Northern Delaware wetlands rehabilitation plan The Christina and Delaware Rivers urban wetland corridor rehabilitation

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

THE@NORTHERN DELAWARE
WETLANDS REHABILITATION PLAN
The Christina & Delaware Rivers
Urban Wetland Corridor Rehabilitation

Al -Aal

Robert Hossler
Preparedby.
Fish and Wildlife Regional Manager
Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife
Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control

February 1994
DRAFT

ow-

Funded through a Federal grant from the CIfice of Coastal -Zone Management,
NOAA, under provision of Section 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 as amended.

DRAFT

PREFACE

Coastal northern Delaware had several thousand acres of high
quality tidal wetlands that have gradually been degraded since
European colonization. Although these wetlands are now protected
under federal and state statutes, little has been done to restore
and reintegrate them as a viable part of the Delaware Estuary.
The lack of concern for these urban wetlands has been arguably due
to the long-term commitment and tremendous resources necessary to
restore wetlands that have been degraded for over three centuries.
This document details the long-term, regional rehabilitation
strategy that the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control is undertaking to restore a significant
portion of these tidal wetlands along the urban corridor of the
Christina and Delaware Rivers. These details are based on the
findings and recommendations of a multi-agency rehabilitation
team, constituting the Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program (NDWRP).

This planning document defines the regional objectives of
this strategy, and specifiep guidelines for the development and
implementation of both site-specific wetland rehabilitation plans
and a long-term restoration approach for the region. This
document identifies the organizational framework of the NDWRP, and
the programmatic involvement and responsibilities of various
participating agencies and organizations. It also identifies
rehabilitation sites within the corridor and their site-specific
environmental needs.

The document will be used to provide long-term guidance of
wetland restoration efforts within the urban corridor of the
Christina and Delaware Rivers. It will act as a planning
document, an implementation strategy, and a reference text; and
will be periodically updated with new site-specific rehabilitation
plans and post-implementation evaluations. Additional updates and
minor modifications of ongoing projects will be necessary as
rehabilitation efforts progress. These ongoing changes will be
incorporated following review and approval by the multi-agency
NDWRP team. Finally, besides serving as the plan for the long-
term rehabilitation needs of the tidal wetlands and related
aquatic habitats of Northern Delaware, this document is expected
to serve as a model from which future coastal and wetland
restoration programs can be developed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

I. Introduction and Historical Background . . . . . . . . 1

II. Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. Regional Multiple-Use Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 6

IV. Multi-Agency Rehabilitation Team . . . . . . . . . . . 7

V. Components of the Rehabilitation Plan . . . . . . . . 16

VI. Systematic Rehabilitation Procedure . . . . . . . . . 19

VII. Site Specific Rehabilitation Proje ct Updates . . . . . 21

A. Broad Dyke Marsh . . . . . 21
B. Gambacorta Marsh . . . . . 25
C. Thousand Acre Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
D. D.P. & L. Impoundment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
E. Newport Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
F. Artesian Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
G. Augustine Creek Wetland Complex . . . . . . . . . 33
H. Old Wilmington Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
I. Army Creek Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
J. Airport Marsh Wetland Complex . . . . . . . . . . 36
K. ICI Marsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

VIII. Project Summary and Assessment of Future Needs . . . . 38

IX. Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

X. Appendices

A. Broad Dyke Marsh rehabilitation plan
B. Gambacorta Marsh rehabilitation plan
C. Thousand Acre Marsh rehabilitation plan
D. D.P. & L. Impoundment rehabilitation plan
E. Artesian Marsh rehabilitation plan
F. Augustine Creek Marsh biotic inventory and natural
community evaluation
G. Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation Program
brochure

LIST OF TABLES MM FIGURES

TABLES PAGE

1. Current members of the Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP) Steering and adjunct
committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Wetland sites proposed for rehabilitation under
the Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program (NDWRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3. Secured and pending funding sources for the
Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation Program
(NDWRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

FIGURES

1. New Castle, Delaware depicting the Wilmington and
New Castle areas and the Christina and Delaware
Rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2. Wetlands sites along the Christina/Delaware Rivers
wetland corridor proposed for rehabilitation under
the Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program (NDWRP) . . . . . . . . . . . . * . I . . . 3

3. Wetlands restoration sites currently being
developed or implemented by the Northern Delaware
Wetlands Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP) . . . . . . . . 23

EXECUTIVE BUIMRY

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC), in cooperation with numerous other
public and private organizations, has initiated an ambitious
program to rehabilitate more than 10,000 acres of highly degraded
tidal freshwater and brackish wetlands along the urban corridors
of the Christina and Delaware Rivers in New Castle County. This
portion of the State has a long history of wetland loss and abuse.
Wetland degradation in northern Delaware began as early as the
17th century, when settlers extensively diked and drained tidal
freshwater marshes along these rivers to accommodate agriculture
and development of adjacent upland areas. Maintenance of this
dike system promoted the filling and additional draining of many
wetlands until the passage of state and federal wetland acts and
executive orders in the 19701s. Although these and subsequent
regulations prevented most tidal wetlands from continued
degradation, little if any emphasis has been placed on
rehabilitating those wetlands degraded prior to the passage of
these laws. Unfortunately, these same severely degraded or lost
wetlands were historically among the state's most important areas
in terms of wetland wildlife and vegetation diversity.

The Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP)
is a regional, non-regulatory restoration program for wetland
areas degraded prior to the enactment of wetland protection acts.
Currently, 31 potential wetland sites have been identified as
needing rehabilitation and are proposed to be restored on a site-
by-site basis. The NDWRP emphasizes three approaches to wetland
restoration: 1) developing and implementing management practices
designed to achieve regional multiple use objectives; 2)
developing a multi-agency rehabilitation team; and 3)
rehabilitating an urban corridor through a watershed-based
approach whereby numerous individual wetland sites are
ecologically improved, eventually forming a chain of restored
wetlands. The NDWRP has developed a plan that provides DNREC with
a systematic process to rehabilitate degraded wetlands and
incorporate these strategies into local land-use plans. This plan
is expected to serve as a model for future coastal rehabilitation
programs, and will establish resource management/protection
agreements among various government agencies, private
organizations and industries, landowners, and environmental
groups, thus replacing the traditional individual agency approach
to similar programs.

