903R86002
NWRC Open File Report 86-7
May 1986
THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT
OF SELECTED WETLANDS OF
CHINCOTEAGUE ISLAND, VIRGINIA
GB
705
.VO
F86
ind Wildlife Service
)epartment of the Interior
-------
Regional Center for nnvironment-il Information
US EPA Region III
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
NWRC Open File Report 86-7
May 1986
THE FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED
WETLANDS OF CHINCOTEAGUE ISLAND, VIRGINIA
by
William E. Odum
Judson Harvey
Lawrence Rozas
Randy Chambers
Department of Environmental Sciences
Clark Hall, University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Tel. (804) 924-0560
Project Officer
Millicent Quammen
National Wetlands Research Center
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1010 Cause Boulevard
Slidell, Louisiana 70458
Performed for
National Wetlands Research Center
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C. 20240
Funded by
Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
U.S, EPA Region III
Regional Center for Environmental
Information
1650 Arch Street (3PM52)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
DISCLAIMER
The use of the Adamus and Stockwell Wetland Evaluation
Procedure in this study for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) does not imply FWS endorsement of this method for evalu-
ating wetland functions. In April 1987, a revised operational
draft of this method is expected for testing and review, in which
FWS will participate.
This report may be cited as:
Odum, W. E., J. Harvey, L. Rozas, and R. Chambers. 1986. The
functional assessment of selected wetlands of Chincoteague
Island, Virginia. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. NWRC Open File
Rep. 86-7. 127 pp.
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Table iv
Conversion Table v
1. Project Setting 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Geology 1
1.3 .Hydr ology 3
1.4 . Wetland Ecology 7
2. Methodology 10
2.1 General Procedures 10
2.2 Mapping 12
2.3 Definitions and Wetland Terminology 12
2.4 Aerial Photography 13
2.5 Determination of Hydrologic Function 13
3. Site Descriptions 14
3.1 Chincoteague Ridge/Swales 14
3.2 High School East 27
3.3 Fowling Gut System 38
3.4 Mixed Hardwood Swamp 56
3.5 Mire Pond Fill 66
3.6 Mire Pond Scrub/Shrub System 77
3.7 Ocean Breezes South 97
3.8 Chincoteague Channel Marsh 107
4. Summary of the Eight Chincoteague Study Sites 116
4.1 Overall Impression from Field Visits 116
4.2 Summary of Adamus/Stockwell Ratings 116
5. Comments on the Adamus/Stockwell Technique
as Related to Chincoteague Wetlands 119
5.1 General Comments 119
5.2 Specific Comments Concerning the
Chincoteague Analyses 121
6. Research Needs 122
7. References 125
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Developmental history of Chincoteague Island 2
2 Stratigraphy of a typical Holocene barrier island. 3
3 Hydrologic cycle of a typical Holocene barrier
island 4
4 Major surface drainage areas on Chincoteague
Island 6
5 Location map for selected wetlands on
Chincoteague Island 11
6 Map of Chincoteague Ridge/Swales WIA 15
7 Map of High School East WIA 27
8 Map of Fowling Gut Systern WIA 38
9 Map of Mixed Hardwoods Swamp WIA 56
10 Map of Mire Pond Fill WIA 66
11 Map of Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub WIA 77
12 Map of Ocean Breezes South and Chincoteague
Channel Marsh WIA's 97
TABLE
Number Pa9e
1 Functional significance ratings for each
WIA and WIA subdivision evaluated in the
study 117
iv
-------
Mul tlply
millimeters (mm)
centimeters (cm)
meters (m)
kilometers (km)
o
square meters (m )
square kilometers (km )
hectares (ha)
liters (1)
cubic meters (m3)
cubic meters
milligrams (mg)
grams (g)
kilograms (kg)
metric tons (t)
metric tons
kilocalories (kcal)
Celsius degrees
inches
inches
feet (ft)
fathoms
miles (mi)
nautical miles (nmi)
square feet (ft2)
acres 2
square miles (mi )
gallons (gal)
cubic feet (ft3)
acre-feet
ounces (oz)
pounds (lb)
short tons (ton)
British thermal units (Btu)
CONVERSION TABLE
Metric to U.S. Customary
By.
0.03937
0.3937
3.281
0.6214
10.76
0.3861
2.471
0.2642
35.31
0.0008110
2
2205
1
0.00003527
0.03527
205
0
102
3.968
1.8(°C) + 32
U.S. Customary to Metric
To Obtain
inches
inches
feet
mil es
square feet
square mil es
acres
gal 1ons
cubic feet
acre-feet
ounces
ounces
pounds
pounds
short tons
British thermal
uni ts
Fahrenheit degrees
25.40
2.54
0.3048
1.829
1.609
1.852
0.0929
0.4047
2.590
3.785
0.02831
1233.0
28.35
0.4536
0.9072
0.2520
mil 1 imeters
centimeters
meters
meters
kil ometers
kil ometers
square meters
hectares
square kilometers
liters
cubic meters
cubic meters
grams
kilograms
metric tons
kil ocalories
Fahrenheit degrees
0.5556(°F - 32]
Celsius degrees
-------
1. PROJECT SETTING
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This study was done at the request of the Region III office
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and was
conducted under the joint guidance of that office and the
National Coastal Ecosystems Team of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). The assignment was to conduct an assessment of
the potential hydrologic and ecologic functions of eight wetland
sites on Chincoteague Island, Virginia. These sites ranged in
size from approximately 4 ha to 21 ha. The wetlands included
estuarine emergent and scrub/shrub along with palustrine
emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested.
The Adamus/Stockwell (1983) assessment technique was
specified as the method of choice. In addition, we agreed to
provide general descriptions of the eight sites and also comment
on the apparent effectiveness of the Adamus/Stockwell technique
for assessing these wetlands. These descriptions, assessment
results, and comments are contained in this report.
1.2 GEOLOGY
1.2.1 Developmental History
Chincoteague Island is a coastal barrier island of recent
geological origin located at 75°22' west longitude and 37°56'
north latitude. It is approximately 13.3 km long and 2.8 km wide
at its widest point (at Piney Island). Chincoteague was formed
2,000 to 4,000 years ago during the mid-Holocene period, a time
of lower but rising sea level and abundant sand supply along the
mid-Atlantic coast (Halsey, 1979; Kraft et al., 1979). The island
is composed of a series of parallel beach ridges and swales that
rise less than three m above sea level.
The ridge-swale system at Chincoteague trends roughly from
the southwest to the northeast. The oldest ridges (formed first)
lie to the northwest. The continued formation of younger ridges
(Figure 1) caused Chincoteague's ancestral barrier island to
accrete towards the southeast. Approximately 1,000 years ago the
formation of inlets to the north and south gave the present-day
shape to the island's shoreline. During early colonial times the
-------
tip of Assateague Island grew
Island from direct exposure to
see Figure 1).
southward, shielding Chincoteague
the Atlantic Ocean (Halsey, 1979;
1.2.2 Stratigraphy
The shallow geology of Chincoteague Island has not been
extensively studied. However, it is likely to be similar to that
of other barrier islands of similar age and developmental
history. Holocene barrier islands are primarily composed of beds
of sand or sand and shell with intervening layers of finer sands,
silts and organic materials (Kraft, 1979; Missimer, 1973;
Bartberger, 1976). These relatively recent geological formations
are usually situated on top of confining layers of compacted peat
or beds of clay and silt mixed with sand (Kraft et al., 1979;
Bartberger, 1976; Missimer, 1973; Wiegle, 1974). The confining
layers underlying barrier islands are usually located six to ten
meters below sea level. Figure 2 is a profile view of the
stratigraphy of a typical Holocene barrier island.
OCEAN CITY
WALLOPS
'OCEAN CITY
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Figure 1. Developmental history of Chincoteague Island (modified
from Halsey, 1979).
-------
Figure 2. Stratigraphy of a
typical Holocene barrier island
(from Kraft et al., 1979).
Below the first confining layer at Chincoteague are a series
of deep, sandy aquifers and aquicludes which extend downward to
the crystalline rock basement which occurs about 7,000 ft below
sea level (State Water Control Board, 1975).
1.3 HYDROLOGY
1.3.1 Groundwater
Chincoteague Island is underlain by five or more sandy
aquifers enclosed by relatively impervious sediments which
function as aquicludes (Department of Agriculture, 1975;
Environmental Protection Agency, 1982). Only the two nearest the
surface (The Pocomoke and the Manokin) hold appreciable fresh
water resources. These aquifers are located between 30 and 90 m
below the surface at Chincoteague (Biggs, 1970; State Water
Control Board, 1975). Near the surface, the unconfined, water
table aquifer may be as much as 6 to 9 m thick before it
intersects the first aquiclude. The water reserves of this
aquifer are brackish (State Water Control Board, 1975) except for
some localized lenses of freshwater that occur above sea level
(Grant Goodell - pers. comm.). Unlike the Pocomoke and Manokin
aquifers which are recharged with freshwater some 50 to 100 km to
the northwest (Biggs, 1970), the water table aquifer is
-------
recharged locally by precipitation. Saltwater contamination of
the unconfined aquifer probably occurs periodically as a result
of severe storm tides (Winner, 1978). The average annual
rainfall is approximately 105 cm in the Chincoteague area
(Bolyard, 1978). Yet, the runoff of precipitation rarely occurs
on the sandy soils of barrier islands {Bolyard et al., 1979;
Winner, 1978). Most of the precipitation infiltrates directly
into the soil whereupon it drains vertically under the force of
gravity through the unsaturated zone. Once reaching the water
table, subsurface water moves laterally in the direction of the
water table surface slope. This drainage generally follows the
land surface slope toward the interior wetland swales and ponds
or toward the Bay waters that surround the Island. Discharge
from Chincoteague's water table aquifer occurs by evaporation,
transpiration, seepage into surface water bodies which drain
interior portions of the island by channel flow, and seepage into
the Bay and saltwater channels that surround Chincoteague. A
schematic representation of the hydrologic cycle of a typical
Holocene barrier island is shown in Figure 3.
Fluctuations in the elevation of the water table are
controlled by climatic conditions and human activities on barrier
islands (Kimmel and Vecchioli, 1979). The water table rises when
recharge exceeds discharge and falls when the opposite condition
prevails. Natural recharge of groundwater is inhibited by paving
and compacting soils over large areas and by directly channeling
storm waters off the island. If recharge by precipitation is
sufficiently inhibited, recharge will eventually begin to occur
laterally by salt water intrusion (Freeze and Cherry, 1979; Bear,
1979) .
Figure 3. Hydrologic cycle of a typical
Holocene barrier island (from Missimer, 1976) .
-------
1.3.2 Surface Water
Elevations on Chincoteague Island range from approximately
-0.5 to +2.5 m (relative to mean sea level). As stated before the
island possesses a ridge and swale topography related to its
developmental history. The parallel systems of ridges and swales
have bands of vegetation which correspond to the absolute
elevation of the ridge tops and swale bottoms as well as the
local height and variability of the water table. Lowland areas
are composed of low ridges and wide swales that are seasonally or
semipermanently flooded and primarily support wetland vegetation.
Naturally occurring upland areas consist of higher, broader
ridges and narrower swales which are characterized by less
frequent incidences of flooding and a greater percentage of
upland vegetation. The topography of much of the lowland area of
the island has been extensively modified by grading and filling.
Dredging, ditching, and road construction have also changed
natural drainage patterns on the island.
Major surface drainage pathways that are relevant to this
study are shown in Figure 4. Drainage is effectively divided by
County road 2104 which crosses the island near the northeastern
section of the town of Chincoteague. North of 2104 the wetlands
drain primarily toward the jeep trail ditch. County road 2102
creates another surface drainage divide that runs lengthwise
through the central portion of the island. To the west of 2102
the system is drained primarily by Fowling Gut. To the east
drainage flows into Andrews Landing Gut and several smaller
creek systems. The major drainage systems will be described
separately below.
Historically, surface drainage into Oyster Bay and Little
Oyster Bay was blocked by filling along the shorelines of these
water bodies; first along County road 2104 and more recently by
dredging and filling of homesites along Oyster Bay. Instead of
exiting into the Oyster Bays, surface water now drains to the
south into the jeep trail ditch and then to the west into
Chincoteague Bay near the High School. The jeep trail ditch is
permanently flooded and tidal. A small diameter culvert under
County road 2101 tends to maintain a substantial head of brackish
water which promotes steady drainage into Chincoteague Bay during
rainy periods.
Fowling Gut is a natural, interior drainage system that runs
lengthwise across the southern two-thirds of the island. In its
upper reaches above Mire Pond it has been modified by
channelization; culverting beneath roadways has occurred along
its entire length. A 1943 U.S.G.S. topographic map and aerial
photographs from the 1940's indicate that at one time Fowling Gut
probably had tidal connections at both the northeast and
southeast ends of the Island. The tidal connection at the
southwest end of the island has been preserved through the use of
-------
CO
o
•
ain
• *
H
2 o
o «
•?
i
•
|
<
I '
h;
'!l
•H
c
•H
Cn
S-i
c
(0
r-l
en
CD
3
tn
n3
(U
-P
O
U
c
•H
£
U
c
o
en
(0
0)
M
(0
cu
en
-------
culverts underneath County roads 2102, 2113, 2103, and 2126 and
State road 175. However, flow has been substantially constricted
by the culverts. A recent engineering study (Waterways Surveys
1985) reported that Fowling Gut exhibits tidal effects all along
its length although the amplitude of tidal fluctuations at its
headwaters are increasingly diminished. The timing of peaks and
low tides are considerably delayed relative to the tides in
Chincoteague Bay. The study also showed that the waterway
responds quickly to even moderate rainfalls by collecting
stormwater and shunting it over a period of days into
Chincoteague Bay. It is not known whether alterations of the
Fowling Gut system have increased or decreased surface drainage
from the interior portions of the Island. Pavement drainage and
surface channeling of stormwater by road-side ditches may promote
more rapid drainage of precipitation following storms. Seasonal
periodicities in the volume of water stored in the Fowling Gut
system have not been studied as well.
Dredging and spoil placement at the headwaters of Andrews
Landing Gut in addition to the recent development of a trailer
park to the north have isolated a large section of salt marsh
from surface water exchange with Fowling Gut. Recent road
construction between Andrews Landing and Black Point Landing has
further isolated this wetland from regular tidal exchange with
Assateague Channel. Two, small-diameter culverts under the new
road are flap gated to impede tidal influence and promote
drainage of the marsh.
The wetlands chosen for study on Chincoteague were only a
small subset of a large, interconnected, and, in many places,
disturbed system of swales, seasonal ponds and ditches. Many of
the wetlands are topographically isolated from surface water
exchange with the jeep trail ditch, Fowling Gut, and Andrews
Landing Gut during most times of the year. The sandy underlying
substrate does, however, promote water exchange between the
wetlands and the water table aquifer. Depending upon local
topographic variation and recent climatic conditions, isolated
wetlands can accept groundwater discharge from surrounding
uplands or recharge the groundwater system. During extremely wet
periods, overflow and redistribution of surface water to tidal
channels can occur.
1.4 WETLAND ECOLOGY
1.4.1 Vegetation
The interior wetlands of Chincoteague Island exist primarily
in the elongate swales between the relict beach ridges and
intertidal marshes fringe the island's circumference and tidal
waterways. Depending upon the proximity to Chincoteague Bay and
the presence or absence of a tidal connection, salinities in
-------
these wetlands range from almost totally freshwater to fully
marine. Based upon the classification of Cowardin et al. (1979),
there are five general wetland types present on Chincoteague
Island; (1) estuarine emergent, (2) estuarine scrub-shrub, (3)
palustrine emergent, (4) palustrine scrub-shrub, and (5)
palustrine forested.
The ends of the swales which abut Chincoteague Bay and most
of the wetland margins of Fowling Gut are dominated by estuarine
emergents such as Spartina alterniflora. Spartina patens, and
Distichlis spicata. Two wetland shrubs dominate the vegetation
in more elevated areas: marsh elder (Iva frutescens) and salt
bush (Baccharis halimifolia). Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) is
present at the wetland-upland transition.
Surface water salinities decrease markedly as the swales are
traversed toward the interior of the island. The wetland plant
communities, in turn, become increasingly dominated by brackish
and freshwater species including various sedges (Scirpus spp.)f
cattails (Typha spp.), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), water dock
(Rumex verticillatus), marsh hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos) and
seashore mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica). Marsh elder dominates
the higher, shrub zones in these palustrine wetlands. Hardwoods
that can withstand seasonal flooding have attained dominance in
some wetlands. Red maple (Acer rubrum) is the most common tree
species in these situations although slippery elm (Ulmus rubra),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). and water oak (Ouercus
nigra) are also important constituents in the overstoi^y of well
developed, palustrine forested wetlands. Areas which have been
filled or otherwise disrupted are usually covered with a thick
stand of reed grass (Phragmites australis).
1.4.2 Fish Communities
Fish are present in Chincoteague's wetlands only where an
open connection exists between the swales and the estuary. Where
connections are absent, there is a lack of fish communities in
these wetlands, which may experience a complete drying up of the
swale pools during extended drought. Where surface water
connections to the estuary exist, the fish communities are
dominated by typical estuarine forage fishes such as killifishes
(Fundulus spp.), and sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) .
and juveniles of commercially important species such as bluefish
(Pomatomus saltartix). menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus). spot
(Leiostomus xanthurus). and Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias
undulatus). Estuarine invertebrates such as blue crabs
(Callinectes sapidus) and grass shrimp fPaleomentes pugio) are
also present. Dense concentrations of marine and estuarine fish
use the marshes and tidal creeks of estuarine wetlands as primary
nursery habitats (McHugh, 1966; Cain and Dean, 1976; Weinstein,
1979; Bozeman and Dean, 1980; Rozas and Hackney, 1983). A
wetland system the size of Chincoteague, however, does not have
8
-------
sufficient freshwater discharges like a riverine system's to
support anadromous species such as shad and striped bass.
