Action plan for the protection and management of Durham vegetated tidal marshes

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Action Plan
For the Protection and Management of

Durham Vegetated Tidal Marshes

June 1995

Strafford Regional Planning Commission
259 County Farm Road
Dover, NH 03820

and

The Durham Conservation Commission
15 Newmarket Road
Durham, NH 03824

Strafford Regional
Planning Commission
Seacoast MPO

GB
625 in of this document and the Durham Coastal Method Inventory and Evaluation
N4 were supported in part by a grant from the Office of State Planning, New
A38 Coastal Program, as authorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
1995 (NOAA), Grant No. NA470Z0237.

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Action Plan Table 2

Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Meeting Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Durham Coastal Method Results (Summary) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Notice of Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Introduction

The Action Plan for the Protection and Management of the Durham Vegetated Tidal Marshes is
a result of the Durham Coastal Method Inventory and Evaluation Project, June 1995, prepared
by the Strafford Regional Planning Commission.

Copies of the Project report were distributedto Town Conservation Commissioners and a few
outside wetlands experts. A meeting was held a couple of weeks later with the intention of
assigning specific tasks to specific people. The agenda for the meeting and the results of the
meeting are presented in this report. The Action Plan Table is a summary of the meeting notes
which relates tasks which were identified as important in the near future and people or agencies
which will be responsible for those tasks.

The Durham Conservation Commission is the main contact for all action plans concerning the vegetated tidal
marshes in the Town.

PLAN OF ACTION CONTACT PERSON/AGENCY

Pollution[bacterial analysis of Beard's Creek. Durham Public Works and the State Department of
Environmental Services

Town wide mailing on how to maintain septic systems. Durham Public Works and the Conservation
Commission

Produce a map of the public sewer lines overlaid with Strafford Regional Planning Commission
roads and waterbodies.

Feasibility analysis on whether or not to remove the Hire a consultant.
flashboards under Route 108.

Invasive species monitoring: photo-monitoring, in- Conservation Commission
ground stakes, and measurements on Systems 1, 2, 12
and 13.

Application of Rodeo (herbicide) on Phragmites at Conservation Commission
System I (Johnson Creek).

Continue pursuit of easements. Nature Conservancy; Conservation Commission;
Natural Resources Conservation Service.

More stringent protection of tidal marshes through the Conservation Commission
Durham Shoreland Protection Ordinance.

Mailing to abutters of tidal marshes to educate about Conservation Commission
the resource and to encourage volunteerism to protect
the resource.

Identify abutters of Marsh Systems 1, 2, 6, 12 and 13. Strafford Regional Planning Commission/ Alan
Ammann may assist

Protection flags/signs/trash bags at Systems 1, 2, 6, 12 Ann Marie Harris, Planning Board/Conservation
and 13. Commission

Trash clean up at Systems 7 (Scammel Bridge South) Conservation Commission
and 10 (Durham Point).

Ideas for interpretive signs to be placed at System 5. Richard Cook, Audubon Society, will contact Peter
Wellenberger, NH Fish and Game

Monitor Wagon Hill Development Plan and advocate Theresa Walker, Conservation Commission
protection of the System 6 tidal Marsh.

Plan a festival of the salt marshes for education and David Funk, Theresa Walker, Conservation
appreciation of the Durham tidal marshes. Commission; Larry Flint, Recreation Advocate
Work with the State to develop interpretive trails at Conservation Commission and Larry Flint
Marsh System 12 and 13 (Adams Point).

Create the "Durham Salt Marsh Reserve" at System 5 David Funk and Larry Flint
(Jackson Landing area).
Reevaluate the Elite Systems (1, 2, 6, 12 and 13) Conservation Commission
yearly; and all others every other year.

Agenda
Durhain Coastal Method Project
Action Plan for Vegetated Tidal Marshes

I. Questions/problems/ideas regarding the results in the report?

II. Management for Problem Areas:

A. Marsh System 4 (Beard's Cre ek)

Complete restriction of tidal flow. What are the issues? What should be done?