Success of this regional wetland rehabilitation process
depends on the cooperation and involvement of federal, state, and
local agencies; private industries; landowners, and environmental
groups. This multi-agency approach increases the available
resources and funding opportunities, while including private
industries, landowners, and environmental groups to provide

corporate sponsorships, property access, and broad-based public
support, respectively. In order to promote this cooperation and
involvement without burdening agency personnel that were only
periodically involved in the program, a two-tiered organizational
approach was established. This approach consisted of a NDWRP
Steering Committee comprised of DNREC and New Castle Conservation
District staff, and a adjunct committee comprised of various
outside agencies and organizations. The Steering Committee
convenes on a monthly basis and addresses a wide range of program-
related topics, whereas the adjunct committee members were
periodically included in the planning and evaluation process
during permit review, funding requests, or rehabilitation plan
review.

The NDWRP has developed a systematic procedure to facilitate
the development and implementation of site-specific wetland
rehabilitation plans. This process promotes frequent input by
various participants and encourages utilizing the technical
expertise of the rehabilitation team and allocating task
responsibilities to various members. An important element in this
systematic procedure is the development of a detailed restoration
plan. This plan provides a foundation from which all
rehabilitation efforts are based. Wetland rehabilitation plans
should be constructed around scientifically-based biological
inventories and ecological evaluations of the site and its
surrounding landscape. The plan should also clearly define the
site-specific objectives. A requisite to the long-term needs of
this regional wetland rehabilitation strategy is development of
site-specific operation, maintenance, and management plans. This
component of the rehabilitation plan provides assurances that
rehabilitation efforts will be implemented and maintained. The
final component of the rehabilitation plan is a provision to
actively involve the landowners and local environmental groups in
the rehabilitation effort. Active involvement by the public not
only promotes a increased awareness and understanding of wetland
functions and values, but it also provides additional assurance of
the long-term success of the project.

AC=0WMDGEXE=S

The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control (DNREC) provided State funding, staff
support, equipment, and facilities necessary for the completion of
this planning and implementation document. Additionally, the
Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP) provided Federal
funding during the past two years from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, to
assist with plan development, in particular helping to support
biotic inventories and site-specific assessments of potential
wetland rehabilitation projects. These federal and state funds
were used to help undertake the DNREC's Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP), co-administered by C.J. Stachecki
and S.W. Cooksey.

I would like to acknowledge the former Secretary of the
DNREC, E.H. Clark II, and former Director of the Division of Fish
and Wildlife, W.C. Wagner, under whom the NDWRP was initiated and
developed. Today, this wetland rehabilitation effort has been
continued and expanded by C.A.G. Tulou, Secretary of the DNREC,
and A.T. Manus, Director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife
Both individuals have shown enthusiasm and commitment to wetl@nds
restoration, and the future success of the NDWRP depends heavily
upon their guidance and support.

I would like to thank all the NDWRP Steering Committee
members who made valuable contributions to the restoration program
and the development of this planning and implementation document.
These individuals, although occasionally polarized, all
contributed to developing a quality end product. I am especially
grateful to C.J. Stachecki, co-administrator of the program, and
W.H. Meredith for their advice, guidance, and encouragement
throughout the development of this program and document. Their
humor and assistance kept me sane during trying times in a
turbulent bureaucracy. S.W. Cooksey provided the prodding
occasionally necessary to complete quarterly reports or meet
deadlines of other DCMP deliverables. L.R. Irelan and J.E.
Tarburton of the New Castle Conservation District made valuable
contributions in terms of grant and budget initiatives, and local
land-use issues. I would like to acknowledge D.B. Carter for his
collation of a preliminary inventory of potential wetland
rehabilitation sites, and his lead participation in the
preparation of the DCMP grant. Finally, I would like to thank my
staff (S.J. Link, A.A. Loveless III, J.G. Masten II, T.J. Moran)
and others in (or formerly in) the Division of Fish and Wildlife
(R.V. Cole, T.F. Cole, S.H. Innvaer, R.J. Wolfe) for their
assistance throughout the development of this project.

XNTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Northern Delaware, like many other urbanized areas on the
East Coast, has a long history of wetland loss and abuse.
Similarly, Delaware's wetlands degradation can be traced back to a
predominately negative view of these areas. Wetlands were deemed
as waste places, vermin haunts, and of little socioeconomic value.
These negative views promoted the draining, diking, and filling of
wetlands for a variety of purposes including agricultural
practices, landfills, and industrial and residential developments
in the Wilmington and New Castle areas (Fig. 1).

In Northern Delaware this degradation began as early as the
mid-1600's, when Dutch and Swedish settlers extensively diked and
drained tidal freshwater marshes along the Christina and Delaware
Rivers to accommodate agriculture and development of adjacent
upland areas (Weslager 1947). This extensive system of dikes and
tide gates has, for the most part, been maintained since its
initial construction, a practice that essentially prohibited
several thousand acres of tidal wetlands from receiving-normal
tidal exchange with the Delaware Estuary for up to 340 years
(Carter 1991). Maintenance of this dike system promoted the
filling and additional draining of many wetlands for industrial,
maritime, and residential development during the Industrial
Revolution of the late 1800's and early 1900's. The construction
of various transportation systems, particularly Interstate 95 in
the mid-1960's, led to the draining and filling of over 1,000
acres of additional tidal freshwater marshes and the rerouting of
a 1-mile stretch of the Christina River.

This continuous neglect along the Christina and Delaware
Rivers over a 300-year period caused the permanent loss of
approximately 6,000 acres of tidal wetlands (Tiner 1985), and the
degradation of approximately 10,000 more (Carter 1992). Present
estimates are that 1,000 acres are extremely degraded, another
2,500 acres are in poor condition, 5,300 acres are in moderate
condition, and 1,200 had only limited degradation or recovered
sufficiently to warrant very good condition (Fig. 2).

