1 / 9

SAV Restoration Monitoring

SAV Restoration Monitoring. Bob Murphy Ecosystem Solutions Becky Thur Chesapeake Research Consortium, Freshwater SAV Partnership. SAV Restoration Monitoring. Need: More than ten agencies or organizations have been involved in SAV restoration projects baywide since 1997

misae
Download Presentation

SAV Restoration Monitoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SAV Restoration Monitoring Bob Murphy Ecosystem Solutions Becky Thur Chesapeake Research Consortium, Freshwater SAV Partnership

  2. SAV Restoration Monitoring • Need: • More than ten agencies or organizations have been involved in SAV restoration projects baywide since 1997 • Restoration is not limited to one species or type of stock material within species • Restoration is not limited to one methodology • Lessons learned?

  3. SAV Restoration Monitoring What can we learn? • Variability in source materials • Adult plant-based restoration • Laboratory, nursery grown, and field collected -transplanted

  4. SAV Restoration Monitoring What can we learn? • Seed-based restoration • How is it working? • Synthesis of cost-effectiveness

  5. SAV Restoration Monitoring What can we learn? • Site selection • Model validation (MD DNR, Short et al. 2002, others) • Site suitability • Light requirements: Are they stringent enough? • Other physical constraints (wave energy, sediments, etc.)

  6. SAV Restoration Monitoring Why Now? • Department of Defense • Has provided funding for FY 2007 to assess restoration sites at 10 installations covering ~ 12 planting locations in TF, OH, MH, and PH regions of Bay • Potential funding renewal in FY 2008 (leveraging) • Interest from NOAA and ACOE for similar work

  7. SAV Restoration Monitoring What we need from the Workgroup now 1. Methodology Input – standardized metrics • Survival, areal coverage, number of shoots (Fonseca et al. 1998) • Density estimates vs original planting density • Spatial coverage of current bed vs planted • Sediment assessment (% organics, sand/silt ratio, etc.) • Water quality (salinity, DO, Temp, secchi, TSS) • Additional metrics?

  8. SAV Restoration Monitoring What we need from the Workgroup now 2. What are thresholds for “success” or “failure”? • Density compared to original planting • Spatial coverage vs pre-planting • Spatial coverage vs planted area • Presence/absence (is something better than nothing?) • Living resources (fish, invertebrate) colonization • Plant species diversity (in TF, OH, MH) • Consider temporal persistence

  9. SAV Restoration Monitoring What we need from the workgroup for the future of restoration monitoring • Expand to ALL Chesapeake sites (not just DoD) • 10 year historical sites? • Cooperation with active restoration programs • Database of all sites, all sizes • Funding • CBPO • NCBO • ACOE • Others

More Related