B. Overall Invasive Species Management:

Marsh Systems 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 have some degree of invasive species.
Can we put this problem in perspective? What is the overall strategy for control?
(Systems 1, 2, 12 and 13 are NotewofLhy)

III. Red Flag Areas, how do we manage these "elites"?

A. The Noteworthy Systems (5 Systems or 8 Evaluation Units)

Marsh System 1 (both EUs) (Johnson Creek North and South)

Marsh System 2 (both EUs) (Bunker Creek North and South)

Marsh System 8 (Horsehide Brook)

Marsh System 12 (North of Adams Point)

Marsh System 13 (both EUs) (Adams Point East and West)

B. The Marsh System with the most high scores:

Marsh System 6 (Wagon Hill)

IV. What can we do with the Marsh Systems with the highest recreation and education
values:

Marsh System 5, 6, 12, and 13.1 (Systems 12 and 13 are Noteworthy)

V. Lets not forget about the rest:

Marsh Systems 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11

Meeting Notes

1. Questions/Problems/ ideas regarding the results in the report?

0 It was remarked that the "Options" (A through E) provided by the Coastal Method
seemed "sort of canned" and did not add much value to the report.

0 It was commented that Marsh System 8 is not a habitat for threatened and
endangered species and until it can be verified it should be removed from the "elite"
status.

0 Strafford Regional Planning Commission will produce a map of the tidal marsh
system boundaries at a 1:24,000 scale for the Durham Conservation Commission to
use with a point location map of threatened and endangered species. (Paid for by
the Durham Conservation Commission.)

Il. Management for Problem Areas:

A. Marsh System 4 (Beard's Creek)

0 Sources of pollution (especially fecal coliform) need to be identified (i.e. urban
runoff, sewer pipe, septic systems, swans, etc.) and the Town may decide to call in
Department of Environmental Services to conduct an analysis. The Town Health
Officer should also become involved in this analysis.

0 The Durham Public Works Department (Skip) needs to be instrumental in getting
a source pollution analysis completed on Beard's Creek. When the Public Works
Department draws down Beards Creek for weed control, an engineer should review
the sewer pipe situation.

0 The Durham Public Works Department should coordinate a town wide mailing on
maintenance of septic systems.

0 A map of the public sewer lines, overlaid with roads and waterbodies will be
provided to the Town of Durham by the Strafford Regional Planning Commission.
(At no charge).

0 Consider hiring a consultant to conduct a feasibility analysis to weigh the factors on
whether or not to remove the flashboards under Route 108 to restore the salt marsh.

0 There was some disagreement about removing the flashboards under Route 108
because it is used for recreation and the abuttors may also object to the odor of the
salt marsh.

B. Overall Invasive Species Management:

� Conservation Commission will do photo-monitoring on Marsh Systems 1, 2, 12, and
13 yearly, beginning this year in the late summer. They will also mark the growth
with in-ground stakes and measure the area yearly. It was suggested that in the
photos, a person stand in the same spot each year, so the pictures will show how the
growth is encompassing the area.

� If the invasive plant species begin to interfere with the integrity of the area, experts
should be called in to evaluate the problem. Options may include: wick application
of Rodeo (cutting off the tips of the plant and applying the chemical to the stalk of
the plant); State control with pesticides; clipping seed heads.

� Conservation Commission will try Rodeo on phragmites at System 1, Johnson Creek.

� In the future, the Conservation Commission may want to measure salinity along
Johnson and Bunker Creeks. (If the salinity becomes low, ditching or diversion of
fresh water may be necessary.) Alan Ammann, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, agreed to assist the Town with this.

III. Red Flag Areas, how do we manage these "elites"? (Sys tems 1, 2, 12, 13 for
Noteworthiness and System 6 for the most high scores.)

� Easements: (1) through the Town; (2) through the Nature Conservancy; (3) through
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, agricultural rights only, and
restoration. Note: The Nature Conservancy is in the process of purchasing
easements along Johnson Creek - contact Bob Miller for more information.

� Revisions in progress on the Durham Shoreland Protection Ordinance will more
adequately protect the tidal marshes.

� A Management Protection Agreement was discussed which would encouraged
abuttors to protect the tidal marshes. The Conservation Commission will send
information regarding the tidal marshes (and possible some of the results of the
Coastal Method Evaluation Project) to abuttors and ask them to agree to help
protect the tidal marsh.

� The Conservation Commission would like Strafford Regional Planning Commission
to identify abuttors on the elite systems (1, 2, 6, 12 and 13).

� The Conservation Commission will Mark the elite systems with either Protection
Flags with an explanation of the resource and its value; or signs with trash bags and
explanations about the sensitivity of the area, etc. Ann Marie Harris, Plan i g
Board representative on the Conservation Commission, agreed to follow up on this.

0 It was noted that if trash bags are provided than trash barrels may be necessary and
that would require constant monitoring. It was agreed that it may be better to ask
people to carry out their garbage in the bag provided, and that the bags may
encourage others to clean up litter while they are at the site.