1.4.3 Avian Communities
Chincoteague Island is situated within the Atlantic Coast
Flyway, a migratory bird corridor which is heavily used by a wide
range of avian groups. Depending on the time of year, many
different species of birds may be observed using the wetland
resources of Chincoteague Island for feeding and resting. Very
large populations of swans, geese, and dabbling ducks have been
reported for the Chincoteague vicinity along with smaller numbers
of diving and sea ducks (Odum et al., 1984). The extent of local
use is controlled by the size of the wetland and the types of
food sources present (particularly freshwater plants). Plants of
particular importance to waterfowl include Scirpus spp.,
Polygonum spp., and Echinochloa w^a 11 e r i, all of which are
abundant on Chincoteague. Herons, egrets, and other wading birds
are common summer inhabitants of Chincoteague's wetlands. They
forage primarily in estuarine, emergent wetlands for their
preferred diet of small fish. In addition, a large number of
seed-eating birds such as blackbirds, and insectivorious birds
such as flycatchers, are known to use palustrine wetlands similar
to those on Chincoteague (Odum et al., 1984).
-------
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 GENERAL PROCEDURES
Eight sites on Chincoteague Island were selected by EPA for
evaluation (Figure 5). Wetland evaluations were made using the
methodology described in A Method for Wetland Functional
Assessment (Adamus and Stockwell 1983). The evaluations began
with a field investigation. Each site was visited at least twice
during field trips to Chincoteague Island in August and September
of 1985. Very wet conditions were prevalent at the sites during
August following the recent passage of Hurricane Danny. Normal
to dry conditions were present during September.
During the field investigation, each site was surveyed on
foot. The dominant vegetation was identified, soils were
examined, and notes were made on the physiochemical (salinity,
water depth, pH) and biological (fish and wildlife observations)
factors that are relevant to the evaluation procedure.
The major wetland types within each site were identified as
defined by Cowardin et al. (1979). As defined in the specified
assessment technique, each site was considered to be a separate
Wetland Impact Area (WIA) a term that is synonymous with "wetland
study area." Two exceptions exist: the Fowling Gut and Mire
Pond Scrub-Shrub Systems were separated into estuarine and
palustrine portions based on the findings of the field
investigations and each portion was evaluated separately.
After the field investigation was completed, the questions
from Adamus (1983) on Forms A and B were answered and recorded on
Response Sheets Al and Bl, respectively, for each WIA. Comments
were recorded where necessary to clarify interpretations of some
questions on Forms A and B.
These data were used to assess each WIA for the following
functions (Sections 2.1.2 and 2.2.2, in Adamus 1983):
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge
Flood Storage
Shoreline Anchoring
Sediment Trapping
Long-Term and Seasonal Nutrient Retention
Downstream and In-Basin Food Chain Support
10
-------
N
: •-•/•:•?*:
/ '• * ' i
-, .#1 I
. A- " /
*/:
•
9
~m
CO
••»
•
a
•o
K
•
3
O
0
•
|
£
O
1
<
•
Ul
o
o
£
U
CO
£
O
I
1
CD
E
•
•
>>
co
3
rt
Fowling (
i
0
a
*
co
irdwoodi
•a
a
K
i
i
a
•
co
«
CO
a
a
£
CO
1
o
3
u
CO
^
e
o
a.
•
i
1
£
O
co
•
•
N
•
•
a
c
9
•
U
O
I
1 Mirth
9
•
£
O
•
3
a
Chlncotoi
i
u. a x
WJ
H
0)
3
in
(0
(U
-P
o
0
c
-H
u
£
o
tn
(U
(U
-P
o
(U
rH
0)
01
1-1
O
a
c
o
•H
-P
rfl
U
O
in
QJ
^
3
Cn
-H
11
-------
Fishery Habitat
Wildlife Habitat
Active Recreation
Passive Recreation and Heritage
Form C was not used in this project in accordance with previous
agreements with EPA and FWS. The ratings that resulted from this
assessment were recorded on Summary Sheet D for each WIA.
The results of the site evaluations are summarized in table
form in Subsection 4.2. A site description, Forms Al and Bl,
Summary Sheet D, and Comments regarding questions on Forms A and
B are provided in Chapter 3 for each WIA. The Adamus (1983)
method should be consulted for the questions answered on Forms Al
and Bl and the keys used to derive the ratings on Summary Sheet D.
2.2 MAPPING
Maps in this document do not meet mapping specifications and
are for schematic purposes only. These maps (Figures 6-12)
should not be used for Federal or State jurisdiction
determination.
2.3 DEFINITIONS AND WETLAND TERMINOLOGY
Wetlands terminology is from Cowardin et al. (1979).
Definitions of terminology from Adamus and Stockwell (1983) are
as follows. See original reference for detailed explanation.
Basin - The aquatic area is composed of the wetland plus
adjoining deep open water, if any.
Functional Watershed - (This term is not described for each
site on Chincoteague because of its vague nature.) The
total of all areas, including the subwatershed, as well
as areas lower and perhaps higher, which drain into a
focal point where the effect of the wetland's services
to society would hypothetically be felt to the greatest
degree.
Subwatershed - The terrestrial areas whose runoff drains
into the wetland or basin, and not into lakes, streams
or wetlands which are not contiguous to the wetland or
basin.
Wetland Impact Area (WIA) - The portion of the wetland that
will experience any of a series of possible changes
(described in Adamus and Stockwell, 1983). For the
purposes of this study, the chosen wetland study sites
are the WIA's.
12
-------
2.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Recent aerial photography was provided by the EPA.
Historical photography from as early as 1943 came from the
photographic collection at the University of Virginia.
2.5 DETERMINATION OF HYDROLOGIC FUNCTION
Detailed hydrological studies were outside the scope (and
budget) of this study. Numerous observations were made during
periods of seasonally low and high water. Statements made in the
site description sections are based on our experience as
hydrologists and represent only our expert opinion. Estimations
about hydrologic circulation, flood storage capacity, groundwater
recharge and discharge and nutrient retention capacity were made
before calculating the Adamus values.
13
-------
3. SITE DESCRIPTIONS
3.1 CHINCOTEAGUE RIDGE/SWALES STUDY SITE
3.1.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. This WIA (Figure 6) is composed of a
series of low upland ridges and shallow swales covering
approximately 13 ha. These ridges and swales run roughly
northeast to southwest. Some of the swales have open water, some
have shrub communities, and some have emergent vegetation.
Historical photography shows that the swale wetland areas at the
northern and eastern end of the site were once connected to
estuarine emergent wetlands. This connection has been blocked-
off by the construction of the road, borrow pit, and filled areas
in the Oyster Point development to the north and northeast. To
the south and southwest the ridges and swales run unimpeded until
they strike the so-called jeep trail and jeep trail ditch which
runs east and west near the high school.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site as outlined by
EPA. The sub-watershed consists of the various ridges which run
from the northeast to the southwest. The basin for this site
extends to the jeep trail ditch which lies approximately 500 m to
the south of the site. Some surface water leaves the site via
the swales and drains into the jeep trail ditch (but only during
very wet periods) and then drains westward into Chincoteague Bay.
The culverted outlet of the jeep trail canal allows some
intrusion of saltwater during periods of dry weather and high
tides. Salinity measurements indicate that tidal influences
extend only a short distance northeastward into the swales.
Qualitative vegetation description. Vegetation on this site
breaks down into basically two types - the wetland dominated
swales and the pine forest dominated ridges. The swale wetlands
which lie to the north and northeast side of the site are
dominated by emergent vegetation largely dictated by the former
estuarine characteristics of the site. This includes Spartina
patens. Distichlis spicata. Scirpus olneyi. and the seashore
mallow (Kosteletzkya virginica). Further south these swales are
dominated by Iva and other shrubs including Myrica. The swales
which lie on the southwest and western side of the site are
dominated by somewhat different plants such as Hibiscus.
Polygonum (which dominates many of the sites), Kosteletzkya, the
14
-------
N
Figure 6. Map of Chincoteague Ridge/Swales WIA showing
wetland (w) and upland (u) areas. Major outlets are
indicated by solid arrows which depict the direction of
water movement from the site. Broken arrow indicates an
ephemeral inlet from a borrow pit to the northeast.
swamp rose, Rosa, palustris. and a variety of other primarily
freshwater wetland plants. There is no S. patens nor Distichlis.
In other words, the wetlands at this site appear to fall into two
groups - those to the north and northeast which were formerly
connected closely to the emergent estuarine wetlands to the
northeast and those to the west and southwest which apparently
had a much more tenuous connection and were much further removed
from estuarine influence. Along the northern edge of this site
15
-------
there is a great deal of Phraqmites associated with the
disruption which has occurred around the Oyster Point development
and the borrow pit. The ridges, which are considered upland,
are dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). tangles of poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and greenbriers (Smilax spp.).
There are also scattered shrubs such, as wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera).
Wetland classification. The ridge areas are upland. The
swales are made up of several classifications. The shrub areas
are classified as palustrine scrub/shrub. The areas of the
swales (north and northeast end of site) which were formerly
estuarine can be classified either as estuarine or palustrine
scrub/shrub, depending upon vegetation type. We recommend
palustrine since the vegetation appears to be changing to this
type. Similarly, areas of emergent vegetation can be classified
as palustrine or estuarine.
Substrates, water salinity. Soils underlying the site are
composed of sand or sandy loam with a thin layer of organic
matter ( 10 cm). Ridge soils may also contain some loam along
with sand. Salinities (during average conditions) ranged from 3-
5 ppt. at the south end of the swales to 0.5-1.0 at the north end
of the site.
Wildlife use. The more open ends of the swales (at their
northeastern ends) appear to be moderately to heavily used by
wading birds and migratory waterfowl. The narrow ends of the
swales, particularly where dominated by shrubs, were not observed
to be used by waterfowl during the study period. There was ample
evidence of use by raccoons and other small and medium-sized
mammals. There were few indications of fish utilization,
indicating that these areas may occasionally dry out completely
and that their connection with areas of repopulation such as the
estuary are far removed.
Hydrologic functions. In general, surface drainage is to
the south and southwest to the jeep trail and eventually to
Chincoteague Bay, but only during very wet conditions. The
former drainage connection to the north and northeast has been
blocked by the Oyster Point development. In fact, during periods
of heavy rain there appears to be a small amount of sheet flow
from the borrow pit across the road and into the northern part of
this site. During dry periods much of the drainage at this site
occurs vertically into the near-surface water table aquifer
system, indicating a high ground water recharge potential.
Because of the numerous swales, this site also appears to have a
high potential for both flood water storage and nutrient
retention.
16
-------
3.1.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluation: Chincoteague Ridge/Swales
Summary Sheet 0
This form is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the Interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.2.2. As each analysis is completed, enter Its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, 8, or C) In the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
Interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation.
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector 1s optional.
EVALUATION TIME FRAME (PRI
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE*
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE*
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING*
SEDIMENTTRAPPING*
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM-
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-BASIN"
FISHERY HABITAT
WARMWATEH"
COLDWATEV4
COLDW.RIVERINE'4
ANAOROMOUS RIV.
SPECIES"
WILD LIFE HABIT AT
GENERAL DIVERSITY--
WATERFOWL GP" 1
WATERFOWLGP." 2
speoes" Wood Duck
SPPriF«?'«
SPECIES"
ACTIVE RECREATION"
SWIMMING
BOAT LAUNCHING
POWER BOATING
CANOEING
SAILING
PASSIVE RECREATION
AND MERIT AGE"
I IMPACT VECTOR RATING"
•/POSTl
EFFECTIVENESS'
moderate
moderate
liah
n'ah
moderate
moderate
high
moderate
moderate
low
high
Breeding
NA
moderate
low
low
low
low
low
••.•;::-::;;.:J.:,;.''-::;.:-*S:;::.?:
OPPORTUNITY*
moderate
low
low
moderate
high
hiah
Winter
Moderate
moderate
.MITIGATION PLAN •
FUNCTIONAL RATING'
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
high
hiah
moderate
moderate
low
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
low
low
low
low
• - " • •• "-:' /:•• ' •
SIGNIFICANCE'
moderate
moderate
hiah
moderate
hiah
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
FUNCTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE*
moderate
moderate
nign
mpderate
hiah
very high
very hiah
moderate
moderate
low
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
low
low
low
low
moderate
FOOTNOTES
Ihese entries will be based on analyses in the following parts of Volume II (numbers correspond to
footnotes above):
'•Forms A. Ai (p. 6. 51); 2'Sect1on 2.1.2.2. (p. 97); 3'Forms B, 81 (p. 38, 54); 4'Section
2.1.2.?. (p. 97); ^Interpretation key in Section 2.1.2.1. p. 57; 6>p. 59; 7'p. 60; 8*p. 62; 9*p.
64; 10-p. 67; U'p. 67; I2'p. 69; 13'p. 71; 14-p. 73; I5'p. 75; 16'p. 79; 17'p. 80; l%. 84;
I9'p. 91; 20-p. 92; 2l'p. 93.
17
-------
Chincoteaaua "".idqe/Gwales
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
This sheet 1$ the appropriate place for recording
the responses CO correspond Ing questions In For*
A. A 'yes' (Y). or 'no* (N) response «j$t be
circled for ill parts of each question, even when
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major columns—"WlA* «nd 'BASIN", ind
within each of these, three subcolumns entitled
**•. •«". and *0*. which address, when relevent, the
seasonal changes In some of the predictors, as
follows:
> co 1 umn responses are those addressing
either l») the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June In most Prairie pothole wetlands).
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
H column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average year, or (b) if
the area Is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition. "
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
drjest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal, '0* refers
to its daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For examole, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the content of the WIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then 1n terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no V/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WIA or basin, but not both.
BASIN
I W
5«.c.
Set C4 ">i rv, t r, f
18
-------
%
ChincotGa^ue Ridge/Swales
0. •
WIA
W
IASIH
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
H
(S)
3.1
4.1
AJL
I15L
S.I
5ee. com
C.I
to
Y N
T !l
See C*
mtn
T T*
t.l
8.2
set c
T T*
f H
r N
C "Him g-r>T
20.
F1«1d-tyt»e Data
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
22.
.1
.2
.3
.4 Y
.5
4
19
-------
22.3
22.3.1
22.3.2
22.3.3
22.3.4
-------
"hincoteaque Ridge/Swales
10
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
21
-------
Chincoteague Ridge/Swales
MIA
0. 1 1 V 0
49.1 ~
49.2 .-» ^_
50. CTJH CxJll fYJN
51. YQJ)
Detailed Data
,
52.1.1 Y *l jJlt
52.1.2 Y IP *T
52.2.1 ON
52.2.2 Y .//*
53.2 Y NJ WA
54.1 Y~O 7
54^2 Y*J ^/"
55. YttJ /
56. HA
57.1 Y N*\
57.2 Y»/ ..iu
57.3 Y N V MR
57.4 Y *J '
53.1 Y N-j
58.2 Y H/ u/.
58.3 Y N > I*/*
58.4 V N^
59.1
59.2
60.1
60.2
60.3
ii.i V M U/A
61 ? Y II If*
all ^
63.2
64.
65. rpn ,
66.1 Y * JU
66.2 Y 1 Nln
67.1 Y N J/A
67.2 Y « ^/n
68.1 V N JIA
68.2 Y W */"
Derived Resoonses
69.1 Y N
89.?^ Y H
70,1 . Y X
70.2 Y N
71.1 Y *
71.2 Y »»
72.1 Y N
72.2 Y H
73.1 Y N
73.2 Y 1
74.1 Y «
74.2 Y H
75.1 Y H
75.2 Y H
IAS1H
i V
0
JfNJ
CYiir
Y 1
•
i : Hh
Y 1 4ll^
* ^^
*/* ?!
J/A
Y H
IA 'H
H^ TI
ki/ A T H
r*/ *^ v •
V/A Y •
A/ n v N
•5e.fi- Orm
S«c c*.
Set C«^"
S 6ft co»-nrr
rr»e.o-V- -f-fe
r*»*-A- f
^^
to -r St>Tt
After responses to all possible qu
have been recorded above, turn t
38). You «m( as an option) retur
(1n Section 2.1.2) to Interpret
soonses.
* N/A (Not Applicable) \
questions that are not
to the site or question
we have no measurements
•rr\
•TVr*
-w>
I
cstions (Form A)
o For« B (page
•n to this sheet
ased for
relevant
3 for which
22
-------
Chincoteaque Riuge/Cwales
Response Sheet 61
THRESOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet Is the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions In
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
General
Nutrient
Fish food Chain/
Habitat .
36.
