DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetland Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wetland Conservation Plan DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WETLAND CONSERVATION PLAN March 2020 Prepared Under: Grant No. 2015-1504-WQD-01 Prepared by: Wetland Studies and Solutions Inc. 5300 Wellington Branch, Drive, Suite 100 Gainesville, VA 20155 in collaboration with: Department of Energy and Environment Watershed Protection Division 1200 First Street NE Washington, DC 20002 https://doee.dc.gov/ iii Acknowledgements Authors Department of Energy and Environment Jennifer Dietzen Rebecca Diehl Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. Jessica Campo Sarah Wills Ally Robinson Mike Bowser Manuel Larson-Santos Melissa Letosky Maggie Graham Frank Graziano Brian Chromey Ben Rosner Editors Geoff Brown, DOEE-Regulatory Review Scott Drew, formerly with DOEE - Natural Resources Sherry Schwechten, formerly with DOEE-Natural Resources To update the District of Columbia’s Wetland Conservation Plan, Wetland Studies and Solutions, Inc. (WSSI) conducted months of field work and data collection, including a comprehensive District-wide inventory of wetlands, methodology development, technical analysis, and review. WSSI also developed the Wetland Registry geodatabase, Wetland Enhancement and Restoration Evaluation Tool, and Creation Suitability Guidance Documents. DOEE wrote several chapters in this document and assisted with data review and editing. iv Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 Chapter 1 Overview of Wetland Conservation Plan Updates .......................................... 3 1.1 District of Columbia Wetland Conservation Plan Updates ..................................... 3 1.2 What are Wetlands? ..................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Wetlands: History and Impacts .................................................................................. 12 Chapter 2 Inventory and Assessment of Wetlands ......................................................... 19 2.1 Wetlands Mapping and Registry ............................................................................... 19 2.2 Results ............................................................................................................................ 33 2.3 Summary of the District Wetlands Mapped During the 2017 WCP Update ...... 182 Chapter 3 Wetland Conservation Plan Implementation ................................................231 3.1 Current Regulatory Controls and Programs........................................................... 231 3.2 District Wetland Regulations .................................................................................... 233 3.3 Wetland Registry ........................................................................................................ 235 3.4 Wetland Enhancement and Restoration Evaluation Tool and Wetland Creation Suitability Guidance Documents ............................................................................ 236 3.5 DOEE Divisions that Protect Wetlands and Water Quality ................................... 237 3.6 Sustainable DC 2.0 .................................................................................................... 238 3.7 Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, Creation, and Preservation Portfolio ..... 239 3.8 Wetland Registry Maintenance, Monitoring, and Wetland Conservation Plan Updates ....................................................................................................................... 239 3.9 Climate Change Resilience ..................................................................................... 240 3.10 Living Shorelines ......................................................................................................... 240 3.11 In-Lieu Fee Program/Mitigation Bank ..................................................................... 241 3.12 Stream Registry .......................................................................................................... 242 3.13 Wetlands of Special Concern Designation ........................................................... 242 References 243 Appendix A Property Access Request Letter .................................................................... A-1 Appendix B National Park Service and National Arboretum Draft Revocable Permits . B-1 Appendix C Wetland Enhancement and Restoration Evaluation (WERE) ....................... C-1 Appendix D Wetland Guidance Documents .....................................................................D-1 Appendix E Wetland Determination Data Forms............................................................... E-1 Appendix F 2017 District of Columbia Plant List ................................................................ F-1 Appendix G 2017 Overall Wetland Registry Map ............................................................. G-1 v Appendix H Cowardin Classification Diagram ..................................................................H -1 Appendix I Method for Inventorying and Evaluating Freshwater Wetlands in New Hampshire......................................................................................................... I-1 Appendix J District Wetland Function and Value Checklist ............................................. J-1 Appendix K DOEE Additional Information Checklist ......................................................... K-1 Appendix L Representative Site Photographs ................................................................... L-1 Appendix M New Hampshire Method Raw Data .............................................................. M-1 Appendix N District Wetland Function and Value Checklist Raw Data .......................... N-1 Appendix O 2017 Overall Wetland Registry Detail Maps ................................................. O-1 Appendix P 2017 Mapped Stream Segments in the District ............................................. P-1 vi List of Tables Table 2.1 Desktop Reconnaissance Datasets ....................................................................... 