0 Trash clean up will be arranged yearly by the Conservation Commission; this year
Systems 7 (Scammel Bridge South) and 10 (Durham Point) require trash clean up.

0 Great Bay Focus Group is in the process of protecting Johnson Creek.

0 According to Alan Ammann, the Natural Resources Conservation Service may fund
the task of identifying landowners to inquire about easement purchases along the
elite systems.

0 The Conservation Commission would like to permission access to tidal marsh from
landowners, this should be done after the tidal marsh landowners and abutters list
is created. This permission will allow them the ability to reevaluated and monitor.

0 Access to Systems 12 and 13 (Adams Point) can be made through State Fish and
Game property.

0 Richard Cook, Audubon Society of New Hampshire, agreed to contact Peter
Wellenberger, Reserve Manager for Fish and Game Region 3, for interpretive signs.

B. The Marsh System with the most high scores: Marsh System 6 (Wagon Hill)

0 Theresa Walker, Conservation Commissioner, will monitor the Wagon Hill
Development Plan and advocate protection of the System 6 tidal marsh. There
should also be a plan to educate about the tidal marshes and celebrate at an annual
festival at Wagon Hill. David Funk, Chairman of the Conservation Commission,
was given an article written by Professor Robert LeBlanc, UNH, on the history of
salt marshes, possibly to be used as a resource in developing ideas for the festival
of salt marshes.

IV. What can we do with the Marsh Systems with the highest recreation and education
values:

0 At Marsh Systems 12 and 13 (Adams Point areas) the Conservation Commission will
attempt to work with the State to do interpretive trails.

0 Marsh System 5 (Jackson Landing, etc.) Larry Flint, Durham Recreation Advocate,
said the Town is working on beautification of the site. He agreed to investigate
signage and education materials to be place at the site with regards to the Marsh.

0 It was suggested that at System 5, because of its central location and easy access, the
salt marsh should be named the, "Durham Salt Marsh Reserve", and be roped off
and education materials made available. Larry Flint and David Funk agreed to
follow up on this suggestion.

V. Lets not forget about the rest: (Marsh Systems 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11)

0 It was unanimously decided that there was enough work to do in the near future
with the elite systems and that these remaining systems could be monitored and
reevaluated in the next few years.

Ending Remarks:

� The Conservation Commission should reevaluated the elite systems every year and
Strafford Regional Planning Commission (for a nominal fee) would update the data
base.

� The Conservation Commission should continue to discuss removing the flashboards
under Route 108 to restore the salt marsh (System 4). Salt marshes are such a rare
resource that whenever restoration is possible, it should be done.

Alan Ammann and Richard Cook have slide shows and materials which may be used
for education on the values of salt marshes.

Durham Coastal Method Results

Name: Marsh System 1 EU 1 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Johnson Creek South 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.40
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.50
Acreage: 14.1 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.50
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.71
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.83
6 Recreational Potential 0.56
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.62
8 Educational Potential 0.57
9 Noteworthiness 0.28

Name: Marsh System 1 EU 2 1A Ecological Integrity Part A 0.75
Common Name: Johnson Creek North 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.75
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.63
Acreage: 19.5 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.50
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.75
Tidal Restriction: Rte. 4 Bridge 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.50
6 Recreational Potential 0.34
7 Aesthetic Quality. 0.79
8 Educational Potential 0.38
9 Noteworthiness 0.46

Name: Marsh System 2 EU 1 1A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Bunker Creek South 1 B Ecolo_qical Integrity Part B 0.20
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.65
Acreage: 2.5 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.10
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.41
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 Recreational Potential 0.25
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.59
8 Educational Potential 0.22
9 Noteworthiness- 0.28

Name: Marsh System 2 EU 2 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 0.70
Common Name: Bunker Creek North 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.40
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.50
Acreage: 10.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.50
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.66
Tidal Restriction: Rte. 4 Bridge 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.43
6 Recreational Potential 0.44
7 Aesthetic Quality 1 0.551
8 Educational Potential 0.3
9 Noteworthiness 0.

