maryland forest conservation and dnr forest service projects manta noon seminar maryland forest...

Maryland Forest Conservation Maryland Forest Conservation

and and DNR Forest Service ProjectsDNR Forest Service Projects

MANTA Noon SeminarMANTA Noon Seminar

Anne Hairston-Strang, Ph.D.Anne Hairston-Strang, Ph.D.

Robert Feldt, Jr. Robert Feldt, Jr.

Steven W. Koehn, Director / State ForesterSteven W. Koehn, Director / State Forester

Maryland DNR Forest ServiceMaryland DNR Forest Service

November 18, 2008November 18, 2008

Multiple Ecological Multiple Ecological BenefitsBenefits

Nutrient Nutrient reduction/uptakereduction/uptake

Stream Bank Stream Bank stabilization stabilization

Wildlife habitat Wildlife habitat Flood controlFlood control Erosion controlErosion control Water filtrationWater filtration Air filtrationAir filtration

Forest is the Natural Landcover of Forest is the Natural Landcover of Maryland…Maryland…

Forests Provide Economic Forests Provide Economic

Potential…Potential… Multiple Economic BenefitsMultiple Economic Benefits

Forest Industry is the Forest Industry is the fifth largest industry in fifth largest industry in the Statethe State

Largest in western Largest in western MarylandMaryland

Second only behind Second only behind poultry on the Shorepoultry on the Shore

Employs approximately Employs approximately 14,00014,000

$2.4 billion value added $2.4 billion value added to Maryland’s economyto Maryland’s economy

Anne Hairston-Strang – MD DNR Forest Service

MD DNR Forest Service

Multiple Benefits to Multiple Benefits to SocietySociety

ShadeShade Open Space Open Space Quality of Life Quality of Life Carbon SequestrationCarbon Sequestration Erosion ControlErosion Control RecreationRecreation

Forests are Imperative to a Forests are Imperative to a Sustainable Society…Sustainable Society…

Tom Darden – MD DNR

Maryland’s Forests are Owned by…Maryland’s Forests are Owned by…

Individual Owners

51%

Public20%

Forest Industry1%

Farmers10%

Corperate18%

Forests are Important to Maryland Forests are Important to Maryland Families…Families…

Reasons for Owning:Reasons for Owning: Beauty/SceneryBeauty/Scenery Part of home or cabinPart of home or cabin To protect natureTo protect nature PrivacyPrivacy Pass land on to heirsPass land on to heirs

Important Concerns:Important Concerns: Trespassing or poachingTrespassing or poaching Insects or plant diseasesInsects or plant diseases High property taxesHigh property taxes Development of nearby landsDevelopment of nearby lands Misuse of forest landMisuse of forest land Future Intentions of

Maryland Forest Landowners

This information is adapted from "Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006" GeneralTechnical Report NRS-27. USDA Forest Service. 2006.

Clearly Forests are worth Clearly Forests are worth keeping around!keeping around!

Jack Perdue- DNR Forest Service

Threats to Maryland’s Threats to Maryland’s ForestsForests

Insects and DiseaseInsects and Disease

Current threats:Current threats: Beech Bark Disease – Garrett Beech Bark Disease – Garrett

CountyCounty Emerald Ash Borer – Prince Emerald Ash Borer – Prince

George’s & Charles CountiesGeorge’s & Charles Counties Hemlock Wooly Adelgid Hemlock Wooly Adelgid

((Adelges tsugae)Adelges tsugae) – Statewide – Statewide Gypsy Moth – Western and Gypsy Moth – Western and

Central MDCentral MD

Imminent Threats:Imminent Threats: Sirex Wood Wasp Sirex Wood Wasp (Sirex noctilio (Sirex noctilio

Fabricius) Central Pennsylvania and moving Fabricius) Central Pennsylvania and moving south.south.

David Cappaert, Michigan State University, www.Bugwood.org

USDA Forest Service

David R. Lance, USDA APHIS

Weeds and Invasive PlantsWeeds and Invasive Plants

Difficult to contain and Difficult to contain and erradicate.erradicate.

Occupies space for tree Occupies space for tree regeneration.regeneration.

Quickly over-takes native Quickly over-takes native tree species.tree species.

Less preferred by native Less preferred by native animal species as a food animal species as a food source.source.