20 Table 2.2 Classification of Wetlands as High, Average, or Low Relative Value (District Method) ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Table 2.3 2017 Mapped Wetlands by Cowardin Classification .......................................... 38 Table 2.4 Inventory of District Wetlands.................................................................................. 49 Table 2.5 Acreage of 2017 District Wetlands Mapped Within NPS Land ........................... 82 Table 2.6 New Hampshire Method Summary ........................................................................ 85 Table 2.7 District Wetland Function and Value Checklist: Relative Value of Mapped District Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 104 Table 2.8 Wetland Relative Value by Wetland Group ....................................................... 132 Table 2.9 WERE Tool Score Summary .................................................................................... 140 Table 2.10 Summary of Potential Wetland Creation Sites .................................................. 178 vii List of Figures Figure 2-1 Physiographic region map. .................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-2 Organization of GIS information. ........................................................................... 27 Figure 2-3 2017 mapped wetlands and potential creation sites in the District. ................ 34 Figure 2-4 Wetland detail map legend. ................................................................................. 35 Figure 2-5 1997 and 2017 mapped District wetland comparison. ...................................... 37 Figure 2-6 Tidal and nontidal 2017 update of mapped wetlands in the District. ............. 47 Figure 2-7 2017 mapped District wetlands per watershed. ................................................. 76 Figure 2-8 2017 mapped District wetlands per ward. ........................................................... 77 Figure 2-9 2017 mapped District wetlands per quadrant. ................................................... 78 Figure 2-10 2017 mapped District wetland acreage and total percentage by wetland group. ........................................................................................................................................... 79 Figure 2-11 2017 mapped District wetland acreage and Total Percentage by watershed. ................................................................................................................................... 80 Figure 2-12 2017 mapped District wetland acreage and Total Percentage by ward. ... 80 Figure 2-13 2017 mapped District wetland acreage and Total Percentage by quadrant. ....................................................................................................................................................... 81 Figure 2-14 National Park Service land within the District .................................................... 83 Figure 2-15 2017 relative value of mapped wetlands in the District. ............................... 103 Figure 2-16 District Wetland Function and Value Checklist: 2017 mapped wetland relative value count per wetland group. .............................................................................. 129 Figure 2-17 District Wetland Function and Value Checklist;
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MS SCR 2016.Indd
    MISSISSIPPI 2016 State Report Part of the America’s River Initiative The America’s River Initiative seeks to restore MAJOR SPONSOR REPORT the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley through Congratulations to the Mississippi State Campaign Committee! Th ey achieved habitat conservation, science and policy that Top 10 results in 2015! Led by Scott Forrest, Mississippi fi nished in a tie for 10th secures wintering, migration and breeding habitat place. Th eir accomplishments were impressive, including 16 new Life Sponsors, 12 for millions of waterfowl and reinforces the upgrades and 6 new Feather Society commitments. In addition, this team secured region’s rich waterfowling legacy. It also supports more than $265,000 in new cash to benefi t DU’s highest conservation priorities. conservation on the breeding grounds most Clearly, major sponsors in Mississippi are making a diff erence for the future of important to Mississippi Flyway waterfowl. Th e wetlands, waterfowl and waterfowl hunting. One such donor is Bobby America’s River Initiative is a crucial part of Ducks Massey, the Southern Region’s Unlimited’s Rescue Our Wetlands Campaign, a Director of Conservation seven-year, $2 billion eff ort aimed at changing the Services. A member of the face of conservation in North America. Rescue DU conservation staff , Bobby Our Wetlands is the largest wetlands and waterfowl has committed to becoming a conservation campaign in history. Diamond Life and Grand Slam Life Sponsor. Bobby grew up in the Mississippi Delta, and he knows well the importance of wetland conservation in the Magnolia State. “I believe in Ducks Unlimited. I work for DU and I know how dedicated this organization, its staff , sponsors and volunteers are to habitat conservation,” Bobby said.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 2017 National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants Project
