903R93027
CBP/TRS 100/93
September 1993
Reassessment Task Force Report
on the Chesapeake Bay
Wetlands Policy Implementation Plan
Report to the Living Resources Subcommittee
Tl)
225
.C54
W32
1993
Chesapeake Bay Program
Printed on
Recycled Paper
-------
Reassessment Task Force Report
on the
Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy
Implementation Plan
Report to the Living Resources
Subcomittee
.._„„;! resource
V-'W
September
1993
Printed by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
-------
REASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT
ON THE
CHESAPEAKE BAY WETLANDS POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Wetlands Implementation Plan is designed to achieve the wetlands policy goals of
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Wetlands Workgroup, assigned to the Living Resources
Subcommittee, is responsible for accomplishing the tasks outlined in the Implementation Plan.1
During the summer of 1992, concerns were raised that certain tasks identified in the
Implementation Plan have not been completed and others have not been started. Because the
wetlands goals are pivotal to the recovery of the Bay as a whole, a Wetlands Reassessment Task
Force was appointed in November, 1992 to conduct an independent review of the progress of
the Wetlands Workgroup toward fulfillment of the Implementation Plan.
Chaired by Maryland, the Task Force consisted of policy level members from each of
the signatory States and agencies to the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.2 The reassessment effort
began in the fall of 1992 with several meetings held over a period of nine months. The Task
Force was initially charged with assessing progress, identifying priorities, and adjusting
timelines. In addition to developing a report card on the specific tasks identified in the
Implementation Plan, it soon became clear that a thorough analysis of the effectiveness of
Workgroup efforts required an expansion of the Task Force charge. Specifically, the role of
the Wetlands Workgroup was never clearly defined in the wetlands management arena.
'Specific tasks of the Wetlands Workgroup are guided by the Implementation Plan approved by the
Principals Staff Committee in December, 1990.
JA list of Task Force members is included as APPENDIX A.
-------
Moreover, some fundamental weaknesses in the Implementation Plan needed to be addressed.
Accordingly, the charge of the Task Force was expanded to include the following:
• Provide guidance in defining the role of the Wetlands Workgroup within the
Chesapeake Bay watershed and nationally.
• Propose recommendations to restructure the Implementation Plan based on a
detailed analysis of existing wetlands management efforts while retaining
important components of the existing plan.
This document represents the work of the Wetlands Implementation Plan Reassessment
Task Force.
BACKGROUND
The announcement by President Bush of a national "no net loss" wetlands policy was
the result of growing public concern about the rapid loss of these important resources.
Wetlands provide essential breeding, spawning, nesting, and wintering habitats for a major
portion of the region's fish and wildlife. Li addition, wetlands function to purify surface water,
moderate flood flows, maintain year round stream and river flows, reduce erosion, and support
commercial fishery and recreation industries.
Chesapeake Bay watershed wetlands are recognized as some of the most important
wetlands in the United States and have received worldwide recognition as "Wetlands of
International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat" under the 45 nation Ramsar
Convention treaty. Millions of recreationists and students enjoy the richness of Chesapeake
Bay wetlands every year in local, state and national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.
-------
Wetlands lie within the transition areas between better drained, rarely flooded uplands
and permanently flooded deep waters such as rivers, ponds, lakes, and coastal embayments.
According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies, tidal and nontidal wetlands occupy about
three percent of the Chesapeake Bay watershed or approximately 1.2 million acres (these figures
do not include farmed wetland acreage). More than 80 percent of Chesapeake Bay wetlands
are nontidal, predominantly forested wetlands. The remaining 20 percent are tidal wetlands
consisting largely of tidal marshes and mud flats periodically flooded by salt or brackish water.
The Chesapeake Bay watershed experienced substantial losses of wetlands between the
mid 1950s and late 1970s. Annual losses averaged over 2,800 acres. Tidal marshes were
reduced by about nine percent, whereas nontidal vegetated wetlands were reduced by six
percent. Wetland losses continue due to population growth, development, erosion, and sea level
rise in the Bay watershed .
In recognition of the importance of wetlands to the environmental quality and economic
productivity of the Bay, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted the Chesapeake Bay
Wetlands Policy in December 1988. The Policy includes a commitment to adopt an
Implementation Plan. In response to this commitment, the Living Resources Subcommittee
appointed a workgroup of representatives from the public and private sectors to develop the
Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Policy Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan included a schedule for actions including cooperative,
comprehensive mapping of all wetland areas at a time interval of not less than every ten years,
a statistically valid status and trends analysis every five years, and a continuing cumulative
impact assessment.
In consideration of the varying approaches to wetlands protection in each political
-------
jurisdiction, the Implementation Plan was designed to guide evolving State, federal, and local
programs by outlining immediate regional actions and longer term jurisdictional actions that
accomplish the goals of the policy.