Noxious weeds includeNoxious weeds include:: Canada ThistleCanada Thistle JohnsongrassJohnsongrass

Problem invasive weeds Problem invasive weeds include:include:

Multiflora roseMultiflora rose Mile-a-minuteMile-a-minute HoneysuckleHoneysuckle

Britt Slattery – US FWS

James Miller – US Forest Service

David Kazyak – MD DNR

Norman Rees – USDA ARS

DeerDeer

Most problematic in a mixed landscape of Most problematic in a mixed landscape of agriculture/forest/residential parcels.agriculture/forest/residential parcels.

Over-population causes:Over-population causes: Browse of leaves and twigsBrowse of leaves and twigs Damage to trunks with buck rubDamage to trunks with buck rub Preference for desired species of tree regenerationPreference for desired species of tree regeneration

Riley Smith – MD DNR

Tom Darden – MD DNR

David Kazyak – Baltimore County, DEPRM

Primary Threat to Primary Threat to Sustainable Forestry in Sustainable Forestry in

MarylandMaryland

DevelopmentDevelopment The Greatest threat to Maryland’s The Greatest threat to Maryland’s

forestsforests Permanent lossPermanent loss of the resource of the resource Greater fragmentation effectsGreater fragmentation effects

Augments the effects of other threats, Augments the effects of other threats, i.e. Deer, Invasive plants, etc.i.e. Deer, Invasive plants, etc.

Small forest patches have less habitat Small forest patches have less habitat value.value.

A Conservation Fund report finds 31% A Conservation Fund report finds 31% of forest most valuable to water quality of forest most valuable to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is at in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is at risk to development.risk to development.

A 10% loss of forest cover could result A 10% loss of forest cover could result in a >40% in a >40% increaseincrease in Nitrogen in Nitrogen discharge to the Bay – discharge to the Bay – The Conservation Fund, The Conservation Fund, 20062006

More Forest Landowners…but More Forest Landowners…but Smaller ForestsSmaller Forests

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

18019

54

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

Thou

sands

of L

Ow

ner

s

From 1976 to 1998, a From 1976 to 1998, a 29% increase in the 29% increase in the number of ownersnumber of owners

Increased fragmentationIncreased fragmentation Fewer workable parcelsFewer workable parcels 85% of forest 85% of forest

landowners own 1-9 landowners own 1-9 acre patches.acre patches.

How do we ensure healthy How do we ensure healthy forests for Maryland’s forests for Maryland’s

future?future???

?? ??

Conserving Forests in Conserving Forests in MarylandMaryland

A Strong FoundationA Strong Foundation Forest Conservation ActForest Conservation Act Chesapeake Bay Critical Area LawChesapeake Bay Critical Area Law Rural Legacy and Program Open SpaceRural Legacy and Program Open Space Donated Easements- Land TrustsDonated Easements- Land Trusts MD Agricultural Land Preservation MD Agricultural Land Preservation

FoundationFoundation Forest LegacyForest Legacy ~27% of forest protected

from development

Ecosystem Markets for incentives to retain forestEcosystem Markets for incentives to retain forest Bay Bank - Carbon, water quality/supply, wetland, habitat…Bay Bank - Carbon, water quality/supply, wetland, habitat… Diversify & Develop Markets – Wood to Energy & Diversify & Develop Markets – Wood to Energy &

Financing (LILAC, MARBIDCO)Financing (LILAC, MARBIDCO)

Explore Greater Emphasis on Forest ProtectionExplore Greater Emphasis on Forest Protection POS/Rural Legacy/MALPF PrioritiesPOS/Rural Legacy/MALPF Priorities Authorize Local Land Conservation Bond and Tax InitiativesAuthorize Local Land Conservation Bond and Tax Initiatives Enhanced Tax Credits for Donated Easements (e.g. MET)Enhanced Tax Credits for Donated Easements (e.g. MET)

Integrate forests in local land use decisionsIntegrate forests in local land use decisions Include Transferable and Purchase of Development Rights Include Transferable and Purchase of Development Rights programsprograms Emphasize forests in sensitive areas, land protection, and Emphasize forests in sensitive areas, land protection, and water resources elements of Co. Comprehensive Planswater resources elements of Co. Comprehensive Plans

Priority ActionsPriority Actions

Ted Weber – MD DNR

Charles County Forest Charles County Forest AssessmentAssessment

Charles County ObjectivesCharles County Objectives

DNR Forest Service agreed to create a DNR Forest Service agreed to create a polygon shapefile for the Mattawoman polygon shapefile for the Mattawoman Stream Valley.Stream Valley.

Update/create a new Resource Protection Update/create a new Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Polygon shapefile (Zone (RPZ) Polygon shapefile (used later in used later in the modelsthe models).).

