Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon Seminar Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon Seminar Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon."— Presentation transcript:

1 Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon Seminar Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon Seminar Anne Hairston-Strang, Ph.D. Robert Feldt, Jr. Steven W. Koehn, Director / State Forester Maryland DNR Forest Service November 18, 2008

2 Multiple Ecological Benefits Nutrient reduction/uptake Nutrient reduction/uptake Stream Bank stabilization Stream Bank stabilization Wildlife habitat Wildlife habitat Flood control Flood control Erosion control Erosion control Water filtration Water filtration Air filtration Air filtration Forest is the Natural Landcover of Maryland…

3 Forests Provide Economic Potential… Multiple Economic Benefits Forest Industry is the fifth largest industry in the State Forest Industry is the fifth largest industry in the State Largest in western Maryland Largest in western Maryland Second only behind poultry on the Shore Second only behind poultry on the Shore Employs approximately 14,000 Employs approximately 14,000 $2.4 billion value added to Marylands economy $2.4 billion value added to Marylands economy Anne Hairston-Strang – MD DNR Forest Service MD DNR Forest Service

4 Multiple Benefits to Society Shade Shade Open Space Open Space Quality of Life Quality of Life Carbon Sequestration Carbon Sequestration Erosion Control Erosion Control Recreation Recreation Forests are Imperative to a Sustainable Society… Tom Darden – MD DNR

5 Marylands Forests are Owned by…

6 Forests are Important to Maryland Families… Reasons for Owning: Beauty/Scenery Beauty/Scenery Part of home or cabin Part of home or cabin To protect nature To protect nature Privacy Privacy Pass land on to heirs Pass land on to heirs Important Concerns: Trespassing or poaching Trespassing or poaching Insects or plant diseases Insects or plant diseases High property taxes High property taxes Development of nearby lands Development of nearby lands Misuse of forest land Misuse of forest land Future Intentions of Maryland Forest Landowners This information is adapted from "Family Forest Owners of the United States, 2006" General Technical Report NRS-27. USDA Forest Service

7 Clearly Forests are worth keeping around! Jack Perdue- DNR Forest Service

8 Threats to Marylands Forests

9 Insects and Disease Current threats: Beech Bark Disease – Garrett County Beech Bark Disease – Garrett County Emerald Ash Borer – Prince Georges & Charles Counties Emerald Ash Borer – Prince Georges & Charles Counties Hemlock Wooly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) – Statewide Hemlock Wooly Adelgid (Adelges tsugae) – Statewide Gypsy Moth – Western and Central MD Gypsy Moth – Western and Central MD Imminent Threats: Sirex Wood Wasp (Sirex noctilio Fabricius) Central Pennsylvania and moving south. Sirex Wood Wasp (Sirex noctilio Fabricius) Central Pennsylvania and moving south. David Cappaert, Michigan State University, USDA Forest Service David R. Lance, USDA APHIS

10 Weeds and Invasive Plants Difficult to contain and erradicate. Difficult to contain and erradicate. Occupies space for tree regeneration. Occupies space for tree regeneration. Quickly over-takes native tree species. Quickly over-takes native tree species. Less preferred by native animal species as a food source. Less preferred by native animal species as a food source. Noxious weeds include: Noxious weeds include: Canada Thistle Johnsongrass Problem invasive weeds include: Problem invasive weeds include: Multiflora rose Mile-a-minute Honeysuckle Britt Slattery – US FWS James Miller – US Forest Service David Kazyak – MD DNR Norman Rees – USDA ARS

11 Deer Most problematic in a mixed landscape of agriculture/forest/residential parcels. Most problematic in a mixed landscape of agriculture/forest/residential parcels. Over-population causes: Over-population causes: Browse of leaves and twigs Damage to trunks with buck rub Preference for desired species of tree regeneration Riley Smith – MD DNR Tom Darden – MD DNR David Kazyak – Baltimore County, DEPRM