Unfortunately, these same severely degraded or lost wetlands
were historically among the state's most important areas in terms
of waterfowl abundance, wading bird and aquatic furbearer
production, and vegetation diversity (Chamberlain 1951). Several
of these marshes contained excellent stands of cattail (Typha
spp.) and wild rice (Zizania aguatica). These marshes were
important habitat for black ducks (Anas rubripes), pintails (Anas
acuta), green-winged teal (Anas crecca), and Canada geese (Branta
canadensis) during spring and fall migrations. The larger marshes
in this region supported the best muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
populations in the state and several of the best waterfowl
production areas. Also two heronries, one the largest on the
Atlantic Coast north of Florida, are currently located within and
supported by the wetlands of this region. Because these

I
1 2
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
I

11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fig. 1. New Castle, Delaware depicting the Wilmington and New
I Castle areas and the Christina and Delaware Rivers.
I

LEGENb7---------
Chr'shna/Delaware FMROADS Fj@ EXTREMELY DEGRADED TIDEGATE FOR DRAINAGE
1 3
Rivers 0 WATER El POOR CONDITION TIDECATE VIRISER BOARD
IfT;j MODERATE TO COOD F&W PUBLIC BOAT RAMP
Wetland Corridor VERY COOD TO EXCELLENT E] SUPERFUND&flPL SITES
@4
0

Ul
0 04

0
@4
134

@4
0

$4M
@40
0p

r-A 4j
4-) to
(D 4-)

M-4

@4 rCl
0 z
@:0
0r-4
r-4 4j

@4
H(d
4j @:
En tu
.@l

41
tP @4
90
0z
r I

(d0

4J 4J
4) (a
:3: 41
lc@I. H
N-1

44 @4

Mapscale is 1:48,000
I i=h 4,000 ffai

12.M== =1840 ZO

historically rich wetlands of the Christina/Delaware Rivers are
capable of being restored, they have been identified as a focus
area under the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan. This international plan seeks to
protect and improve six million acres of wetlands (85,000 acres of
which are along the Atlantic Coast) to increase migrating and
breeding waterfowl populations to levels of the 19701s.

Degradation of Delaware's coastal wetlands was curtailed with
the passage of state and federal wetland acts and executive orders
in the 19701s. In fact, since the passage of the Delaware Wetlands
Act of 1973, annual loss of tidal wetlands in Delaware has been
reduced by approximately 22-fold (444 to 20 acres/year, Hardisky
and Klemas 1983). Although current and proposed state and federal
regulations should protect most coastal wetlands from continued
degradation, little if any emphasis has been placed on
rehabilitating those wetlands degraded prior to the passage of
Delaware's tidal wetland regulations.

Annually, an increasingly larger percentage of our population
resides in urban and suburban areas. Unfortunately, these
urbanized communities are usually the least educated about the
functions and values of wetlands. One possible explanation for
this deficiency of wetland education among metropolitan residents
is that urban wetlands are historically the most degraded and have
received the least management and protection. The rehabilitation
of these degraded wetlands can provide outdoor classrooms and
effectively educate the public about wetland functions and values.
A Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife survey of needs in
aquatic resources education (Kreamer 1993) presented to 306
elementary and high school teachers, community groups, nature
centers, and state personnel indicated that wetland education was
a priority topic.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

management practices of these sites address regional objectives
and are integrated to restore an urban wetland corridor. The
NDWRP is a long-term commitment by DNREC to wetland restoration.
Many of the proposed wetland rehabilitation sites have been
degraded for over three centuries, and it is anticipated that it
might take several decades to restore many of their functions and
values. However, it should be noted that land-use practices,
manmade infrastructure, and other forms of economic development
presently limit and will continue to limit full ecological
restoration of many sites.

The NDWRP was officially unveiled at an October 1992 press
conference held by former Governor M.N. Castle and former
Secretary of the DNREC, E.H. Clark II. This outdoor press event
held at one of the NDWRP sites, Gambacorta Marsh), was attended by
civic and business leaders, resource managers, environmental
scientists, and property owners. The conference outlined the
program's goals, importance, rehabilitation strategy, and
participants. At that time the NDWRP was in existence for
approximately 6 months and attendees received an extensive press
package describing the program.

The DNREC has recently completed a Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan for Delaware's Tidal Wetlands (DNREC 1994), in
part as a response to the National Wetlands Policy Forum's request
for state-based comprehensive wetlands planning. The
comprehensive tidal wetlands plan was developed by state, federal,
and regional agencies; scientific academicians; private
conservation organizations; user groups, and landowners. The plan
is intended to provide guidance for the widest range of tidal
wetlands issues, problems, and protection and stewardship needs.
This comprehensive plan identified as one of its 10 "priority
action projects" to recognize, support, and expedite
implementation of the NDWRP.

The NDWRP emphasizes three approaches to wetland restoration:
1) developing and implementing management practices designed to
achieve regional multiple use objectives; 2) developing a multi-
agency rehabilitation team; and 3) rehabilitating an urban
corridor through a watershed-based approach whereby numerous
individual wetland sites are ecologically improved, eventually
forming a chain of restored wetlands.

Besides the rehabilitation of several thousand acres of tidal
wetlands along two major rivers and their reintegration into the
Delaware Estuary, this program has developed a plan that provides
DNREC with a systematic process to rehabilitate degraded wetlands
and incorporate these strategies into local land-use plans. This
plan is expected to serve as a model for future coastal
rehabilitation programs, and will establish resource
management/protection agreements among various government
agencies, private organizations and industries, landowners, and

environmental groups, thus replacing the traditional individual
agency approach to similar programs. Several of these resource
management/protection agreements might involve enforceable
actions. Finally, this program establishes a wetland
rehabilitation policy upon which federal consistency
determinations and environmental reviews can be based.

REGIONAL MULTIPLE-USE OWECTIVES

An emphasis of the NDWRP is to rehabilitate an extremely
degraded wetland corridor by addressing regional multiple-use
objectives. The development and implementation of management
practices that address multiple objectives provide a mechanism
whereby the benefits of individual restoration projects can be
maximized over an entire corridor. Although many rehabilitation
projects will be unable to adequately address all these objectives
because of site-specific limitations and landowner demands,
efforts will be made to address as many regional objectives at
each specific restoration site as possible. The development of
measurable, evaluative criteria for each specific objective is
also essential to provide temporal measurements of success. The
following specific regional objectives were developed and approved
by the DNREC/NDWRP Steering Committee and have been favorably
received by several other governmental agencies and@,environmental
groups.