Perform a Strategic Forest Land Assessment Perform a Strategic Forest Land Assessment style analysis on Charles County Forests for style analysis on Charles County Forests for a number of conservation scenarios.a number of conservation scenarios. Utilized County GIS Data whenever possible.Utilized County GIS Data whenever possible.

1.1. Provide a Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Provide a Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) analysis and prioritize patches for conservation.analysis and prioritize patches for conservation.

2.2. Prioritize forest for conservation on Prioritize forest for conservation on development projects under the Forest development projects under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), and areas of non-forest Conservation Act (FCA), and areas of non-forest for forest restoration/mitigation projects under for forest restoration/mitigation projects under FCA.FCA.

3.3. Locate forest for conservation in the Critical Locate forest for conservation in the Critical Area and prioritize for conservation, and identify Area and prioritize for conservation, and identify non-forest areas in the Critical Area for non-forest areas in the Critical Area for restoration.restoration.

Forest Assessment ObjectivesForest Assessment Objectives

4.4. Identify forest essential to drinking water and Identify forest essential to drinking water and well head protection and prioritize for well head protection and prioritize for conservation or augment non-forest areas conservation or augment non-forest areas

5.5. Identify and prioritize forest important to water Identify and prioritize forest important to water quality for conservation, and areas of non-quality for conservation, and areas of non-forest for forest restoration that have potential forest for forest restoration that have potential to improve water quality.to improve water quality.

6.6. Use water quality rules and apply to the Port Use water quality rules and apply to the Port Tobacco River watershed for conservation and Tobacco River watershed for conservation and restoration to enhance WRAS.restoration to enhance WRAS.

7.7. Identify forest for conservation to assist Identify forest for conservation to assist targeting for Charles County’s 50% open space targeting for Charles County’s 50% open space goal.goal.

Forest Assessment ObjectivesForest Assessment Objectives

10 10 MetersMeters

Input Layer (Map)

X 0.285714

Model Output Model Output LayerLayer

Layer Weight

Total Model Weight

For Example: Slopes

Layer Weight (8)

Total Model Weight (28)

Weighted Layer Multiplier = 0.285714

SlopesSlopes

LanduseLanduse

Depth Depth to to

Water Water TableTable

SPARROWSPARROW

++

++

++

Overview of Model ProcessingOverview of Model Processing

Overview of Model ProcessingOverview of Model Processing

Steep Slopes

Special Habitat

Forest Blocks

Rural Legacy Areas

Other Data Layers

Land use

Model Output

Each cell is processed Each cell is processed and added to the cell and added to the cell

below…below…

……and the sum of the cells and the sum of the cells produces a final score—the produces a final score—the

outputoutput

Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) HabitatHabitat

Use WHS Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) HabitatUse WHS Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Habitat

FIDS Layer; Advised county to download from DNR

website.

Model 1:Model 1:

Conservation of ForestConservation of Forest

ForFor

Forest Conservation Act (FCA) Forest Conservation Act (FCA) PrioritizationPrioritization

Forest Assessment for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Forest Assessment for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Conservation PotentialConservation Potential

Comparison of Data Layers by Goal and Weight

0

1

2

3

4

5

6Water Quality ProtectionForest Sustainability

Habitat Protection

Resource Protection Zone (RPZ)

Charles County’s RPZ

Forest Conservation for FCAForest Conservation for FCA

Stronghold Watersheds


Hydric Soils



MDE High Quality Waters


Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)


Non-tidal Wetlands


Green Infrastructure

(Preference given to corridors)


Large Forest Blocks


Rural Legacy Areas


Forest Legacy Areas of Need


Priority Watersheds

Forest Conservation for FCA: Model OutputForest Conservation for FCA: Model Output

Model Output

Model 2: Model 2:

Restoration of ForestRestoration of Forest

forfor

Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Restoration/Mitigation PotentialRestoration/Mitigation Potential


0123456

RPZ

Strong

hold

Waters

heds

Rural L

egac

y

Stee

p Slop

es

Adjac

ency

to GI

ESAs

Adjac

ency

to Fo

rest

Patch

High Q

uality

Waters

Adjac

ency

to FI

DS

Prior

ity W

atersh

eds

Prim

e Ag L

ands

Fores

t Leg

acy

Hydric

Soils

Non-Tida

l Wetlan

ds

Forest Assessment for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Forest Assessment for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Restoration/Mitigation PotentialRestoration/Mitigation Potential

Water Quality ProtectionForest Sustainability

Habitat Protection



Forest Restoration for FCAForest Restoration for FCA


Rural Legacy Areas


Steep Slopes (0ver 15%)


