1 / 20

What Resources Should We Protect? Maryland Coastal Bays Aquatic Sensitive Areas Initiative

What Resources Should We Protect? Maryland Coastal Bays Aquatic Sensitive Areas Initiative. Mary Conley Habitat Restoration Meeting January 16, 2002. Maryland Coastal Bays – Issues of Concern. Growth and Development Water Quality Habitat Species Management Water Use Conflicts.

garrison-munoz
Télécharger la présentation

What Resources Should We Protect? Maryland Coastal Bays Aquatic Sensitive Areas Initiative

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What Resources Should We Protect? Maryland Coastal BaysAquatic Sensitive Areas Initiative Mary Conley Habitat Restoration Meeting January 16, 2002

  2. Maryland Coastal Bays – Issues of Concern • Growth and Development • Water Quality • Habitat • Species Management • Water Use Conflicts

  3. Recreation and Navigation Goal 3 Balance resource protection with recreational use. Challenge: Reduce resource impacts from water-based recreational activities. Certain water-based recreational activities are thought to be incompatible with long-term protection of coastal bays resources. The presence of too many boats and personal watercraft in sensitive areas poses threats to natural resources due to pollution, direct impacts, and excessive noise. Action is needed to identify sensitive estuarine resources, evaluate the risks from specific recreational activities, and develop appropriate management tools to mitigate those threats.

  4. Sensitive Areas Technical Task Force • Began meeting in September 1999. • Asked to take a “resource-based” approach. • Composed of resource experts and interested parties. • Working toward several actions, including: • Identifying and mapping of aquatic sensitive resources • Reviewing the relationship between water-based threats and the identified resources • Ranking the resources and threats to identify “sensitive aquatic areas”

  5. Identification of Aquatic Sensitive Resources How it was done…. • Developed a list of sensitive species and habitats

  6. Initial list of sensitive species and habitats Species Colonial Water Birds, Diamondback Terrapin, Blue Crabs, Shorebirds, Hard Clams, Scallops, Mussels, Oysters, Non-commercial Invertebrates, Horseshoe Crabs, Foragers and Grazers (I.e. silversides), Finfish (including eels), Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species, Diving Ducks Habitats Seagrasses (Rupia and Zostera), Exposed Mudflats / Sandflats, Hard Substrate, Tidal Wetlands, Submerged Cultural Resources, Bay Islands, Sandy Beaches

  7. Identification of Aquatic Sensitive Resources How it was done…. • Developed a list of sensitive species and habitats • Identified available data sets • Discussed how to avoid duplication and developed a list of sensitive resources focused on species • Identified data and information available to geographically map the resources using GIS

  8. Data used to map sensitive resources • Juvenile Finfish and Blue Crab – less than 3 feet depth • Adult Finfish and Blue Crab – greater than 3 feet depth • Shellfish – entire coastal bays except St. Martin’s River • Colonial Water Birds – nesting sites from survey (1985-1999) • Horseshoe Crabs – identified spawning beaches and sandy beach areas based on MGS shoreline survey • Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species – Wildlife and Heritage Files • Shorebirds – mudflat areas based on the National Wetlands Inventory • Diamondback Terrapin – mapped sitings and sandy beaches • Tidal Wetlands – DNR Wetland Guidance Maps • Foragers and Grazers – less than 3 feet depth • Seagrasses – 1998 aerial photography • Seasonal components – elver runs, striped bass spawning, white perch spawning, blue crab over-wintering (TBD)

  9. Identification of Aquatic Sensitive Resources How it was done…. • Developed a list of sensitive species and habitats • Identified available data sets • Discussed how to avoid duplication and developed a list of sensitive resources focused on species • Identified data and information available to geographically map the resources using GIS • Created general Coastal Bays Aquatic Sensitive Resource Maps using the data.

  10. Sample Northern Coastal Bays Sensitive Resources Maps

  11. Sample Southern Coastal Bays Sensitive Resources Maps

  12. Aquatic Sensitive Areas Ranking • Identified resources ranked individually on a scale of 1 to 5 • Rankings based on task force member expertise, available data and known research • Resources were not compared to one another, rather individual resource parameters were given rankings as individual GIS layers

  13. Hard Clams Assawoman – 3 St. Martin – 1 Isle of Wight – 4 Sinepuxent – 4 Newport – 2 NW Chincoteague – 3 NE Chincoteague – 4 SW Chincoteague – 5 SE Chincoteague – 5 Western Bays - 3 Seagrass (Zostera and Ruppia) Presence of a dense bed (70-100%) – 5 Presence of a moderate bed (40-70%) – 4 Presence of a sparse bed (0-10%) – 3 Presence of a very sparse bed (0-10%) - 2 Examples: Resource Rankings

  14. Draft Sensitive Areas Maps

  15. Identified Gaps in Information • Ability to take a long term perspective • Additional identification of potential sites • Inclusion of water quality criteria • Better characterization of shoreline data • Better definitions between resources and habitats in the mapping components • Inclusion of land use data

  16. Threats to Aquatic Resources • Boating Threats - propeller wash, scarring, boat wakes, jet skis • Fishing Threats - commercial dredging, aquaculture, recreational fishing • Landuse Threats – marina locations, dead end canals, shoreline development • Runoff Threats – nutrients, chemicals, sediments • Other Threats – navigational dredging, episodic oil spills

  17. Next Steps – Technical Task Force • Review and editing of the DRAFT Coastal Bays Sensitive Resources Report • Additional work on the relationship between threats and the resources • Communicating information to the management committee and other interested parties • Updating of sensitive areas layers as new information becomes available

  18. How this information could be used • Identification of water-use management needs • Relationship with shoreline development • Development of “marine managed areas” for single or multiple species • Identification of potential habitat restoration sites.

  19. Lessons Learned • Difficulties in finding habitat and resource-based data that can be geographically mapped in the coastal bays. • Need to communicate with a wide variety of groups to ensure information is both gathered and distributed appropriately. • Ongoing project - will need to be updated as new information becomes available. • There’s more than one way to do it. Need to build consensus within your group.

  20. Contact Information Mary Conley DNR – Coastal Zone Management Division 410-260-8984 or mconley@dnr.state.md.us

More Related