- Improve water quality in both wetlands and rivers through
tidal exchange and wetland filtering.

- Restore and improve spawning, nursery, and feeding sites
for anadromous, estuarine, and riverine fishes.

- Increase biological diversity and improve wetland,
riparian, and adjacent upland habitats for waterbirds and
other wetland wildlife.

- Protect and enhance existing populations and critical
habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
species of concern.

- Increase diversity of shallow-water habitats and emergent
vegetation.

Control nuisance and exotic plant species (phragmites and
purple loosestrife).

Control pestiferous mosquito populations by water
management where practical, thereby reducing the amount of
chemical insecticides required.

Reduce stormwater flooding through increased storage
capacity and timely releases.

Reduce shoreline erosion where needed for ecological or
economic purposes, using environmentally acceptable
methods.

Improve a wide variety of recreational opportunities in
wetland, riverine, and adjacent upland habitats and
improve the aesthetic value of these areas.

Increase environmental education opportunities for both
general public and school groups.

XULTI-AGENCY REHABILITATION TRAX

The DNREC's Division of Fish and Wildlife initially
administered this Departmental program; however, because of the
complexity of rehabilitation issues, the scope of this effort, and
the interests of staff, the Division of Soil and Water
Conservation was designated as co-administrator of the program.
This shared responsibility takes advantage of both Divisions,
administrative, technical, and personnel resources. The formal
inclusion of the Division of Soil and Water as co-administrator
will add expertise in other technical fields beneficial to
developing wetland rehabilitation plans, particularly for issues
concerned with control of nonpoint source pollution.

To expand upon the strategy of maximizing Departmental
resources and technical expertise while avoiding the traditional
individual agency approach, representatives from all five DNREC
Divisions and the Office of the Secretary were solicited as
members of the DNREC/NDWRP Steering Committee (Table 1).
Additionally, because of the close working relationship that the
New Castle Conservation District (NCCD) has had with the
Department in the development of this program, representatives
from this agency were also included in the Steering Committee
(Table 1).

Initially, additional representatives from other governmental
agencies.(federal, state, and county), academic institutions,
environmental groups, private industry, and local communities were
to be included in the Steering Committee. However, many of these
"outside" committee members indicated that they would be best able

Table 1. Current members of the Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP) Steering and adjunct committees.

Steering--Committee Members and Affiliation

Tulous Christophe - Office of the Secretary, DNREC
Allenj Robert - Division of Air & Waste Management, DNREC
Baker, John - Divisions of Fish and Wildlife/Parks and
Recreation, DNREC
Carter, David - Division of Soil & Water Conservation, DNREC
Chura, Mark - Division of Parks & Recreation, DNREC
Cooksey, Sarah - Division of Soil & Water Conservation, DNREC
Esposito, Gerald Division of Water Resources, DNREC
Hossler, Robert Division of Fish & Wildlife, DNREC
Hughes, John - Division of Soil & Water Conservation, DNREC
Irelanp Larry - New Castle Conservation District
Mahaffie, Michael - Office of the Secretary, DNREC
Manus, Andrew - Division of Fish & Wildlife, DNREC
Meredith, William Division of Fish & Wildlife, DNREC
Stachecki, Chester Division of Fish & Wildlife, DNREC
Tarburton, John - New Castle Conservation District
Vickers, Charles - Division of Parks & Recreation, DNREC
vacant position - Tidal Wetlands Regulatory Program, Division of
Water Resources, DNREC

Adjunct Committee Members and Affiliation

Appleby, Richard - Trustees of New Castle Common
Daiber, Franklin - University of Delaware, College of Marine
Studies (emeritus)
Gallagher, John - University of Delaware, College of Marine
Studies
Goodger, Timothy - National Marine Fisheries Service
Hassell Richard - Army Corps of Engineers
Husband, Jonathan - New Castle County
Lapp, Jeffery - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mitchell, Laura - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Patrick, Ruth - Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences
Shevock, Daniel - Delaware Ducks Unlimited
Stocum, Faye - Delaware Historic Preservation Office
Verrico, Donald - Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Counsel
Nutka, Joseph - Delaware Department of Transportation

to serve the program by providing input periodically on a site-
specific basis, e.g., during permit review, funding requests, or
rehabilitation plan review. The logistical problems associated
with scheduling and convening a Steering Committee of 30+ members,
and the relative inefficiency revealed during such large meetings,
were additional reasons for not including all rehabilitation team
members in the Steering Committee. Instead, a two-tiered
rehabilitation team was developed in which members from agencies
other than DNREC or NCCD were designated adjunct committee status,
and were not requested to convene at monthly Steering Committee
meetings (Table 1). This two-tiered representation functions
adequately, because many of the adjunct committee members are on
the Delaware Wetland Joint Permit Processing Committee and review
all wetland associated projects prior to implementation or
advanced development. Additionally, other adjunct committee
members are closely associated to the program in other capacities,
e.g., Superfund Natural Resource Damage Trustees, funding source
representatives, landowners, researchers of pertinent management
practices, and project collaborators.

The organizational purposes of the DNREC/NDWRP Steering
Committee are: 1) to assist with restoration plan development and
to facilitate a high level of cooperation among DNREC Divisions;
2) to define the regional wetland rehabilitation goals,
objectives, guidelines, and criteria for project evaluation; 3) to
coordinate site-specific wetland rehabilitation activities; and 4)
to identify the existing and future agency infrastructure needed
to establish long-term maintenance and management of restored
areas based on localized.needs. The purposes of the adjunct
committee members are: 1) to assist DNREC in restoration plan
development and implementation; 2) to ensure a high level of
cooperation among governmental agencies, private industries,
environmental groups, and the public; 3) to assist DNREC in
providing a mechanism to provide public input and increase public
awareness, support, participation, and communication between
resource managers and the public.