12 Primary Threat to Sustainable Forestry in Maryland

13 Development The Greatest threat to Marylands forests The Greatest threat to Marylands forests Permanent loss of the resource Permanent loss of the resource Greater fragmentation effects Greater fragmentation effects Augments the effects of other threats, i.e. Deer, Invasive plants, etc. Augments the effects of other threats, i.e. Deer, Invasive plants, etc. Small forest patches have less habitat value. Small forest patches have less habitat value. A Conservation Fund report finds 31% of forest most valuable to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is at risk to development. A Conservation Fund report finds 31% of forest most valuable to water quality in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is at risk to development. A 10% loss of forest cover could result in a >40% increase in Nitrogen discharge to the Bay – The Conservation Fund, 2006 A 10% loss of forest cover could result in a >40% increase in Nitrogen discharge to the Bay – The Conservation Fund, 2006

14 More Forest Landowners…but Smaller Forests From 1976 to 1998, a 29% increase in the number of owners From 1976 to 1998, a 29% increase in the number of owners Increased fragmentation Increased fragmentation Fewer workable parcels Fewer workable parcels 85% of forest landowners own 1-9 acre patches. 85% of forest landowners own 1-9 acre patches.

15 How do we ensure healthy forests for Marylands future? ? ? ?

16 Forest Conservation Goals in Maryland- By 2020 Protect Sensitive Areas- Protect an additional 250,000 acres of forested sensitive areas by ,000 acres (27%) already protected towards the 1.25 million acre long-term goal; Protect Sensitive Areas- Protect an additional 250,000 acres of forested sensitive areas by ,000 acres (27%) already protected towards the 1.25 million acre long-term goal; Protect/restore 70% streams with forest buffers- Restore an additional 25,000 acres (2063 miles) by 2020, outside prime ag land; Protect/restore 70% streams with forest buffers- Restore an additional 25,000 acres (2063 miles) by 2020, outside prime ag land; Set urban tree canopy goals- Have canopy goals for 74+ communities, focusing on areas developed before stormwater regulations (pre 1985). Set urban tree canopy goals- Have canopy goals for 74+ communities, focusing on areas developed before stormwater regulations (pre 1985). DRAFT for State Retain 41% forest cover in MD, including working forest (2.6. million acres); Retain 41% forest cover in MD, including working forest (2.6. million acres); Guidelines for 65-70% rural land use- By 2008 for use in revised comprehensive plan elements (based on landscape and land use characteristics) Guidelines for 65-70% rural land use- By 2008 for use in revised comprehensive plan elements (based on landscape and land use characteristics) Adopted

17 Conserving Forests in Maryland A Strong Foundation Forest Conservation Act Forest Conservation Act Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Law Rural Legacy and Program Open Space Rural Legacy and Program Open Space Donated Easements- Land Trusts Donated Easements- Land Trusts MD Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation MD Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation Forest Legacy Forest Legacy ~27% of forest protected from development

18 Ecosystem Markets for incentives to retain forest Ecosystem 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 & Financing (LILAC, MARBIDCO) Diversify & Develop Markets – Wood to Energy & Financing (LILAC, MARBIDCO) Explore Greater Emphasis on Forest Protection Explore Greater Emphasis on Forest Protection POS/Rural Legacy/MALPF Priorities POS/Rural Legacy/MALPF Priorities Authorize Local Land Conservation Bond and Tax Initiatives Authorize 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 decisions Integrate forests in local land use decisions Include Transferable and Purchase of Development Rights programs Include Transferable and Purchase of Development Rights programs Emphasize forests in sensitive areas, land protection, and water resources elements of Co. Comprehensive Plans Emphasize forests in sensitive areas, land protection, and water resources elements of Co. Comprehensive Plans Priority Actions

19 Ted Weber – MD DNR Charles County Forest Assessment

20 Charles County Objectives DNR Forest Service agreed to create a polygon shapefile for the Mattawoman Stream Valley. DNR Forest Service agreed to create a polygon shapefile for the Mattawoman Stream Valley. Update/create a new Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Polygon shapefile (used later in the models). Update/create a new Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Polygon shapefile (used later in the models). Perform a Strategic Forest Land Assessment style analysis on Charles County Forests for a number of conservation scenarios. Perform a Strategic Forest Land Assessment style analysis on Charles County Forests for a number of conservation scenarios. Utilized County GIS Data whenever possible. Utilized County GIS Data whenever possible.

