Preface: Purpose of this document & how to read the edits
Download 0.5 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Other considerations: Review the Watershed Resources Registry
- MDE’s Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays (2006).
- Related Actions: FW 3.3, FW 3.4, WQ - surface runoff/stormwater actions FW 3.2 Challenge: Improvement of staging, wintering, and nesting areas
- Measure of success
- Expected Benefits: enhanced eco-tourism opportunities increased wildlife diversity Related Actions: FW 3.1
- Solution
- NEW ACTION Develop a strategy to implement MDE’s recommendations below
- MDE RESTORATION analysis and final recommendations
- MDE PROTECTION analysis and final recommendations
- Additional sites were added to priority 1 based on the following
- Related Actions: FW 3.1 FW 3.4 Challenge: Coordination of wetlands regulations 80% Full
Actions: WC will generate a list of private restoration sites by educating and polling landowners. The coastal bays will be included in existing multi-agency landowner registration program for wetland restoration and creation. Modify to create a list annually, perhaps assign this to NRCS or MDE, this could be part of CoastSTAT reporting MDE, ACOE, DNR, and SHA will target wetlands restoration and creation to where historic losses have occurred (e.g., northern bays), and provide financial and technical assistance in these areas. Keep – reconvene the Wetlands Planning Group. Separate tidal from non-tidal. Create a list and map of all known wetland restoration/creation projects since 2000. Identify and promote economical management techniques to preserve existing wetlands. Modify – Wetland Planning Group task? [Who is the economical group(s) being targeted? How is this to be done?] MDE and WC will adopt policy that encourages the creation of wetlands to treat waste water (both urban and agricultural), retain sediments, aid storm water management, and provide wildlife habitat. Keep WC will work with the Wetlands Planning Group to identify a strategy that ensures wetlands in minor subdivisions are protected during the minor subdivisioning process. Strategies to consider include modifying local laws to ensure wetland evaluations are done prior to site plans being submitted and exploring increases in the allowable contiguous buildable area for all new lots. Keep ACOE and MDE will continue to work with WC to investigate and develop methods/guidelines to assist property owners in avoiding and minimizing wetland disturbances to existing lots of record that contain wetlands. These methods/guidelines will be considered by federal and state regulatory agencies through a pre-application process and during the permit review process. Keep WC will work with federal, state and local regulatory personnel to develop a comprehensive wetlands plan for the coastal bays region to provide additional guidance for wetlands protection. Keep Provide clear determinations where Other considerations: Review the Watershed Resources Registry (2011), a partnership of ACOE, EPA, DOT, USFW, MDE, SHA, DNR and others, to develop a spatial framework for integrated watershed management. Eight opportunity assessments were developed to identify the best opportunities for preservation or restoration in uplands, wetlands, riparian zones and stormwater conveyances. Priorities were based on ecological needs as defined by water quality, habitat, and biological assessments. Convene a local work group to prioritize and target efforts. Review MDE’s Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation & Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays (2006). Draft a plan to implement priority projects. Prepare a Coastal Zone Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the Coastal Bays watershed. These plans provide some predictability for wetlands regulation, can be helpful in resolving conservation and development conflicts in areas of rapid growth and can help control cumulative impacts on wetlands. Funding is available to state for preparation and implementation of SAMPs in coastal zones. (source: MDE summary: Descriptions of Wetland Laws and Programs: Special Area Management Plans) Ask the Worcester County Technical Review Committee and Wetlands Planning Group to track the net gain (mitigation & creation) and net loss (permitting). Determine how to track losses of function and losses through violations. Expected Benefits: reduced tax expenditures needed for expensive structural waste water treatment and stormwater management (both for flood control and water quality protection) water quality improvement decrease property damage from storm events and erosion Related Actions: FW 3.3, FW 3.4, WQ - surface