CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/01/08 Through 2/28/09

Project Title: A Strategic Planning Tool for Targeted Buffer Restoration and Enhanced Coastal Stewardship
Principal Investigator(s): Matthew E. Baker
Additional Investigator(s): Donald E. Weller, Thomas E. Jordan
Project Start Date: 9/01/06

Project Objectives for This Reporting Period
Objectives
Our objectives for this reporting period were to (1) provide our early adopters with beta version of both TauDEM and the riparian assessment tools, (2) plan workshops for interested end users and early adopters in spring or summer 2009, (3) complete analysis of thresholds in riparian buffering across different regions, (4) determine whether advanced multidirectional routing algorithms alter riparian assessments significantly, (5) test the effect of digital elevation models with different spatial resolutions (27.78 m NED, 10 m NED, and 1 to 2 m LiDAR data) on riparian metric calculations and nutrient predictions, and (6) characterize riparian areas of entire stream networks to identify zones where topography and other features may enhance denitrification potential.

Tasks to meet objectives
The primary tasks for this reporting period were (1) to address software incompatibilities between TauDEM and ArcGIS that delayed our release of the initial tools, (2) to release the TauDEM geoprocessing toolbox to our early adopters, (3) to release initial riparian assessment tools, (4) to continue developing and testing of potential improvements to the assessment tool’s basic analytical approach, and (5) to continue analyses using high-resolution geospatial datasets.

Progress on Tasks
(1) We have recently solved the initial set of incompatibilities encountered when running TauDEM and riparian tools that used TauDEM in ArcGIS. (2&3) Release of the TauDEM geoprocessing tool and the base-functions of the riparian assessment tool have been sent (along with this report) to our early adopters for general use. (4) We are nearing submission of a manuscript detailing the influence of watershed-scale configuration of riparian buffers on stream nitrate concentrations assessed throughout the Chesapeake Bay drainage. Significantly, this manuscript provides a new analytical framework for applying the results of our tool to explore the aggregate impact of buffers on any set of stream nutrient concentrations. In addition, Molly Van Appledorn, the master’s student supported by the project, continues to work on several manuscripts detailing the reliability of the results and the effects of further potential improvements to estimate relative nutrient removal capacity of specific buffers within a region. (5) We have continued our analysis of fine-scale topographic (LiDAR) data to better characterize wetland function. We have focused on using field stream surveys to validate cross-sectional profiles derived from the LiDAR data and on developing tools to describe changes in riparian/floodplain topographic structure along a stream network.

Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period changed the project objectives when compared to your original proposal? Please explain.
Our objectives have not changed substantially, but we have developed a more detailed rationale for a suggested analytical approach and now have results to support initial efforts.

Dissemination activities during this reporting period (please include the number of participants where applicable).
Project related presentations or poster sessions at workshops and conferences
a. Baker, ME and DG Tarboton. Generalized methods for terrain-based flow analysis of digital elevation models. American Geophysical Union, December 2008.

Manuscripts published or submitted for publication:
b. Tarboton DG and ME Baker. 2008. Toward an algebra for terrain-based flow analysis. In N. Mount, G. Harvey, G. Priesthall, and P. Apin. (eds). Representing, Modelling, and Visualizing the Natural Environment. Innovations in GIS series. Taylor and Francis, London.

c. Baker, ME, DE Weller, and TE Jordan. Empirical tests for effects of riparian buffers on whole watershed nitrate discharges. In prep for Ecological Applications.

Difficulties
Delays during this reporting period were primarily the result of Baker’s change in employment and residency. Most of these hurdles have now been addressed so progress should accelerate over the coming months.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
Further research will continue to investigate the effects of fine resolution data on the results of our analyses. We are developing a manuscript that describes how LiDAR data can help characterize lateral and longitudinal stream channel patterns in riparian structure and connectivity. In the future, we will evaluate how riparian and floodplain topographic features, together with N source connectivity, relate to the observed variation in observed stream nitrogen loads. This analysis will be completed by applying the spatial tools developed in this project to study watersheds throughout the Chesapeake Bay basin and where LiDAR data are available, including sites in MD, DE, and PA. We also anticipate receiving feedback from our end-users and incorporating this feedback into later versions of the riparian assessment tool to improve its functionality and to support their ongoing projects.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
Our efforts will be devoted equally toward towards completing our research objectives and improving the functional utility of the tools through dissemination and incorporating end-user feedback.

Dissemination Objectives for next reporting period
We anticipate beginning beta-tests of the riparian assessment tool with our early adopters as soon as possible. Some of the functions we have developed will be available for free down-load immediately as part of the updated TauDEM software. We plan to present our tools to a broader science and management audience through two talks at the Chesapeake Ecosystem Based Management conference in March where we hope to place them in a session showcasing CICEET funded work. We also anticipate presenting two talks at the US-Chapter of the International Association of Landscape Ecology in April, the North American Benthological Society in May, and plan and develop a workshop for interested users during summer 2009. We hope to share our analytical results at these sessions as informal presentations during the training.

Overall Project Timeline Update
There have been no changes to our project timeline since the budget extension.

Expenditures
To date we have incurred expenses of $95,000 at USU and $100,000 at SERC. Most of our costs have gone to support software development, graduate student research, and exploratory analyses of LiDAR data. The pace of our expenditures has increased recently and we expect travel and workshop organization costs to add to salary expenses later this year.