    2017 National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants Project Summaries Region 1 Barnum Point The Washington Department of Ecology, partnering with Island County, will acquire a 67-acre waterfront property on the east side of Camano Island in Puget Sound, Washington. The project is situated in Port Susan Bay, within the Greater Skagit and Stillaguamish Delta, which is considered one of the most important places on the northwest coast for estuarine and nearshore conservation for its biodiversity and key role in the life histories of dozens of internationally important estuarine- dependent species. A total of 102 acres will be added to an existing 27-acre county natural area. This project will benefit a wide range of saltwater, nearshore and forest dependent species. Federal and state listed endangered salmon and other marine benthic organisms use the eelgrass beds in the intertidal zones and the upland forests provide habitat for federal and state listed species including pileated woodpecker and peregrine falcon. State/Territory Grant award Non-federal cost Other federal Total project cost share funds Washington $1,000,000 $507,500 $1,507,500 Dosewallips Floodplain and Estuary Restoration The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE), partnering with Wild Fish Conservancy will restore five acres of tidally-influenced floodplain and enhance 25 acres of salt marsh and mudflats at Dosewallips State Park in Jefferson County, Washington. The goal of the project is to improve ecosystem processes that create and maintain wetland habitats in the delta of the Dosewallips River by recreating a distributary network on the right bank of the river, which will reconnect the mainstem channel to salt marsh to the south of the river.
    [Show full text]
  • Locking Carbon in Wetlands for Enhanced Climate Action in Ndcs Acknowledgments Authors: Nureen F
    Locking Carbon in Wetlands for Enhanced Climate Action in NDCs Acknowledgments Authors: Nureen F. Anisha, Alex Mauroner, Gina Lovett, Arthur Neher, Marcel Servos, Tatiana Minayeva, Hans Schutten and Lucilla Minelli Reviewers: James Dalton (IUCN), Hans Joosten (Greifswald Mire Centre), Dianna Kopansky (UNEP), John Matthews (AGWA), Tobias Salathe (Secretariat of the Convention on Wetlands), Eugene Simonov (Rivers Without Boundaries), Nyoman Suryadiputra (Wetlands International), Ingrid Timboe (AGWA) This document is a joint product of the Alliance for Global Water Adaptation (AGWA) and Wetlands International. Special Thanks The report was made possible by support from the Sector Program for Sustainable Water Policy of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) of the Federal Republic of Germany. The authors would also like to thank the Greifswald Mire Centre for sharing numerous resources used throughout the report. Suggested Citation Anisha, N.F., Mauroner, A., Lovett, G., Neher, A., Servos, M., Minayeva, T., Schutten, H. & Minelli, L. 2020.Locking Carbon in Wetlands for Enhanced Climate Action in NDCs. Corvallis, Oregon and Wageningen, The Netherlands: Alliance for Global Water Adaptation and Wetlands International. Table of Contents Foreword by Norbert Barthle 4 Foreword by Carola van Rijnsoever 5 Foreword by Martha Rojas Urrego 6 1. A Global Agenda for Climate Mitigation and Adaptation 7 1. 1. Achieving the Goals of the Paris Agreement 7 1.2. An Opportunity to Address Biodiversity and GHG Emissions Targets Simultaneously 8 2. Integrating Wetlands in NDC Commitments 9 2.1. A Time for Action: Wetlands and NDCs 9 2.2. Land Use as a Challenge and Opportunity 10 2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: an Introduction
    ONE Ecology of Freshwater and Estuarine Wetlands: An Introduction RebeCCA R. SHARITZ, DAROLD P. BATZER, and STeveN C. PENNINGS WHAT IS A WETLAND? WHY ARE WETLANDS IMPORTANT? CHARACTERISTicS OF SeLecTED WETLANDS Wetlands with Predominantly Precipitation Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Groundwater Inputs Wetlands with Predominately Surface Water Inputs WETLAND LOSS AND DeGRADATION WHAT THIS BOOK COVERS What Is a Wetland? The study of wetland ecology can entail an issue that rarely Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and needs consideration by terrestrial or aquatic ecologists: the aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or need to define the habitat. What exactly constitutes a wet- near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. land may not always be clear. Thus, it seems appropriate Wetlands must have one or more of the following three to begin by defining the wordwetland . The Oxford English attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is pre- Dictionary says, “Wetland (F. wet a. + land sb.)— an area of dominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is land that is usually saturated with water, often a marsh or nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow swamp.” While covering the basic pairing of the words wet water at some time during the growing season of each year. and land, this definition is rather ambiguous. Does “usu- ally saturated” mean at least half of the time? That would This USFWS definition emphasizes the importance of omit many seasonally flooded habitats that most ecolo- hydrology, soils, and vegetation, which you will see is a gists would consider wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants Project Summaries