runoff/stormwater actions FW 3.2 Challenge: Improvement of staging, wintering, and nesting areas 63% Substantial Many bird species require wetlands for nesting sites, staging areas, and migratory stopover habitat. Loss or degradation of these habitats may result in species decline. Solution: Identify and protect staging (e.g., flyway stopovers), wintering, and nesting areas, and other critical habitats to promote healthy and diverse waterfowl, waterbird, neotropical songbird, and migrant butterfly populations. Measure of success: identification of critical habitat, change in rates of habitat loss Over 350 species of birds have been recorded in the Coastal Bays and much of this abundance is reliant on near shore and wetland habitat. The DNR conducts aerial surveys of Coastal Bays waterfowl populations as part of a nation-wide waterfowl monitoring program. Change in rates of habitat loss is unknown. Actions: DNR will determine habitat needs for selected waterfowl (e.g., black duck, Atlantic Brandt) and waterbird species (already done for colonial nesting birds). Supplemental – integrate Waterfowl Survey results as an ecosystem indicator DNR and WC will develop and implement plans to protect, enhance and restore habitats (including bay islands). For example, map wildlife migratory corridors, using GIS, and develop plan for preserving corridors. Modify by combining multiple mapping projects such as Sensitive Areas, Green Infrastructure, Blue Infrastructure, FIDS, Green Print, Ag Print, etc for the watershed. Develop a priority plan for implementation. Other considerations: Shifting Sands has a brief summary of birds on pages 301 – 312. Consider tracking the indicator species for the different habitats over time and/or investigate and enhance the established monitoring by DLITE to target these habitats; Forests: pine warbler, prothonotary warbler, yellow throated warbler, brown headed nuthatch, chuck-will’s-widow, summer tanager Agriculture & grassland: blue grosbeak, indigo bunting, northern bobwhite quail, grasshopper sparrow, eastern meadowlark Shrub & scrub: prairie warbler, yellow-breasted chat, eastern towhee, willow flycatchers Saltmarsh: willets, clapper rails, seaside and salt marsh sharp-tailed sparrows The Delmarva Birding Weekend (spring) and Birding & Wildlife Festival (fall) is held annually. These efforts are sponsored by Delmarva Low Impact Tourism Experiences and include a coalition of businesses, non-profits and governments dedicated to strengthening and promoting low-impact tourism on Delmarva. Six years of bird tallies are available at http://delmarva-almanac.com/index.php/contrib/birdingweekenddates Consider using eBird reports as a social indicator of community interest (L. Davidson) Expected Benefits: enhanced eco-tourism opportunities increased wildlife diversity Related Actions: FW 3.1 FW 3.3 Challenge: Facilitate wetlands mitigation 49% Moderate Although mitigation should not replace appropriate avoidance and minimization sequencing, mitigation is necessary to offset losses. Federal and state wetland programs (regulated by the ACOE under Clean Water Act Section 404 and by MDE under state nontidal wetlands, tidal wetlands, and waterway construction statutes) require individuals to avoid impacts to wetlands. Impacts that cannot be avoided must be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Mitigation is then required for all unavoidable impacts authorized under a wetland permit or license. Such compensatory mitigation may be accomplished by the creation of a new wetland, restoration of a wetland, enhancement of a degraded wetland, or payment into a statewide compensation fund for the establishment of larger parcels of wetlands. Contribution to the state compensation fund is the major form of mitigation in the coastal bays watershed. However, the majority of authorized impacts to nontidal wetlands in the coastal bays watershed are under 5,000 square feet, and therefore do not require permittee mitigation. The state’s wetland compensation fund mitigates for these types of impacts. Mitigation sites for nontidal and tidal wetlands are difficult to locate, which can result in significant delays in the establishment of mitigation sites and the replacement of lost wetland functions and values. The high costs of land can exacerbate the problem. A private/public mitigation program may create a pool of suitable mitigation sites and facilitate the economical establishment of productive wetlands. Solution: Protect existing wetlands. Where impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, encourage effective private wetland mitigation. Measure of success: acres of wetlands mitigated as a percent of those destroyed per year