Adjacency to Green Infrastructure


Adjacency to Large Forest Patches

Adjacency to FIDS


Adjacency to High Quality FIDS Habitat


Priority Watersheds

Adjacency to FIDS

(Non) Prime Farm Lands


Hydric Soils



Non-tidal Wetlands

Forest Restoration for FCA: Model OutputForest Restoration for FCA: Model Output

Model Output

Model 3:Model 3:

Forest ConservationForest Conservation

for thefor the

Critical Area ProgramCritical Area Program


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Critica

l Area B

ound

ry

Reso

urce

Prot

ectio

n Zon

e (RP

Z)

Critica

l Area 1

00ft Bu

ffer

Strong

hold

Watersh

eds

Critica

l Hab

itat

Stee

p Slop

es

High

Qua

lity W

aters

Colonia

l Water Bird

Nes

ting S

ites

Wetlan

ds

Gree

n Infrastr

uctu

re

FIDS H

abita

t

Hydric

Soils

Bald

Eagle

Nes

ts

Histo

ric W

aterfo

wl St

aging

Areas


Habitat Protection

Forest Assessment for the Critical Area Program: Forest Assessment for the Critical Area Program: Conservation PrioritizationConservation Prioritization

Critical Area Buffer

Forest Conservation for CAPForest Conservation for CAP

100 Foot Buffer of Critical Areas


Colonial Waterbird Nesting Areas (1/4

mile)


All Wetlands


FIDS Habitat


Hydric Soils


Bald Eagle Nest Sites (1/4 mile)


Historic Waterfowl Staging Areas

(300 ft. buffer)


Forest Conservation for CAP: Model OutputForest Conservation for CAP: Model Output

Model Output

Model 4:Model 4:

Forest RestorationForest Restoration

for thefor the

Critical Area ProgramCritical Area Program


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Critica

l Area

Boun

dry

Reso

urce

Protec

tion Z

one (

RPZ)

Critica

l Area

100ft B

uffer

Strong

hold

Waters

heds

Critica

l Hab

itat

Stee

p Slop

es

Colon

ial W

ater Bi

rd N

estin

g Site

s

High Q

uality

Waters

Wetlan

ds

Adjac

ency

to FI

DS

Adjac

ency

to GI c

orrid

or

Hydric

Soils

Bald

Eagle

Nes

ts

Histor

ic W

aterfo

wl Stagin

g Areas


Habitat Protection

Forest Assessment for the Critical Area Program: Forest Assessment for the Critical Area Program: Restoration PrioritizationRestoration Prioritization

Critical Area Buffer

Forest Restoration for CAPForest Restoration for CAP

100 Foot Buffer of Critical Areas


Colonial Waterbird Nesting Areas (1/4

mile)


All Wetlands


Adjacency to FIDS

Adjacency to High Quality FIDS Habitat



(Preference given to corridors)


Hydric Soils


Bald Eagle Nest Sites (1/4 mile)


Historic Waterfowl Staging Areas

(300 ft. buffer)



Model Output

Model 5:Model 5:

Forest ConservationForest Conservation

forfor

Water Quality Treatment and InfiltrationWater Quality Treatment and Infiltration



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reso

urce

Prot

ectio

n Zon

e (RP

Z)

Dept

h to W

ater T

able

Satu

rated

Hyd

ralic

Cond

uctiv

ity (K

sat)

Stee

p Slop

es

Impe

rviou

s Surf

aces

in W

atersh

ed

Stron

ghold

Wate

rshed

s

FEMA 1

00 Ye

ar Flo

od Pl

ain

Wetl

ands

High

Qua

lity W

aters

TMDL


Habitat Protection

Forest Assessment for Water Quality and Infiltration: Forest Assessment for Water Quality and Infiltration: Conservation PrioritizationConservation Prioritization



Forest Conservation for Water Quality and InfiltrationForest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration


Depth to Water Table


Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (KSAT)


High Impervious Surface Cover in

Watershed


FEMA 100 Year Flood Plains

All Wetlands



Watersheds with TMDL’s for Nutrients

Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration: Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration: Model OutputModel Output

Model Output

Model 6:Model 6:

Forest RestorationForest Restoration

forfor

Water Quality Treatment and InfiltrationWater Quality Treatment and Infiltration



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reso

urce

Prot

ectio

n Zon

e (RP

Z)

Dept

h to W

ater T

able

Satu

rated

Hyd

ralic

Cond

uctiv

ity (K

sat)