21 1. Provide a Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) analysis and prioritize patches for conservation. 2. Prioritize forest for conservation on development projects under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), and areas of non-forest for forest restoration/mitigation projects under FCA. 3. Locate forest for conservation in the Critical Area and prioritize for conservation, and identify non-forest areas in the Critical Area for restoration. Forest Assessment Objectives

22 4. Identify forest essential to drinking water and well head protection and prioritize for conservation or augment non-forest areas 5. Identify and prioritize forest important to water quality for conservation, and areas of non-forest for forest restoration that have potential to improve water quality. 6. Use water quality rules and apply to the Port Tobacco River watershed for conservation and restoration to enhance WRAS. 7. Identify forest for conservation to assist targeting for Charles Countys 50% open space goal. Forest Assessment Objectives

23 10 Meters Input Layer ( Map ) X Model Output Layer Layer Weight Total Model Weight For Example: Slopes Layer Weight (8) Total Model Weight (28) Weighted Layer Multiplier = Slopes Landuse Depth to Water Table SPARROW Overview of Model Processing

24 Steep Slopes Special Habitat Forest Blocks Rural Legacy Areas Other Data Layers Land use Model Output Each cell is processed and added to the cell below… …and the sum of the cells produces a final scorethe output

25 Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Habitat

26 Use WHS Forest Interior Dwelling Species (FIDS) Habitat FIDS Layer; Advised county to download from DNR website.

27 Model 1: Conservation of Forest For Forest Conservation Act (FCA) Prioritization

28 Forest Assessment for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Conservation Potential Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection

29 Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Charles Countys RPZ Forest Conservation for FCA

30 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Conservation for FCA

31 Hydric Soils Forest Conservation for FCA

32 MDE High Quality Waters

33 Forest Conservation for FCA Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)

34 Forest Conservation for FCA Non-tidal Wetlands

35 Forest Conservation for FCA Green Infrastructure (Preference given to corridors)

36 Forest Conservation for FCA Large Forest Blocks

37 Forest Conservation for FCA Rural Legacy Areas

38 Forest Conservation for FCA Forest Legacy Areas of Need

39 Forest Conservation for FCA Priority Watersheds

40 Forest Conservation for FCA: Model Output Model Output

41 Model 2: Restoration of Forest for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Restoration/Mitigation Potential

42 Forest Assessment for Forest Conservation Act (FCA): Restoration/Mitigation Potential Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection

43 Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Charles Countys RPZ Forest Restoration for FCA

44 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Restoration for FCA

45 Rural Legacy Areas

46 Forest Restoration for FCA Steep Slopes (0ver 15%)

47 Forest Restoration for FCA Adjacency to Green Infrastructure

48 Forest Restoration for FCA Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)

49 Forest Restoration for FCA Adjacency to Large Forest Patches

50 Forest Restoration for FCA MDE High Quality Waters

51 Adjacency to FIDS Forest Restoration for FCA Adjacency to High Quality FIDS Habitat

52 Forest Restoration for FCA Priority Watersheds

53 Adjacency to FIDS (Non) Prime Farm Lands Forest Restoration for FCA

54 Forest Legacy Areas of Need

55 Hydric Soils Forest Restoration for FCA

56 Non-tidal Wetlands

57 Forest Restoration for FCA: Model Output Model Output

58 Model 3: Forest Conservation for the Critical Area Program

59 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Forest Assessment for the Critical Area Program: Conservation Prioritization

60 Critical Area Buffer Forest Conservation for CAP

61 Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Charles Countys RPZ Forest Conservation for CAP

62 100 Foot Buffer of Critical Areas Forest Conservation for CAP

63 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Conservation for CAP

64 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Forest Conservation for CAP

65 Steep Slopes (0ver 15%) Forest Conservation for CAP

66 MDE High Quality Waters Forest Conservation for CAP

67 Colonial Waterbird Nesting Areas (1/4 mile) Forest Conservation for CAP

68 All Wetlands Forest Conservation for CAP

69 Green Infrastructure Forest Conservation for CAP

70 FIDS Habitat Forest Conservation for CAP

71 Hydric Soils Forest Conservation for CAP

72 Bald Eagle Nest Sites (1/4 mile) Forest Conservation for CAP

73 Historic Waterfowl Staging Areas (300 ft. buffer) Forest Conservation for CAP

74 Forest Conservation for CAP: Model Output Model Output

75 Model 4: Forest Restoration for the Critical Area Program

76 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Forest Assessment for the Critical Area Program: Restoration Prioritization