Status unknown Actions: MDE and ACOE will develop a comprehensive wetlands mitigation master plan for the coastal bays watershed that focuses mitigation where losses occur, targets types and functions lost for replacement and requires that impacts in coastal bays watershed be mitigated in the watershed. Keep MDE produced the Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays (MDE December 2004). ACOE issued a compensatory mitigation rule (March 2008) MDE and ACOE will work with appropriate federal and state agencies to outline potential mitigation programs, long-range management procedures, and goals for mitigated wetlands. Keep WC GIS program will compile and distribute maps of public and private mitigation/restoration activities annually to provide public with information and generate more public interest in mitigation issues. Modify – as part of FW 3.1.1 to tracking watershed improvements through the Wetlands Planning Group or Technical Planning Group MDE and ACOE will develop new opportunities for wetland creation and restoration. Keep [USFW is doing this in Worcester County – change lead and determine contact persons.] WC will generate a list of private mitigation restoration sites by educating and polling landowners and include the coastal bays in the existing multi-agency landowner registration program for wetland restoration and creation. Consolidate this action with FW 3.1.1 and FW 3.3.3 ACOE and MDE will investigate options for leveraging existing creation and mitigation programs and fostering new ones. Consolidate with FW 3.3.4 NEW ACTION? Develop a strategy to implement MDE’s recommendations below Priority Areas for Wetland Restoration, Preservation, and Mitigation in Maryland’s Coastal Bays (MDE December 2004). This report recommends priority areas for wetland restoration and preservation throughout the watershed based upon GIS mapping criteria. The excerpts below are only for Priority I sites, much more information can be gleaned from the entire study. MDE RESTORATION analysis and final recommendations Priority 1 restoration sites Northern Coastal Bays watershed (high wetland losses forested palustrine wetlands) (USACE, 1998; Worcester County, 1997) • Northern Coastal Bays watershed (salt marsh) (USACE, 1998, Spaur et al., 2001). • Isle of Wight Bay (Boynton et al., 1993; MDNR and MDE, 2000; Worcester County, 1989; USACE, 1998) • Assawoman Bay (Boynton et al., 1993; Chaillou et al., 1996; MDNR and MDE, 2000; Worcester County, 1989) • Newport Bay watersheds (Boynton et al., 1993; MDNR and MDE, 2000; USACE, 1998) • St. Martins River (Chaillou et al., 1996; MDE, 2001; USACE, 1998; Worcester County, 1989) • High nutrient concentrations based on nutrient synoptic survey for Isle of Wight (Primrose, 1999, 2001) o Station 1. Tributary to St. Martin at St. Martin Neck Road o Station 2. Tributary to St. Martin at St. Martin Neck Road o Station 4. Bunting Branch at Delaware Rt. 54 in Selbyville o Station 7. Careys Branch at Rt. 113 o Station 8. Tributary to Birch Branch at Murray Road o Station 11. Tributary to Perkins Creek at Jarvis Road o Station 13. Birch Branch at Rt. 113 o Station 15. Church Creek at Rt. 113 o Station 17. Birch Branch at Campbelltown Road o Station 22. Church Creek at Careys Road • High nutrient concentrations based on nutrient synoptic survey for Newport/Sinepuxent Bays (Primrose, 2003) o Station 1. Tributary to Marshall Creek at Langmaid Road o Station 14. Bottle Branch at Harrison Road o Station 15. Kitts Branch at Flower Street o Station 17. Kitts Branch at Rt. 346 o Station 18. Kitts Branch at railroad tracks near Rt. 50 o Station 21. Tributary to Sinepuxent Bay at Eagles Nest Road o Station 29. Tributary to Trappe Creek at Rt. 376 o Station 30. Tributary to Kitts Branch at Seahawk Road o Station 31. Ayers Creek at Sinepuxent Road o Station 41. Poplartown Branch at Beaverdam Creek Road. • Shingles Landing Prong (MDE, 2001) • Bishopville Prong (MDE, 2001; Worcester County, 1989) • Bishopville #1 is north of St. Martins Neck Road between Route 367 and Mumford Road, draining into Bishopville Prong above Shell Mill Road. (Worcester County, 2002) • Bishopville #2 is west of Bishopville Prong, between Jarvis Road and Hammond Road. Draining into Slab Bridge Prong and Perkins Creek before entering Bishopville Prong. (Worcester County, 2002) • Turville Creek (MDE, 2001; Worcester County, 1989) • Trappe Creek (Chaillou et al., 1996; MDE, 2002a; Worcester County, 1989) • Herring Creek (MDE, 2001; Worcester County, 1989) • Ayer Creek (MDE, 2002a) • Newport Bay (Chaillou et al., 1996; MDE, 2002a) • Newport Creek (MDE, 2002a) • Big Millpond (in Chincoteague Bay watershed) (MDE, 2002b) • Ocean City Harbor (Worcester County, 