The personnel organization of the NDWRP includes DNREC
program administrators, a DNREC/NDWRP program manager, and several
DNREC/NDWRP project managers. The program administrators from the
Divisions of Fish and Wildlife and Soil and Water Conservation are
responsible for administration of the NDWRP, including
coordinating efforts to acquire funding and technical assistance,
and to foster inter- and intra-agency participation and
cooperation.

Responsibilities of the NDWRP program manager include
coordinating activities of NDWRP project managers, with emphasis
on overall program goals and interactions among agencies.
Additional responsibilities include: 1) reporting to granting and
funding agencies and meeting established benchmarks; 2) allocating
and setting priorities for resources among projects; 3)

maintaining a centralized tracking system for all individual
projects; and 4) coordinating the work plan for permit application
submission and responses to permit review. The NDWRP program
manager is also a fish and wildlife regional manager with the
Division of Fish and Wildlife, stationed in northern Delaware.

NDWRP project managers are other DNREC employees responsible
for coordinating the activities associated with a specific wetland
rehabilitation project. These duties include: 1) coordinating
activities and interactions among individuals from other DNREC
Divisions, federal, state, county, or municipal agencies; 2)
coordinating landowner contacts for purposes of project
orientation, explanation of project goals, landowner education,
obtaining landowner input and support, and building a consensus
for project cooperation; 3) coordinating collection of site-
specific environmental information; 4) coordinating development of
site-specific restoration and management plans; 5) preparing and
reviewing environmental assessments and applications for federal
404 and state wetland permits; 6) implementing restoration and
management activities; 7) developing broad-based public support
and participation in the project; and 8) coordinating long-term
monitoring and evaluation activities.

Although the personnel assigned to these positions are
crucial to the development and implementation of the program,
overall success of this regional wetland rehabilitation process
depends on the cooperation and involvement of federal, state, and
local agencies; private industries; landowners, and"environmental
groups. This multi-agency approach increases the available
resources and funding opportunities, while including private
industries, landowners, and environmental groups to provide
corporate sponsorships, property access, and broad-based public
support, respectively. Additionally, early involvement of parties
interested or affected by rehabilitation efforts increases the
probability of mediating any potential conflicting interests.
Listed below are several agencies, divisions, and organizations
that have contributed to the initial success of this program, or
are slated to do so in the immediate future.

Division of Fish and Wildlife (DNREC) - Co-administrator of
the program and responsible for developing water and vegetation
management, wildlife enhancement, fisheries restoration, and
mosquito abatement plans associated with restoration projects.
This Division has, with the assistance of other agencies,
conducted biological inventories and ecological evaluations of
restoration sites, and developed and implemented water management
and vegetation management plans at selected wetland sites. Fish
and Wildlife has also lead or assisted in the design of proposed
water control structures, and will assist in the supervision and
installation of these structures. The submission of environmental
assessments and state and federal permits for many of the projects
will be undertaken by this Division. The Division has designated

70% of one of its general fund positions to function as the NDWRP
program manger. Additional Division personnel involved with this
program function in program administration, scientific assessment,
technical assistance, project management, and committee
participation.

Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DNREC) - Co-
administrator of the program and responsible for developing and
implementing nonpoint source pollution prevention, erosion and
sedimentation control, and upstream stormwater management plans.
With the assistance of other agencies these plans will address
both site-specific and watershed/basin-wide issues. The
Division's future development and use of stormwater management
utilities might also help advance the nonpoint source pollution
prevention goals of the NDWRP. This Division is currently
pursuing the formation of site-specific, self-taxation, landowner
associations that would utilize existing state code to develop
marsh management organizations. Soil and Water has helped
coordinate Conservation District input and action. As
administrator of the Delaware Coastal Management Program (DCMP),
sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Division personnel are responsible for administering DCMP grants
received by the NDWRP, developing coastal nonpoint source
pollution control programs in upland areas adjacent to project
sites, and reviewing wetland rehabilitation plans for consistency
with the DCMP. Division personnel involved with this program
function in program administration, project management, technical
assistance, and steering committee participation. ,

Division of Air and Waste Management (DNREC) - Administrator
and coordinator of wetlands remediation projects associated with
Superfund sites, and of use of potential wetland rehabilitation
monies received through enforcement of natural resource damage
assessments. The Division has provided extensive information and
guidance concerning contaminant issues associated with NDWRP
restoration sites, and has assisted in contaminant sampling:
Wetland rehabilitation efforts are being integrated with this
Division's Christina River Basin Hazardous Waste Sites Restoration
Project, which is developing a uniform approach for the
investigation and remediation of hazardous waste sites within the
Christina River watershed.

Division of Water Resources (DNREC)_ - Representatives have
provided extensive guidance associated with wetlands permitting
needs and procedures, and are currently supporting a site-specific
wetland mitigation banking effort to promote wetland
rehabilitation projects. NDWRP wetland rehabilitation activities
will be integrated with several other programs being undertaken by
this Division, including: the Whole Basin Planning approach to
water resource protection; the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), and efforts to address combined sewer
overflow problems. The Division has assisted in ecological

evaluations of proposed restoration sites, especially through
geographical information systems and water supply analysis, and
has provided technical support in toxicological testing of
sediment and water samples. Water Resources will also assist
other agencies in addressing nonpoint and point source pollution
issues and reviewing water and vegetation management plans.

Division of Parks and Recreation (DNREC) - Representatives
have assisted in the development of recreation and environmental
education plans; have provided guidance on developing conservation
easement programs among landowners; and coordinated wetland
recreation plans with the Delaware Coastal Heritage Greenway
Program. The Division's Natural Heritage Inventory has conducted
biotic composition and rare plant surveys in proposed restoration
sites. The Natural Heritage Inventory is also funding a 3-year
study of the heron colonies within the rehabilitation corridor.

Office of Information and Education (DNREC) - Representatives
have organized press events, and published pamphlets, brochures,
and articles promoting the NDWRP. Public involvement in several
wetland rehabilitation sites has been initiated by the Office's
Adopt-A-Wetland Program and their annual Christina River and
Delaware Coastal Cleanups.