Early on in the review process, the Reassessment Task Force identified some of the
reasons that progress has been slow. The reasons are varied and include the following:
• The Implementation Plan does not provide a clear understanding of how
individual tasks are connected to the "no net loss" goal.
• The Implementation Plan does not provide a clear explanation of the
interdependence of the identified tasks or a logical progression for completing
tasks.
• Tasks which have been completed were easy to do or the Workgroup member
assigned lead responsibility had a personal investment in accomplishing the task.
• The Implementation Plan is overly ambitious in light of the current funding and
staffing problems at all levels of government. To compound this problem, lead
agencies have not applied for and therefore have not utilized available federal
funds to assist in completing assigned tasks.
• Tasks have not been effectively targeted towards user groups. For example,
the mitigation technical document, due to its technical focus, may be of limited
utility to regulators and the general public.
-------
• The Implementation Plan provides limited mechanisms for coordinating wetlands
management within the watershed or nationally. Without effective coordination
mechanisms, the Implementation Plan may duplicate existing products or work
efforts. No effective mechanism currently exists within the watershed to serve
as a "clearinghouse" for dissemination of research,-policy, and education
information.
This document is divided into two parts. Part 1: Implementation Plan Report Card
assesses the progress to date by the Wetlands Workgroup. Part 2: Recommendations of the
Wetlands Reassessment Task Force discusses the future role and direction of the Wetlands
Workgroup.
-------
PART 1: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REPORT CARD
The progress of the Wetlands Workgroup in completing tasks identified in the existing
Implementation Plan is an important first step to assessing and establishing a new course for
the Wetlands Workgroup. The evaluation presented below provides a'status on assigned tasks
and an assessment of why tasks have not been initiated or completed. For those tasks
completed, an explanation of the utility of the final product is also included. The report card
is organized consistent with the Implementation Plan as summarized in the Task Chart.3
1. DEFINING THE RESOURCE: INVENTORY AND MAPPING
10 Year Mapping & Inventory Program
The Wetlands Mapping component of the Implementation Plan has been completed and
was approved by the Implementation Committee in June 1993. It sets forth a plan of action for
tasks related to wetlands mapping in the Bay Watershed. Its purpose is to identify specific
directions, resource needs and opportunities for coordination. The principal theme is to ensure
coordinated and cost-effective funding and use of wetland map products. Of particular
importance is the requirement in the Wetlands Policy Implementation Plan to make wetland
mapping products as useful as possible to local governments.
One of the first actions under the Mapping and Inventory Program was the mapping
and monitoring workshop held in April 1992, bringing together land use/land cover mapping
agencies from all over the Bay Watershed. While it is still too early to determine the success
of this plan, the task has been completed.
*The Wetland Implementation Plan Task Chart is attached as APPENDIX B.
6
-------
Mapping is currently being conducted on several different scales around the watershed.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) continues to map and digitize areas where the maps
are outdated. Maryland is also mapping wetlands on a larger scale, consistent with the
standards outlined in the Wetlands Mapping Implementation Plan, as funding allows. Satellite
mapping projects, like the NOAA CCAP and EPA EMAP, are ongoing and currently being
assessed through a multi-agency wetlands mapping workgroup of the USGS.
Five-Year Status and Trends Assessment Program (M2")
The two subtasks were 1) to gather existing information into a synthesis report and 2)
to conduct a baseline survey (based on late 1980s aerial photography) to be used for subsequent
status and trends analyses. The latter task was divided into two phases. The first was to
conduct a statistical survey of randomly selected sites across the watershed and its major
geographic provinces and the second was to establish the extent and type of all wetlands in
approximately 75 USGS quads selected as areas of potentially high development pressure.
Synthesis report notes on topics listed hi the Implementation Plan are available, with a
draft report due in September 1993. Status and trends work is proceeding on schedule, with
final reports also due in September. The technical status and trends report will be developed
into a full-color booklet for dissemination to a wider audience in FY 94.
The status and trends reports have missed original deadlines. The synthesis report was
begun late due to a lack of staff available for assignment to the project. The status and trends
work was delayed due to miscalculations by NWI on time needed for completion, and by delays
in funding transfers and contract awards.
-------
Another task under this section is the development of a monitoring and inventory
program. A draft prototype monitoring plan was available for dissemination to the Bay
Program in June. The plan has received a thorough scientific review. A budget initiative
(FY93) to begin implementing the prototype plan was unsuccessful. Further work on this task
is contingent on available funding.
Management of Publicly Owned Wetlands (M3)
This task has not been undertaken. Constraints include a lack of information on the
boundaries and ownership of lands under public stewardship and a lack of funds needed to
identify, digitize and quantify wetlands on these lands in a Geographic Information System.
This task may best be accomplished by reducing the scope of the project to a description of how
each jurisdiction manages wetlands on its lands and include some case studies of both successful
and unsuccessful management practices.
2. PROTECTING EXISTING WETLANDS
Technical Guidelines for Wetlands Protection (PI)
A budget initiative was approved for FY91 money to develop an informational package
on wetlands for use by farmers, developers, and local governments. The educational package
was to include information on wetland values, threats, protection programs, and techniques.