23
-------
Form "A" Comments (Chincoteague Ridge/Swales)
1.1 Slight drainage from northern borrow pit during
high water periods
1.1 (Basin) Drainage into jeep trail ditch occurs from
High School East borrow pit during normal and wet
periods
1.2 (Basin) Jeep trail is tidal from Chincoteague Bay
eastward for at least 1 km
1.3 (Basin) Under dry and normal conditions tidal
waves may extend toward site through swale
accesses but does not reach it
1.3.1 "Inlet" from drainage basin during wet periods
5.2 See site map (Figure 6) and definitions for this
site
6.1-6.2 We are considering only the swale areas as
wetlands (pine ridges are not wetlands)
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = forest ridges. Within WIA, ridges
along swales contiguous with jeep trail ditch and
developed area along jeep trail ditch
9 Predictor not used
22.1 Although site is predominantly forested, there are
extensive areas of emergent wetlands within the
site
23.1-23.9 Forest soils (which predominate in area) are
sands; swale areas have sandy soil bottoms with a
surface layer of organic material
26.1-26.11 Refers only to swales
26.1-26.11 (Basin) While much of the wetland areas in this
area are intermittently exposed, the jeep trail
canal is both permanent and also tidal near
Chincoteague Bay
34 This refers to swales and excludes ridge areas
which are not considered wetlands
24
-------
36 Estimated with no measurements; shallow swale
waters are probably poorly oxygenated due to
excess organic matter on the bottom
39.5 Filled area (dike) has prevented movement of
fishes from estuarine creeks
39.6 Jeep trail canal
41.1 Answers refer to wetland areas (swales)
43 The only sheet flow into the site occurs during
flooding periods when small amounts of water flow
from the borrow pit south across the dike
44 Considering vegetated areas along Chincoteague Bay
50 Evidence of duck use and feeding on species such
as Polygonum. Scirpus. etc.
51 Answered "no" because no open water with a depth
greater than 6 ft within WIA
52.2 High areas have ^E^iiiiia p.a.:fcgns, Polygonum, Iva.
There are no low areas
64 Bottom of swales may not always be above 5 pm
25
-------
Form "B" Comments (Chincoteague Ridge/Swales and High School
East)
1 Answers depend upon whether potential future
development takes place. Future development not
taken into consideration unless imminent (present
development underway)
2 Answered relative to specific impact areas, not
general area
5-7 Water supply from mainland. Human use considered
only (e.g., aspect of natural recharge to maintain
vegetation not considered)
8 Chincoteague Ridge/Swale Site is significantly
larger than the High School East site; of more
importance to the island's aquifer
12 + 14 Seems to be asking same question only for fish and
wildlife only, not other functions
15 Judged to be not economically feasible
18 Probably - but need to consult predicted storm
surge maps for Chincoteague
23-29 All wetlands ranked as low opportunity
30 High quality water interpreted to mean classified
as potable water source
32 Outlet pipe of jeep trail ditch (basin of both
sites) could require maintenance clearing
3,11,16, Official designations unknown. Answered 17,30,54
17,30,54 tentatively based on impression (followed with
question mark)
10 Answers necessarily a matter of opinion
15,22,26, Net experience with small, unincorporated
42,53,55,60 communities such as Chincoteague show that wetland
functions tend to be undervalued or ignored, and
not replaced if compromised. The lack of
comprehensive planning for the island suggests
that methods such as zoning or transferring rights
away from the most important wetlands will not be
undertaken
76 Chincoteague Ridge/Swales site has high potential
for out of classroom learning (school located next
door)
26
-------
3.2 HIGH SCHOOL EAST STUDY SITE
3.2.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. The site (Figure 7) covering
approximately four ha is composed of a large borrow pit from
which fill for the high school site was taken. In addition,
there is an area of shrubs and small trees which was extensively
altered. Historical photography shows that these alterations
occurred some time between 1949-59. Previously these areas were
Chincoteague ridge and swale terrain. The boundary of the site
on the western and northwestern side runs along the edge of the
high school fill. The northern boundary is the so-called jeep
trail which runs across the island. The eastern side of the
boundary runs through a forested area close to another smaller,
open water area which lies off the site.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site as outlined by
the EPA (boundaries described above). The basin for this site
includes the borrow pit, the ditch which runs from the borrow pit
to the jeep trail, and the jeep trail ditch itself as it runs
west into Chincoteague Bay. The sub-watershed for the site
consists of one or two ridges of large pines which lie along the
southeast edge of the site and forested areas which lie to the
south and southeast of the site.
High School Atheletlc field
Figure 7. Map of High School East WIA showing wetland (w) and
upland (u) areas. Major outlet is indicated by arrow that depicts
the direction of water movement from the site.
27
-------
Qualitative vegetation description. There is an area of
emergent wetlands which lies around the borrow pit. This is
dominated by Phraamites. Spartina patens. Iva and other shrubs
and wetland plants. Much of the site consists of a disturbed
shrub/scrub community along with limited areas identifiable as
remnant upland ridges dominated by loblolly pine and swales
dominated by red maples. The cover in the disturbed areas
consists of honeysuckle, wax myrtle, poison ivy, greenbriar, and
occasional mid-sized loblolly pines.
Wetland classification. Most wetlands at this site are
palustrine scrub/shrub and palustrine forested wetlands. The
emergent wetland areas around the borrow pit are estuarine
emergent (due to daily incursions of estuarine water through the
ditch from the jeep trail ditch).
Substrate, salinities. Soils underlying the site are sand
or sandy loam with a thin layer of organic matter. Upland areas
may also contain some loam. Salinities in the borrow pit and
associated ditches may range as high as 20-25 ppt during dry
periods. Palustrine wetland adjacent to the borrow pit usually
have salinities below 1 ppt and rarely above 5 ppt.
Wildlife use. There is ample evidence of use by waterfowl,
small mammals, and fishes at this site. Both the borrow pit and
the borrow pit to the east of the site appear to be utilized by
ducks and wading birds during much of the year. There is
evidence of use by animals such as raccoons, rabbits and other
small mammals throughout the site. Because of the connection and
close proximity of the jeep trail ditch and Chincoteague Bay
there appears to be considerable access to the borrow pit and
ditches by estuarine fishes.
Hydrologic functions. During wet periods, water appears to
drain into this site from the south and southwest by sheet flow.
There is a drainage ditch which connects the borrow pit in this
site with a similar pit to the east. There appears to be
drainage from the eastern areas through the drainage ditch to the
borrow pit at this site during wet periods. Surface flow leaves
the site via the drainage ditch which connects the borrow pit
with the jeep trail ditch and ultimately Chincoteague Bay. There
is some tidal fluctuation as far up the drainage ditch as the
borrow pit. During dry periods drainage in palustrine areas
probably occurs vertically into the surface aquifer.
Because of the extent of wetland and borrow pit area, this
site probably has moderate to high ground water recharge
potential and high flood water storage potential. The wetland
vegetation and soils should produce high nutrient retention
potential.
28
-------
3.2.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: High School East
Summary Sheet 0
This form 1s the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the Interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2, and 2.2.2. As each analysis is completed, enter Its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A. B, or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
Interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation,
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector is optional.
/"BASIN
EVALUATION TIME FRAME (PRf
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE1
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE*
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING1
SEDIMENTTRAPPING1
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-BASIN"
FISHERY HABIT AT
WARMWATER"
COLDWATER"
COLDW.RIVERINE"
ANADROMOUS RIV.
sppr.ps-. Winter FT.*
WILDLIFE HABIT AT
GENERAL DIVERSITY"
WATERFOWL GP." 1 **
WATERFOWL GP" 2
SPFCIFS" Wnflfi Hurk
sppniPS"
SPECIES"
ACTIVE RECREATION"
SWIMMING
BOAT LAUNCHING
POWER BOATING
CANOEING
SAILING
PASSIVE RECREATION
AND MERIT AGE"
IMPACT VECTOR HATING"
W
yposn
EFFECTIVENESS1
moderate
moderate
hiqh
hiah
modprafp
moderate
hiqh
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
high
breeding
NA
moderate
low
moderate
low
low
1 nij
;IA
OPPORTUNITY1
moderate
low
low
moderate
high
hi nh
winter
moderate
NA
moderate
p
.MITIGATION PLAN f
FUNCTIONAL RATING1
moderate
moderate
moderate
mnrtprafp
mnrlpratp
high
high
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
low
low
low
pojprrr
SIGNIFICANCE1
moderate
hiah
hiah
mnrlpratp
hi gh
hioh
hiah
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
^\
FUNCTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE*
moderate
hiah
hiah
mndpratp
high
very high
very high
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
low
low
low
moderate
FOOTNOTES
These entries will be based on analyses in the following parts of Volume II (numbers correspond to
footnotes above):
i-Forms A. Al (p. 6. 51); 2'Sect1on 2.1.2.2. (p. 97); 3'Forms B, 81 (p. 38. 54); 4'Section 2.1.2.?.
(p. 97); ^Interpretation key in Section 2.1.2.1. p. 57; b'D. 59; 7'p. 60; 8>p. 62; %. 64; 10t
ll'p. 67; 12'p. 69; 13'p. 71; U'p. 73; 15'p. 75; 16'p. 79; 17'p. 80; 18'p. 84; lf
2l'p. 93.
*Winter Flounder **Winter Only
91;2S.
D. 67;
92;
29
-------
Kiah School East
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNtTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AW
This Sheet 1s th« appropriate plaet for recording
the responses to corresponding questions In For*
A. A "yes* (Y). or -no" (N) response wit be
circled for all parts of each question, even when
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major columns--"VIA" and "BASIN", and
within each of these, three subcolumns entitled
•£". "V. and "0", which address, when relevtnt, th«
seasonal changes in some of the predictors, as
follows:
I column responses are those addressing
either(a) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June in most Prairie pothole wetlands),
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) 1f
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
H column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average year, or (b) if
tne area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition. "
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal. "0" refers
to its daily low fids (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the context of the HIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no T/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WIA or basin, but not both.
Q. •
MIA
W
BASIN
S W 0
Qffice-tyoe Data
St.C
30
-------
High Gchool East
0. •
UIX
V
BASIM
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
fljN
Yjffi
0N
Y®
Y 3
0.1
w * •
H
.1
4.2
5.1
set
6.1
•*
See
1.1
l.t
V H
T !l
S.I
I*
N
Set
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.1
Y II
Y II
Se
^
11.1
11.2
12.1
r i
Y
Yffl
see
see
Sec
S««.
S**
-M
i^
19.
F<«ld-tyoe Data
22.1
22.1.1
22.1.2
22.1.3
22.1.4
22.1.5
31
-------
I-iigh School East
9. *
MIA
V
BASIN
1 V Q
22.2
22.2.1
22.2.2
22.2.3
22.2.4
^S«.«.
C W»> '^ *•*>!
•p.
28.1
28.?
157
T5T
30.2
32
-------
TT.iah School East
41.1
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
33
-------
:hool East
VIA
0. * I V 0
49.1
49.2 t _,
50. YfS Y® YdB
51. Y<|)
Detailed Data
52.1.1 Y lV,A
52.1.2 Y MjNA
52.2.1 fl>N
52.2.? OJM
53.1 Y •» .J*
53.2 Y N Nfl
54.1 Y N .1.
54.2 Y N l»ft
Si. Yffi 1
5*. ^ A/fc
57.1 YN-v^n
57.2 Y N / JA
57.3 TaV/Vfl
57.4 Y N J '
53.1 Y N .
58.2 Y N kJA
58.3 Y N P*"
58.4 V N
59.1
59.2
tt.3
(0.1
M.2
60.3
•1.1 T II ^
U.9 Y N /VH
6?. Y « ^fl
63.1
63.2
«4.
«5. dK
66.1 T N ./»
««.? T H TVAl
67.1 T I /A
67 2 T N WA
68.1 Y N ./.
68.2 Y N /VA
Derived Besoonses
69.1 Y N
7«
v N
i: lift
. '•
;: ^
//fl ;:
A//» T H
A/fl !
»/A II
A/A :
Afte
38).
SPOn
SC.C C*t
Stt Cow-
5"«e c
see c^r
f\ W\ *?. W* •{*
wi tn*3C -pt
r*nri /»•>«. »\T
irtT-e^vi- fo^-^L
& ^"^v^v
fv^
fo^-rv^
i
r responses to all possible questions (Form A)
been recorded above, turn to Form B (page
You wll1( as an option) return to this sheet
Section 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re- •
ses .
34
-------
High School East
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet Is the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions in
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
Nutr ient
Recharge
T. YN-2-Ste
61. YQP
62. <3>N
63. Y<5
64. G/N
65. Y(Jb
66. Y ffli
67. N©
35
-------
Form "A" Comments (High School East Study Site)
1.1 Water enters this site through ditch from borrow
pit/wetland area to the east except during dry
periods
1.1 (Basin) Drainage into jeep trail ditch from other
areas during normal and wet periods
1.2 (Basin) Jeep trail ditch is tidal for at least a
kilometer from Chincoteague Bay east
1.3 (Basin) Tidal waves move up jeep trail ditch
during dry and normal conditions
5.2 See site map (Figure 7) and definitions for this
site
6.1-6.2 The combination of borrow pit, drainage ditches,
and wetlands exceeds 2 ha but is less than 16 ha
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = forested ridges within WIA and
developed area along jeep trail ditch. Basin area
= greater than 20% area of sub-watershed
9 Predictor not used
15.0 Much of the sub-watershed is scrub/shrub along
with considerable areas of forest
16.0 Disturbance (school construction, land grading,
borrow pit) occurred more than 10 years ago.
Because of extensive areas of scrub/shrub
(vegeation less than 6 m tall), area is not
predominantly forest
22.2 While pines make up a significant part of the
vegetation, Myr ica is the dominant vegetation.
Probably in a few years pines will dominate
23.1-23.9 Soils are predominantly sand; however, there are
spots under the borrow pit and under certain
wetland areas where there is a thin layer of
organic material on top of the sand
24.1-24.6 Salt water intrusion occurs along the jeep trail
and into the borrow pit during normal and dry
periods
36
-------
26.1-26.11 Borrow pit and canal are permanently flooded. WIA
is seasonally flooded
34 Mean depth is difficult to estimate (borrow pit =
deep; other wetlands = very shallow): this is our
best guess (ridges and sub-watershed ignored)
35.2 Unvegetated area (borrow pit) is greater than 8 m
36 These are estimates: we have no measurements
39.6 Jeep trail canal
42 Area of borrow pit and canals exceed 10% of WIA
44 Considering areas along Chincoteague Bay
50 Some duck activity and food, but not 10% of area
51 Answered "no" because there is no open water
(defined as greater than 2 m) in the WIA
52.2 Tree dominated wetland = low (primarily red maple)
Phragmites. etc. = high
64 Bottom of borrow pit, and canal may not always be
above 5 ppm due to accumulated organic matter on
the bottom
37
-------
3.3
FOWLING GUT SYSTEM STUDY SITES
3.3.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. This is a complex site (Figure 8)
covering 21 ha and consisting of many parallel ridges and swales,
emergent freshwater marshes, and emergent estuarine marshes
adjacent to Fowling Gut. Because of this complexity we have
divided the site into two sections (estuarine and palustrine).
The estuarine portion consists of the western side of the site
which is composed of estuarine emergent marshes associated with
Fowling Gut. The palustrine portion consists of the eastern side
of the site and is dominated by freshwater palustrine wetlands
and pine ridges. The site has been altered on all four sides by
development and the encroachment of houses, filled areas, and
borrow pits.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site as outlined by
the EPA. The basin for the estuarine portion includes Fowling
Gut from its origin to Mire Pond. The basin for the palustrine
portion includes the estuarine portion and Fowling Gut, although
it should be noted that surface drainage from the palustrine
Figure 8. Map of Fowling Gut System V7IA showing wetland (w)
an.d upland (u) areas. Major outlet is indicated by arrow
that depicts the direction of water movement from the site.
Estuarine and palustrine portions of the WIA are separated
by dotted line.
38
-------
portion occurs only during wet, rainy periods. The sub-watershed
for both sites consists of the forested ridges and developed
homesites within close proximity to the wetland impact areas and
basins.
Qualitative vegetation description. The emergent estuarine
wetlands in the estuarine portion are dominated by Spartina
patens. Distichlis spicata. Iva. Scirpus robustus and Spartina
alterniflora. Phragmites dominates along the northwestern corner
of the site and along the northern edge of the site where
considerable disruption and filling has occurred. The wetlands
on the palustrine portion are dominated by Hibiscus.
Kosteletzkva. Typha and Spartina patens in certain areas.
Walter's millet (Echinochloa walteri) dominates a small marsh at
the northern end of the site. The borrow pit ponds which lie
along the eastern side of the site are surrounded by Typha.
Peltandra. and red maples.
Wetland classification. The forested ridge areas in both
sites are upland communities. The estuarine wetlands are
estuarine emergent. The palustrine wetlands are palustrine
emergent.
Substrate, water salinity. Substrates underlying these
areas are largely sandy or sandy loam soils with small amounts of
accumulated organic matter near the surface ( 15 cm). Water
adjacent to and in Fowling Gut has a salinity of approximately
10-20 ppt depending upon the amount of recent rainfall. Water in
the interior areas of the palustrine portion has a salinity of
from 1 to 4 ppt.
Wildlife use. There are numerous signs (footprints, feces,
etc.) of use by waterfowl including black ducks and wood ducks
and wading birds at both sites. There is much evidence of both
juvenile and salt marsh fishes in the ponds and wetlands adjacent
to Fowling Gut. Most areas of the site are apparently utilized
by raccoons and other small mammals.
Hydroloaic functions. The estuarine portion experiences
limited, daily tidal exchange with Fowling Gut. During wet
periods drainage is principally out of the wetland and southeast
along Fowling Gut. The palustrine portion, under dry conditions,
drains internally into the water table aquifer. During wet,
rainy periods there are several small surface outlets to the
estuarine portion and ultimately to Fowling Gut. Because of
these characteristics the palustrine portion probably has a very
high groundwater recharge potential. Both portions of the site
probably have high flood storage and nutrient retention
potential.