1989) • Carey #1 is located in the headwaters of Carey Branch (Worcester County, 2002) • Birch #1 is on Birch Branch, west of Rt. 113 and south of Carey #1. (Worcester County, 2002) • Birch #2 is south of Peerless Road and drains into Birch Branch and Middle Branch. (Worcester County, 2002) • Manklin Creek (high wetland losses) (USACE, 1998; Worcester County, 1989) • Fenwick Island, Ocean Pines, and bayside of Assateague Island (high salt marsh loss) (USACE, 1998) • The marshes on the northern side of the Isle of Wight Island (USACE, 1998) • Dead-end canals (MCBP, 1999; Chaillou et al., 1996) • Chesapeake Forests land – western portion of Chincoteague Bay watershed (MDNR, 2003b) • Great Cypress Swamp – northwestern edge of Isle of Wight watershed (MDNR Natural Heritage Program, USACE, 1998, Spaur et al., 2001) Excluded Areas • Public Drainage Associations – do not alter upstream drainage or maintenance. Exceptions (locations within the PDAs where restoration/mitigation may be possible) include in the upper areas. Off-line sites will not significantly disturb hydrology of the PDAs, so are options for restoration/mitigation. • Prime farmland (Worcester County, 1989) o Prime farmland without alteration o Prime farmland when drained, currently in agriculture • Wellhead Protection Areas (MDE Water Supply Program) – restoration/enhancement should be okay, as long as there is no excavation. o Do not excavate area acting as a filter o Community wells are all located in the northern Coastal Bays watershed • Forested land containing high quality hardwood forest habitat Most sources recommended restoration of the northern watersheds and Newport Bay watershed, mainly because of the poor water quality in these areas and the high amount of historic wetland loss. Within this northern area, there were several sources recommending restoration in St. Martins River watershed. Several sources also recommended Bishopville Prong and Birch Branch. Some literature sources and personal contacts suggested trying to improve water quality in the dead-end canals, if possible. Additionally, there were many recommendations to restore other waterways. MDE PROTECTION analysis and final recommendations Priority 1 protection sites • Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern (NTWSSC) or proposed Nontidal Wetlands of Special State Concern (MDNR, 2004). Since all NTWSSC and proposed NTWSSC either have unique flora or fauna, or provide unique habitat, we ranked all NTWSSC and proposed NTWSSC as priority 1 for protection. We looked for NTWSSC or proposed NTWSSC that were not already protected. Within this priority 1 layer, we ranked these sites further. We wanted to protect wetlands that were surrounded by protected natural land, either currently or planned, since a large contiguous natural system is desirable for habitat function. For this reason, sites were ranked based on Green Infrastructure (GI), ecological ranking, Rural Legacy (RL), surrounding land use (LU), and surrounding protected land. Isle of Wight West Ocean City Pond. This site is outside of the GI and RL and is surrounded by residential LU. Newport Bay Porter Neck Bog (Ironshire Swamp, as listing in COMAR, is now included under this name). This site is within the GI but outside of RL. It is mostly surrounded by forest and some agriculture. Icehouse Branch. This proposed NTWSSC is within the GI but outside of RL. It is mostly surrounded by forest and some agriculture. Massey Branch. This proposed NTWSSC is within the GI but outside of RL. It is mostly surrounded by forest and some agriculture. St. Lawrence Neck. This proposed NTWSSC is within the GI but outside of RL. It is mostly surrounded by forest and some agriculture. Chincoteague Bay Waterworks Creek. This proposed NTWSSC is within GI but outside of RL. It is surrounded by mixed forest and wetlands. Spencer Pond. This proposed NTWSSC is within GI but outside of RL. It is surrounded by mixed forest. PawPaw Creek. This NTWSSC is within GI but outside of RL. It is surrounded by mostly pine forest. Tanhouse Creek. This NTWSSC is within GI. Although it is outside of the RL, it is very close. Some nearby RL land is protected. It is surrounded by mixed forest and some agriculture. Scotts Landing Pond – This NTWSSC is within GI but outside of RL (surrounded by it). It is surrounded by pine forest and wetland. Truitt Landing. This proposed NTWSSC is protected by a MET. Scarboro Creek Woods. This site is within GI and RL. It is partially protected by E.A Vaughn WMA and is surrounded by mixed forest and agriculture. Pikes Creek Woods. This proposed NTWSSC is not within GI, but is adjacent to it. It is within RL. The ecological ranking was not as high as