This information would also be used to begin an evaluation of the adequacy, gaps, and linkages
among existing regulatory management programs.
The specific tasks in the Wetlands Implementation Plan that should have been completed
or partially completed as a result of this project are as follows:
8
-------
EPAIH PL a Produce wetland protection guidance for landowners,
developers, and regulators.
EPAffl Pl.d Develop a handbook of current wetland protection programs
for the public.
VIMS P2.a Compile descriptions of existing federal and State programs
for managing and protecting wetlands.
PA DER C2.a Prepare an inventory of existing and potential incentives for
wetland protection.
PA DER C3.a Prepare an inventory of existing and potential land
acquisition programs for wetlands.
COE El.b Expand public education efforts.
Norfolk
The Handbook (Pl.d) was to be the overall product and was to include individual
chapters with fact sheets on Federal laws and regulations, State laws and regulations for each
state, general non-regulatory programs, and specific existing incentive and acquisition programs.
This project was never completed because the project lead, the Corps of Engineers, did not
receive all information needed to complete the text before the funding received from EPA
Region HI expired.
All other tasks under this section were based on the completion of this Handbook and
have, therefore, not been started, with the exception of the agreement to use the federal
delineation manual in all states. This agreement was achieved originally with all jurisdictions
using the 1989 Wetlands Delineation Manual. Due to controversy over the 1989 manual, the
federal agencies, Virginia, and Maryland have agreed to use the 1987 manual with new
guidance as an interim product. Pennsylvania is continuing to use the 1989 Wetlands
Delineation Manual.
9
-------
Wetlands Protection Strategy (P2)
Descriptions of existing federal and State programs were to be completed as part of the
above Handbook. Much of this was completed in a draft document but was never circulated.
This task must be completed before other protection strategy tasks can be initiated. The
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) is currently completing the task of
describing existing federal and state programs. An important task that is currently out of
sequence in this section, and key to the overall success of the Implementation Plan, is an
evaluation of the adequacy, gaps, and linkages among existing regulatory programs. This
should be completed immediately after the descriptions of the programs are completed and
should also include an evaluation of non-regulatory programs.
The main reason that the protection strategy has not been completed is that the research
and analysis involved with both the description of existing programs and the gaps analysis is
far too much for one lead State or agency to handle. This task will probably require a year-
long effort on the part of the Wetlands Workgroup, with the strong involvement of each State.
The focused attention of the Wetlands Workgroup will be required for completion of this
section.4
Coordinate with Population Growth and Development Subcommittee
This task has not been started.
Permit Tracking System (P4)
One of the tasks included in the "Protection" section of the Implementation Plan is the
requirement to develop, implement, and report annually on the results of a Baywide Permit
*The Reassessment Task Force identified the Protection Strategy (P2) as a key building block for the
Implementation Plan. However, as currently structured this strategy is a source of confusion.
10
-------
Tracking System. One of the functions of this task was to monitor the effectiveness of the
various protection programs while providing input for the status and trends initiative.
A planning meeting was held at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in early 1991.
During this meeting it became apparent that a number of different and potentially incompatible
systems were either currently in use or under development. Consequently, the effort was
shifted from a single tracking system to developing a set of common questions that all systems
should be capable of answering. However, because this task was not given a high priority by
wetland regulatory agencies, work has not proceeded.
Annual and 5-Year Evaluation of Progress (PS)
An annual report was completed for 1991. In lieu of a 1992 annual report, the task
of reevaluating the Implementation Plan commenced. No five year reports are due at this
point.
3. REHABILITATION, RESTORING AND CREATING WETLANDS
Wetlands Mitigation Program (CD
Draft criteria for review and approval of mitigation plans have been prepared and
reviewed by the Wetlands Workgroup. They are currently being edited for final publication.
This project has been delayed based on controversies surrounding wetland regulation,
differences between state wetland programs, and an underlying concern about the purpose and
audience. The task, as outlined in the Implementation Plan, is not completely addressed. The
Wetlands Workgroup decided that a technical document that would allow mitigation plans to be
considered in an ecological context was the first step to completing this task.
11
-------
The overall sequencing of this section needs adjustment. The first task, developing
mitigation criteria, is scheduled to be completed before the second task, developing a wetland
functional assessment model. The wetland functional assessment model is needed to complete
the first task. The functional assessment model was not completed or adopted because the
national model "WET" is being revised. The Wetlands Workgroup decided that this revision
needed to occur on a national level before the Workgroup agreed to either adopt it or develop
another methodology. Despite the concern of the Workgroup, Maryland and Virginia have
moved ahead independently in developing assessment methodologies. The last two tasks,
investigating fees for less than 1:1 mitigation and public review procedures, were not started.
