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

1

Nicole CarlozoNOAA Coastal Management

FellowJune 7, 2013

Integrating Water Quality and Coastal Resources into Marine Spatial Planning in the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bays

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

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

Riparian Buffer – General Targeting

• Land Use• Exclude forest and open

water

• Hydrology• 300-foot buffer from

stream/river of order > 3• 100-foot buffer from

stream/river of order ≤ 3

• Other Considerations• Ditch buffers• Existing buffers• Sensitive Species Areas

Forest

Riparian Buffer – Proposed Changes

• Stream data– Western shore: Andrew Elmore’s drainage networks. Currently buffered 1st –

3rd 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

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

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

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

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 Model Phosphorus/Sediment Model

• Priority geomorphic regions• Sediment transport risk (high

percent slope)• Highly erodible soils (K factor)

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 Model Phosphorus/Sediment Model• Highly erodible soils (K factor)

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

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

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

Next Steps: Integrating Climate Change

• TMDL pollution control measures must be implemented by 2025. 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

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