Impe

rviou

s Surf

aces

in W

atersh

ed

Agric

ulture

in th

e wate

rshed

FEMA 1

00 Ye

ar Flo

od Pl

ain

Non-W

etlan

d Hyd

ric So

ilsTM

DL


Habitat Protection

Forest Assessment for Water Quality and Infiltration: Forest Assessment for Water Quality and Infiltration: Restoration PrioritizationRestoration Prioritization



Forest Restoration for Water Quality and InfiltrationForest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (KSAT)


High Impervious Surface Cover in

Watershed


Agriculture in the Watershed >30%


FEMA 100 Year Flood Plains


Non-Wetland Hydric Soils


Watersheds with TMDL’s for Nutrients


Model Output

Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration: Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration: Model OutputModel Output

Model 7:Model 7:

Forest Conservation Forest Conservation

For theFor the

Port Tobacco Watershed Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action StrategyRestoration Action Strategy



Habitat Protection

Forest Assessment for the Port Tobacco Watershed Forest Assessment for the Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS): Conservation Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS): Conservation

PrioritizationPrioritization


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reso

urce

Prot

ectio

n Zon

e (RP

Z)

Dept

h to W

ater T

able

Satu

rated

Hyd

ralic

Cond

uctiv

ity (K

sat)

Stee

p Slop

es

Impe

rviou

s Surf

aces

in W

atersh

ed

Stron

ghold

Wate

rshed

s

Prim

e Fore

st La

nds

FEMA 1

00 Ye

ar Flo

od Pl

ain

Non-W

etlan

d Hyd

ric So

ils

High

Qua

lity W

aters

TMDL

County Resource Protection Zone (RPZ)

Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRASForest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

FEMA Flood Plains


Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)


Steep Slopes (>15%)


Percent of Impervious Surface in the Watershed


Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)


Prime Forest Lands


Port Tobacco River Watershed Conservation Model OutputPort Tobacco River Watershed Conservation Model Output

Model 8:Model 8:

Forest Restoration Forest Restoration

for thefor the

Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action StrategyStrategy


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reso

urce

Prot

ectio

n Zon

e (RP

Z)

Dept

h to W

ater T

able

Satu

rated

Hyd

ralic

Cond

uctiv

ity (K

sat)

Stee

p Slop

es

Impe

rviou

s Surf

aces

in W

atersh

ed

Stron

ghold

Wate

rshed

s

Prim

e Fore

st La

nds

FEMA 1

00 Ye

ar Flo

od Pl

ain

Non-W

etlan

d Hyd

ric So

ils

High

Qua

lity W

aters

TMDL


Habitat Protection

Forest Assessment for the Port Tobacco Watershed Forest Assessment for the Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS): Conservation Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS): Conservation

PrioritizationPrioritization


Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRASForest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

FEMA Flood Plains


Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)


Steep Slopes (>15%)


Percent of Impervious Surface in the Watershed


Agriculture in the Watershed > 30%

(Unique to restoration model)


Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL)

(For nutrients)


Prime Forest Lands


Port Tobacco River Watershed Restoration Model OutputPort Tobacco River Watershed Restoration Model Output

Model 9:Model 9:

Forest Conservation Forest Conservation

for thefor the

Charles County’s 50% Open Space GoalCharles County’s 50% Open Space Goal


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Prior

ity W

atersh

ed RPZ

Prim

e Ag L

ands

Prim

e Fores

t Lan

ds

Rural L

egac

y Areas

Forest Le

gacy

Areas

Gree

n Infrastr

uctu

re

Wetlan

ds

Stee

p Slop

es

Prior

ity Fu

nding

Areas

ESAs

Strong

hold

Watersh

eds

Coun

ty Dev

elopm

ent D

istric

t

High

Qua

lity W

aters


Habitat Protection

Rural Character & Economies

Forest AssessmentForest Assessment for Charles County’s 50% Open Space for Charles County’s 50% Open Space GoalGoal

Priority Watersheds

Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space GoalForest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

Adjacency to FIDS

(Non) Prime Farm Lands


Prime Forest Lands


Rural Legacy Areas


All Wetlands


Steep Slopes (>15%)


Non-Priority Funding Areas (PFA)


Areas outside of the County Development

District


Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal: Model OutputGoal: Model Output

Thank You!Thank You!

maryland forest conservation and dnr forest service projects manta noon seminar maryland forest...

Documents

state forest industry

usda forest service

loss of forest cover

small forest patches

family forest owners

deprm slide

usda aphis slide

western maryland largest