77 Critical Area Buffer Forest Restoration for CAP

78 Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Charles Countys RPZ Forest Restoration for CAP

79 100 Foot Buffer of Critical Areas Forest Restoration for CAP

80 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Restoration for CAP

81 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Forest Restoration for CAP

82 Steep Slopes (0ver 15%) Forest Restoration for CAP

83 Colonial Waterbird Nesting Areas (1/4 mile) Forest Restoration for CAP

84 MDE High Quality Waters Forest Restoration for CAP

85 All Wetlands Forest Restoration for CAP

86 Adjacency to FIDS Adjacency to High Quality FIDS Habitat Forest Restoration for CAP

87 Green Infrastructure (Preference given to corridors) Forest Restoration for CAP

88 Hydric Soils Forest Restoration for CAP

89 Bald Eagle Nest Sites (1/4 mile) Forest Restoration for CAP

90 Historic Waterfowl Staging Areas (300 ft. buffer) Forest Restoration for CAP

91 Model Output

92 Model 5: Forest Conservation for Water Quality Treatment and Infiltration Ted Weber – MD DNR

93 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Forest Assessment for Water Quality and Infiltration: Conservation Prioritization

94 Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Charles Countys RPZ Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration

95 Depth to Water Table

96 Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (KSAT)

97 Steep Slopes (0ver 15%) Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration

98 High Impervious Surface Cover in Watershed

99 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration

100 FEMA 100 Year Flood Plains

101 All Wetlands Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration

102 MDE High Quality Waters Forest Conservation for Water Quality and Infiltration

103 Watersheds with TMDLs for Nutrients

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

105 Model 6: Forest Restoration for Water Quality Treatment and Infiltration Ted Weber – MD DNR

106 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Forest Assessment for Water Quality and Infiltration: Restoration Prioritization

107 Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Charles Countys RPZ Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

108 Depth to Water Table Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

109 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (KSAT) Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

110 High Impervious Surface Cover in Watershed Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

111 Agriculture in the Watershed >30% Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

112 FEMA 100 Year Flood Plains Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

113 Non-Wetland Hydric Soils Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

114 Watersheds with TMDLs for Nutrients Forest Restoration for Water Quality and Infiltration

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

116 Model 7: Forest Conservation For the Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Ted Weber – MD DNR

117 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Forest Assessment for the Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS): Conservation Prioritization

118 County Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

119 FEMA Flood Plains Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

120 Non-Wetland Hydric Soils Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

121 Depth to Water Table Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

122 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

123 Steep Slopes (>15%) Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

124 Percent of Impervious Surface in the Watershed Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

125 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

126 MDE High Quality Waters Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

127 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

128 Prime Forest Lands Forest Conservation for the Port Tobacco WRAS

129 Port Tobacco River Watershed Conservation Model Output

130 Model 8: Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy

131 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Forest Assessment for the Port Tobacco Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS): Conservation Prioritization

132 County Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

133 FEMA Flood Plains Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

134 Non-Wetland Hydric Soils Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

135 Depth to Water Table Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

136 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

137 Steep Slopes (>15%) Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

138 Percent of Impervious Surface in the Watershed Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

139 Agriculture in the Watershed > 30% (Unique to restoration model) Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

140 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) (For nutrients) Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

141 Prime Forest Lands Forest Restoration for the Port Tobacco WRAS

142 Port Tobacco River Watershed Restoration Model Output

143 Model 9: Forest Conservation for the Charles Countys 50% Open Space Goal Charles Countys 50% Open Space Goal

144 Water Quality Protection Forest Sustainability Habitat Protection Rural Character & Economies Forest Assessment for Charles Countys 50% Open Space Goal

145 Priority Watersheds Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

146 County Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

147 Adjacency to FIDS (Non) Prime Farm Lands Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

148 Prime Forest Lands Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

149 Rural Legacy Areas Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

150 Forest Legacy Areas of Need Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

151 Green Infrastructure Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

152 All Wetlands Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

153 Steep Slopes (>15%) Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

154 Non-Priority Funding Areas (PFA) Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

155 Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

156 Stronghold Watersheds Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

157 Areas outside of the County Development District Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

158 MDE High Quality Waters Forest Conservation for Charles County 50% Open Space Goal

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

160 Thank You!


Download ppt "Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon Seminar Maryland Forest Conservation and DNR Forest Service Projects MANTA Noon."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google