39
-------
Fowling Gut System
3.3.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations:
• Estuarine Portion
Summary Sheet 0
This form 1s the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the Interpreta-
tion procedures and keys In Sections Z.I.2. and 2.Z.2. As each analysis 1s completed, enter Its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, 8, or C) In the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
Interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without Mitigation.
name of basin and MIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating Is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector Is optional.
/'RASIN WIA PRO.JFrr ~"\
FA/AiuATinNTiMeFPAMP 62; 'p. 64; 10-p. 67;
U'p. 67; «-p. 69; 13'p. 71; U'p. 73; «-p. 75; 16> 79; 17'p. 80; I8'p. 84; "-p. 91; 2°'p. 92;
21.
p. 93.
* Blue Fish, Hard Clam, Winter Rounder
40
-------
Fowling <^ut System - Estuarine Portion
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUfCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
Sheet Is the appropriate p1«ct for recording
the responses to corresoondlng questions In For*
A. A "y«" (t) or "no" (N) response wst bt
circled for «11 parts of each question, even when
the response seem obvious. This response sheet
his two major columns—'WIA' and 'BASIN'. and
within each of these, three subcolumns entitled
•I*. '«". and "0*. which address, when re I event, tht
seasonal changes In some of the predictors, as
follows:
column, responses are those addressing
,
either (a) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June in most Prairie pothole wetlands),
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
standing crop of wetland plants, «r (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
M column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average, year , or (b) if
tne area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition.
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal. "0" refers
to Us daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the context of the wiA's (wetland
impact ar«a's) average condition, then In terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally t*ie basin's **ttest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no r/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluate for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the MIA or basin, but not both.
VIA
Q. «
BASIN
I U
Offlce-tyoe Data
Y® Y®
41
See
-------
rowlinq Gut System - Estuarine Portion
U1A
0. ' I V 0
2.1.1 ON ON
2.1.2 Y Y®
3!»
4.1 ro»
4.2 Y(D
sa
6.1 THI
«.* TS>
Jl!
7.2
8.1
a.2
9.1
9.2
10.1 TOJ
10.2 T ® iJJL
10.3 T €> f A
10. « T A
11.1 Y»
12.1 Y M I.
12.2 Y 1 NA
13.1
13.2
U. Y«
15.1 9^
15.2 Y<
15.3 Yl
15.4 Y<
15.5 Y«
15.6 Yl
15.7 . YQ
»
i
i
15. Y H)
17.1 YO)
17.2 YW
j . Y A
< T ft
20.
21.1 tl*0
21.2 Y»
21.2 Y®
21.4 TO
21.5 ®«t
21.6 T(ft
Tftld-tyce Data
22.1 it
22.1.1 Y
22.1.2 Y 1
22.1.3 Y
22.1.4 Y |
22.1.5 Ylr
22.2 Y 1
22.2.1 V 1
1\ Y^!\
H Y N
1 Y N
1 Y N
* Y N
i) Y N
1
IAS1N
i V 0
(J* OM
?A
T$
Y N
T S
of*
V N
Y N
;: ^
Y0
T©
Y N TJK
Y N YJN
Y N YlN
Y N YUI/
YbJ Y&
^ ~~»4 «„,
vSCft Comr>
>5ec ^^^
SC.C C«v»i,
r<^ On
Sec. c«w>.
e^^ r^orrv,
htKt^ A^rv,
^i- f>r^
f-
*^fi-^J| 4-^ r ^v\
^ /
JX "
42
-------
Fowling Gut System - Estuarine Portion
Q. f
HIA
H
IA5IN
I tf
22.2.2
22.2.3 TIN
22.2.4 TN
22.?.5
ft*J
22.3
22.3.1
22.3.2
22.3.3
22.3.4
22.4
22.4.1
22.4.2 T
26.1
26.2
26.3
26.4
26.5
26.6
26.7
26.8
26.9
26.10
26.11
27.1
27.2
28.1
28.2
29.
30.1
30.2
31.1
4M-
TTi
32.2
32.3
32.4
32.5
32.6
32.7
32.8
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
43
-------
Bowling Gut System - Estuarine Portion
IASIN
! V 0
JEJL
38.1
9
39.2
W.3
39.4
».$
A/A
Set.
40.
T«
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
41.4
Sjlgk.
19 I*
44.1
44.2
_&H
45.2
44
-------
Fowling Gut System - Estuarine Portion
MIA
9.1 1 _» 9
49.1
49 2
ho AN HN 0N 1
5l! ' W g«
Detailed Data
52.1.1 Y *} A^A
52.1.2 THJ
52.2.1 Aft
5?. 2.? Tib
53.1 T lU
53.2 Y "f\
54.1 Y ifc
54.2 Y nn
55. V MA
55: HA
57.1 V
57.2 Y |
57.3 Y ^A
57. 4 Y N
M.I y k
58.2 Y N kjfv
58.3 Y H V1"
S8.4 Y M
Sl.l
Sf.2
M.S
M.I
10.2
tp.a
M.I Y I JQ
«.» T • NR
r 1 N klA
§3*1
M.t
«4.
«5. lf>«
M.I ;;* Y «
«« J ^Atn Y i
17.1 ./. Y •
87^ /Vn Y N
68.1 Y ./A
68.2 Y "n
Ocrlvad te eenscs
69.1 Y
6f.2 Y
70.1 V
70.2 Y
71.1 Y
71.2 Y
72.1 Y
72.2 Y
73.1 T
73.2 Y
74.1 Y
74.2 Y
75.1 Y
75.2 Y
IASI*
I tf 0
;K
T ^
\ ^
? M
1* Y •
/JA YI
MA T H
./. Y»
A/A YR
/* ;:
A//I ;:
— . — ,. _ Afie
have
JB).
(1«
r responses to all possible questions (porn A) '
been recorded above, turn to Tor* 8 (page
Tou «111( as an option) retuin to this sheet '
Section 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re-
soonscs.
45
-------
Fov/ling Gut Svstem - Estuarine Portion
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions In
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
Gener
Recharge
Discharge
S«c.
See
22. £J)Y
Shorel ine
Anchor i na
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Sediment
Tr aoDi 12
N
N
N Set
Nutrient
Retention
Fish Food Chain/
Habitat
Wildlife
Habitat
Active
Recreation
ST. Y
62.
63. YJ
64.
65. Y<
66. Y(
67. (5>
Passive
46
-------
Form "A" Comments (Fowling Gut System - Estuarine Portion)
WIA = area inside dashed line answers concerning
specific wetland characteristics refer to wetland
areas only within WIA (Figure 8)
Basin = WIA + Fowling Gut from origin to Mire Pond
(bordering the Mire Pond fill site and the Mire
Pond Scrub-Shrub System)
1.1 At least two confined channels deliver water from
4B to 4A during wet conditions
2.2.1 WIA constricted because most exchange with Fowling
Gut occurs through a narrow tidal channel
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = all areas that drain into Fowling
Gut from origin to Mire Pond
5.2 See site map (Figure 8) and definitions for this
site
9 Predictor not used
15 Forested ridges dominate sub-watershed
23 < 30 cm porous organic over sand
27.1-27.2' WIA and Basin are tidal and surrounded by uplands.
During flooding the aerial extent of water
coverage is only slightly expanded
39.5 Constriction by six or more small culverts between
WIA and Chincoteague Bay
39.6 Nonpoint discharge around Fowling Gut
47
-------
3.3.3 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Fowling Gut System
- Palustrine Portion
Summary Sheet D
This form is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the Interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2, and 2.2.2. As each analysis Is completed, enter Its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, 8, or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation.
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector is optional.
/"BASIN
EVALUATION TIME FRAME (PRE
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE'
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE*
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING*
SEDIMENTTRAPPING*
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-8ASIN"
FISHERY HABIT AT
WARMWATER14
COLDWATER"
COLDW.RIVERINE"
ANAOROMOUSRIV.
SPECIES"
WILDLIFE HABIT AT
GENERAL DIVERSITY"
WATERFOWL GP." 1
WATERFOWL GP." 2
spp-riPS" Black Duck
SPPCIP*;"
SPFCIFS"
ACTIVE RECREATION"
SWIMMING
BOAT LAUNCHING
POWER BOATING
CANOEING
SAILING
PASSIVE RECREATION
AND HERITAGE"
I IMPACT VECTOR RATING"
W
•/POSTI
EFFECTIVENESS'
high
moderate
hiqh
hiah
h-jnh
high
mo HP rate
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
summer
low
low
low
low
low
low
Inw
;IA
OPPORTUNITY'
moderate
high
low
high
high
high
winter
low
low
1 nw
p
.MITIGATION PLAN «
FUNCTIONAL RATING1
h i oh
moderate
high
'moderate
high
high
hiqh
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
low
low
1 nw
low
low
low
low
low
POJFCT
SIGNIFICANCE*
moderate
hiqh
high
high
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
hiah
A
FUNCTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE*
hiah
hiqh
very high
high
very high
high
hiqh
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
low
low
1 ow
low
low
low
low
low
hiah
FOOTNOTES
These entries will be based on analyses in the following parts of Volume II (numbers correspond to
footnotes above):
^Forms A, Al (p. 6, 51); 2p. 59; 7'p. 60; 8'p. 62; 9>p.
64; 10'p. 67; ll'p. 67; 12'p. 69; 13'p. 71; 14'p. 73; 15'p. 75; 16'p. 79; 17'p. 80; 18'p. 84;
19'p. 91; 2°'p. 92; 2l'p. 93.
48
-------
Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
This $ht«c 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to corresponding questions tn For*
A. A "y«" (y) «r "ne" (**) response must be
circled for «11 parts of each question, even when
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
h«s two major columns—'WIA' and 'BASIN*, ind
within each of these, three subcolumns entitled
"x", •«". and "0*. which address, when relevent, the
seasonal changes In some of the predictors, as
follows:
I column responses are those addressing
eitherfa) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June in most Prairie pothole wetlands),
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
Standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
W column responses are those addressing what
the area would look Tike (a) during the
wettest time of an average, year. or (b) if
tne area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition. '
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year {questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal, '0* refers
to its daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For examole, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the context of the WIA's (wetland
Impact ar«a's) average condition, then in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WIA or basin, but not both.
Q. •
WIA
H
BASIN
I U 0
Offlce-tyoe Data
49
-------
Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion
o^i.
uu
W
IASIN
i V 0
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
31
rr
I*
Li.
c
Vjannm t*^
6.1
H-
7.2
Y N
JL2_
9.1
iJ_
y*^
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.1
TT
Y N
T S
T K
T JL
^
11.1
IL2_
12.1
ILi
?!
1L
;:
20.
Data
22.2.1
50
-------
Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion
5T
-------
Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion
MSIM
see C
-See
52
-------
Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion
MIA
0. * 1 .« 0
49.1
49.2 A
50. CON «JH (TIN
51. Q/H ^
Detailed Data
i/
52.1.1 Y O Af/A
52.1.2 Y Ij ' ''
52.2.1 YOET
52.2.2 YfiD
53.1 T 1 4,11 A
53.2 Y N Win
54.1 T M k.l/1
54.2 YK Pfr>
55. V N AHA
56.
57.1 T N ..
57.2 T N J/A
57.3 Y N ^'"
S7.4 Y N
54. 1 V N iU
5S.2 YN U\n
58.3 Y N '
58.4 V N
51.1
59.2
5* 3
M.I
M.2
<0.3 .
id -V* JA
n t v N wl 0
«?. T « f/n
«3.1 J
Cl.t
M- j-t
«- W
66.1 Y n J A
6«.J Y 1 ~ n
•7.1 Y • J|A
87.? Y II H\n
«8.1 T « J/A
€8.2 Y N Nin
Derived Resoonses
69.1 Y N
69.2 Y *»
70.1 T N
70.2 Y N
71.1 Y *
71.? Y H
72.1 Y N
72.2 Y M
73.1 t 91
73.2 Y 1
74.1 Y H
74.2 Y «
7S.I Y «
75.2 Y N
IAS1H
i tf o
;s
i//
ww m
i «*
! *V
* !!
AT/A T •
v|« ;:
MM ; :
iJiA ;:
After r
«!>«• h
38). T
(In ?t
sponses
••sponses to all possible quest
ten recorded above, turn to
ou «O1( as an option) retuin
ctlon 2.1.2) to Interpret tl
•
,1ons (Form A)
Tor* B (page
to this sheet
fie above re-
53
-------
Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions in
Form B. Circle V (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
r ever ses .
Nutrient
27. ©N
28. Y(fS>
29. (9*
Sedinent
Tr aooinn
Retention
Fish Food Chain/
Habitat
54
-------
Form "A" Comments (Fowling Gut System - Palustrine Portion)
WIA = Area inside dash line (Figure 8)
Basin = WIA + Fowling Gut from origin to Mire Pond
bordering the Mire Pond fill site and the Mire
Pond scrub-shrub system
5.2 See site map (Figure 8) and definitions for this
site
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed - Same as estuarine portion except
includes developed areas surrounding WIA to east
9 Predictor not used
23 < 15 cm porous organic over sand
39.5 Constriction by six or more small culverts between
WIA and Chincoteague Bay
39.6 Nonpoint discharge around Fowling Gut
Form "B" Comments (Fowling Gut System - Estuarine and Palustrine
portions and Mixed Hardwoods Swamp)
21 Site E flooded daily, not as valuable for flood
storage and desynchronization
17 Ditches from roads and yards drain into site P
17 Ditches from roads and yards drain into mixed
hardwoods swamp, Chincoteague Ridge/Swales also
26 For Mixed Hardwoods Swamp Basin = WIA, sediment
trapping of little value
55
-------
3.4 MIXED HARDWOODS SWAMP
3.4.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. This site (Figure 9) encompasses 6 ha
and is very different from the other sites which we have surveyed
during the project. It is surrounded on all four sides by
intensive suburban development on filled land. It consists of
several shallow basins separated by four low-lying ridges. The
basins apparently were once swales that drained into Assateague
Channel during wet periods. Vegetation on this site is almost
exclusively trees with only a small area of emergent wetlands.
Although encroachment has occurred from all sides, the site is
still largely natural in character. At the center of the site a
house encroaches on the area from the south and trailers encroach
from the north so that the center is very constricted.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site as outlined by
the EPA. The site receives water from adjacent roads, ditches,
and backyards and drains internally into the underlying water
table aquifer. In this case the basin equals the WIA. The sub-
watershed for the site consists of slightly elevated ridges which
lie between the lower-lying swamps and a fringe of surrounding
developed land.
Qualitative vegetation description. Most of the wetland
areas which lie in this site are dominated by obligate or
facultative wet tree species. Dominant trees are red maple (Acer
rubrum) and sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) while other
.1
Figure 9. Map of Mixed Hardwoods Swamp WIA showing
wetland (w) and upland (u) areas.
56
-------
species such as slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). black gum (Nyssa
sylvatica) . and water oak (Quercus nigra) are present. The
slightly elevated ridges are dominated by loblolly pine (Pjnus
taeda). patches of oaks (Querus spp.), some pines (Pinus spp.),
dogwood (Cornus spp.)f and sassafras (Sassafras albidum). There
is a small emergent marsh in the southeast corner of the site
which is dominated by Hibiscus. Polygonum, and willows (Salix
spp.). In summary, this site is a swamp with lower lying areas
dominated by red maples and sweet gum and higher areas by oak and
pine.
Wetland classification. Most of the wetlands at this site
are palustrine forested. The small area of emergent wetland in
the southeast corner of the site is palustrine emergent.
Substrate, water salinity. The substrates on the site are
sandy or sandy loam soils overlain by approximately 10-15 cm of
organic mater.ial. Water levels in the swamp areas fluctuate
seasonally from a standing depth of 20 cm to virtually dry during
drought periods. Salinities are well below 1 ppt (freshwater).
Wildlife use. This small site appears to be heavily used by
passerine birds. Night-herons were observed roosting in the
emergent wetland areas in the southeast corner of the site. There
is also evidence of use of the site by raccoons and other small
mammals. There is no fishery utilization of this site.
Hydrologic functions. Water appears to drain vertically
into the soils underlying the site. There is no inlet or outlet
to the site. As a result the site has a high potential for
ground-water recharge, flood water storage, and nutrient
retention, but little potential for ground-water discharge (no
outlet).
Special note. This is an unusual site on Chincoteague
because of its red maple/sweet gum swamp character. While there
are other swamp areas on Chincoteague, this is one of the best
examples of this wetland type. In addition to aesthetic
qualities, this site provides an unusual habitat and food chain
support function of a type which is relatively rare on both
Chincoteague and Assateague Islands.
57
-------
3.4.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Mixed Hardwoods Swamp
Summary Sheet D
This form Is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.2.2. As each analysis is completed, enter its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, 3. or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation,
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered, footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector Is optional.
/"BASIN WIA PHOjprr "\
FVAHIATinNTIMFFPAUF(PPF/pn
-------
'lixed Hardwoods
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUKTIONAL OrPORTUHtTY AND
ThU Sheet 1« tht appropriate place for recording
the responses CO corresponding questions In Form
A. A *yes" (Y). or "no" (N) response wst b«
circled for all parts of each question, even when
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major columns--'VIA- and "BASIH'. and
within each of these. thre« subcolurm entitled
•»-. *V. and "0", which address, when relevent, the;
seasonal changes In some of the predictors, as
follows:
I column responses art those addressing
either (a) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June In most Prairie pothole wetlands).
