Determining Sites for Seagrass Restoration in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island

1
(No Transcript)
2
Determining Sites for Eelgrass Restoration in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island
By Monica Candal
3

• Is eelgrass restoration feasible in Narragansett
  Bay?

4
Principal Questions

• Are Save the Bay restoration sites succeeding?
  Why or why not?
• Where are other potential restoration sites in
  Narragansett Bay?

5
Presentation

• Context
• Current Transplant Evaluation
• Site Selection Parameters
• Methodology and Results for Each Parameter
• General Conclusions

6
Study Area and Species

• Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, USA
• Zostera marina

Providence River
Mount Hope Bay
Greenwich Bay
Sakonnet River
East Passage
West Passage
7
Why is eelgrass important?

• Productivity in ecosystems
• Water clarity
• Quality of sediments
• Nutrient and carbon cycling
• Indicator species

8
Why is eelgrass important?

• Productivity in ecosystems
• Water clarity
• Quality of sediments
• Nutrient and carbon cycling
• Indicator species

9
Why is eelgrass important?

• Productivity in ecosystems
• Water clarity
• Quality of sediments
• Nutrient and carbon cycling
• Indicator species

10
Why is eelgrass important?

• Productivity in ecosystems
• Water clarity
• Quality of sediments
• Nutrient and carbon cycling
• Indicator species

11
Why is eelgrass important?

• Productivity in ecosystems
• Water clarity
• Quality of sediments
• Nutrient and carbon cycling
• Indicator species

12
Eelgrass Depletion
1840-1980
1980-Present
13
Eelgrass Depletion

• Reasons for eelgrass demise
• Wasting disease
• Poor water quality

14
Factors Affecting Habitat Selection

• Light
• Sediment
• Depth
• Water velocity

15
Past Restoration Research

• Chesapeake Bay Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
  Habitat Requirements and Restoration Targets A
  Technical Synthesis
• Percent Light through the Water (PLW)
• Percent Light at the Leaf (PLL)
• Narragansett Bay Eelgrass Restoration Site
  Selection Model (NBERSSM)

16
Monitoring Sites
17
Kings Beach
18
Eelgrass Survival
19
Chesapeake Model

• Model requires three inputs
• Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
• Total Suspended Solids
• Secchi Depth to derive Kd
• Data collected at transplant sites

20
Chesapeake Model Results
21
Save the Bay Model Methods

• Using Short 2002, determined score for each
  parameter
• Multiplied parameter scores together
• 0 is unsuitable
• 2 is suitable
• 4 is extremely suitable

22
Save the Bay Model Results
23
Sediment Analysis

• McMaster data
• Interpolation based on three studies

24
Depth Analysis

• NOAA hydrographic data
• All sites below water within depth limit

25
Velocity Analysis

• Tidal velocity calculation according to RI Sea
  Grant 1990-1999 data
• Optimal current velocity 10-100 cm/s

26
(No Transcript)
27
(No Transcript)
28
Present Conclusions

• Definitive conclusions based on any one model or
  parameter are not yet possible
• Current conditions in the bay inhibit
  determination of any optimal location

29
Acknowledgements

• I would like to thank
• Steve Hamburg, Don Pryor, Warren Prell, Sue
  Tuxbury, Marci Cole, Michelle Denault, Dave
  Murray, Lynn Carlson, Quebec-Labrador Foundation

30
(No Transcript)