Formulate and Begin Incentives Program (C2)
Information was collected and compiled for Pennsylvania and requested from Maryland
and Virginia. The Handbook being developed under Technical Guidance Programs (PI) was
to have incorporated an inventory of existing incentive programs. The handbook was not
completed and, therefore, the incentives task is incomplete. Every other task in this section was
dependent on the inventory and, therefore, this entire section has not been completed.
Develop Land Acquisition Program
Information was collected and compiled for Pennsylvania and requested from Maryland
and Virginia. The Handbook being developed under Technical Guidance Programs (PI) was
to have incorporated an inventory of existing land acquisition programs. The handbook was not
completed thus, the land acquisition task is incomplete. Every other task in this section was
dependent on the inventory and, therefore, this entire section has not been completed.
12
-------
5. EDUCATION
Develop Current Information Program (ED
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a questionnaire to collect information
on wetlands education programs, training, brochures, films, and videos. Results of the
questionnaire indicated that many existing information products are available, but they have
not been catalogued. The results of the survey have been collated and, after a brief update,
this document will be ready for press. The remaining education tasks were put on hold until
the catalog was completed.
The Wetlands Workgroup discussed this task at a meeting in 1992. The Chesapeake
Bay Regional Information System data base was to be explored for potential expansion into a
system that would provide necessary information to the wetland research and management
community. Nothing has been done to explore this option. EPA Headquarters has started a
Wetlands Hotline. The information developed for this hotline will be available on a subscription
basis so that wetland information can be available as needed. Purchasing a subscription has not
been explored by the Wetlands Workgroup. The Wetlands Workgroup has proposed to address
this task by identifying and evaluating alternatives within the watershed for developing a
"clearinghouse" for research, policy and educational information. A budget proposal was
recently submitted to the Living Resources Subcommittee for consideration.
Formulate and Begin Technical Training Program
Nothing has been initiated by the Wetlands Workgroup. Training programs exist that
are sponsored by various members of the Wetlands Workgroup. However, none have been
analyzed for adoption by the Wetlands Workgroup on a Baywide scale.
13
-------
Technical Assistance Program ffpr Local Governments (E4)
With FY91 Chesapeake Bay Program money, the Local Government Advisory
Committee (LGAC) developed and completed workshops for local governments. Each
workshop provided wetland information through seminars and field trips. The remaining tasks
have not been started.
Develop Wetland Curricula flE5)
No new curricula have been developed because the Education Workgroup of the
Communications Subcommittee felt that this information already existed. See El for details.
6. RESEARCH
Establish Research Process (Rl)
A literature synthesis has been completed, using Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee (STAC) funds, on the state of our knowledge of wetland functions. A wetlands
research workshop was held in April 1993 between wetlands researchers and state and federal
wetland management agencies. Based on the results of this workshop, recommendations are
being developed by an ad hoc steering committee. The workshop was designed to allow agency
representatives to inform researchers about wetlands management needs. In addition,
researchers described present efforts and were able to develop new research ideas to address
management needs. After this initial workshop, wetlands research needs will be incorporated
into the STAC biennial research needs workshop. STAC is currently completing a research
plan which prioritizes wetlands research needs.
14
-------
Part 2: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WETLANDS REASSESSMENT
TASK FORCE
Based on the completed reassessment and the status of current and historical efforts by
the Wetlands Workgroup to complete tasks identified in the Implementation Plan, the Wetlands
Reassessment Task Force recommends that the Wetland Workgroup:
1. Complete selected tasks.
2. Define its role within the Chesapeake Bay watershed and nationally.
3. Initiate and complete a restructuring of the Implementation Plan.
The recommendations should be addressed concurrently recognizing their
interdependence.
1. Complete Selected Tasks
The Reassessment Task Force identified the following tasks as the liighest priorities of
the current implementation plan. The Wetlands Workgroup should move forward and
concentrate efforts on completion of the following tasks.
TASKS:
• Five Year Status and Trends Report (M2)
• Synthesis Report (M2)
• Permit Tracking System (P4)
• Mitigation Technical Guidance for Chesapeake Bay (Cl)
• Management of Publicly Owned Lands (M3)
• Current Information Program (El)
• Research Process (Rl)
15
-------
2. Define the Role of the Wetlands Workgroup
The role of the Chesapeake Bay Wetlands Workgroup should be to assist and monitor
efforts by signatories of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in meeting wetlands policy goals.
Workgroup activities should be directed to wetlands management issues concerning both tidal
and nontidal wetlands. The short-term objectives should be to focus on coordinating with other
wetlands management efforts. Restructuring of the Implementation Plan should disclose
additional considerations important to defining the role of the Workgroup. Major policy issues,
particularly those that are in debate nationally, should not be avoided but must be strategically
integrated into the activities of the Workgroup so that they do not create impediments to
completion of other tasks.