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
U column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average* year, or (b) if
the area is tidal, what U would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition. "
D column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or If the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal, '0" refers
to its daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first he asked
and answered in the context of the WIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, tfcen in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given fn either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for th« Y1A or basin, but not both.
q. •
UIA
V
BASIN
tw
Offlce-tyoe Oata
59
-------
Mixed Hardwoods Swamp
0. •
MIX
W
BASIN
w o
J.I
3.*
4.1
«i.
Sa.
S.I
T
l
7.2
,5ee (Lcrrnr vtn4 -f*
•.1
8.2
9.1
Cay,
T
10.1
10.2
10.3
10. «
T «
T !l
T K
TIL
A/*
/*"
13.1
Hi
i-evrr
_M£_
20.
21.1
21.6
Ft«1d-tjroe Data
-V
60
-------
nixed Hardwoods Swamp
22.2.2 T
22.2.3 T
22.2.4 T
T
61
-------
Mixed Hardwoods Swamp
Q. I
37.1
17 *
*«./.
itn
A/4
40.
41.1
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
41.4
44.1
44.2
62
-------
Mixed Hardwoods Swamp
VIA
9. I 1 V 0
49.1
49.2 _ A
50. *M) ton TIM
si! fff *r
Detailed Data
52.1.1 T 1*1 »IA
52.1.2 Y 1* N*
S2.2.1 Y®
52.2.? TOJ
53.1 Y 1 A/*
53.? Y K ~n
54.1 T N jJA
54.2 YJL ffn
55. YtSi
56.
57.1 N .
S7.2 N A/A
57.3 N nn
57.4 N
M.I N .
58.2 N A/A
58.3 N »Vf*
58.4 N
59.1
SI.2
W.3
M.I
W.2
(0.3
llll V il .7*
81.? Yd Nn
8T N MA
.1
«3.t
H^ i^h.
««. fj^
66.1 "-^ T * .I*
««.2 T 1 /VA
•7.1 » • • A/A
«7.? T M Nn
68.1 T « 4JA
«8.2 T N /Vn
Derived ftesoonses
69.1 T N
69.2 Y 1
70.1 T N
70.2 T N
71.1 T *
71.2 Y 1
72.1 t N
72.2 T N
73.1 T 91
73.2 T 1
74.1 T *
74.2 Y «
75.1 T *
75.2 Y N
IASIN
1 tf 0
Nfe
AM T ^
i » i
:: A/A
;: //«"
A//> ;:
A/A T H
V M
T •
r R
T •
Y N
Y II
After respo
38). You v
soonses.
nses to aU possible questions (Form A)
recorded above, turn to For* 8 (page
111 ( as an option) retutn to this sheet
i 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re-
63
-------
Mixed Hardwoods Swanp
Response Sheet B1
THRE910LO ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions In
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
General
Recharc
Nutrient
Retention
fish Food Chain/
Habitat
Wildlife
Flood
Storane
Shorel ine
Anchorinc
Active
Recreation
67.
Passive,
~
64
-------
Form "A" Comments (Mixed Hardwoods Swamp)
WIA = Area inside dashed line (Figure 9)
Basin = WIA
1.1-1.3.1 Swamp is considered to be remnant of old swale
systems blocked from original connections by road
development. The swamp therefore has no inlet or
outlet
5.2 See site map (Figure 9) and definitions for this
site
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = pine/oak ridges within WIA +
narrow band of developed yards, roads, ditches
surrounding this site
9 Predictor not used
15 Developed area dominates sub-watershed
23 < 10 cm porous organic over sand
39.6 Road ditches appear to drain into WIA
65
-------
3.5 MIRE POND FILL STUDY SITE
3.5.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. Most of this site (Figure 10) is
composed of historically altered upland areas (nonwetlands)
dominated by pines and shrubs. The total area of the site is
about 7 ha. The only wetlands associated with this site are a
fringe along Mire Pond and two small areas of isolated wetlands
near State Route 2126. About one-third of the site has been
recently altered through clearing of the understory and filling
of wetland fringe up to Mire Pond. This part of the site lies at
the southwestern edge adjacent to Mire Pond Scrub/Shrub System
Study Site.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site
the EPA and as described in the section above.
as outlined by
The basin for
.1
.2
Km
Figure 10. Map of Mire Pond Fill Site WIA showing wetland (w) and
upland (u) areas. Major outlet is indicated by arrow that depicts
the direction of water movement from the site.
66
-------
this site includes Mire Pond and Fowling Gut up to the point
where it empties into Chincoteague Bay. The sub-watershed for
the site consists of the upland pine, emergent fringe marsh,and
shrub-dominated areas which immediately surround Mire Pond and
Fowling Gut to the exit into Chincoteague Bay.
Qualitative vegetation description. The wetland areas which
lie along Mire Pond are dominated by Spartina patens. Distichlis
spicata, and some S. alterniflora. The higher parts of this
wetland consist of a shrub zone consisting of Myrica. Iva, and
some Baccharis. Sections of the wetland lying nearest the study
site which have been altered by limited filling are dominated by
PhragmJ.tes. The upland areas are dominated by pine, small oaks,
shrubs such as Myrica and sumac (Rhus sp.), and a variety of less
common shrubs.
Wetland classification. The wetlands adjacent to Mire Pond
are estuarine emergent and estuarine scrub/shrub, while the two
isolated interior wetlands are palustrine scrub/shrub.
Wildlife use. The upland areas appear to be used by
passerine birds and a variety of small mammals. The estuarine
wetlands and Mire Pond are used seasonally by waterfowl and
shorebirds. Mire Pond is probably an important nursery area for
fishes because of its connection to the estuary through Fowling
Gut. The small palustrine wetlands are probably utilized by
small mammals and passerine birds (we made no direct observations
in these areas).
Hydrologic functions. During wet periods this site drains
from the upland areas down into Mire Pond and through Fowling Gut
to Chincoteague Bay. This drainage is in the form of sheet flow
and is probably very limited. During dry periods the wetland
fringe exchanges limited quantities of water with Mire Pond by
tidal action. On the uplands most drainage occurs below the
surface and vertically within the site. For these reasons, the
site probably has moderate potential for ground-water recharge
and nutrient retention, but relatively moderate to low value for
flood storage.
Substrate, water salinity. Soils in the upland areas are
largely sandy and sandy loams. Soils underlying the wetlands and
Mire Pond are sand with a thin layer of surface organic matter.
Salinities in Mire Pond probably range seasonally from 10 to 25
PPt.
67
-------
3.5.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Mire Pond Fill Site
Summary Sheet D
This form is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2, and 2.2.2. As each analysis is completed, enter its
rating (high.moderate, or low; or A, 8, or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation.
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector is optional.
/'BASIN
EVALUATION TIME FRAME (PRE
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE*
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE"
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING*
SEDIMENTTRAPPING*
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-BASIN"
FISHERY HABITAT
WARMWATER"
COLDWATEH"
COLDW.RIVERINE"
ANADROMCUJSRW.-L, uH
«— 7l Hin'n^
WILDLIFE HABIT AT
GENERAL DIVERSITY1*
WATERFOWL GP." I
WATERFOWL GP." 2
sppriFs* Black Duck
p. 64; 10-p. 67;
U.
21.
p. 67;
p. 93.
:._ in. 13. 71 . 14. 7-,.
p. 69; p. fl, p. /J ,
75;
). 79;
3. 80; l°'p. 84;
. 91; 2°'p.
92;
* Blue Fish, Hard Clam, Winter Flounder
68
-------
Mire Pond Fill Site
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
This Ihftt 1s th« appropHatt plact for rtcordln?
tht rtsponsts to corrtspondlni questions In For*
A. A •yts' (Y). or 'no' («) rtsponst wit bt
drdtd for all parts of each question. tvtn whtn
tht responst sttm obvious. This response shett
has two Major colons—Til A" and 'BMIir. and
within tacit of thtst. thrtt wbcoluwn tntUltd
•f. *W. and TT. which addrtss. whtn rtltvtnt, the
setsonal changes 1n some of tht predictors. as
follows:
» column responses are those addressing
either(a) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June in most Prairie pothole wetlands).
Or (c) the condition of maximum annual
Standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
H column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average year, or (b) if
the area Is tidal, what U would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition. "
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest tine of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, therr during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal. "0" refers
to its daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the context of the WIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WJA or basin, but not both.
r
Q. •
WIA
H
BASIN
I W 0
Offlce-tyoe Data
69
-------
".ire Pond Fill Site
0. •
UIX
U
•AS1N
i v e
Corn/we A 't -fon^v.
ITT
»
ii
*.»
6.1
H-
y.g
Y K
t.l
8.2
C rryvrvifcTVr T >f"
9.1
9.2
Y H
Y N
A
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.1
11.1
11.2
Y *
T N
Y K
T N
,/
A/
ly
AN
12.1
12.2
Y N
Y •<
13.1
12*2.
16.
IPg"
17.1
17.2
1ft*.
u*.
20.
YCT
21.1
21
21
21
21
21.6
-r*>
fi«ld-tyt>e Data
22.1
22.1.1
22.1.2
22.1.3
22.1.4
22.1.5
70
-------
Mire Pond Fill Site
71
-------
Mire Pond Fill Site
0. I
MA
V
IASIN
i ¥ 0
35.1 (J>N
35.2.1
35.2.2
(YJN
fjQY iff\tsn
4L_&
Se*
q>n €jn
12
-------
Mire Pond Fill Site
MIA
o. * i v o
49.1
49 2
SO. ON (UN l3N
51. ^N
Detailed Data
52.1.1 Y ri^/fl
52.1.2 IHJ^'"
52.2.1 (S>Jt
52.2.? Y©
53.1 t •« J/A
53.2 Y H W"
54.1 Y N JJA
54.2 Y IL pln
55. Y®
56. _
57.1 (MM
57.2 Y(ft
57 .3 Yn^-M£
3««. Crr*s»
id, C
^CC
ste. c*
Set. Co-
5«< c.
s<-<- c
ervt forrrv
X.e
Or»nrn-cwr
v\mnirr»e*a- /•*"'
wtrvicvjr •jtb-T*
O*vnrvic^jr ^o»
responses to all possible quesi
ten recorded above, turn to
fou «111( as an option) return
Ctlon 2.1.2) to Interpret t
• »v%
^OVtrv\
^\
V
•X
0>
F^Aftc IVftr^t t\
Form 8 (page
fn thic «h*«r
he above re-
73
-------
"lire Pond Fill Site
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions In
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
General
Nutrient
74
-------
Form "A" Comments (Mire Pond Fill Site)
2.2 Basin's outlet is constricted where the Fowling
Gut Pond enters the dredged portion of Fowling Gut
(and overly restricted culvert at county road 2112
and 2114)
3.1-3.2 Sinuous because "basin" includes all of Fowling
Gut below Mire Pond
5.2 See site map (Figure 10) and definitions for this
site
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = upland surrounding Mire Pond and
Fowling Gut to Chincoteague Bay
9 Predictor not used
21 Refers strictly to the wetlands in WIA (see
Methods section)
23.1-23.9 Sediments are sand with shallow layer of porous
organic
24 This is an estimate because we lack salinity
measurements during droughts
36 No measurements; we have estimated
38 Culvert at county road 2112 and 2114 causes flow
blockage at outlet
39.5 Culverts at roads 2112 and 2114 probably restrict
access by estuarine fish to some extent
39.6 Significant contribution of freshwater comes from
storm water runoff from developed areas (through
Fowling Gut) to our basin
52.1 No measurements
52.2 Refers to only wetland areas; Spartina present
56 No data
58 No data 61 No data
59 No data 64 Estimate. No data
60 No data 66 Tidal
75
-------
67 No data
68 No data
Form "B" Comments (Mire Pond Fill Site, Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub-
Estuarine Portion and Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub-Palustrine Portion)
1 See comments for Chincoteague Ridge/Swale and High
School East Sites (there probably will be
development in upland areas of the site)
2 See comments for Ridge/Swales and High School East
sites.
9 Palustrine portion of Mire Pond Scrub/Shrub site
is viewed as a significant recharge area
12 Groundwater discharge from Mire Pond fill and Mire
Pond Scrub-Shrub sites probably influences
salinity in Fowling Gut and therefore affects
sport and commercial fishes in Fowling Gut
13 Discharge from Mire Pond fill and Mire Pond Scrub-
Shrub sites probably dilutes septic tank outflow
19 Flooding enhances access by fishes and waterfowl
44 Mire Pond fill and estuarine portion of Mire Pond
Scrub-Shrub sites contain brackish marshes with
estuarine connection--a prime nursery area
45 Mire Pond fill and estuarine portion of Mire Pond
Scrub-Shrub have anadromous fish—coastal mid-
Atlantic
67 Mire Pond fill and estuarine portion of Mire Pond
Scrub-Shrub have impacts upon Fowling Gut which
affect active recreation, i.e., fishing, crabbing
21 Estuarine Portion of Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub site
flooded daily, not as valuable for flood storage
and desynchronization
71 In palustrine portion of Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub
sites freshwater swale wetlands considered
relatively rare and of scientific value
76
-------
3.6 MIRE POND SCRUB/SHRUB SYSTEM STUDY SITE
3.6.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. The site (Figure 11) covers 5 ha and
is complex because it consists of a number of different types of
wetlands and some upland areas. For this reason we have chosen
to divide the site into two sections (estuarine and palustrine).
The estuarine portion consists primarily of the estuarine
T. /
Chlncoteague
Channel
Figure 11. Map of Mire Pond Scrub/Shrub System WIA
showing wetland (w) and upland (u) areas. Major
outlet is indicated by arrow that depicts the direction
of water movement from the site. Estuarine and
palustrine portions of the WIA are separated by
dotted line.
77
-------
wetlands lying along Mire Pond. The palustrine portion consists
of extensive, but scattered freshwater emergent wetlands and
associated scrub/shrub wetlands. The two sections of this site
have been divided along the line of the pine ridge which runs
from the northeast to the southwest down the center of the site.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site as outlined by
EPA. The basin for the estuarine site includes Mire Pond and
Fowling Gut to Chincoteague Bay. At the palustrine site the
basin equals the wetlands because they drain internally under all
conditions but the most extreme storms. The sub-watershed for
both sites consists of the upland pine-dominated ridges within
each area and for the estuarine site, a fringe of developed land
surrounding Fowling Gut.
Qualitative vegetation description. Vegetation on these two
sites is structurally complex. The upland areas are dominated by
pine forest, small oaks, and shrubs such as Myrica. The
estuarine wetlands are dominated by Spartina patens, Distichlis^
Hibiscus. a small amount of S. alterniflora, and some
Kosteletzkya virginica. The palustrine, emergent wetlands are
dominated by Hibiscus. Rosa. Rumex, Scirpus spp., Polygonum,
Typha, and Kosteletzkya. The palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands are
dominated by willows, Sumac. Myrica, and Phragmites (adjacent to
settled areas to the west).
Wetlands classification. The wetlands associated with the
estuarine site are estuarin-e emergent wetlands with scattered
areas of estuarine scrub/shrub. The palustrine site has both
palustrine emergent and palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands.
Substrate, water salinity. Substrates in all of these areas
are primarily sand overlain by a thin layer of organic material.
As at other sites on Chincoteague, the ridges have more sandy
loam. Salinities in the palustrine wetlands are generally less
than 1 or 2 ppt, but salinities in Mire Pond range between 10 and
25 ppt seasonally.
Wildlife use. The estuarine wetland areas are utilized by
the same variety of waterfowl, shorebirds, and fishes as at the
estuarine portion of the adjacent Mire Pond fill site. The
palustrine emergent wetlands appear to be used by waterfowl
seasonally. The upland areas and palustrine scrub/shrub wetlands
are used by a variety of small mammals and passerine birds. The
estuarine system consisting of Mire Pond and adjacent wetlands
clearly serves as an important nursery area for fishery
organisms.
Hydrologic functions. Drainage from the estuarine portion
of the site occurs by limited tidal exchange with Mire Pond
during dry and average rainfall periods. During wet periods
drainage occurs by sheet flow into the pond and through Fowling
78
-------
Gut toward Chincoteague Bay. During extreme events some surface
exchange of water probably occurs with the palustrine site.
Otherwise drainage from the palustrine site is solely internal,
either flowing vertically into the subsurface sand or collecting
in the two or three lower-lying palustrine emergent wetlands
which lie in the center of the site.
Because of these drainage characteristics, both portions of
the site should have high potential for flood storage and
nutrient retention. The palustrine portion because of its lack
of an outlet should have a high ground-water recharge potential
while that of the estuarine portion of the site is probably low
to moderate.
79
-------
3.6.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub
System - Estuarine Portion
Summary Sheet D
This form is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result fro* use of the interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.2.2. As each analysis is completed, enter its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, B, or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
Interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation,
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector is optional.
, WIA
PROJECT.
EVALUATION TIME FRAME (PBE
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE1
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE'
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING"
SEDIMENTTRAPPING*
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-BAS1N11
FISHERY HABITAT
WARMWATER"
COLDWATER"
COLDW.RIVERINE"
SPECIES" -ci' ij-jp'pl'*
WILDLIFE HABITA'T
GEN ERAL D 1 VERSJTY"
WATERFOWL GP." 1
WATERFOWL GP." 2
sppriFd" Black Duck
2l-p. 93.