New Castle Conservation District (NCCD) - The District is
assisting in all phases of various construction projects including
design, hydrological modeling, developing bid packages and work
plans, and the supervision of the construction and installation of
water control structures. NCCD has assisted in the submission of
wetland permits and grant applications, and in the development of
promotional brochures. The District is also providing
geographical information system support, assistance in local land-
use issues, and in the development and implementation of
stormwater management and nonpoint source pollution prevention
plans. NCCD is undoubtedly one of the biggest contributors to the
NDWRP in technical and promotional support, and site-specific
implementation.

Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) - This agency
owns several water control structures associated with wetland
rehabilitation projects and, as such, has provided assistance in
their maintenance, repair, and redesign in order to promote
project success. This agency is currently modifying minor road
construction plans and maintenance practices to promote wetland
restoration, and will-assist in supervising the construction and
installation of new water control structures. DelDOT is also a
potential funding source through wetland mitigation associated
with transportation projects.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) - This ag ency has
provided guidance in restoration efforts as a regulatory agency in
the wetlands permit process and as a Superfund Natural Resources

Damages Trustee. The agency has provided promotion and technical
support through assistance with grant submission (via the Delaware
Estuary Project) and,wildlife contaminant issues, respectively.
FWS has provided funding for restoration-related ecological
studies and has indicated potentially additional funding through
its Partners for Wildlife Program.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) - This agency has
provided guidance in restoration efforts as a regulatory agency in
the wetlands permit process and as a Superfund Natural Resources
Damages Trustee.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - This agency has
provided guidance in restoration efforts as a regulatory agency in
the wetlands permit process and through its remediation of
Superfund sites. It is also a potential funding source through
various grant programs, e.g., Section 319 for nonpoint source
pollution reduction.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE) - This agency has provided
guidance in restoration efforts as a regulatory agency in the
wetlands permit process. COE might also provide technical and
funding support for experimental dredging operations associated
with wetland restoration projects.

U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) - This agency is
assisting in developing a watershed-based approach to addressing
nonpoint source pollution within the corridor. SCS,is identifying
areas where new or improved stormwater retention, conservation,
and best management practices can reduce pollutant loading into
the wetland restoration sites. This agency is also assisting in
modeling surface water recharge and storm runoff for the
rehabilitation sites.

New Castle County Government - The County will provide input
on wetland rehabilitation projects as they relate to county
stormwater management practices and recreational facilities. The
County is also a landowner of several proposed wetland restoration
projects and their water control structures, and might provide
financial assistance to help implement restoration activities.

Trustees of New Castle Common - The Trustees are landowners
of several proposed wetland restoration projects within the New
Castle city limits. They are very supportive of the program and
have annually provided funding, operational support, and property
access ever since preliminary rehabilitation efforts were
initiated in 1987 on Broad Dyke and Gambacorta Marshes.

Delmarva Power - This public service utility is a landowner
of several proposed wetland restoration projects. Delmarva Power
is very supportive of the program and has provided funding,
operational support, and property access on several projects. A

significant amount of their support has been through the Delmarva
Power Sportsmen Club, which has assisted in controlled burns,
experimental water level manipulations, and beneficial wildlife
plantings.

Brandywine & Christina Rivers Task Force - This broadly
represented and diverse group of citizens, government leaders,
business interests, and environmental proponents was formed by
gubernatorial executive order in 1992. Its purpose was to develop
recommendations on what actions state and local governments could
take to protect and enhance these waterways. A Wetlands and
Wildlands Committee was established by the Task Force, separate
from the NDWRP, to identify and protect high quality wetlands;
restore damaged and destroyed wetlands; and to reduce nonpoint
source pollution in these rivers by improving watershed planning
and hydrology management. Currently, the Task Force is pursuing
the development of a wildlife refuge and recreation area at Old
Wilmington Marsh, a NDWRP-listed project. Because the objectives
of the NDWRP and the Wetlands and Wildlands Committee of this task
force are nearly identical, it is hoped that these efforts are
able to be collaborative rather than duplicative. The Steering
Committee suggests that the NDWRP be the vehicle through which the
Brandywine & Christina Rivers Task Force accomplishes its wetlands
rehabilitation goals.

Delaware Ducks Unlimited - The Delaware Chapter has provided
promotional support to the program and is interested in providing
funding support for specific wetland rehabilitation,projects.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Council - This international
council of private industries has promoted corporate support for
the NDWRP.

Various Private Landowners - Although not members of the
steering committee, these private landowners are essential
partners in many of the wetland rehabilitation projects. As
property owners, their support of the program and input into the
rehabilitation plans are required to/access, develop, implement,
and maintain the restoration projects. In instances where there
are multiple landowners of a wetland rehabilitation project, a
landowner association can be formed to enable the proprietors to
determine management decisions based on a majority vote. The
formation of a landowner association can also provide a legal
mechanism in which taxation within the association provides a
source of funds for marsh management.

Although involvement and cooperation by these agencies are
Amportant to the program, several interagency agreements or
developing policies are particularly noteworthy. A policy being
developed in concert with the NDWRP is the Delaware Divisions of
Water Resources and Fish and Wildlife attempt to establish a
Department position that allows for future wetland mitigation

credit (mitigation banking) for compensating for unavoidable
wetlands loss in advance of development actions. Several basic
elements of this policy have been proposed in the Delaware tidal
wetlands comprehensive plan (DNREC 1994), and have been identified
as a priority action project. This policy would differ from the
Department's regular process of not pre-disposing wetland
mitigation decisions on projects not completed or permitted, but
would be consistent with views currently being supported by the
Clinton Administration and being administered among natural
resource agencies in other Mid-Atlantic states.