    2019 National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants Project Summaries Region 1 Baird Cove Acquisition The Washington State Department of Ecology, in partnership with Nisqually Land Trust, will protect Baird Cove, an 88-acre estuarine complex in southern Puget Sound. The project will protect 4,200 feet of intact estuarine shoreline surrounding 7.8 acres of estuarine intertidal wetlands, 42 acres of intact freshwater forested wetlands and 38 acres of mature forested uplands surrounding the estuary. The project builds on prior investments in coastal protection and restoration, including the 900-acre Nisqually Delta restoration project and establishment of the 14,800-acre Nisqually Reach Aquatic Reserve. Baird Cove’s coastal wetlands sustain many state and federally listed species. Key stakeholders include the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, Nisqually Land Trust, Nisqually Delta Association, as well as commercial and recreational fishers, commercial shellfish growers and recreational boaters. State/Territory Grant request Cost share Other federal Total project cost funds Washington $995,000 $1,431,667 $1,426,667 Elwha Estuary Acquisition The Washington State Department of Ecology, in partnership with the Coastal Watershed Institute, will acquire a 2.4-acre parcel, including 210 feet of marine shoreline in Clallam County, Washington. The project will conserve and restore 1.4 acres of critical coastal wetlands at the mouth of the Elwha River. This parcel is one of six essential conservation acquisitions identified by the state to allow for the restoration of the historic Elwha River delta and reconnection of the estuary to Puget Sound.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterfowl & Wetlands Conservation
    CFR | FWRC KENNEDY ENDOWED PROGRAM WATERFOWL & WETLANDS CONSERVATION 2017–2018 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 ANNUAL REPORT 1 2017-2018 Kennedy Endowed Program in WATERFOWL AND WETLANDS CONSERVATION Annual Report Table of Winter 2017–2018 was stamped with Contents periodic, punishing blows of snow and bitter cold, but these in turn moved water- fowl to Mississippi and other southern clines. I hope FROM THE DIRECTOR ............................................. 4. you found some hotspots amidst the birds either in open water prior to or simultaneous with freeze-up, FEATURE ............................................................... 6. on ice itself, or in the slush and some open water. As fellow colleagues/hunters and I reminisced late- STUDENT ABSTRACTS ............................................ 10. ly, there were likely generations of mallards and other waterfowl that had never ventured this far NEW MEMBERS OF TEAM DUCK .............................. 16. south. It was not uncommon this winter to watch a small bunch of ducks swell ever-so-quickly into UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT EXPERIENCES............ 18. a swarm over grain fields, pressed to access vital carbohydrates during bouts of severe cold or snow. FIELD TRIPS .......................................................... 20. It was a rare winter that senior colleagues in Mis- sissippi had not witnessed since the late 1980s. SERVICE ................................................................ 24. This year was also marked by some unique professional experiences. I traveled to the campus GUESTS
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Assessment of Inland Wetland Conservation Status
    Overview Articles A Global Assessment of Inland Wetland Conservation Status VANESSA REIS, VIRGILIO HERMOSO, STEPHEN K. HAMILTON, DOUGLAS WARD, ETIENNE FLUET-CHOUINARD, BERNHARD LEHNER, AND SIMON LINKE Wetlands have been extensively modified by human activities worldwide. We provide a global-scale portrait of the threats and protection status of the world’s inland wetlands by combining a global map of inundation extent derived from satellite images with data on threats from human influence and on protected areas. Currently, seasonal inland wetlands represent approximately 6% of the world’s land surface, and about 89% of these are unprotected (as defined by protected areas IUCN I–VI and Ramsar sites). Wetland protection ranges from 20% in Central and 18% in South America to only 8% in Asia. Particularly high human influence was found in Asia, which contains the largest wetland area of the world. High human influence on wetlands even within protected areas underscores the urgent need for more effective conservation measures. The information provided here is important for wetland conservation planning and reveals that the current paradigm of wetland protection may be inadequate. Keywords: wetlands, inundation map, human influence, protected areas, conservation planning etlands are highly productive and biodiverse (www.ramsar.org ), the most important international Wecosystems (Keddy et al. 2009). They provide many initiative for wetland protection, is a treaty adopted in ecosystem services, including water purification, the 1971 with the objective of recognizing the importance of buffering of runoff and river discharge, the production wetlands and promoting their conservation. However, the of food and fiber, and ecotourism (Mitsch and Gosselink successful conservation of designated Ramsar sites relies on 2000, Keddy 2010, Junk et al.