* Slue Fish, Hard Clam, Winter Flounder
80
. 62; 9'p.
64; lo-p. 67;
p. 60;
80; 18'p. 84; 19-p. 91; 2Q'p. 92;
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub System - Estuarine Portion
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to corresponding questions In Font
A. A 'yes* (Y). or *no* (N) response «J$t be
circled for all parts of each question, even when
the response seem obvious. This response sheet
has two major columns--"WtA- and 'BASIN", and
within each of these, three subcolumn; entitled
•I". "«". ind *0'. which address, when relevent, the
seasonal changes In some of the predictors, as
follows:
I column responses are those addressing
either (a) the average annual condition, or
(to) the condition intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub Svstem - Estuarine Portion
Q. •
WIA
W 0
BASIN
i V
13.1
Hi.
Y N
Y N
16.
17.1
17.2
18.
19.
20.
21
21
21
2i
21.6
See C-w^rvie^vf- -{*
F1«1d-tyt>e Data
22.1
22.1,
22.1,
22.1
22.1.
22.1.
22.2 Y
22.2.1 Y
22.2.2 Y
82
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-shrub System -- Estuarine Portion
22.3
22.3.1
22.3.2
22.3.3
22.3.4
83
-------
Pond Scrub-Shrub System - Estuarine Portion
0. f
VIA
w
IASIN
f If
33.3
33.4
33.5
33.6
33.7
33.8
T/fi
Y
34.1
34.2
34.3
34.4
34.5
34.6
34.7
34.8
35.1
35.2.1
35.2.2
35.?. 3
(QN
See
**\
,/»»
38.1
38.2
Y N Y II
QJH
Ste
.5**-
se t
42±,
Y N Y R
41.1
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
41.4
43.
44.1
44.2
"»H Ti"
45.1
45.2
49.1
49.2
50.
OJN /H
84
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub System - Estuarine ^ortion
NU
0. * 1 V 0
51. Qj« ' '
Detailed Data
52.1.1 Y M A/A
52.1.2 Y N MA
52.2.1 *U*j
""***
re^*4y
°urdme<«ofll
-bmewvks
U.T tnw\**TX
uif ur e,»»i **«t3
'uirtvnwvS
r<.rn«n'1N5
**c™~±S
S*r*^e^j
«*«'tim»w«l'^'
onset to all possible questions (Form A)
recorded above, turn to Form 8 (page
«tll( as an option) return to this sheet
in 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re-
85
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub Svstem — Estuarins °ortion
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet Is the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions in
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
General
Shore! ine
Anchorinq
Nutr ient
61. Y<5
62. N
63. Y©
64. (9N
65. YfD
66. Y©
67. (3>Y
Passive _
Pov,Jl
F;/
86
-------
Form "A" Comments (Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub - Estuarine Portion)
2.2 Basin's outlet is constricted where Mire Pond
joins the dredged portion of Fowling Gut (and
overly restricted culvert at county roads 2112 and
2114) Refers only to wetland area; Spartina present
3.1-3.2 Sinuous because "basin" includes all of Fowling
Gut
5.2 See site map (Figure 11) and definitions for this
site
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = upland adjacent to and surrounding
Mire Pond and Fowling Gut to Chincoteague Bay
9 Predictor not used
21 Refers strictly to the wetlands in WIA (see
Methods section)
23.1-23.9 Sediments are sand with shallow layer of porous
organic
24 This is an estimate because we lack salinity
measurements during droughts
36 No measurements; we have estimated
38 Culvert at county road 2112 and 2114 causes flow
blockage at outlet
39.5 Culverts at roads 2112 and 2114 probably restrict
access by estuarine fish to some extent
39.6 Significant contribution of freshwater comes from
storm water runoff from developed areas (through
Fowling Gut) to this basin
52.1 No data
53,54 No data 61 No data
56 No data 64 Guess
58 No data 66 Tidal
59 No data 67 No data
60 No data 68 No data
87
-------
3.6.3 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub
System - Palustrlne Portion
Summary Sheet 0
This form is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.2.2. As each analysis is completed, enter its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, B, or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation.
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating i^
higher—That for the basin or that for the UIA. The evaluation of the impact vector is optional.
/'BASIN WIA PBOJcrrr "S
EVALUATION TIMP FBAUF (PBP/POSH .
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE1
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE'
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING*
SEDIMENTTRAPPING'
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-BASIN"
FISHERY HABIT AT
WARMWATER"
COLOWATER"
COLDW.RIVEHINE"
ANAOROMOUSRIV.
SPECIES"
WILDLIFE HABITAT
GENERAL DIVERSITY"
WATERFOWL GP." 1
WATERFOWL GP." ?
sppciFS" fjlark Ourk
sppr.iPR"
SPECIES'"
ACTIVE RECREATION-
SWIMMING
BOAT LAUNCHING
POWER BOATING
CANOEING
SAILING
EFFECTIVENESS-
high
low
hi ah
hi qh
hi qh
high
high
moderate
moderate
urriBATinniPi »»f •
OPPORTUNITY-
moderate
..::-• ., . • :
high
Inw
mnripratp
high
high
low
summer winter
low*
1 ow 1 ow
low low
1 ow 1 ow
low
low
low
low
"7 nw
P ASSIV E RECREATION tWox*:-: :- -•-.:,: ..:> V. . , >.:.-.. :v:'.- V.,. ': "• \ '.: . .;s '•
AND HERITAGE" f;::.i-:--;::M.::-:v:-..--:.:V.;::'-'--.;:;::''::;-¥ ••••:••.'• V : :'.*::--
FUNCTIONAL RATING'
hi oh
low
hiah
ftinrlpratp
hiqh
high
high
moderate
moderate
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
T nw
SIGNIFICANCE*
moderate
low
hiah
mnrlpr*afp
hi nh
high
low
moderate
moderate
moderate
?; ;1': *£* S ;r: ' :'.::•;;.; ;i;: J mo de r a te
FUNCTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE*
high
low
verv high
mnrfpratp
vpry hiqh
very high
vpry high
moderate
moderate
low
,low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
low
moderate
IMPACT VECTOR RATING" )
FOOTNOTES
These entries will 6e based on analyses in the following parts of Volume II (numbers correspond to
footnotes above):
KForms A, Al (p. 6. 51); Z'Section 2.1.2.2. (p. 97); 3'Forms B, 81 (p. 38, 54); ^'Section 2.1.2.?.
(p. 97); ^interpretation key in Section 2.1.2.1. p. 57; 6'p. 59; 7'p. 60; 8'p. 62; 9'p. 64; 10-p. 67;
ll'p. 67; I2'p. 69; 13'p. 71; 14'p. 73; 15'p. 75; 16'p. 79; 17'p. 80; 18'p. 84; I9'p. 91; 2°'p. 92;
2"up. 93. *Low sediment no open water
88
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrlib Svstem - Palustrine Portion
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
This sheet 1$ tht appropriate place for recording
the responses to corresponding questions 1n For*
A. A 'yes' (Y). or "no* (N) response wst b«
circled for ill parts of each question. «ven when
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major columni---VIA- «nd "BASIH*. md
within CKh of these, three subcolumns entitled
•»". "V". and *0". which address, when re I event. th«
se-ssonal changes In some of the predictors, «
follows:
1 column responses are those addressing
either (a) the average annual condition, or
{b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June in most Prairie pothole wetlands),
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
Standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) if
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
W column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average year, or (b) if
tne area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition.
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest ti«ie of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tidal. '0" refers
to its daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the context of the WIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
"2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WtA or basin, but not both.
Q.
VIA
W
BASIN
I W
Offlce-tyoe Data
89
-------
M.ire Pond Scrub-Shrub Svstem - Palustrine Portion
0. « I
2.1.1 QJ'
2.1.2 YjQ
2.2.1 <
2.2.2
UlA
IASIH
i v
Y<
OH
-p
J.I
3.2
47T
«.*.
5.1
5.7
Jet
liw
6.1
6.2
i
7.2
Y N
TN
see
6.1
8.2
9.1
9.2
V II
r N
5e<
10.1
10.2
T a
t II
r,5
15:1
-SR' A/A
12.1
1U-
Y H
Y N
13.1
Iii_
;:
M
I*
16.
3121
17.1
17.2
Jfii.
11,
Y N
20.
ii
21
21
21
21
21.6
Field-tree Data
22.2.1
4-
•f-ft
90
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub System - Palustrine Portion
'
91
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub Svstem - Palustrine Portion
rffi>
38.1
38.2
T N
TCI/
See
40,
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
41.4
ra
T
N
T M
N
Y H
92
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub Evstem • Palustrine Portion
MIA
0.* I « 0
49.1
49 2
so. iiiA tdu nib
51. Y« ^
Detailed Data
52.1.1 Y •» A/fl
52.1.2 Y IL A/A
52.2.1 YftJ
52.2.2 Yip
53.1 Y> klrt
53.? Y N •"
54.1 Y K .1*
54.2 YJL |Vn
55. Y|S) ,
56. ATA
57.1 Y N
57.2 Y N JK
57.3 Y N fin
57.4 Y N
M.I r N ,
58.2 Y N J*
SB. 3 V N IVH
58.4 V N
55.1
£5 A/A
w.i ..
60.2 A/A
60.3 ~"
rfti » « 77 A
U.* t N /vn
62. V « AIA
M.I
83.2
«4. —
«5. /Y*
66.1 ^^ Y n .JQ
66.? Y i Arn
67.1 Y K 4/A
87.2 Y H "H
68.1 Y « *//»
68.2 Y N /*H
Derived Kesoonses
69.1 Y N
69.2 Y 1
70.1 . V X
70.2 Y N
71.1 Y *
71.? Y *
72.1 Y N
72.2 Y N
73.1 T *
73.2 Y •«
74.1 T N
74.2 Y N
75.1 Y H
75.2 Y N
IAS1N
i M 0
¥&
Y H
!
T
T
Y «
T
T
V/l ?!
HA I •
A/A ;:
^A ;:
VA ;:
»ft.r
have
38).
(1n S
#0 Open
HO WCA.
SCt Co
A/o rvie
AJo irv\ t
/Uo nie«
A/o A
A/o m
Vo n-
yo m<
A/o
/I/O
w*vkv-
UtCwntn-l-S
mrnerff
Is5«.r?m«*-
«Aii.v- t,nr\C
Su.r«iooev\
1 «a5U<0^«*^"
CiJtA^emcyxT
*OM.«-«/»m««Jl
CJoK-Cm**/^
o^^/-
oMt
4-e v rv»
k
v-^
fi
i
j
K
i
.
responses to ill possible questions (Form A)
been recorded above, turn to Form 8 (page
You *111( as an option) retuin to this sheet
ectlon 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re-
s.
93
-------
Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub System - Palustrine Portion
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions in
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
General
Nutr ient
36.
94
-------
Form "A" Comments (Mire Pond Scrub-Shrub: Palustrine)
1 We are assuming that there is no inlet or outlet
due to isolation by road without culvert (drainage
was formerly to the south)
2.2 Basin = WIA
5.2 See site map (Figure 11) and definitions for this
site
6.1-6.2 Wetland area includes scrub/shrub area west of
basin
7 Predictor not used
8 Sub-watershed = narrow fringe of upland
surrounding WIA
9 Predictor not used
21 Refers strictly to the wetlands in WIA
22 Scrub/shrub area (west of ponds) exceeds (but only
slightly) the emergent wetland areas within the
ponds
23.1-23.9 Sediments are sand with shallow layer of porous
organic
26 May be a small area near road (dike) which is
permanently flooded. Also may be scrub/shrub
areas which are temporarily flooded
36 Although we have no estimates, the amount of
accumulated organic matter suggests that the D.O.
levels are probably low in the summer
39.4 Road/dike construction has impounded wetlands at
this site
44 There is no wetland-water edge
51 No open water
52.1 No measurements
52 Refers only to wetland area
53 No measurements
54 No measurements
95
-------
58 No measurements
59 No measurements
60 No measurements
61 No measurements
64 Guess
66 No measurements available
67 No outlet
68 No outlet
96
-------
3.7 OCEAN BREEZES SOUTH STUDY SITE
3.7.1 Qualitative Site Description
Physical description. This site (Figure 12) covers
approximately 17 ha and lies at the southwest corner of
Chincoteague Island, just southwest of a recently constructed
trailer court.
The southeast corner of Chincoteague was formerly a large
estuarine marsh (as shown in a 1943 U.S.G.S. topograph map). The
Ocean Breezes South Study Site has been extensively altered in
the last few years in an attempt to develop the site for
commercial purposes. Much of the former estuarine marsh land has
been filled and bulldozed. A dead-end canal resulted from fill
placed during the early years of disturbance. This triangular
site is currently bounded on two sides by roads and on the third
side by the trailer court, so there is very little way for tidal
salt water to flow into and out of the site. The only tidal
outlets are (1) a small tidal creek which flows under the road
almost due south into the nearby Andrews Landing Gut and (2) a
culvert connecting Chincoteague Channel to Fowling Gut at the
northwest end of the study area. The first creek is blocked by a
CHINCOTEAGLT CHANNEL
N
Figure 12. Map of Ocean Breezes South (right) and Chincoteague
Channel Marsh (left) WIA's showing wetland (w) and
undifferentiated (ud) areas. Channels (c) are shown and
major outlets are indicated by arrows that depict the
direction of water movement from the sites.
97
-------
"flap gate" which allows water to drain the site freely but
impedes flow into the site. This one-way "flap gate" is highly
detrimental in that it impedes tidal flow and access by fishes to
the wetland portion of the site while allowing outgoing tidal
waters to drain out.
Definitions. The WIA consists of the site as outlined by
the EPA. The basin for the site includes marsh and tidal creeks
which flow southward into Andrews Landing Gut and northwestward
into Chincoteague Channel. The sub-watershed consists of the
higher, artificially filled areas within the site and several
low-lying pine ridges that have persisted since disturbance.
Qualitative vegetation description. The remaining areas of
estuarine wetlands within the interior of the site are covered
with a combination of Spartina patens. S. alterni flora.
Distichlis. and a few other salt marsh plants. The filled and
altered upland areas are bare in some areas and have a thin cover
of shrubs such as Myrica, Ivaf and Baccharis. A few small pines
are also scattered over this area.
Wetland classification. The wetlands at this site are
largely estuarine emergent wetlands.
Substrate, water salinity. The substrate of this site is
almost entirely sand. Under the remaining estuarine wetlands
there is a layer of organic material (5-50 cm) overlying the
sand. The water entering and leaving the site through the two
remaining tidal outlets is typical estuarine water with a
salinity of 15-30 ppt. There are a few cut-off, temporary pools
of water which fluctuate according to rainfall conditions.
Wildlife use. The areas which remain as estuarine marsh
continue to serve a nursery function for fishes and estuarine
invertebrates. These wetlands are also utilized by waterfowl and
shorebirds. (The filled areas have passerine birds and occasional
shorebirds. Evidence of small mammals (e.g. raccoons) can be
found throughout the site.
Hydrologic functions. Water drains from the site through
two outlets -- one to Fowling Gut to the northwest and one to
Andrews Landing Gut to the south. The latter is severely
impaired by the aforementioned "flap gate" which if removed would
allow normal tidal flow to the estuarine wetlands within the
site. Much of the precipitation which falls upon the site
probably infiltrates through the sand fill into the surface
brackish aquifer and then moves laterally into the estuarine
wetlands and creeks. Therefore, this site should have a moderate
to high ground-water recharge and discharge potential along with
a high nutrient retention potential. Flood storage, because of
filling, is probably only of moderate potential.
98
-------
3.7.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Ocean Breezes South
Summary Sheet 0
This form is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.2.2. As each analysis Is completed, enter its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A. 8, or C) in the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation,
name of basin and UIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating is^
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the impact vector Is optional.
PVAIIIATlriMTIUPPOAUP/PBF/PQSn MITIGATION PI AM •
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE1
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE'
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING'
SEDIMENT TRAPPING'
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL-
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-8ASIN"
FISHERY HABIT AT
WARMWATEH'4
CCLDWATER'4
COLDW.RIVERINE14
ANAOHOM^flfl h Hd>
SPECIES" r-1 "in n *
WILDLIFE HABITAT
GENERAL DIVERSITY"
WATERFOWL GP." 1
WATERFOWL GP." 2
sppriPS" Common Fgret
SPECIE?"
ACTIVE RECREATION"
SWIMMING
BOAT LAUNCHING
POWER BOATING
CANOEING
SAILING
PASSIVE RECREATION
AND HERITAGE"
EFFECTIVENESS' OPPORTUNITY-
low moderate
FUNCTIONAL RATING*
low
Inw • •! low
hi ah high
hirjn mndpratp
mnrtprstp hinh
moderate high
mnrfpratp high
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
suirmer winter
moderate **
. low low
1 ow 1 ow
high
low
low
low
low
low
high
high
hinh
high
hi nh
moderate
moderate
low
moderate
moderate
low
low
high
low
low
low
low
low
..•-,..-.: ,;,,:;- .-:-:-.:•;;
SIGNIFICANCE1
moderate
high
mndprat-p
hinh
hinh
high
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
FUNCTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE*
low
low
high
vorv hinh
\IOY-\I hi nh
very high
\iar\f hi nh
moderate
mn dp rate
low
moderate
moderate
low
low
high
low
low
low
low
low
moderate
IMPACT VECTOR RATING"
FOOTNOTES
These entries will be based on analyses in the following parts of Volume II (numbers correspond to
footnotes above):
'•Foims A, Al (p. 6. 51). 2>Section 2.1.2.2. (p. 97); 3'Foims B. 81 (p. 38. 54); 4'5ection 2.1.2.?.