High scores are > 0.6; except for Noteworthiness which is > 0. 1

Durham Coastal Method Results

Name: Marsh System 3 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Scammel Bridge North 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.30
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow/Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 078
Acreage: 20.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.43
Status: Tidal 4, Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.60
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.83
6 Recreational Potential 0.55
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.66
8 Educational Potential 0.55
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 4 EU 1 1A Ecological Integrity Part A 0.43
Common Name: Beards Creek A 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.30
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.30
Acreage: 15.5 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.75
Status: Formerly Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.45
Tidal Restriction: Rte. 108 flash boards 5, Water Quality Maintenance 0.37
6 Recreational Potential 0.531
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.50
8 Educational Potential 0.5@1
0
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 4 EU2 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 0.43
Common Name: Beard's Creek B 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.30 16
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.30
Acreage: 0.3 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.75-
Status: Formerly Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.45
Tidal Restriction: Coe Drive 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.37
6 Recreational Potential 0.53
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.50
8 Educational Potential 0.51
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 5 1A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Jackson Landing 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.43
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.75
Acreage: 41.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.--
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.71
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.83
6 Recreational Potential 0.79
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.58
8 Educational Potential 0.79
9 Noteworthiness

High scores are > 0.6; except for Noteworthiness which is > 0.1
.9

Dur"ham Coastal Method Results

Name: Marsh System 6 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Smith Creek/Wagon Hill 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 1.00
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.70
Acreage: 9.5 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.10
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.73
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 Recreational Potential 0.57
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.87
8 Educational Potential 0.79
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 7 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Scammel Bridge South 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.15
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.75
Acreage: 3.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.10
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.47
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 Recreational Potential 0.53
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.53
8 Educational Potential 0.38
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 8 1A Ecolo ical Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Horsehide Brook 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.46
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.63
Acreage: 20.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.50
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.59
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.83
6 Recre@tlonal Potential 0.321
7 Aesthetic. Quality b-761
8 Educational Potential 0.18
9 Noteworthiness 0. 2@88

Name: Marsh System 9 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Deer Point 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.63
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 1.00
Acreage: 4.7 AC 3 Storm Surgef Protection 0.10
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.67
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 Recreational Potential 0.43
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.82
8 Educational Potential 0.48
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

High scores are > 0.6; except W Noteworthiness which is > 0. 1

Durham Coastal Method Results

Name: Marsh System 10 1A EcologicaJ Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Durham Point 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.53
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe; some meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.78
Acreage: 4.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.15
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.47
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 Recreational Potential 0.26
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.73
8 Educational Potential 0.38
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 11 1 A Ecolo ical Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Little Bay 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.65
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0. -7 r,
Acreage: 7.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.10
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.47
Tidal Restriction: None 5. Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 1 Recreational Potential 0.53
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.66
8 Educational Potential 0.38
9 Noteworthiness 0.10

Name: Marsh System 12 1 A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.88
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.50
Acreage: 8.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.30
Status: Tidal 4 Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.73
Tidal Restriction: None 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.70
6 Recreational Potential 0.75
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.95
8 Educational Potential 0.62
9 Noteworthiness 0.82

Name: Marsh System 13 EUI 1A Ecological Integrity Part A 1.00
Common Name: Crommet Creek East 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.63
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Fringe 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.75
Acreage: 40.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 030
Status: Tidal 4, Wildlife, Finfish and Shellfish Habitat 0.73
Tidal Restriction: None 5 1 Water Quality Maintenance 0.83
6 Recreational Potential 0.73
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.87
8 Educational Potential 0.68
9 Noteworthiness 0.46

High scores are > 0.6; except for Noteworthiness which is > 0.1

Durham Coastal Method Results

Name: Marsh System 13 EU 2 1 A Ecolo ical Integrity Part A 0.701
Common Name: Crommet Creek West 1 B Ecological Integrity Part B 0.881
Type of Marsh: Estuarine Meadow 2 Shoreline Anchoring 0.50
Acreage: 10.0 AC 3 Storm Surge Protection 0.50
Status: Tidal 4, Wildlife, Finf ish and Shellfish Habitat 0.59
Tidal Restriction: Durham Point Road Bridge 5 Water Quality Maintenance 0.43
6 Recreational Potential 0.37
7 Aesthetic Quality 0.88
8 Educational Potential 0.31
9 Noteworthiness 0 P8

High scores are > 0.6; except for Noteworthiness which is > 0.1

Durham Coastal Method Project

Action Plan for the Management of
Vegetated Tidal Marshes

June 15, 1995

4:00 - 5:30 PM

Meeting at Environmental Hazards
Management Institute (across the street from
the Durham Town Offices).

zi
A

Estuarine Meadow Marsh
Johnsons Creek in Durham
13

US Donartment of Commerce
I, -- --rtal -Onrvices Center Library VPF
2- L-uth Hoboon Avenue
Cl,arleston, SC 29405-2413

@l L@lt@@k