The Wetlands Workgroup should actively coordinate with other wetlands-related
workgroups and Chesapeake Bay Program workgroups to establish a definitive and meaningful
role. The outcome should be a clear understanding of how the Wetlands Workgroup should
interact within the Chesapeake Bay Program and how its role can compliment other workgroup
efforts. The Wetlands Workgroup should not only be able to solicit comments on its own
initiatives but comment on the proposals of other workgroups. This will reduce duplication of
effort and ensure that the needs of wetlands managers in the Chesapeake Bay region are being
fulfilled. A strong network for coordination of wetlands related efforts in the Chesapeake Bay
and nationally will result.
The Wetlands Workgroup should also begin developing the framework for a
"clearinghouse" for research, policy, and educational information. By establishing an effective
clearinghouse, the Workgroup can act as a bridge between the research and management
communities. With a clearinghouse mechanism in place, existing information can be
16
-------
summarized in ways useful to managers, routed to appropriate decision-makers, and research
can be targeted to solving real-world management problems. Wetlands Workgroup meetings
can augment this function by being issue oriented.
As a starting point for coordination efforts, the Wetlands Reassessment Task Force
recommends that the Wetlands Workgroup coordinate with the Habitat Objectives/Restoration
Workgroup on the development of a habitat restoration strategy. This strategy should focus
heavily on the restoration of wetlands and should rely on the expertise available in the Wetlands
Workgroup.
TASKS:
• Review and comment on the draft Habitat Restoration Strategy and hold a joint
meeting, if necessary, with the Habitat Objectives/Restoration Workgroup.
• Develop and submit to the Living Resources Subcommittee a scope of work for
the "clearinghouse" and submit for FY94 funding.
• Assign a contract or project manager and establish the framework for the
clearinghouse.
• Prepare a "Mission" statement for the role of the Wetlands Workgroup consistent
with the Implementation Plan restructuring.
3. Restructuring the Implementation Plan
In restructuring the Implementation Plan, the products of the Workgroup must support
the ongoing efforts by each of the participants. Further, the plan must proceed along a logical
17
-------
course with each step building on the previous accomplishment. The Reassessment Task Force
spent considerable time in analyzing the current structure of the Implementation Plan. The
consensus was that the sequence of the Plan needed adjustment and bridges needed to be built
between broad policy goals and detailed tasks. To provide a "road map" for the Workgroup
in restructuring the Plan, the Task Force developed a flow chart of our vision of the critical
path to meeting the wetlands policy goals.5
STEP ONE
A baseline of wetlands acreage from which we can measure the success of our existing
and future wetlands management efforts must be developed. This has been accomplished, in
part, through the Baywide Wetlands Mapping Strategy and the ongoing Status and Trends
Report. However, both the mapping and the status and trends projects only give a broad view
of the overall changes in wetland acreages. While the status and trends project can detect how
former wetland acreage has changed (e.g. developed land or agriculture), no information on
regulatory and nonregulatory effects can be surmised. In order to more accurately evaluate the
success of our regulatory efforts, we must develop, update, and maintain permit monitoring
programs and mechanisms for measuring non-regulatory gains and losses in each jurisdiction.
What kind of tracking system each jurisdiction adopts is not important. What matters is that
each jurisdiction can provide the same output data. By developing a methodology for assessing
changes in wetlands acreage through a status and trends analysis and an accurate monitoring
process, we can assess our collective abilities to meet the "no net loss goal". In the future,
efforts must also focus on measuring changes in wetland functions. This will require the
development and acceptance of a functional assessment methodology.
'The vision is graphically represented in APPENDIX C.
18
-------
TASKS:
• Coordinate with USGS Wetlands Mapping workgroups.
• Develop a standard set of output data for all permit tracking systems.
• Develop a system for tracking non-regulatory losses and gains.
STEP TWO
The next step in restructuring the Implementation Plan is to evaluate the effectiveness
of existing regulatory and non-regulatory programs in achieving the "no net loss goal" through
a "gaps analysis". The Wetlands Workgroup has been involved in several unsuccessful efforts
to identify gaps, including a matrix circulated by the Reassessment Task Force. The gaps
analysis is fundamental to the restructuring process. To overcome past obstacles, the Task
Force recommends that the gaps analysis be done by an independent party. Further, a useful
gaps analysis should not only identify deficiencies but highlight successes in ongoing programs
so that other jurisdictions can benefit from those examples.
TASKS:
• Develop a scope of work for the "gaps analysis" and submit for FY94 funding.
• Assign a contract manager for the "gaps analysis" and complete project by
January 1, 1995.
CONCLUSION
The Wetlands Workgroup is a vital entity which can effectively facilitate improvement
of wetlands management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In order for this to become a
reality, all parties represented on the Wetlands Workgroup must renew their commitment by
allocating the necessary resources. To date, the level of commitment by the those organizations
19
-------
represented on the Workgroup has been sporadic and lackluster. As detailed above, many
ongoing tasks must be completed and some new directions need to be taken. In restructuring
the Implementation Plan, the products of the Workgroup must support the ongoing efforts by
each of the participants. With the recommended completion of specific tasks, redefining the
role of the Workgroup and restructuring the Implementation Plan, much can be accomplished
in ensuring that the "no net loss" and "net resource gain" goals of the Chesapeake Bay wetlands
policy are achieved.