The benefits of this policy to the NDWRP are that it provides
a mechanism and funding for the rehabilitation of the corridor by
allowing developers and corporations to receive wetland mitigation
credit for rehabilitation efforts conducted under the guidance of
the program. An example of a proposed project that would benefit
from this policy is the Artesian Marsh Rehabilitation. Artesian
Marsh is a 136-acre tidal freshwater wetland whose property owner,
the Artesian Water Company, is interested in assisting in its
rehabilitation, but desires mitigation credit. Additionally, the
Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) has expressed
interest in wetlands mitigation at this site, because during its
permitting process the Army Corps of Engineers identified this
marsh as the preferred mitigation site for the wetlands lost by
the proposed widening of Interstate 95. Establishing a wetland
banking policy would allow these two parties to consolidate
resources and funding, historically slated from fragmented wetland
mitigation projects, into one large contiguous mitigation project
that can more effectively replace lost wetland functions and
values within the watershed. An additional benefit of advanced
compensation for wetland loss is that it provides for greater
certainty of successful mitigation, because mitigation is
established before permits are issued.

Several Superfund remediation settlements are currently
ongoing, and most involve remediation of wetlands or compensation
for natural resource injuries that are wetland related. Because
of the complexity of assessing resource injuries and developing
remediation plans, a task force comprised of state and federal
resource agencies was formed to assist in the remediation
negotiations for one of the NDWRP sites, Army Creek Marsh. This
task force, the Army Creek Superfund Natural Resources Damages
Trustees, is comprised of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Delaware Divisions of
Air and Waste Management and Fish and Wildlife. The task force
has embraced the NDWRP, and is currently considering the program's
regional rehabilitation strategy when assisting in the development
of Superfund remediation plans and natural resource damages
compensation. The next use of this task force approach to natural
resources injury assessment and damages determination, which might
not involve formation of an official trustee group, is in
association with the DuPont Newport Superfund site. This

superfund site might affect several NDWRP sites. This working
relationship being forged among the various agencies will provide
significant funding and technical resources to the NDWRP, while
providing an appropriate avenue for compensation of Superfund-
related natural resources injuries.

The Division of Soil and Water Conservation is currently
pursuing the formation of a landowner association at a proposed
wetland rehabilitation site by creatively utilizing the 200 year-
old Delaware Drainage Code. Chapter 41 of the Delaware Drainage
Code has historically been used to manage water and correct
drainage problems via tax ditch associations. However, at
Thousand Acre Marsh, an attempt is being made to help landowners
help themselves by utilizing a "tax ditch" organization to
biologically and hydrologically improve the marsh and its
management practices.

Historically, landowner disputes over water management
practices have significantly degraded and hindered the improvement
of Thousand Acre Marsh. Therefore, to resolve these disputes and
rehabilitate the marsh, the formation of the Thousand Acre Tax
Ditch Association was proposed to determine marsh management
decisions and implement actions based on a landowner majority
vote. The formation of a tax ditch association not only provides
a forum for decision making, but it also provides a legal
mechanism for taxation within the association by establishing a
dedicated source of funding for marsh management activities.
Additionally, as a legally binding organization, a tax ditch
association is eligible to apply for wetland restoration funding
from appropriate state and federal agencies. If this unique use
of the Delaware Drainage Code is successful at Thousand Acre
Marsh, DNREC anticipates using the same approach for similar marsh
management associations at other proposed wetland rehabilitation
sites with multiple landowners.

COMPONENTS OF THE REHABILITATION PLAN

An important element in any restoration effort is an
appropriately detailed restoration plan, followed by the more
difficult and essential task of actually implementing the planned
actions. This plan provides a foundation from which all
rehabilitation efforts are based. Without such a plan,
rehabilitation efforts may take tangential courses that might not
arrive at their targeted objectives. Although the plan should be
a definitive outline focused on achieving specific rehabilitation
objectives, it should also continue to evolve as new information
is obtained. This plan should be of sufficient detail so that
ambiguity during project implementation is minimized. of course,

the reality of implementing planned but untried or unproven
procedures might lead to alterations of the site-specific project
goals.

Wetland rehabilitation plans should be constructed around
scientifically-based biological inventories and ecological
evaluations of the site and its surrounding landscape. These
ecological studies should be designed to obtain information on the
degree and causes of wetlands dysfunctions, and provide baseline
data on all resources that might be affected by rehabilitation
efforts. This baseline information should provide historic and
current perspectives of the site, and insight on its potential.
Pertinent baseline information includes in part:

1) Hydrologic characteristics - detailed information on
tidal and groundwater influences, runoff
characteristics, and basin dynamics.
2) Water quality - parameters related to aquatic organisms
and state water quality standards.
3) Contaminants - point source and nonpoint source
pollutants, and hazardous waste sites potentially
impacting the site or its proposed restoration plan.
4) Fish communities - detailed analysis of present and
potential species composition and abundances with
emphasis on habitat requisites.
5) Wildlife use - emphasis placed on waterbirds and aquatic
mammals including species composition, abundances, and
seasonal habitat requirements. 1,
6) Threatened and endangered species, and sDecies of
special concern - identify listed fauna and floral
populations and their critical habitats for protection
of biological diversity values.
7) Vegetation communities - determine species composition,
areal cover, productivity, biomass, and indices of
relative dominance and diversity.
8) Mosquito production - species composition, abundance
indices, and previous control efforts.
9) Land use - previous and present uses of the wetland site
and surrounding landscape.
10) Recreation and education opportunities and uses -
existing and potential opportunities and uses.
11) Geology and soil resources - physiographic provinces and
soil types.
12) Socioeconomic and cultural resources - potential impacts
of proposed rehabilitation plans to residents and
archeological sites.

Whenever possible, these studies should be designed to collect
quantitative data rather than anecdotal information. Properly
collected quantitative data are more likely to address issues
raised during regulatory reviews of restoration proposals.
Additionally, the comparison of properly collected quantitative

baseline data with post-implementation data provides better
objective criteria for evaluating the success of site-specific
goals. However, because quantitative data are often expensive and
labor-intensive to collect, often at the expense of alternate
funding uses of perhaps more importance, it is occasionally
necessary to settle for scientifically-based qualitative
information.

The rehabilitation plan should clearly define the site-
specific objectives. The nature of these objectives should be
such that they not only rehabilitate a specific wetland, but they
also benefit the entire corridor by addressing one or more of the
regional objectives. Each site-specific objective should include
action steps required to accomplish the goal. These action steps
should be in enough detail to provide both implementing and
regulatory personnel with a clear understanding of what is
proposed to be conducted. These steps should also include
approximate initiation and completion dates. All site-specific
objectives should have measurable evaluative criteria to provide
temporal measures of success. If resources permit, these criteria
should be quantitative and comparable with measurements of
baseline data.

