ACJV_SA_Additional_Migration_Space_SLR30_TNC

To assess site resilience, we divided the coast into 1,232 individual sites centered around each tidal marsh or complex of tidal habitats. For each site, we estimated the amount of migration space available under four sea-level rise scenarios and we identified the amount of buffer area surrounding the whole tidal complex. We then examined the physical properties and condition characteristics of the site and its features using newly developed analyses as well as previously published and peer-reviewed datasets. Sites vary widely in the amount and suitability of migration space they provide. This is determined by the physical structure of the site and the intactness of processes that facilitate migration. A marsh hemmed in by rocky cliffs will eventually convert to open water, whereas a marsh bordered by low lying wetlands with ample migration space and a sufficient sediment supply will have the option of moving inland. As existing tidal marshes degrade or disappear, the amount of available high-quality migration space becomes an indicator of a site’s potential to support estuarine habitats in the future. The size and shape of a site’s migration space is dependent on the elevation, slope, and substrate of the adjacent land. The condition of the migration space also varies substantially among sites. For some tidal complexes, the migration space contains roads, houses, and other forms of hardened structures that resist conversion to tidal habitats, while the migration space of other complexes consists of intact and connected freshwater wetlands that could convert to tidal habitats. Our aim was to characterize each site’s migration space but not predict its future composition. Towards this end, we measured characteristics of the migration space related to its size, shape, volume, and condition, and we evaluated the options available to the tidal complex to rearrange and adjust to sea level rise. In the future, the area will likely support some combination of salt marsh, brackish marsh and tidal flat, but predictions concerning the abundance and spatial arrangement of the migration space’s future habitats are notoriously difficult to make because nature’s transitions are often non-linear and facilitated by pulses of disturbance and internal competition. For instance, in response to a 1.4 mm increase in the rate of SLR, the landward migration of low marsh cordgrass in some New York marshes appears to be displacing high marsh (Donnelly & Bertness 2001). Thus, our assumption was simply that a tidal complex with a large amount of high quality and heterogeneous migration space will have more options for adaptation, and will be more resilient, than a tidal complex with a small amount of degraded and homogenous migration space. To delineate migration space for the full project area, we requested the latest SLR Viewer (Marcy et al. 2011) marsh migration data, with no accretion rate, for all the NOAA geographic units within the project area, from NOAA (N. Herold, pers. comm., 2018). Specifically, we obtained data for the following states in the project area: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. As accretion is very location-dependent, we chose not to use one of the three SLR Viewer accretion rates because they were flat rates applied across each geographic unit. For each geography, we combined four SLR scenarios (1.5’, 3’, 4’, and 6.5’) with the baseline scenario to identify pixels that changed from baseline. We only selected cells that transitioned to tidal habitats (unconsolidated shoreline, salt marsh, and transitional / brackish marsh) and not to open water or upland habitat. We combined the results from each of the geographies and projected to NAD83 Albers. The resultant migration space was then resampled to a 30-m grid and snapped to the NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid (NOAA, 2017). The tidal complex grid and the migration space grid were combined to ensure that there were no overlapping pixels. While developed areas were not allowed to be future marsh in NOAA’s SLR Viewer marsh migration model, we still removed all roads and development, as represented in the original 30-m NOAA 2010 C-CAP land cover grid, from the migration space. We took this step as differences in spatial resolution between the underlying elevation and land cover datasets could occasionally result in small amounts of development in our resampled migration space. The remaining migration space was then spatially grouped into contiguous regions using an eight-neighbor rule that defined connected cells as those immediately to the right, left, above, or diagonal to each other. The region-grouped grid was converted to a polygon, and the SLR scenario represented by each migration space footprint was assigned to each polygon. Finally, the migration space scenario polygons that intersected any of the tidal complexes were selected. Because a single migration space polygon could be adjacent to and accessible to more than one tidal complex unit, each migration space polygon was linked to their respective tidal complex units with a unique ID by restructuring and aggregating the output from a one-to-many spatial join in ArcGIS. This linkage enabled the calculation of attributes for each tidal complex such as total migration space acreage, total number of migration space units, and the percent of the tidal complex perimeter that was immediately adjacent to migration space. Similar attributes were calculated for each migration