Search USGSSearch

Geology topics

Scott Stranko

Publications and source records attributed to Scott Stranko.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Causal inference approaches reveal both positive and negative unintended effects of agricultural and urban management practices on instream biological condition

Agricultural and urban management practices (MPs) are primarily designed and implemented to reduce nutrient and sediment concentrations in streams. However, there is growing interest in determining if MPs produce any unintended positive effects, or co-benefits, to instream biological and habitat conditions. Identifying co-benefits is challenging though because of confounding variables (i.e., those that affect both where MPs are applied and stream biota), which can be accounted for in novel causal inference approaches. Here, we used two causal inference approaches, propensity score matching (PSM) and Bayesian network learning (BNL), to identify potential MP co-benefits in the Chesapeake Bay watershed portion of Maryland, USA. Specifically, we examined how MPs may modify instream conditions that impact fish and macroinvertebrate indices of biotic integrity (IBI) and functional and taxonomic endpoints. We found evidence of positive unintended effects of MPs for both benthic macroinvertebrates and fish indicated by higher IBI scores and specific endpoints like the number of scraper macroinvertebrate taxa and lithophilic spawning fish taxa in a subset of regions. However, our results also suggest MPs have negative unintended effects, especially on sensitive benthic macroinvertebrate taxa and key instream habitat and water quality metrics like specific conductivity. Overall, our results suggest MPs offer co-benefits in some regions and catchments with largely degraded conditions but can have negative unintended effects in some regions, especially in catchments with good biological conditions. We suggest the number and types of MPs drove these mixed results and highlight carefully designed MP implementation that incorporates instream biological data at the catchment scale could facilitate co-benefits to instream biological conditions. Our study underscores the need for more research on identifying effects of individual MP types on instream biological and habitat conditions.

Maryland

The state of the science and practice of stream restoration in the Chesapeake: Lessons learned to inform better implementation, assessment and outcomes

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s (CBP) Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) organized and led a workshop on the science and practice of stream restoration in order to summarize the state of knowledge in order to identify ways to improve stream restoration outcomes. The workshop identified a general framework for explaining the main factors leading to stream restoration outcomes: stream degradation has occurred, leading to regulatory and policy motivations that prioritize project goals, which leads to restoration approaches, assessment and monitoring efforts, and ultimately stream restoration outcomes. In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, stream restoration often occurs in response to Clean Water Act (CWA) mandates to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads to the Bay. Reviews of stream restoration outcomes summarized at the workshop showed that, in general, stream restorations have led to minimal improvement to stream aquatic biota, effective ‘stabilization’ of channel form over time, moderate improvements to water quality, and short-term negative impacts to riparian vegetation. The fundamental finding of the workshop was that often the primary goal of stream restoration projects is to improve geomorphic stability in the restored reach and downstream water quality, and not to improve local ecological conditions through ‘uplift’ (improvement of one or more ecosystem functions through a restorative activity; a term defined in Appendix D), and therefore these projects often do not improve aquatic macroinvertebrate or fish communities. This conflict in goals is a shortcoming of the currently most common regulatory driver for stream restoration (reducing downstream loads of N, P, and sediment) that could be addressed directly through diversifying goals to include biotic uplift, as biological benefit is an assumed condition for the permitting and crediting of stream restoration projects. It is also likely that current understanding of stressors and drivers of stream ecosystem health is insufficient, and that reach-scale restoration focused on geomorphic restoration is not removing the actual sources of stream health impairment that may arise in the upstream watershed. More science could help to identify how to improve the ecological condition of streams through management. The outcome of stream restoration monitoring has revealed that while geomorphic and hydrodynamic functions of stream restoration projects may be achieved, biotic stream function improvements remain elusive. As such, ensuring uplift may be achieved by avoiding restoration projects that risk resources in higher-quality streams and riparian corridors. Reach-scale restoration often does not effectively mitigate the watershed-scale stressors of stream ecosystems. If a desired outcome of stream restoration includes ecological uplift, then focusing efforts on improving stream ecology could help meet that goal.

Chesapeake Bay watershed