End User Advisor Feedback
End User Advisor: Tom DeMoss
Organization: US-EPA Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
Location: Fort Meade, MD
Phone number: 410-224-6567
E-mail: demoss.tom@epamail.epa.gov

[Yet to respond]

End User Advisor: Peter Claggett
Organization: USGS-Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Location: Annapolis, MD
Phone number: 410-267-5771
E-mail: pclagget@chesapeakebay.net

At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology?
The CBP can potentially use the TauDEM and riparian assessment tools to strategically target reforestation efforts in riparian zones.

At this stage in the project, the CBP will evaluate the utility of the TauDEM and riparian assessment tools in an operational context. Over the next few months, we will assess the level of effort required to generate riparian buffer width and effectiveness statistics for streams in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. We will solicit input from to our review from the US Forest Service and Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

What are the key challenges to application of this technology? Please consider the technology itself as well as issues related to regulation, politics, socio-economic pressures, trends in the field etc.
Key challenges include the accuracy of model input data (the National Land Cover Dataset and the National Elevation Dataset), assumptions relating land management practices to land cover classes, the impact of local scale factors on nutrient transport compared to moderate scale topographic and land cover factors, stakeholder acceptance of the tools, and the political will to target restoration funds.

Has anything changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?
Despite the above challenges, given current funding constraints there is increasing political will, emphasis on, and acceptance of targeting restoration dollars towards areas where they will have the greatest impact, particularly within the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers?
None at this time.

End User Advisor: Q Kellogg
Organization: University of Rhode Island
Location: Kingston, RI
Phone number: 401-874-7532
E-mail: qkellogg@uri.edu

At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy are now looking for ways to prioritize land acquisition for protection and/or restoration to maximize their effectiveness in protecting estuarine water quality while also trying to meet terrestrial conservation goals. I envision this tool helping to
A. under current land use, identify and prioritize
1) critical gaps in riparian buffers that, if restored, could significantly reduce current N loading;
2) buffers that are currently intact and are playing an important role in N reduction and should be protected;
3) given the current buffer configuration, sources that show the most potential for N reduction if source controls are implemented.

B. under potential future land use scenarios, using build-out analysis to identify
1) given the current buffer configuration, those buildable parcels that are currently undeveloped (i.e., focus on areas that would represent new sources of N vs. conversion from one source to another, e.g., ag to residential) and would most likely contribute N to downstream waters if developed as zoned, and should be protected;
2) if full build-out did occur, those riparian areas that would be most likely to help offset increased N loading from new development, and should be restored and/or protected.

In addition, government agencies such as NRCS are interested in targeting source control assistance to those farms that are most likely to be contributing N to downstream waters. This tool could help those agencies focus their outreach efforts in concert with other outreach programs.

Finally, our research group currently works closely with the Cooperative Extension Water Quality program, particularly the NEMO program (Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials) in RI and CT. NEMO works with communities to help with land use planning to minimize impacts to water quality. They run workshops to introduce planners to concepts such as watershed hydrology and the impact of impervious surfaces, low-impact development, and to train them in the use of GIS to further their planning goals.

We are developing a GIS-based decision support tool that we hope will help local planners, land conservation organizations and government agencies target source controls and sink protection and/or restoration. This tool seems to fit in very nicely with our work and we are very hopeful that we can integrate it into this project.

What are the key challenges to application of this technology? Please consider the technology itself as well as issues related to regulation, politics, socio-economic pressures, trends in the field etc.
Key challenges include the acquisition of accurate land use and elevation data, which I know is an issue for everyone using GIS in this way. Once I have used the tool myself I’ll have a better idea if someone with my limited expertise will find it daunting or not. There is more LiDAR data being developed every day, but it is labor intensive to process and takes up lots of disk space, so I’ll be very interested to see whether you feel that the high resolution data gives significantly different (and better?) results. As for politics, we are in a friendlier place than we were at the federal level but it remains to be seen, given the current economic climate, whether local municipalities will feel there is any benefit to considering water quality when they are about to grant a zoning variance or okay a development project. Coastal states such as MD, CT and RI are somewhat more attuned to water quality since many people depend on coastal waters to make a living and value the less quantifiable/tangible “way of life” that has been supported and enhanced by clean coastal waters.

Has anything changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?
No.

Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers? Not at the moment, but I know where to find you. Thanks!

End User Advisor: Michael Dosskey
Organization: U.S. Forest Service
Location: Lincoln, NE
Phone number: 402-437-5178 ext 4025
E-mail: mdosskey@fs.fed.us

[Response delayed by brush fires]

PI Response to End User Advisor Feedback
At this point we agree completely with the feedback from our end users, who view our efforts as a positive and progressive step toward developing comprehensive geospatial technologies for land use planning and decision support. Tools such as ours have their challenges, limitations and uncertainties, yet provide important and useful information that can have a powerful impact on the way we perceive both land management and its relationship to freshwater and estuarine resources. Many of the technological hurdles are just that, hurdles that can and will be overcome as we (and others) add flexibility and analytical capability to the approach we proposed here. It is certainly encouraging that state and federal management agencies as well as conservation organizations are seeking tools such as ours to increase cost-effectiveness while meeting their objectives.