    [Show full text]
  • 17 Habitat Conservation Priority – Tidal Flats
    Southwest Nova Scotia Habitat Conservation Strategy Summary Report January 2017 Habitat Conservation Priority – Tidal Flats The following represents one of a series of summary documents that have been developed to aide in the dissemination of information presented in the Southwest Nova Scotia Habitat Conservation Strategy. For more detailed information, please see the final report, Farrow & Nussey 2015. Tidal flats are a common coastal feature of the Southwest Nova Scotia (SWNS) bioregion, particularly in shallow estuaries along the Atlantic Coast. Tidal flats in the bioregion support vast numbers of shorebirds which congregate to feed on abundant burrowing invertebrates, including clams, worms, and amphipods (Anderson et al. 2006). Tidal flats also support extensive beds of Eelgrass, a highly productive perennial aquatic plant that is a ‘keystone species’ found on coarse sand to mud bottoms in low intertidal and subtidal environments (DFO 2009b). Eelgrass beds provide nursery habitat for juvenile stages of fish and invertebrates, and important feeding habitat for migrating waterfowl. The primary productivity of Eelgrass and their associated epiphytic communities exceeds that of many cultivated terrestrial systems, playing an important role as biological filters, sediment stabilizers, and exporters of organic matter and nutrients to subsidize the productivity of other coastal ecosystems. The extensive mud flats and eelgrass beds that can be found along the Atlantic Coast of the bioregion, particularly in the areas around Port Joli and Cape Sable Island, support significant numbers of migrating and overwintering waterfowl, including Canada Goose, Common Goldeneye, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Common Loon, Common Eider, American Black Duck, and the federally endangered Harlequin Duck (Hanson 2004; NS EHJV 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • Sustaining and Improving Waterfowl Conservation in Canada
    Sustaining and Improving Waterfowl Conservation in Canada FINAL SUMMARY SEPTEMBER 2020 McGraw Center for Conservation Leadership Sustaining and Improving Waterfowl Conservation in Canada This document is the culmination of more than two years’ work by the McGraw Waterfowl Working Group, an assembly of conservation leaders who came together to address perceived challenges to the continued success of the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and its Prairie Habitat Joint Venture in particular. It would not have been possible without the diligence and active support of staff members from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Delta Waterfowl Foundation, Ducks Unlimited and Ducks Unlimited Canada, and we thank them for their cooperation. Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation Summary of findings In February 2018, a group of distinguished conservation leaders including some of North America’s most experienced and respected waterfowl managers gathered at the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation in Dundee, Illinois. Worried about the future of waterfowl and the wetlands that sustain them, they wanted to ensure that the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the Canadian-based Prairie Habitat Joint Venture could be promoted as outstanding examples of economic, program and communications success. It was the group’s hope that in a time when wetlands were disappearing and government spending was under the microscope, NAWCA and the PHJV could maintain and even increase the funding needed to sustain waterfowl populations. Concurrently, the McGraw Center for Conservation Leadership filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking final reports and other information regarding grants awarded under the auspices of the PHJV. The goal was to secure as much data as possible, allowing researchers from The Ohio State University to analyze the expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Wetland Conservation Plan
    Texas Wetlands Conservation Plan Texas Wetlands Conservation Program Resource Protection Division 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER I. GOAL OF THE TEXAS WETLANDS CONSERVATION PLAN ....................................... 8 CHAPTER II. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 10 Why was a Wetlands Conservation Plan initiated in Texas? .............................................. 11 History of Plan Development.................................................................................................... 12 Existing Wetlands Planning Efforts in Texas ......................................................................... 13 Wetlands Programs in Texas ..................................................................................................... 15 CHAPTER III. TEXAS WETLANDS RESOURCES: DESCRIPTION, STATUS, TRENDS ................. 16 Texas Wetland Types – What Wetlands does the Plan Address? ....................................... 16 Functions and Values of Wetlands ........................................................................................... 25 Why have Wetlands been Lost and How Many Remain? ....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2011 National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants by Region Region 1 Contacts: Nell Fuller – 503-231-6758 Chris Swenson –