20
-------
Task Force Report APPENDIX
Wetlands Implementation Re-assessment Workgroup
Charles Wheeler, Chair
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph :(410) 974-3846
Fax (410) 974-3907
AnnBartuska
USDA Forest Service
Forest Environmental Research
201 14th Street, P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
ph :(202) 205-1524
Fax:(202) 205-1530
Carin Bisland
Living Resources Subcommittee/EPA/CBPO
410 Severn Ave, Sute 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
ph :(410) 267-0061
Fax: (410) 267-0282
Curtis Bolen
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
164 Conduit Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph :(410) 268-8833
Fax: (410) 280-3513
Edward Christoffers
Living Resources Subcommittee
NOAA/NMFS
410 Severn Ave, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
ph :(410) 280-1871
Fax: (410) 280-1870
Barbara D'Angelo
US EPA Region m
Chief, Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
US EPA Region m (3ES42)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
ph :(215) 597-9301
Fax:(215) 597-7906
Frank Dawson
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Nontidal Wetlands Division
Tawes State Office Building, D-2
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph :(410) 974-3871
Fax (410) 974-974-2618
Joe Ellam
PA Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Dams, Waterways, and Wetlands
P.O. Box 8554
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8554
ph :(717) 541-7802
Fax:(717) 772-5986
Glenn Eugster
US EPA/CBPO
410 Severn Ave, Suite 109
Annapolis, MD 21403
ph :(410) 267-0061
Fax: (410) 267-0282
Thomas J. Filip
Existing Wetland Protection Commission
US Army COE
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
ph :(410) 962-3670
Fax: (410) 962-2715
-------
Eric Jenkins John Wolflin
LGAC US Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 14113 1825 Virginia Street
Reading, PA 19612-4113 Annapolis, MD 21401
ph :(215) 478-1751 ph :(410) 269-5448
Fax:(215) 478-9552 Fax:(410) 269-0832
Walter Pomperoy
National Audubon Society
1104 Fernwood Avenue, Suite 300
Camp Hill, PA 17011
ph :(717) 763-4985
Fax:(717) 763-4981
Collin Powers
VA Council on the Environment
202 N. Ninth St., Suite 900
Richmond, VA 23219
ph :(804) 786-4500
Fax:(804) 371-7604
Ken Reisinger
PA Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Dams, Waterways, and Wetlands
P.O. Box 8554
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8554
ph :(717) 541-7802
Fax:(717) 772-5986
Jon Siemien
DC Department of Consumer & Regulatory
Affairs
Fisheries Management Division
2100 Martin Luther King Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20020
ph :(202)404-1152
Fax:(202)404-1188
Bruce Williams
Regulatory Branch
US Army COE Norfolk
803 Front St.
Norfolk, VA 23510-1096
ph :(804) 441-7418
Fax:(804)
-------
Interested others
Steve Nelson
Chesapeake Research Consortium
Box 1280
Solomons, MD 20688
ph: (410)326-6700
fax:
Steve Funderburk
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program
180 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Suite 535
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: (410)224-2732
fax: (410)224-2781
Ed Pendleton
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Chesapeake Bay Estuary Program
180 Admiral Cochrane Drive, Suite 535
Annapolis, MD 21401
ph: (410)224-2732
fax: (410)224-2781
-------
-------
8-
w
12
Task Force Report APPENDIX B
is i 1!
_ M tiS o •"
« ? 4 -a
!t?1 1
** M hi O
^S£ 55
C/J
II
§
g
H
I
§
a
i
CTv
1
•a
s
^
o
o •«
• i 5
-------
§
S
o
-------
•sfP'l
•H B - * *
8 | £« .9 J2
li'lil
9 " ° « ^
•a
-------
fi
CN
ifg
9
!
!
W
•O
£
£
2
2
4
I
£
"8
«>
I
s
U) .
§
•»
.c
3
^f
s^
60
g
s'S
— 5
to
SJ
Cvl
I
o\
s»
1
ON
P>l
§
!(
£
3
2
oo
"3
-S
I
^
U
I
w
o
S
^
j
s)
•*
3
<
4
II
ts
is
si
«M
w
s
1
I
J
D
4)
-------
oo
B'
>oo
B
I
CA
vO
1
•S f
-------
-------
0 8
If
a s. B e. »
I »l».
I
o
O
S
S
o
I
§
1
n
•}
-------
-------
I
I
I
5
I
S
I
1
1
§
n
03
TO
•3
P
te
I
i
C/9
-------
-------
5
b*
ej
n
5
i
n
I
I
5
ts)
B"
I
I
I
I
S
3
1
KG
OQ
25
S.