the other sites. This site is next to a lot of protected land (E.A. Vaughn WMA, MDNR-owned Chesapeake Forest land, and a MET). This site is largely surrounded by agriculture. Pikes Creek. Over half of this site is protected by Chesapeake Forest land and the other portion is adjacent to E.A. Vaughn WMA and a MET. This site is within GI and RL, and is surrounded by pine forest and agriculture. Stockton Powerlines. The majority of the site is protected by MDNR-owned Chesapeake Forest land. This site is within GI and RL, and is surrounded by mixed forest and agriculture. Riley Creek Swamp. This site is within GI and RL, and is surrounded by mainly agriculture (and a thin strip of mixed forest). Hancock Creek Swamp. This site is within GI and RL, and is surrounded by forest. It is partially protected and has some protected land around it. Powell Creek. This site is within RL but outside of GI. It is surrounded by agriculture and was given a relatively low ecological ranking. Little Mill Run. A small amount of this site (in the NE) is protected by MDNR-owned Chesapeake Forest land. This site is within GI, but the GI is mainly agriculture. It is outside of RL. It is mostly surrounded by agriculture, with thin strips of forest. Although all of the above sites should be ranked priority 1, some of the most desirable NTWSSC and proposed NTWSSC sites for protection include Tanhouse Creek, Scotts Landing Pond, and sites within both designated Green Infrastructure network and Rural Legacy. The sites Pikes Creek, Pikes Creek Woods, Scarboro Creek Woods, and Stockton Powerlines are close together and are near large areas of protected land. If these areas were all protected, it would create a large protected area, which is desirable. NTWSSC sites with lowest preservation priority include West Ocean City Pond, Powell Creek and Little Mill Run. Additional sites were added to priority 1 based on the following: • Within or adjacent to designated Rural Legacy area and other protected land. • Wetlands within MDNR-designated Ecologically Significant Areas (ESA). • Within or adjacent to Green Infrastructure or corridor. Consider ecological ranking and development risk. Look for remaining wetlands in high ecological ranking area. • Adjacent to waterways or other natural systems (i.e. wetlands, hardwood forests). • Areas identified by the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 • Church Branch Cypress Swamp Most of the priority 1 protection sites fall within Newport Bay and Chincoteague Bay, areas identified by Unified Watershed Assessment as being high priority for preservation (Figure 13). Only one site is within Isle of Wight (West Ocean City Pond) and none are within Sinepuxent or Assawoman. Expected Benefits: enhanced eco-tourism opportunities increased wildlife diversity and protection of existing populations improved water quality Related Actions: FW 3.1 FW 3.4 Challenge: Coordination of wetlands regulations 80% Full A substantial body of law and regulation governs wetland management. The type of activity proposed by an applicant dictates the level of oversight provided by the state and federal regulatory programs. In addition, "wetlands of special state concern" have been designated in state regulation and provide additional protection. Activities eligible for federal general permits (i.e., a Nationwide Permit, a State Programmatic General Permit, or a regional permit) or a state letter of authorization (LOA) have been determined to have "minimal" impact on the resource. Although program statistics currently show a net loss of 7.5 acres of nontidal wetlands in the coastal bay area during the period 1992-1997, the State is obligated to mitigate for these impacts and is searching for appropriate mitigation sites within the watershed. Some citizen groups and local agency staff believe the loss is much greater and that the program has major deficiencies. No comprehensive analysis of the issue has been made in the coastal bays and therefore there is no agreement on problems or necessary changes. Directory: content -> docs docs -> Released by LimeSurvey on 12/4/15 Partners Healthcare to upgrade on 2/1/2016 LimeSurvey 06+ (Build 151205) Full Release Notes docs -> Re: npa 782 to Overlay npa 902 (Nova Scotia/Prince Edward Island, Canada) docs -> Atlanta Tops Spring Skatepark Grants docs -> Maya A. Lewis, Ph. D docs -> Confidential options for reporting sexual misconduct docs -> Curriculum Vitae merydawilda colóN docs -> Bibliography of Theses Aiello, Ralph docs -> Communication Studies Program Assessment of Student Learning Introduction docs -> Josh Duntley, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, sobl Download 0.5 Mb. Share with your friends:
|