(p. 97); ^Interpretation key in Section 2.1.2.1. p. 57; 6'p. 59; 7'p. 60; 8'p. 62; 9'p. 64; 10-p. 67-
ll'p. 67; 12'p. 69; 13'p. 71; I4'p. 73; 15'p. 75; 16'p. 79; 17'p. 80; 18'p. 84. "-p. 91; 2°'p. 92;
21.
p. 93.
* Blue Fish, Hard Clam, Winter flounder **Artificia1 Water Fluctuation
99
-------
Ocean Dreezes Couth
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUKTIOKAL OPWTUWITY AND
This sheet 1$ the appropriate place for recording
the responses to corresponding questions In Fort*
A. A "yes* (Y). or "no" (N) response nwst be
circled for all parts of each question, even when
tht response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major columns—'VIA' and 'BASIN', ind
within each of these, three subcolums entitled
*5'. *W". and '0*. which address, when relevant. th«
seasonal changes tn some of the predictors. «
follows:
» column responses »re those addressing
either (a) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June In most Prairie pothole wetlands),
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
standing crop of wetland plants, or (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
K column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average year, or (b) if
tne area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition.
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If tne area is tidal, "0" refers
to Us daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For examole. question 2.1.1 should first be a'slted
and answered in the context of the UIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condf-
'tion. ' This, should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WIA or basin, but not both.
Q. •
VIA
W
BASIN
1 W 0
Offlce-tyoe Data
1.1
1.2
1.3
100
-------
Ocean Breezes South
0. • 1
WIA
W 0
2.Z.Z Y(S) Y®
|3
*".2 Sfa
S.I **
C.I
6.2
hi
7.2
YVO
8.1
9li
9.1
9.2
10.1 Y 1
10.2 T 9
10.3 Y K
10.« Y *
11.1 Jjjb
11.2 fiTT
12.1
12.2
13.1
13.2
1*. Y ««
15.1 Yfl
15.2 Ytf
15.3 d>H
15.4 Y*T
is.s Y|N|
15.6 Yh
15.7 . Yfal
Ah
:^ VA
I
16. d>N
17.1 YCD
17.2 Y«
18. Y»
19. Yfl
20.
21.1 YrT
21.2 YlJ
21.2 Y/T
21.4 tX
21.5 (y\
21.6 Y(g
1
F1«1d-tyoe Data
22.1 Y/ff|
22.1.1 Y N
22.1.2 Y N
22.1.3 Y N
22.1.4 Y N
22.1.5 Vty
22.2 Y IT
22.2.1 V N
YjKN
YlN
YJN
YlN
YJIT
IAS1N
i v o
CJf N Q)N
d^
}|
I
Y H
Y N
-------
Ocean Breezes South
22.2.2
22.2.3
22.2.4
22.?.5
22.3
22.3.1
22.3.2
22.3.3
22.3.4
102
-------
Ocean Breezes "outh
103
-------
Ocean Breezes fouth
MIA
Q. 1 I V 0
49.1
49.2 __ _ ,-
50. *~YJN HLW UJH
51. Q)N
Detailed Oat*
52.1.1 Y K NA
52.1.2 1 M Nf\
52.2.1 SH '
52.2.? fr>
53.1 << JA
53.2 Y H "ft
54.1 Y N JA
54.2 T N ~"
55. t * MA
56.
57.1 T N
57.2 Y N J-
57.3 YU Nn
57.4 Y N
59.1 Y N
58.2 Y N JA
58.3 Y N Fn
58.4 V N
59.1 .1.
ftf to
M.I 1
SB *
ii.i V fc J*
81.* T N »*"
«?. Y N MA
63.1
63.2
M- J-*L
«5. CY>! ,
66.1 Y * I/A
66.2 t 1 rH
67.1 Y M JA
87.? Y N W\
68.1 Y N ./A
68.2 Y N Nn
Derived Responses
69.1 Y N
64.9 Y K
70.1 . Y N
70.2 Y N
71.1 Y N
71.? Y *
72.1 Y N
72.2 Y H
73.1 t N
73.2 Y H
74.1 V N
74.2 Y M
75.1 Y N
75.2 Y K
IASt!t
two
Hfc
T t A/fl
I H
f «
T II
r N
T *
Y R
A/A T
•VO T
1
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
have be«
3H1 Yoi
(1n Sect
&t c*
rVMrW'C'VvT
-f-t>*-*~»
1
sponses to all possible questions (Form A)
n recorded above, turn to Porn 8 (page
j «111( as an option) return to this sheet
1on 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re-
104
-------
Ocean Breezes South
Response Sheet B1
THRE5
F1sh Food Chain/
53.
Flood
Storane
IS. O
17. Y
Shoreline
Ancnor i nci
Pt><
Wildlife
Habitat
Active
Reefeation
Passive
36.
105
-------
Form "A" Comments (Ocean Breeze South Study Site)
7,8 Basin = WIA + area 1.5 times as large toward
Assateague Channel
Sub-watershed = 1/2 area of trailer park to north
Watershed = sub-watershed + pine stand to north
22 Answered to describe emergent, estuarine wetland.
Scrub/shrub pine land within WIA not considered
28 Flap gates restrict exchange with Assateague
Channel
39.5 Flap gates (see above)
42 See comment 22 above
52.2 See comment 22 above
41 Basin for Ocean Breezes South includes a large
area of salt marsh adjacent to Assateague Channel
Form "B" Comments (Ocean Breezes South and Chincoteague Channel
Marsh Study Sites)
21 Flooded daily, not as valuable for flood storage
and desynchronization
39,33 Chincoteague Channel Marsh Study Site is too small
for turbid water, high nutrient water disposal
106
-------
3.8 CHINCOTEAGUE CHANNEL MARSH STUDY SITE
3.8.1 Qualitative Description
Physical description. This small site (Figure 12) is
approximately 5 ha and is located immediately next to
Chincoteague Channel on the southwest corner of Chincoteague
Island adjacent to the Ocean Breezes South Study Site.
Several large spoil banks and dredged channels dissect the
site and have destroyed perhaps 10% to 15% of the estuarine marsh
which existed formerly. However, much of the original hydrologic
circulation and expanses of estuarine vegetation remain.
Definitions. The WIA includes the site as outlined by the
EPA. The basin consists of the tidal creek which flows into
Chincoteague Bay. The sub-watershed includes the filled areas
which run down the middle of the site and around the edges of the
site.
Qualitative vegetation description. The wetland areas of
the site are dominated by Spartlna alterniflora. JL. patens, and
Distichlis spicata. The higher areas of the wetlands and the
filled dikes are covered with Iva and Baccharis and other shrubs.
Wetland classification. The wetlands on this site are
largely estuarine emergent with small patches and strips of
estuarine scrub/shrub.
Substrate, water salinity. Most of the substrates
underneath this site are basically sand, but are overlain by a
layer of estuarine organic soils which may be up to 20-50 cm
thick. Water enters and exits the site through a fairly open
inlet so that salinities within the site range from 15 to 30 ppt
depending on local rainfall and tidal conditions.
Wildlife use. As with most small estuarine marshes this
area is heavily utilized by estuarine fishes. In addition, a
variety of shorebirds and waterfowl also are present at times.
Hydrologic functions. While drainage is restricted to
certain areas of the site by construction of dikes and filled
areas, most of the site is still flushed through an inlet/outlet
which flows into Chincoteague Bay. Drainage within the site
would be improved easily by breaching the artificial dikes at
several points. Like most estuarine sites the ground-water
recharge potential is low. Flood storage and nutrient retention,
however, are probably high.
107
-------
3.8.2 Adamus and Stockwell Evaluations: Chincoteague Channel Harsh
Summary Sheet 0
This form Is the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the Interpreta-
tion procedures and keys in Sections 2.1.2. and 2.2.2. As each analysis Is completed, enter Its
rating (high.«oderate, or low; or A. B. or C) In the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
Interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation,
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating 1s_
hlgher—That for the basin or that for the MIA. The evaluation of the impact vector 1$ optional.
/BAS1M
EVALUATION TIME FRAME p. 60; 8'p. 62; 9'p. 64; 10-p. 67;
p. 67; 12'p. 69; 13'p. 71;
-p. 93.
'p. 73; 15'p. 75; 16'p. 79; I7'p. 80; 18'p. 84.
* Blue Fish, Hard Clam, Winter Flounder **Too small to score high
108
-------
Chincoteague Channel JTarsh
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY ANO
This sheet 1« the appropriate place 'or recording
the responses to corresponding questions In form
A. A "yes" (Y). or 'no' (N) response wst be
circled for «11 parts of each question. «ve« «*««
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major columns—'VIA' and 'BASIH*. and
within each of these, three subcoluws entitled
•£", "•". and "0", which address, when relevtnt, th«
seasonal changes In some of the predictors, as
follows:
I column responses are those addressing
either (a) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition Intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.g.,
late June 1n most Prairie pothole wetlands).
or (c) the condition of maxiflwn annual
Standing crop of wetland plants. Of (d) If
tidal, the average daily mid-title condition.
w column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average, year, or (b) if
tne area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition.
0 column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area is tlda!, T5" refers
to Us daily low tide (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first he asked
and answered in the context of the WIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then in terms of
its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
neod not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the- WIA or basin, but not both.
Q. •
VJIA
w
BASIN
I U 0
Office-type Oata
109
-------
Chincoteague Channel Marsh
UIX
BASIN
i v
2.1.1
Z.z'.l
2.2.2
LI
fit
*i.
5.1
.1
7.2
V «
Y N
See
a.i
If
L2
S£L
TT
Y N
r n
Y N
Y N
20.
21.1
21
21
21
21
21.6
Flcld-tyoe Data
22.1
22.1.1
22.1.2
22.1.3
22.1.4
22.1.5
Jce
22.2
22.2.1
•V
110
-------
Hhincoteague Channel Marsh
22.2.2 T
22.2.3 T
22.2.4 T
22.?.5 T
22.
22.3.1
22.3.2
22.3.3
22.3.4
111
-------
Chincoteaaue Channel Marsh
0. I
IASI«
SOL
37.1
It 9
T N T H T H
TJL
41.1.1
41.1.2
41.1.3
41.2
41.2.1
41.2.2
41.2.3
41.3
41.3.1
41.3.2
41.3.3
41.4
112
-------
Chincoteaque Channel "larsh
MIA
P. * 1 ^ 9
49.1
«9.2
50. ti»N t^O* OJH
si. qpN
Detailed Data
52.1.1 T * fa
52.1.2 111 «/A
52.2.1 OTL
52.?. 2 TOO
53.1 T < /A
S3.? T N NA
54.1 T N .1
54.2 T N frA
55. T * MA
56. NA
57.1 T N
57.2 T N .fA
57.3 T N Nn
57.4 Y N
58.1 Y N
58.2 T N .J*
58.3 y N Nn
56.4 V H
5f.l /
"•* Hf\
M.S /"'"
M.1 /
21 W
iH !! VA
l ». T « */«
3.1
M.2
J 4- -L.
1 *. fV*
«6.l ~ T 1 JA
««.? T H Pn
•7.1 T « A/A
87.? T M A»A
68.1 y « JA
68.2 T H Wn
Derived ftesoonses
69.1 T N
69.? Y *
70.1 . y N
70.2 T «
?l.l T N
71.2 y «
72.1 y H
72.2 T N
73.1 t N
73.2 T N
74.1 y N
74.2 T II
75.1 y n
75.2 T N
IASM
t tf 0
^
y i
i "
T n
T II
T n
T II
T N
tlA ?
A/A y
y
T
T
Y
Y
Y
After res
hive beer
38). Tou
(1n Sectl
sponses.
•
<
,
ponies to all possible questions (Form A)
i recorded above, turn to form 8 (page
w11!( as an option) return to this sheet
on 2.1.2) to Interpret the above re-
113
-------
Chincoteague Channel Marsh
Response Sheet B1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions in
Form 8. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
General
Nutr ient
Recharge
Wildlife
Habitat
Flood
Storaoe
Shorel ine
Anchorina
Passive
78. N(Y
114
-------
Form "A" Comments (Chincoteague Channel Marsh Study Site)
WIA = area inside dashed line (Figure 12)
Basin = WIA + equivalent area (extending width of
wetland into Chincoteague Bay)
7,8 Sub-watershed = cleared parking area around WIA
22 Basin (as well as WIA) considered emergent
23 < 50 cm porous organic
39.5 Two vegetated dams across creek. Origin unknown
41 Basin includes WIA
115
-------
4. SUMMARY OF THE EIGHT CHINCOTEAGUE STUDY SITES
4.1 OVERALL IMPRESSIONS FROM FIELD VISITS
Most of the interior palustrine and estuarine wetlands (in
contrast to fringing estuarine marshes) are the result of the
basic ridge and swale topography. On a regional scale (nearby
mainland and barrier islands), these wetlands are relatively
unusual features and worthy of both scientific study and
preservation efforts. Chincoteague palustrine wetlands,
including emergent scrub/shrub and forested, are particularly
unusual in this region. For example, on Assateague, most ridge
and swale topography is either saline or has been altered for
waterfowl management.
Clearly, these ridge and swale wetlands generally function
for ground-water recharge and discharge with the surface (water
table) aquifer. Since this aquifer is largely brackish, except
for a thin surface layer of freshwater input from the palustrine
wetlands, the palustrine wetlands are probably instrumental in
preventing the aquifer from becoming more saline. Since most of
Chincoteague's ridge and swale wetlands are probably connected by
this surface aquifer, this means that filling or destruction of
one wetland may adversely affect other wetlands, particularly the
palustrine wetlands, on Assateague. This suggests that the
destruction of more than one palustrine wetland may have a
cumulative effect on other untouched, undeveloped wetlands by
increasing the salinity of the surface aquifer. Furthermore,
these cumulative effects may include reduced freshwater inflow to
adjacent estuarine marshes which may alter their estuarine nature
(i.e., intermediate salinity regime, nursery value, and
protection for juvenile fishes).
At this point, these suggestions of hydrologic connectivity
through the surface aquifer and cumulative impacts of palustrine
wetland alteration remain hypothetical. The next step is a
detailed topographic and ground-water hydrologic study (see
Section 6.).
4.2 SUMMARY OF ADAMUS/STOCKWELL RATINGS
Summaries of the functional significance ratings for the
eight sites (and two sub-sites) are given in Table 1. In section
116
-------
•
^«
f^>
•u
3 •
4-1 5
en o
r— i
cu
rC >>
+-> M
CU
5 >
T-l ||
tf
-O E>
CU
4J -0
CO C
3 cfl
t— I
CO ••
> 3
cu o
i— i
C II
0 rJ
•H
CO .
•H CU
>. i
*•
•H CO
T3 (-1
.0 CU
3 T3
CO O
E
< n
ss
~ rC
C 60
CTJ *H
rC
< II
HH T4
s *
rC rC
O 60
ftj TH"
,
O rJ
u-i cu
£>
CO II
00 ps
c >
•H
•to 01
CO r-l
Vj CO
01 C
CJ 0
C T-l
CO 4J
CJ 0
•H C
14-1 3
•H U-i
C
60 rC
•H O
en co
cu
r— )
CO rJ
C 0
O u-i
"f^
4-1 CO
u cu
C r-l
3 0
ft, o
en
• n)
v UJ
r*-l 1—
r£3
cu T-I
rH CO
rQ CO
co o
EH PM
(0
en
c
•H
4J
10
K
Ol
O
C
(0
o
U-l
c
en
-rH
CO
r-H
10
c
o
•rH
4J
U
C
s
U4
3BB3TJ3H PUB
uoT^saaoaa 3AfssBd
BUTTTBS
6UT3OUBO
BuT^sog jawod
BUTHOUnBT }BOS
BuTinmtMS
UOT^BaiOSH 3AT^OV
-
^^SdTDouS
Z dnoio iMOjja^BM
t dnoao T«03^a^BM
^TS33Afa IB33U9D
^B^iqBH ajTTPITM
*S3IO3dS
7AH9M 11I7CU
^o^ en ui.1 v p\
^B^iqBH Ajsqsij
UTSBfl UI
UIE93^SUrtOa
^joddns UTBUO pootj
IBUOSB3S
UIJ9X BUOT
uoi^ua^aa ^uaTj^nn
ouTddBJi ^uaiuipsg
Butjoqouv auTiajoqs
a&ejotis poou
»«« Tr\
9DJBi{D5TQ ja^eMpunoay
aBJBqoaa aa^BMpunoao
41
10
Z
41
4->
•rH
CO
£ £
J rJ
.J J
rJ J
J £
J J
•a •a
£ E
E E
£ £
X X
42
E
J >J
£ £
£ £
X X
> >
X X
> >
X X
E £
X X
£ X
E E
4J
Ul
en ia
at u
41 rH
3 10 -H
O> * o
10 CO O
4)\ JS
4J 41 U
O en co
O T)
c -H x;
•H 05 en
rC -rH
CJ X
E
rJ
J
ij
a
J
41
X
J
J
E
o
J3
10
E
rJ
E
E
X
X
>
X
>
£
X
J
J
c
o
•H
4J
U
O
1 CL,
4J 41
3 C
0-H
U
en (0
C 3
•H 4J
rH en
|U
Cu
X £
rJ
J >
tj
.J >
J
J >
J
J >
>4
J >
V*H
,J
tjl
uj 'a
rJ £
rJ £
rJ J
£ J
J
J >
£ E
E E
X >
X
X >
X
> X
X £
X X
> >
X J
X X
c
o
•rH
4-1
u
O Ul
a. T3
1 O
4) O
•PC 2
3 -H -O
U u u
4J 10
en ra x o<
C 3 E
•rH -H "O (0
rH (0 41 *
S CM x co
0 -H
h £
E
.J
£
J
rJ
J
U-l
J
01
X
J
,J
E
CJ
J3
10
£
-)
£
E
X
>
X
>
X
>
£
X
J
rJ
rH
rH
•H
Cu
•O
O
(V 41
•p
41 -H
u CO
•H
£
£
rJ
E
vJ
J
ij
U-l
J
41
X
r4
J
E
O
J3
^
<0
E
.J
E
E
X
>
X
>
X
>
E
X
J
J
01
1 C
43 -H
3 U
Ul 10
U 3
CO 4J
Ul
•O U C
C 1 O
O 43 -H
cu a 4J
u u
4) ,C 0
u co a<
•H
£
£ £ £
.J J J
rJ J J
rJ J J
J J iJ
J J iJ
u-i oi oi
rJ XX
J J J
rJ J rJ
J £ £
CJ CJ
43 43
> X
X X
> > X
X X
> > X
X
E > X
X
> XX
J J X
X J .J
a*
c
i •-<
43 U £
3 4J en
u to en u
CJ 3 41 41 (0
CO iH N 3 £
(0 41 Ol
TD O. C Ol (0 rH
CIO u 41 Ol
O 43 -rH CO -C 4J C
Cvi 3 4J 4-1 O C
u u C 3 U 10
41 £ O 10 O C .C
u W Cu 4) CO -H CJ
•H O43
£ O U
C
O
t-i
01
rC
1
4J
rC
cn
•rH
C
•c
01
c
i
o
u
CJ
1
o
10
jQ
II
en
*•
j*:
CJ
m
y
A:
u
10
^
43
II
U-l
4J
Ol
U
t7>
01
c
o
E
E
o
o
II
01
«.