-------
-------
01 spun/ P6AJ isenbdy
saBueijo
suoiieooi Ayiuapi
sassaoons
sisAjBuv sdBQ
6u iis 1x3
anc uoday
(asneo pue ssoj) api/wAeg
s,08
suoi&unj
suiBQ/sasso-j Ajoie/nBay jo BUI^OBJJ,
spudj±
13N
^^^4 ON
AB&IBJIS uo
lueoissasseayj uey uoi;eiU9LU9|duu|
-------
-------
japaq q3nonp spirepaM 3upsixa aip 3urpaiojd uo pasnooj aq pn\oM BaiB snp japun
S31SB1 -sisAreire aAoqs aip ut paijpuapi sdBpaAO pin: sdB3 aip ssaippB en sunuSoid 3uiuadiBqs
uo ApBpnn pasnooj aq pnioM sassoi 3upnpa>[ -sassoj 3ui3Bireui pire sassoi Suionpai
OMJ uo snooj 01 ajqB aq pniOM dnoj33[jOM. spirepaM. ^ 'aiaiduxoo si sisAreire am jajjy
•apAo
Sutpunj urej3oj«i ABg 33readBsaqo fr6A J 31P «I sisAreire ire qons punj 01 aoioj^sB
UBW uoiiBiuauiatduii spuBpaM. ^m jo uop^puauiuiooaj aqi si 11 PUB 'sdB3 au^ SUTHIJ PUB
aqi SuisBajoap uo pasnooj aq pinoqs sapuoud aip asnBoaq S^SBI uopBiuauiaiduii spuBpa/w
jaipo jo uopBzpuoud am a\ isopuo ST sisApBUB siqx -Suujnooo aiB sdB§ aip ajaqM pus
aiB aiaip aiaqM 'jaipa3o) ^JOM suraSojd aip Moq JB ^ooj OS^B pino
aqj ui uopoipsunf qoBa joj urei3ojd aiqB[iBAB qoBa IB 3^00^ A"IUO jou p^noM AjBiuuins
siuj. 'saDinosaj puBpaM joajjB iBip sureiSoid AjoiBin3aiuou pire AjoiBin3aj 3upstxa jo
B si ipBd [B3pu3 aip 3uo[B da}s ixau dip 'pajaiduioo uopBuuojur spuau pire STUBJS
•amssaid ipywoj3 q3ni japun SBBJB jo spuaii paireiap aioui SB flaM SB 'paqsiaiBM. ipaaAO aip
spuan jo uopduosap B pire awiasBq pBopspBjs B uo 3upjodai '£661 '»qoioo UT pajatduioo aq
iiodaj B 'ureiioji ^Bg 33|BadBsaqo aip qSnoiip papunj -supj3 10 sasso^ XUB jo sasnBO aip
puB)sjapun dnoj3}[JOM aip )Bip jireyoduii si 11 'auip auiBs aip iy *^SB) jsiij aip aq isnui adA) Aq
spirepa/w 3upspca jo au^asBq B 'spirepaM 3upspca jo uoiioaiojd ainsua ox "aiqissod ^ua^xa aip oj
spuBpaM 3upsixa aip )oa)oid o\ UIBJ^OJJ Aeg a?[BadBsaio dip jo Ajuoud aip aq aiojaiaip pjnoqs
II "spirepaM iBiniBu SB 'n813^^0 'l!3/A SB uopounj jou op nps spirepaM paiBaio pire paiojsaj
'Aoirejin aApB^ai ui j^ps si uopBio^sai pire uopB3pnu jo aouaios aip jo ajBjs aip astreoag
•Aiuoud B auiooaq jsniu uopounj ajnsBaiu on Moq uo uoreasai
ajoui 'ire^ uopB)uauiaidiui spirepa^ aip pire Aoijod spirepa^ aip ipoq in paquosap SB 'reo3 aip
jo jiBd si suopounj pirepa*v jo ssoj pu ou ji 'auip aures aip )y • jaipoire in ssoi aip )asjjo pjnoo
uopoipsunf auo ui spirepaM n>ppuou in ure3 B )ou jo jaipaqM aq p^noM uopBiapisuoo jaipouy
•paqsnqBisa aq 01 aABq pnio/w auriasBq B 'paqsjajBM ABQ aqj in spirepa/w jo adAi Aq saiOB jo
jaqiunu aip si reo3 ssoi jau ou aip jo UBd ji 'ajduiBxa joj -uopiuyap patrejap aioui B uo puadap
njM (SJISBJ puaj; pire snreis pire 3uuoiiuoiu 'SuiddBiu) pajornioui si reo3 sup PJBMO^ ssai3oid
aqi ABM aip 'uopounj pire a^BaioB jo ssoi jau ou SB reo3 aip saquosap Aoijod aqj anHM. TBo3
