/
SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: Technical SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: Technical

SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: Technical - PowerPoint Presentation

ellena-manuel
ellena-manuel . @ellena-manuel
Follow
403 views
Uploaded On 2016-10-29

SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: Technical - PPT Presentation

Lee Karrh SAV workgroup chair MDDNR A brief history TechSyn 1 was published in 1992 Largely water column based Simple passfail evaluation of each habitat requirement HR Fixed restoration depths 1 and 2 meter ID: 481829

habitat sav restoration model sav habitat model restoration requirements environmental center university species science bay maryland water chesapeake light

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration..." 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.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

SAV Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets: Technical Synthesis III

Lee Karrh

SAV workgroup chair

MD-DNR Slide2

A brief history

TechSyn 1 was published in 1992,

Largely water column based

Simple pass/fail evaluation of each habitat requirement (HR)Fixed restoration depths (1 and 2 meter)TechSyn 2 was published in 2000Created a model to combine HRsAttempted to model attenuation at the leaf surfaceEvaluated light availability at the leaf surface for multiple restoration depths, as opposed to 1 or 2 meters only

From: Batuik et al., 1992Slide3

Summary of TS1 and TS2 Habitat RequirementsSlide4

Why is TS3 necessary?

For direct restoration projects, even places that met existing habitat requirements had poor success

The Watershed Model (version 5.3) did not adequately estimate observed SAV abundances in calibration runs using existing HRs

Cerco, 2010Slide5

Pertinent conclusions from STAC review of SAV restoration

Evaluate extremes of temperature and clarity rather than just average conditions;

Consider the interacting effects of multiple stressors (particularly temperature, clarity and salinity) and temporal dynamics and sequencing

Develop SAV restoration strategies that are responsive to climate changeSlide6

Pertinent From STAC Review of SAV module of the Model

SAV potential:

A. Improve model relationships between TSS (particle size, organic content, etc.) and epiphyte loads (biofouling, periphyton).

B. Test the ability of the model to duplicate case study areas where there have been observed improvements in habitat conditions and SAV resurgence. C. Quantify the effects of other stressors (salinity, sediment biogeochemistry) on SAV biomass dynamics. D. Incorporate multiple species (including non-native) potential with species-specific physiology into each SAV cell rather than generic SAV. E. Further develop SAV to habitat feedbacks. SAV area: A. Refine how bottom sediment properties affect species-specific SAV recruitment and survival. B. Improve simulations of year-to-year variations in SAV species-specific recruitment potential including colonizer species.

C. Include biological disturbance components of mortality. D. Refine relationships between SAV canopy height and SAV light requirements. Slide7

TS3 will allow us to:

Review current habitat requirements and water clarity standard and determine if they are stringent enough to allow for the resurgence of SAV.

Are 13% and 22% of incident light at the plant sufficient?

Revisit ambient nitrogen, phosphorous and chlorophyll habitat requirements in relation to anticipated reductions in loadings via TMDL/WIP process, provide guidance to Water Quality Standard developmentImprove modeling results for SAV growth in linked Watershed/Hydrodynamic Model (the Chesapeake Bay Model)Modeling results to date have been too poor to incorporate into model runsWill global change require different habitat requirements in the future?Slide8

Revised/re-considered habitat requirements will improve direct SAV restoration (i.e. planting/seeding)

As recommend by STAC review of 2011

Revised habitat requirements will provide greater explanatory power when preparing SAV information for managers and the public (i.e. Bay Barometer, report cards etc.)

Use ecosystem services evaluationEvaluate effectiveness of TMDL/WIP process relative to SAVQuantifying water quality feedbacks due to SAV to allow Chesapeake Bay Model to account for water quality improvement as SAV is restored (currently not a component of the Model)Determine economic value of SAV for management and public informational products Slide9

Topics to be addressed

SAV Restoration

SAV habitat requirements (light, sediments, waves)

Habitat criteria for established versus restored SAV bedsImpact of pioneer species on SAV resurgence/restorationFeedbacks and resilience of SAV populations (genetics) and communitiesLarge versus small scale restorationShoreline hardening effects on SAVGlobal changeTemperatureSea level rise, coastal erosion and sustainable shorelinesCO2 levelsPrecipitation (variable river flow) and global dimming (incident light)

Ecosystem services provided by SAV in Chesapeake BayEcological functions of SAV (interactions with fisheries, nutrient uptake, carbon sequestration, wave/resuspension reduction, habitat value, improving habitats for other species, water quality challenges (i.e. DO improvements)

Economic impact of SAV serving the above functionsIdentification of knowledge gaps in SAV research, restoration and managementSlide10

PARTICIPANTS

Analysis/Synthesis Partners

Tom Arnold Dickinson College

Katia Engelhart University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, ALMaile Neel University of Maryland College ParkChuck Gallegos Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterBrooke Landry Maryland Department of Natural ResourcesMike Kemp University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, HPLChris Kennedy George Mason UniversityEvamaria Koch University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, HPLKen Moore Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceBob Orth Virginia Institute of Marine ScienceChris Patrick Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterNancy Rybicki US Geological Survey, Reston, VA

J. Court Stevenson University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, HPLChris Tanner St. Mary’s CollegeLisa Wainger University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, CBL

Don Weller Smithsonian Environmental Research CenterRichard Zimmerman Old Dominion University

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Partners???? NOAA Chesapeake Bay ProgramRich Batiuk US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program

Michelle Gomez US ACE Baltimore DistrictRick Ayella MDELee Karrh MD-DNRRusty Butt DEQ

Leslie Orsetti DC Fisheries Anne Swanson Chesapeake Bay Commission