.*£
o
D
T3
•o
0
O
J
II
TJ
•tt
*
a
<3
O
•D
u
to
£
II
O
u
01
*o
c
3
o
T-t
VM
Ul
(U
4J
c
-H
3
II
.Q
^
x:
CO
•iH
M-l
0)
3
i— (
Xi
II
(0
*
117
-------
5. we discuss the Adamus/Stockwell technique and compare the
ratings from our own subjective impressions formed while field-
surveying the sites.
118
-------
5. COMMENTS ON THE ADAMUS/STOCKWELL TECHNIQUE AS RELATED
TO CHINCOTEAGUE WETLANDS
5.1 GENERAL COMMENTS
The Adamus and Stockwell method is designed to objectively
assess potential wetland functional values based on simple
physical, chemical, and biological indicators along with
socioeconomic trends. Simple yes-no responses to 153 questions
are categorized and evaluated to derive final summary ratings
(very low, low, moderate, high, very high) for each of eleven
functional values. Though widely regarded as an improvement over
earlier attempts to develop wetland rating systems, the method
remains relatively new and untested.
Upon receiving the Adamus/Stockwell document, we were
impressed with the interdisciplinary breadth of the literature
review. Almost any wetland scientist will find new references
and ideas contained in this portion of the document.
After using the method on eight different sites c:.
Chincoteague Island, Virginia, we have concluded that for this
area the Adamus/Stockwell technique works relatively well in its
current form and has even more promise if revised, regionalized,
and "fine-tuned" in the future. We have identified six problem
areas with the technique in its present form. Though these
problems interfere somewhat with assessments, we feel that the
outcomes of the Chincoteague study were not seriously affected.
(See the next section for examples of possible minor problems
with specific ratings.)
We have identified six problem areas with the
Adamus/Stockwell technique in its present form. These are
presented below in no particular order of importance.
(1) The method is best suited for the assessment of smalj.
homogenous^ areas. Heterogenous sites create problems for users
of the Adamus technique. When answering the numerous questions
that require the observer to take an average over a widespread
and diverse wetland, in effect one loses the ability to describe
any part of the wetland accurately. In two cases (Fowling Gut
and Mire Pond Scrub/Shrub sites) we found such basic differences
in wetland vegetation, hydroperiod, and flow characteristics
119
-------
within the same WIA that it became necessary to divide the WTA
into two sections. Of course, this criticism applies to almost
all wetland assessment techniques.
(2) The method cajj be applied much more reliably where
detailed, site-specific data are available. Detailed data,
rather than gross physical features lend the strongest support to
hypotheses concerning wetland functions in this assessment
system. In addition, without detailed data the final rating of a
wetland for a particular function may be artificially moderate.
A moderate rating may mean that a wetland has a truly moderate
yalue, or it may only mean that the assessment has been
inconclusive due to a lack of detailed data. The system guards
against assigning high or low values without sufficient data.
This may have affected, for example, fishery and wildlife ratings
at many of the Chincoteague sites.
(3) Answers to Form B depend entirely upon the perspective
of the user. A reliable, functional rating method should have a
high degree of accuracy and reproducibility. The questions in
Form B give essentially free-reign to the user to interpret local
socioeconomic trends. There also exists a high degree of
latitude in assigning the final ratings. The Form B evaluation
has undergone significant modification in a revision of the
Adamus and Stockwell method due out in late 1986. Since these
modifications were not available when this evaluation was
conducted, the results for this section may be inaccurate.
(4) The method may contain a. high degree of subjectivity.
In the complex structure of the Form A interpretation key there
may be junctures in which the outcome becomes extremely sensitive
to certain questions. In fact, we found in several instances
that the differences between a high and a moderate (or even a
high and a low) rating could hinge upon the answer to a single
question. Identification of these pivotal questions is
essential. Pivotal questions could be identified through some
sort of computer generated sensitivity analyses as is often done
in systems analysis and operations research. The results of the
analyses could then be checked for consistency and potential
uneven outcomes.
(5) The method requires that experienced wetland scientists
perform the assessment if results are to be accurate and
reproducible. We believe that in the long run the accuracy of
the ratings derived from this method will be inseparable from the
skills and training of the observer (knowledge of hydrology,
field botany, etc.) in all but the simplest wetlands. The method
is an excellent aid that can broaden the perspective of a
research scientist, but given the inherent problems described
above, there remains no substitute for extensive training and
experience in wetland science.
120
-------
(6) The method has potential problems dealing with wetlands
in different regions. While this problem did not appear to
seriously affect the Chincoteague study, it is clear tha~t the
technique needs ,to be modified for certain regions (e.g.,
tropics, Pacific coast, far north). The only real problems in
this area for the Chincoteague study involved the estuarine fish
species supposedly important to this region (see the next
section).
5.2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS CONCERNING THE CHINCOTEAGUE ANALYSES
In general, the Adamus/Stockwell Technique appears to have
functioned well for this set of eight wetlands. This opinion is
based on a comparison of calculated values versus estimated
values (the latter are expert opinions based on our own field and
academic experience with similar wetlands).
One of the most confusing aspects of wetlands assessments
involves "effectiveness" and "opportunity." For example, at the
present time a specific wetland may be potentially very effective
at sediment trapping, but there may be no sediment to trap.
Twenty years later after a construction activity, there may be
plenty of opportunity to trap sediment. One of our biggest
problems, particularly in our personal assessments of a
particular site, is reconciling "effectiveness" and
"opportunity." The Adamus/Stockwell technique handles this
problem relatively well. Therefore, in most cases, we agree
closely with the values reported in Table 1.
Several values in Table 1, however, appear to be too low or
too high. For example, the ground-water discharge values for
Chincoteague Channel Marsh, which has a small drainage area, seem
too high (probably should be a 3 instead of a 2). On the other
hand, the value for Ocean Breezes south, which has a relatively
large area for infiltration and two outlets, seems too low
(probably should be at least a 3 instead of a 4).
In certain cases (e.g., food chain support, wildlife
habitat), the ratings are almost uniformly the same at all sites.
This can be traced to the problem of insufficient field data
(seasonal counts of waterfowl, fish surveys, etc.) which we
discussed in 5.1.
The moderate values (3) for "fishery habitat by species" are
probably too low (should be 2). These underestimates were
generated by the non-inclusion of species such as spot and
croaker in the Adamus listing of important estuarine dependent
fishes for this region (see Table 8, page 78 in Adamus/Stockwell,
1983).
In summary, the majority of the rankings in Table 1 seem
fair and consistent with our opinions based on field
observations.
121
-------
6. RESEARCH NEEDS
The functional role of the interior wetlands of barrier
islands of the coastal United States has not been as intensively
studied as that of riverine or tidal wetlands. In the extensive
review of wetland functional values by Adamus and Stockwell
(1983), few citations apply directly to hydrologic and nutrient
retention values of coastal wetlands other than salt marshes.
Less attention in research has been given to swales, dune slacks
and other varieties of interior, coastal wetlands. On
Chincoteague Island, basic research would sharpen understanding
and strengthen conclusions concerning the functional role of the
swale wetlands in the hydrology and ecology of the island. Basic
research is time consuming and expensive. Yet if planned
correctly, such work could provide an invaluable environmental
management tool.
Research that could improve understanding of the hydrology
and nutrient retention capacity of Chincoteague's wetlands is
described briefly below.
1. Microtopographic survey. Stereo-photogrammetric aerial
photography could be used to map I1 elevation contours, to
identify and categorize wetlands, channels, borrow pits, drainage
ditches, culverts and other drainage modifications. Large scale
photography ( 1" = 500') would be essential. This mapping would
represent a substantial improvement over existing photography and
contour mapping of the island. It would be invaluable in
conducting a baseline inventory and classification of wetlands
and surface water bodies (e.g., probable degree of isolation) on
the island. Field ground truthing would be an essential
component of this work.
2. Surface water drainage. Channel cross section data,
water level gauging and current velocity measurements could be
made to establish stage-discharge relationships in the Jeep Trail
Ditch, Fowling Gut, and Andrews Landing Gut. These data are
necessary to calculate surface discharge from the island under
various conditions of water stage.
3. Groundwater. On selected transects wells could be
installed, soil borings examined and described qualitatively,
grain size analyzed vs. depth, and possible confining layers
identified for the water table aquifer. Within the wells, pump
122
-------
tests would allow determination of transmissivity within the
water table aquifer. Daily or weekly monitoring of water levels
within wells for a minimum of one year in addition to rainfall
measurements, evaporation estimates, and surface water drainage
estimates would provide the basic data needed to construct
wetland water budgets.
4. Simulation of water table aquifer dynamics. Ground-water
models have been used successfully for aquifer simulation in
other coastal environments. An existing model could be modified
and validated against field data from Chincoteague and then used
to quantitatively assess the effects of simplified model
scenarios such as culvert removal, complete blockage of major
surface drainways, and other wetland manipulations.
5. Water quality. Salinity, coliforms, total dissolved
solids, dissolved N and P, metals (Pb), pH, and suspended solids
(of surface water) could be monitored in major surface drainways
and within wells on selected transects. This would indicate both
the amount of lateral movement of pollutants from highways,
septic fields, and the like and the effect of selected wetlands
on interception and retention of these pollutants.
In addition to the hydrologic studies, seasonal studies of
waterfowl and fishes at specific wetland sites are desirable.
The results might alter the Adamus/Stockwell values for fishery
and wildlife habitat functions.
123
-------
7. REFERENCES
References Cited
Adamus, P. and L. Stockwell. 1983. A method for wetland
functional assessment: Volume 1. Federal Highway
Administration, Report No. FHWA-IP-82-23. 176 pp.
Adamus, P. 1983. A method for wetland functional assessment:
Volume 2. Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-
IP-82-24. 134 pp.
Bartberger, C. E. 1976. Sediment sources and sedimentation
rates, Chincoteague Bay, Maryland and Virginia. J. Sed.
Pet. 46: 326-36.
Bear, J. 1979. Hydraulics of groundwater. McGraw-Hill, New
York. 569 pp.
Biggs, R. D. 1970. Assateague ecological studies: final report,
part 1. Environmental information. Natural Resources
Institute, University of Maryland. Contribution No. 446. 6y
pp.
Bolyard, T. H. 1978. Empirical relationships between barrier
island hydrology and physiography. M.S. Thesis. Department
of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia,
Charlottesville.
Bolyard, T. H., G. M. Hornberger, R. Dolan, and B. P. Hayden.
1979. Freshwater reserves of mid-Atlantic coast barrier
islands. Environmental Geology 3: 1-11.
Bozeman, E. L., and J. M. Dean. 1980. The abundance of estuarine
larval and juvenile fish in a South Carolina intertidal
creek. Estuaries 3: 89-97.
Cain, R. L., and J. M. Dean. 1976. Annual occurrence, abundance
and diversity of fish in a South Carolina intertidal creek.
Mar. Biol. 36: 369-379.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
125
-------
Department of Agriculture. 1975. Eastern shore of Virginia:
resource conservation and development project. Soil
Conservation Service, Richmond, Va.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1982. Aquifer identification
for the State of Virginia and District of Columbia. Region
III Office, Philadelphia, Pa.
Freeze, R. A., and Cherry, J. A. 1979. Groundwater. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 604 pp.
Halsey, S. D. 1979. Nexus: new models of barrier island
development. Pages 185-210 in S. P. Leatherman, ed.
Barrier islands. Academic Press, New York.
Kimmel, G. E. and J. Vecchioli. 1979. Groundwater. Pages 639-
643 iri J. R. Clark, ed. Coastal ecosystem management.
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Kraft, J. C., E. A. Allen, D. F. Belknap, C. J. John, and E. M.
Maurmeyer. 1979. Processes and morphologic evolution of an
estuarine and coastal barrier system. Pages 149-184 in S.
P. Leatherman, ed. Barrier islands. Academic Press, New
York.
McHugh, J. L. 1966. Management of estuarine fisheries. Pages
133-154 in A symposium on estuarine fisheries. American
Fisheries Society, Special Publications No. 3.
Missimer, T. M. 1973. The depositional history of Sanibel
Island, Florida. M.S. Thesis, Florida State University,
Tallahassee.
Missimer, T. M. 1976. Hydrology. Pages 165-194'in J. Clark,
ed. The Sanibel report. Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D. C.
Odum, W. E., Smith, T. J., Hoover, J. K., and C. C. Mclvor. 1984.
The ecology of tidal freshwater marshes of the United States
east coast: a community profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
FWS/OBS-83/17. 177 pp.
Rozas, L. P., and C. T. Hackney. 1983. The importance of
oligohaline estuarine wetland habitats to fisheries
resources. Wetlands 3: 77-89.
Shenker, J. M., and J. M. Dean. 1979. The utilization of an
intertidal salt marsh creek by larval and juvenile fishes:
abundance, diversity, and temporal variation. Estuaries 2:
154-163.
126
-------
State Water Control Board. 1975. Groundwater conditions in the
eastern shore of Virginia. Commonwealth of Virginia,
Planning Bulletin 45.
Waterways Surveys and Engineering, Ltd. 1985. Report on
investigations and findings: Fowling Gut tidal hydraulics,
Chincoteague, Va. unpublished report. 8 pp.
Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary
nurseries for fishes and shellfish, Cape Fear River, North
Carolina. U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service Fishery
Bulletin 77: 339-357.
Wiegle, J. M. 1974. Availability of fresh groundwater in
northeastern Worcester County, Maryland. Department of
Natural Resources, Maryland Geological Survey, Report of
Investigations No. 24.
Winner, M. D. 1978. Groundwater Resources of the Cape Lookout
National Seashore, North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey
Report 78-52. 49 pp.
127
-------
-------
50273 -lot
REPORT DOCUMENTATION »• «ero"T "°- *•
PAGE NWRC Open File Report 86-7
4. Tttl« and Subtitle
The Functional Assessment of Selected Wetlands of
Chincoteague Island, Virginia
7. Authors)
W. E. Odum, J. Harvey, L. Rozas, R. Chambers*
9. Performing Organization Nam* and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Environmental
National Wetlands Research Center Protection Agency
1010 Cause Blvd. Wetlands and Marine
Slidell, LA 70458 Policy Section
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA 19107
3. Recipient's Accaatlon No.
S. Report Oat*
May 1986
6.
S. Performing Organization R*pt. No.
10. Project/T»sk/Wor* Unrt No.
I
11. Contract(C) or Grant(G) No.
(O
(G) I
13. Typ* of Report & Period Covered
14.
is. suppiamantary Nota.^Affi-|iation. Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall, Univer-
sity of Virginia, Charlottesvil le, VA 22903
18. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
At the request of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a study was conducted to
assess the potential hydrologic and ecologic functions of eight wetlands sites on
Chincoteague Island, Virginia. These sites ranged from 4 to 21 ha and included estuarine
emergent and scrub/shrub wetlands as well as palustrine emergent, scrub/shrub, and forested
wetlands.
The author was asked to use the 1983 Adamus/Stockwel1 technique as the assessment
method and to provide general descriptions of the sites and the suitability of the
technique for assessing the wetlands.
This report discusses the results of the assessment and the problems with some of the
ratings.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Fresh and estuarine wetlands, hydrologic functions, ecological functions, recreational
values
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
Adamus/Stockwel1 technique
Chincoteague Island, VA
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Unlimited release
19. Security Class (This Report)
Unclassified
20. Security Class (This Page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
127
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-3S)
Department of Commerce
------- |