snp ainjap a\ aq p^noqs dnoiS^io^ spirepa^ aqi jo S^SBJ isjy aqj jo auo 'aomosaj spirepa/w
aip jo ure3 iau uuaj 3uoi B ipt/w sso{ pu ou si 'dAoqB pa)B)s SB 'Aoi^Oj aip jo reo3 auj,
•sreo3 aip
a\ qiBd reopuo aip uo snooj dnoi33iJO^ spirepa^ aip diaq ni^ ^V raid uopBjuauiaidiui
aip uiojj s?[SB) aip jo ireqp MOU B si \ ajn3i£[ 'sreo3 asaip 3uiAanpB oj n^oAid aja/w
aiuos uo snooj jou pip dnoi3?[jo^ spirepa^ aip 'snopiquraaAO SBM w\
jo aurejjauip aip asnBoaq pire 'uoissnuo snp jo asnBoag 'S^SB) renpiAipui aip jo
sABMipBd reopuo pire aouBuodiui aApBpj aq} aquosap }ou pip ire^d uopBtuauiaidiui am 'paqsiareM
ABQ a?readBsaq3 aip in saomosai pirepaM aqi jo ure3 iau uua) 3uo^ B ipiM. ssoi pu ou reo3
B SB jas qjoo, ireid uopBuiauiaiduii Aoipjj spirepa^ am PUB AOI^OJ spirepa^ aip
AOH1VULS
Nvid NOiiviNawaidwi SONVTXHM
-------
•uopBio)SdJ
qSnoiq) pd^BUBui dq O) pddu HTM sdssoi jdMdj pue sdsso[ Uupnpdj q§noiq) pd)3d)ojd dq
spirepdM djoui 'Jd3uoj)s )d§ sureiSojd aq) SB ')Bq) pduoisuud si Ji 'sassd-ioui dnoj&fjoyw
dip °J aiqBnBAB dspjddxd PUB uopBiuiojui dip SB 'spirepdM 3upsixd Supod)ojd
uo suiBiudj SHDOJ dip )Bip djnsud o) p3j3[duxoo aq pjnoqs sdB[J3AO PUB sdB§ dip puB 'spuajj dip
'SnjBJS dip JO UOpBttlBAd UB 'SJBdX 3Ay XldAd 'dUIp 3UIBS dip JV 'pd)B§pIUI Sllldq dJB UIBjSoid
Ajo)B{n3dj dip Jdpun 3uuinooo dJB iBip sassoj }Bip djnsud oj 'ssdooad §UD{OBJJ jruuad dip
pdzXpniB dq p[noo siuBjSoid XjojBjn^a^ 'MdiAdJ jo s[3A3[ judidjjip JB 'dOB{d
suopBujBAH -ssdoojd opBjs B ireip JdipBi 'oiureuKp B sjudsdiddj jJBijD A\oy
•pdqsjd}BA\ dq) in sdnupuoo
sdnbniqod) uopBiojsdJ pB dq) jo d)B)S jo )Udiudo[dAdp djnsud Q) suopBJ)Suouidp puB qdJBdSdi pire
'sanbruqodj uopBio)Sdj )Sd)Bi dq) in Surupej) djnsud o) ppy iBOiuqodj dq) in uopBonpd —
pire uopBonpd dpnpui osp? pinoM BdJB siqj, -dopuds ajFIPITM P"^ MSIJ 'S'fl 3i|J
9jnPITM uj sjdiqiBj SB qons sureiSoid XjojBjnSajuou qSnojq) pire 'uopB^pnii qfnojq) '
Xjo)B[n§dJ dq) qSnojqj qjoq SJODDO uopBio)Sd^ -urejSojd uopBio)Sdi B qSnonp si sassoj
dSdq) dtsuBiu o) XBM dApodjjd jsoui dqj, -doudpisqns pire dsu PASJ Bds SB qons sasriBO
q§nojqj jsoj §uidq SBSJB SB \\3fA. SB 'suiBiSoid 3upsrxd jo S^OBJO dq) qSnoiqj HBJ )Bq)
piiBpdM dsoq) dpnpui pjnoM sdsso[ dSdqj, unooo o) dnupuoo [nM Sdssof duios 'suiBiSoid Supsred
q)iM ')Bq) pdziu3oo9J si )i 'jJBqo Moy snp in A)uoud dq) dq pjnoM sassof Suronpdj
•X)iunuiuioo Jidq) ui spuBpdM dq) jo uopoajoad dq) qjiM maqj JSISSB o) sdnoiS X)iunuiuioo
O) qoB9Jjno dq pjnoo BdJB siq) in snooj jdq)ouy •uopBiiuojui in sdB? p?pud)od ssdJppB
o) sdBiu Ajo)B{n3dJ jo 'sdBpdAO iBpud)od ssdJppB O) XjuoqjnB uopB9d[dp SB qons SBdiB o)in
dpnpui pjnoo S^SBX 'qaredsdj pire uopBonpd ^118)81888 reoiuqod) 'sd&reqD Ajo)B[nSdJ
-------
------- |