Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Nicole Carlozo NOAA Coastal Management Fellow June 7, 2013 Integrating Water Quality and Coastal Resources into Marine Spatial Planning in the Chesapeake.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "1 Nicole Carlozo NOAA Coastal Management Fellow June 7, 2013 Integrating Water Quality and Coastal Resources into Marine Spatial Planning in the Chesapeake."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Nicole Carlozo NOAA Coastal Management Fellow June 7, 2013 Integrating Water Quality and Coastal Resources into Marine Spatial Planning in the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays

2 2 Today: General Targeting Model Prioritization Methodology for select (pilot) areas Next Steps Estimate nutrient reduction potential (pilot areas) Integrate Climate Change into the decision-making process Integration with the Watershed Resources Registry

3 3 Goals: Identify high priority aquaculture and coastal restoration areas that align with TMDL water quality goals. Prioritize identified areas where investment in or support of aquaculture and natural filter projects would result in water quality improvements related to the TMDL. Develop recommendations about the best ways to balance competing water uses and coastal restoration practices.

4 4 Riparian Buffer – General Targeting Land Use Exclude forest and open water Hydrology 300-foot buffer from stream/river of order > foot buffer from stream/river of order 3 Other Considerations Ditch buffers Existing buffers Sensitive Species Areas

5 Riparian Buffer – Proposed Changes Stream data –Western shore: Andrew Elmores drainage networks. Currently buffered 1 st – 3 rd order streams out to 100 feet. –Eastern shores: NHD 24K. Currently buffered out to 300 feet (stream order data not available). –Change: 300-foot buffer? 100-foot buffer only for 1st order streams? Ditch data –Currently using NHD ditch/canal designation. Identifies 100-foot buffers. –Change: Update to include PDA and other eastern shore data. Is a 100-foot buffer appropriate? Should ditches be included? Sensitive Species Areas –Currently identified within the general model. –Includes all rare wetland species (not just bog turtles). –Change: Move to the Policy Screening Model Existing buffers –Currently identifies existing forest buffers –Change: Identify existing grass buffers?

6 6 Wetland Restoration – General Targeting Land Use Exclude forest, wetland, and open water Soil Type Potential wetland landscape 50% (SSURGO grid) Poorly and very poorly drained soils, hydric soils, and land that is drained, undrained, channeled, protected, ponded, or flooded. Other Considerations Wellhead Protection Areas

7 Wetland Restoration – Proposed Changes Soil data –Potential Wetland Soil Landscape: % of soil map units (major and minor soil components) that meet certain criteria. –The model: Identifies lands where at least 50% of the map units meet wetland criteria. –Is this appropriate? More or less conservative? Wellhead Protection Areas –Currently identified within the general model. –Change: Move to the Policy Screening Model

8 8 Living Shoreline – General Targeting Erosion and Energy –< 8 ft/yr –Fetch 5 miles Obstacles –Adjacent SAV cover (5 year zone) –Hardened shorelines (VIMS Shoreline Inventory) Other Considerations –6 hours of sunlight/day –Waterway width > 100 feet –See MDE guidance maps for where structural components are potentially authorized. MDE Waiver Process for Living Shorelines:

9 9 Riparian Buffer – Prioritization Land use (wetlands and existing buffers = low priority) Land use (agricultural lands/row crops = high priority) Proximity to water stream/river/water source Adjacent to headwater streams (if identifiable) Depth to water table (0 – 2 meter range) Within floodplain Downslope of nutrient sources (agriculture) Priority geomorphic regions Low slope (water and N retention) Denitrification potential (Percent Organic Matter; poorly drained soils) Nitrogen ModelPhosphorus/Sediment Model Priority geomorphic regions Sediment transport risk (high percent slope) Highly erodible soils (K factor)

10 10 Wetland Restoration – Prioritization Land use (urban, commercial, industrial, and transportation = low priority) Land use (agricultural lands draining to wetlands and ditched / diked / drained land = high priority) Proximity to water stream/river/water source Adjacent to headwater streams (if identifiable) Within floodplain Downslope of nutrient sources (agriculture) Priority geomorphic regions Acreage (size) Denitrification potential (Percent Organic Matter) Nitrogen ModelPhosphorus/Sediment Model Highly erodible soils (K factor)

11 11 Living Shoreline – Prioritization Erosion and Energy –High energy is not ideal for project longevity. –Prioritize medium to low energy (Fetch) –Prioritize low erosion Erosion risk (50 year planning window erosion vulnerability layer) Bottom substrate – prioritize medium (sand/silt) and soft (organic/silt/clay) bottom material due to shoreline diversity concerns

12 Pilot Area Selection Criteria Variation Eastern shore, Western shore, Coastal bays Land cover and slope variation DNR Focus/Interest Protected Lands Fisheries Prioritization Areas (where restoration and conservation would benefit fisheries the most) Trust Fund Watersheds Aquaculture presence/interest

13 13 Next Steps: Programmatic/Policy Screening Integrate programmatic/policy priorities and concerns into the site selection process. Conflicts: –Already restored areas, habitats of special interest, sensitive species project review areas, cultural/historic sites, wellhead protection areas Priorities: –Sites with high edge-of-stream loading. –Easements, protected lands –Priority Forest watersheds, Biological Restoration Initiative watersheds, Trust Fund watersheds Ecological Value Priority Areas: –Greenprint Targeted Ecological Areas (TEAs) –Adjacent to Green Infrastructure Hubs and Corridors –Adjacent to protected lands

14 14 Next Steps: Integrating Climate Change TMDL pollution control measures must be implemented by Where should we invest considering an uncertain climate future? –Assess climate vulnerability of natural filter BMPs and invest at sites with long term nutrient reduction benefits. –Potential scenarios: 2025, 2050, 2075, 2100 Potential GIS layers: –Sea level rise, elevation, wetland adaptation areas, erosion rates Develop new GIS layers: –Climate Risk Areas – areas at risk of exceeding habitat thresholds for wetland, riparian, and aquaculture species.

15 15 Next Steps: Data Sharing Watershed Resources Registry (WRR) –A GIS-based targeting tool that prioritizes conservation, restoration, and stormwater management opportunities (rated 1 – 5) –Overlap with wetland restoration and riparian buffer BMP targeting –Opportunities for integration of water quality and climate change factors during WRR update


Download ppt "1 Nicole Carlozo NOAA Coastal Management Fellow June 7, 2013 Integrating Water Quality and Coastal Resources into Marine Spatial Planning in the Chesapeake."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google