. Booth. (2001). Monitoring urban streams: strategies and protocols for humid-region lowland systems.  Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 71(2): 143-164.
• Karr, J.R. and E.W. Chu. (2000).  Sustaining living rivers.  Hydrobiologia 2000; 422-423: 1-14.
• Yakovlev, V.A.  (2000).  Trophic structure of zoobenthos as an ecological indicator for aquatic ecosystems and a water quality index.  Water Resources 27(2): 211.
• Doberstein, C.P., J.R. Karr, and L.L. Conquest. (2000).  The effect of fixed-count sampling on macroinvertebrate biomonitoring in small streams.  Freshwater Biology 44: 355-371.
• David Hollock, USGS-Water Resources of Washington State; Contacts at Stream Hydrology Unit (SHU) listed on homepage
• Washington’s Water Quality Index, author David Hallock: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/now/shu-main