    2011 National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grants by Region Region 1 Contacts: Nell Fuller – 503-231-6758 Chris Swenson – 503-231-2014 Coquille Valley Wetland Conservation and Restoration – The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board was awarded $1 million to help acquire and restore approximately 622 acres of coastal wetlands in the Coquille Valley on the southern Oregon coast for permanent conservation, protection and restoration by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). This project is the first phase of a larger initiative by ODFW to conserve and restore approximately 3,000 acres in the lowlands along the lower Coquille River encompassing some of the most productive wetland habitats on the Oregon Coast. The total cost of the first phase is $2,506,000. Protection and restoration of freshwater wetlands would complement downstream estuarine restoration efforts on Bandon National Wildlife Refuge. This project would protect nesting, feeding, and nursery areas for a diversity of at-risk fish and wildlife species, including Oregon Coast Coho salmon, Coastal cutthroat trout, Bald eagle, Purple martin, Willow flycatcher, Western meadowlark, and Townsend's big-eared bat. The Nature Conservancy is providing technical and financial support for this effort through the Northwest Wildlife Conservation Initiative. Miami Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Project – The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board was awarded $317,700 to help acquire and restore approximately 76.2 acres in the Miami River Basin in Tillamook Bay, on the northern coast of Oregon, including 56.7 acres of nationally declining wetlands. This proposal is the second phase of a two-phase project to improve aquatic habitat by enhancing the increasing tidal channel connection, restoring the historic character of the site vegetation by reducing invasive species and planting native vegetation, enhancing riparian corridors to reduce the water temperature, and permanently protecting the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm-Water and Wetlands Guidance
    Prepared by the State of Minnesota Storm-Water Advisory Group Storm-Water And Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Storm-Water and Snow- Melt Runoff on Wetlands June 1997 Other publications in the Storm-Water Guidance Series of the Minnesota Wetlands Advisory Group • Storm-Water and Wetlands: Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Storm-Water and Snow-Melt Runoff on Wetlands • Soil Bio-Engineering: The Science and Art of Using Biological Components in Slope Protection and Erosion Control • Buffer Zone Guidance and Model Ordinance • Storm-Water Pond Design For copies of these publications contact the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. For information about the content of these documents, contact any of the agencies listed in the acknowledgments section of the document. March, 04 wq-strm1-07 Acknowledgments: Storm-Water Advisory Group Federal agencies Steve Eggers, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers John Brach, Natural Resources Conservation Service State agencies Gary Oberts, Metropolitan Council Bruce Sandstrom, Board of Water & Soil Resources Lou Flynn, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Dave Sahli, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Gretchen Sabel, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Gene M. Soderbeck, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Larry Zdon, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency John Stine, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Mark Zabel, Minnesota Department of Agriculture Greg Busacker, Minnesota Department of Transportation Local governments Jodi Polzin, Minneapolis Department of Public Works Charlie Honchell, Bloomington Department of Public Works Rich Brasch, City of Eagan Cliff Aichinger, Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District This document was funded in part by the US Environmental Protection Agency with funds available under the 319 Non point Source Program Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PREFACE 3 INTRODUCTION 4 SEC.
    [Show full text]