space unit including total tidal complex acreage and number of tidal complex units. This dataset shows additional migration space units in the project area for the 3.0-foot sea level rise scenario. Additional migration space units are migration space units that did not spatially intersect current tidal marshes or were spatially disjunct from the migration space of current tidal marshes. Because additional migration space units were not directly associated with a tidal complex, these units were NOT used in the calculation of a tidal complex’s resilience score. The spatial separation could be due to roads, waterbodies, waterways, oil and gas fields, etc. Depending on local factors and context, the degree to which these features will prevent marshes from accessing the additional migration space areas in the future is unknown and likely varies by site. There were thousands of small and disconnected additional migration space areas, often individual pixels, typically found in urban settings, remote upstream riverine areas, or far from any migration space units or tidal marshes. We did not consider these isolated occurrences as additional migration space because they are unlikely to be important future marsh areas. We identified isolated migration space areas using the following approach. First, for unconfirmed additional migration space areas, an iterative analysis of the Euclidean distance from current tidal marshes and their migration space areas, including confirmed additional migration space, was performed. Next, pixels that did not meet the distance thresholds in the first step but were within 60 meters of a NHDPlus v2 (USEPA & USGS, 2012) streamline were retained as additional migration space. Any remaining pixels less than or equal to two acres in size were then removed from the additional migration space. Finally, visual inspection was used to remove isolated migration space areas that were not identified through the previous steps. We assigned resilience scores to the additional migration space areas using several approaches. First, we spatially allocated resilience scores based on Euclidean distance from tidal marshes or migration space units. While this approach was a good starting point, there were migration space areas whose score assignments had to be done manually or by taking the highest of two equidistant nearby scores. The manual assignment included straightforward cases, but often it was unclear how marshes might move into a migration space area (e.g., will marsh travel through waterways to nearby migration space areas; will marsh use all migration space areas along a waterway or waterbody or only on the same side as the current marsh?). For sites with unclear relationships to current marshes and their migration space, the highest resilience score in the general geographic area of the additional migration space was assigned. Consequently, please interpret the scores of the additional migration space with caution and use local expertise and knowledge as you see fit. REFERENCES Chaffee, C, Coastal policy analyst for the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council. personal communication. April 4, 2017. Donnelly, J.P, & Bertness, M.D. 2001. Rapid shoreward encroachment of salt marsh cordgrass in response to accelerated sea-level rise. PNAS 98(25) www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.251209298 Herold, N. 2018. NOAA Sea Level Rise (SLR) Viewer marsh migration data (10-m), with no accretion rate, for all SLR scenarios from 0.5-ft. to 10.0-ft. for VA, NC, SC, GA, and FL. Personal communication Jan. 24, 2018. Lerner, J.A., Curson, D.R., Whitbeck, M., & Meyers, E.J., Blackwater 2100: A strategy for salt marsh persistence in an era of climate change. 2013. The Conservation Fund (Arlington, VA) and Audubon MD-DC (Baltimore, MD). Lucey, K. NH Coastal Program. Personal Communication. April 4, 2017. Maine Natural Areas Program. 2016. Coastal Resiliency Datasets, Schlawin, J and Puryear, K., project leads. http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/assistance/coastal_resiliency.html Marcy, D., Herold, N., Waters, K., Brooks, W., Hadley, B., Pendleton, M., Schmid, K., Sutherland, M., Dragonov, K., McCombs, J., Ryan, S. 2011. New Mapping Tool and Techniques For Visualizing Sea Level Rise And Coastal Flooding Impacts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center. Originally published in the Proceedings of the 2011 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Conference, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and reprinted with permission of ASCE([https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/]). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office for Coastal Management. “VA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “NC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “SC_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “GA_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER,” “FL_2010_CCAP_LAND_COVER”. Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. Charleston, SC: NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed September 2017 at [www.coast.noaa.gov/ccapftp]. Schuerch, M.; Spencer, T.; Temmerman, S.; Kirwan, M L.; Wolff, C.; Linck, D.; McOwen, C.J.; Pickering, M.D.; Reef, R.; Vafeidis, A.T.; Hinkel J.; Nicholls, R.J.; and Sally Brown. 2018. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561: 231-234. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2012. National Hydrography Dataset Plus – NHDPlus. Version 2.01.