Attachment 2 CBP Climate Smart Habitat Restoration Workshop Agenda Chesapeake Bay Program Climate Smart Habitat Restoration Workshop: SAV & Tidal Wetlands/Black Duck A workshop in support of the CBT Project: Climate Resiliency Analysis and Matrix and Implementation Methodology National Conservation Training Center 698 Conservation Way Shepherdstown, WV Main Room - Instructional East Room #114 Breakout Groups – Room #103 (SAVs) & 107 Ducks) Agenda Day 1: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 9:30 – 10:00 AM Sign-in, distribute materials Main Room (114) 10:00 – 10:15 AM Welcome & Introduction to Workshop Main Room (114) Zoe Johnson (CBP/NOAA) & Anna Hamilton (Tetra Tech) [No formal – refreshments available] Making
decrease the viability of restored SAV beds Water depths of the SAV beds will (continue to) increase over time, reducing optimal habitat conditions, including for light penetration. This may be less of a problem if existing riprap is replaced with natural shoreline, but even mixed shoreline may inhibit shoreward migration of SAV. Phragmites may become more successful, making replacement with native more difficult. Having bordering marsh is correlated with successful SAV beds, so removal of Phragmites, or a higher probability of native marsh loss, may threaten SAV success. SAV resilience/potential with sea level rise is high (with open habitat) Earlier germination of would likely be positive and larger episodic storm event. Along shorelines selected for SAV replanting, restore natural shoreline/marsh where hard structures (riprap) currently exist, to the extent possible. land in the adjacent watershed to minimize increases in sediment & nutrient runoff that is otherwise projected to occur due to climate change. Communicate to the landowner any priority issues. Define success by multiple time frames. Tailor species to salinity regime. and storm frequency & intensity. May need to develop more information/ research on the potential application of floating wave-attenuation or similar devices in SAV beds as a means of boosting the resistance of restored (or existing) beds to physical damage from storms. Benefits of Phragmites? Management strategies may differ 4 SAV and conflicting uses of potential shallow water habitat: Implement protective Dredging in historical SAV areas illegal Dredging will affect nearby waterways ability to grow SAV Less habitat area for SAV. considerations for oyster vs. SAV habitat. Guidance to address how issues are changing and regulatory Monitor and data gathering to inform future management actions Broken into two different management actions between clams and other aquaculture Water depth overlap with habitat use considerations
fishing regulations in designate SAV beds in the mesohaline portion of the Maryland Bay in the vicinity of the mouth of the Choptank and the Tred Avon Rivers. Relationship to fisheries management New management action: work towards protection for expanding beds Requires knowledge of oyster CC impacts in to manage the interactions between the two. SAV workgroup should coordinate with the Fish GIT to stay informed here. SAV beds growing to overlap with oyster area Coordinate with VIMS regarding the updated funding cycle New strategy: consider future projections with historical data
Worksheet 1A. Examine Category 1 Climate-Smart Design Considerations: Climate change effects on Target stressors Black Ducks-Wetlands A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 Action number Existing Management Action Target Stressor(s) Climate change effects on stressor(s): (direction, magnitude, mechanism, uncertainty) Timing of climate change effects Implications for effectiveness metrics and how to measure them Notes 1 Chesapeake Rivers Conservation Phase II: Conservation easements and habitat protection & restoration. Loss of habitat due to: Residential development & habitat fragmentation Drainage of wetlands for agriculture There is little direct effect of climate changes on human residential development & habitat fragmentation, but the projected increase in frequency and intensity of rainstorms could increase effects of development, e.g.: Flashier runoff from impervious surfaces. Increased runoff of sediments from disturbed land (including agricultural contained within the project area). There is little direct effect of climate change on agricultural drainage in this area. Climate changes in precipitation, runoff, and severe storms are already occurring. Effectiveness metrics: of wetland habitat remaining undeveloped. Some measure of wetland function or quality, e.g species diversity, sediment accretion. Number of nesting or feeding waterfowl. Targets for metrics: Implications for how to measure metrics: Monitoring protocols with timing or locations may need to be modified to account for shifts in habitat use or changes in phenology. 2 Nanticoke Watershed Improvement Project (Maryland): Phragmites eradiation. Invasion by Phragmites australis Effectiveness metrics: Targets for metrics: Implications for how to measure metrics: Worksheet 1B. Examine Category 2 Climate-Smart Design Considerations: Impacts of Climate Change on Management Actions Black Ducks-Wetlands B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8
Action number Existing management action Changes in effectiveness of management action due to: climate impacts on target stressor Changes in effectiveness of management action due to: climate impacts on management action Time or constraint for using the action and implementation (e.g., urgency, longer or shorter term) What changes are needed to the action (place, time, and engineering design) Climate-Smart Management Action Notes 1 Chesapeake Rivers Conservation Phase II: Conservation easements and habitat protection & restoration. There is little direct effect of climate changes on development, but increases in frequency and intensity of rainstorms may increase effects of development and agriculture. A variety of climate change impacts including flooding, salt marsh migration, salinity changes, large storm events, sea level rise, could affect quality, area, and location of wetlands & upland habitats intended for preservation The urgency comes primarily from the threat of development. Plantings need to account for changing climate conditions. 2 Nanticoke Watershed Improvement Project (Maryland): Phragmites eradiation. .