A requisite to the long-term needs of this regional wetland
rehabilitation strategy is development of site-specific operation,
maintenance, and management plans (OMM plans). These plans might
have participation arrangements ranging from voluntary agreements
to enforceable policies. This component ofthe rehabilitation
plan provides assurances that rehabilitation efforts will be
implemented, maintained, managed, and modified as needed to
accommodate site-specific and regional objectives, and to prevent
the extenuation or reversal of restoration achievements. The OMM
plan identifies the agencies or parties responsible for site-
specific long-term rehabilitation needs. These responsibilities
include performing and funding the maintenance, repair,
replacement and inspection of various structures, e.g, water
control, wildlife enhancement, recreation, and erosion and
sedimentation control structures. Other responsibilities could
include implementing and funding various operating and management
practices, such as water and vegetation management plans;
phragmites, mosquito, and nonpoint source pollution control
programs; and emergency response to structure failures. The
responsibilities of a particular agency or party will be
documented through operation, maintenance, and management
agreements. This documentation might occur in the form of
voluntary or mandatory memorandums of agreement (MOA's) among
governmental agencies, voluntary or legally-binding documents
signed by landowners or associations (e.g., conservation or water
management easements), or enforceable programs or policies. These
signed agreements provide the mechanisms needed to ensure long-
term rehabilitation success, with enforceable arrangements having
more certainty than voluntary measures.

The final component of the rehabilitation plan is a provision
to actively involve the landowners and local environmental groups
in the rehabilitation effort. Active involvement by the public
not only promotes a increased awareness and understanding of
wetland functions and values, but it also provides additional
assurance of the long-term success of the project. Mechanisms to
involve landowners include: providing opportunities for input
into the rehabilitation process; developing water management and
conservation easements; forming watershed associations; inclusion
of landowner responsibility in the OMM plan; and developing
biological monitoring projects. Environmental groups can also
become advocates of a rehabilitation project through involvement
in community service and biological monitoring projects, and the
promotion of Departmental projects, e.g., Adopt-a-Wetland and
Christina River Cleanup.

SYSTEMATIC R]KHABILITATION PROCEDURE

The NDWRP has developed a systematic procedure to facilitate
the development and implementation of site-specific wetland
rehabilitation plans. This process not only provides a framework
for restoration planning and implementation, but it also promotes
frequent input by landowners, Steering Committee members, adjunct
committee members, and regulatory agencies. This framework also
encourages utilizing the technical expertise of the rehabilitation
team members and allocating task responsibilities to various
members. It is important to the cohesion, credibility, and
performance of the NDWRP effort that any proposed or new
activities affecting the program be brought to the attention and
review of the Steering Committee at the earliest possible time.
NDWRP participants should keep other members of the Steering
Committee fully informed about their activities on rehabilitation
sites, and not undertake substantive activities without Steering
Committee review and concurrence. Assignments of task
responsibilities in the NDWRP effort should be guided by
assessment of an agency's or individuals's official or traditional
responsibilities, which usually represent the best and most
appropriate source of knowledge, expertise, or experience about
the topics or problems at hand.

The systematic rehabilitation procedure for site-specific
projects is:

1) Present proposed rehabilitation site and preliminary
project objectives to the Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee reviews the rehabilitation candidate,
and if approved, designates a site-specific project
manager.

2) Designate or initiate acquisition of funding for the
development and implementation of the rehabilitation
plan.
3) Conduct tax map searches to identify landowners.
4) Contact landowners to solicit involvement in the
rehabilitation project and acquire permission to conduct
biological inventories and ecological evaluations.
5) Conduct biological inventories and ecological
evaluations of site.
6) Formulate a draft rehabilitation plan and present to
Steering Committee for review and approval.
Rehabilitation plan should be outlined on a tracking
form, which identifies site-specific multi-use
objectives, action steps required, and evaluative-
criteria. This form provides a mechanism whereby
project development, implementation, and success can be
updated and assessed.
7) Conduct additional biological inventories, ecological
evaluations, topographic surveys, hydrological studies,
and engineering designs as needed.
8) Obtain input on the rehabilitation plan from adjunct
committee members and regulatory agencies via
presentations and site visits.
9) Hold a public meeting with the landowners to identify
potential conflicts with the draft rehabilitation plan.
10) Finalize the rehabilitation plan and present to
Steering Committee for review and approval.
11) Prepare project specific environmental assessments and
permit applications.
12) Establish community or environmental groups as advocates
of the rehabilitation project.
13) Present final rehabilitation plan to landowners for
comment. This step is frequently required in the permit
process.
14) Upon permit approval and acquisition of funding,
implement the rehabilitation plan and develop a final
work schedule.
15) Monitor evaluative criteria to determine the success of
accomplishing site-specific multiple-use objectives.
Make adjustments/additions to rehabilitation plan to
better achieve these goals or accommodate additional
objectives.

.The chronology of achieving such benchmarks will undoubtedly
deviate slightly among rehabilitation projects, as site-specific
opportunities or problems arise. Several of these benchmarks can
and should be initiated earlier in the process as opportunities
present themselves, e.g., funding acquisition, landowner contacts,
and obtaining biological inventories, hydrological studies, and
ecological evaluations. Although minor changes in the chronology
are acceptable, it is imperative to the overall success of the
rehabilitation strategy that all the outline benchmarks are

achieved prior to plan implementation. This requirement of
assuring that all pertinent benchmarks are addressed prevents
projects from being implemented in a haphazard "shotgun approach".
Such an approach is less likely to achieve regional objectives and
more likely to promote negative feedback concerning the program.
At the same time, the planning process must not take on a life of
its own and become an excessively lengthy or costly procedure,
which would also generate negative feedback.

SITE-SPECIFIC REMILITATION PROJECTS UPDATES

Currently, 31 wetland rehabilitation sites are identified
within the highly degraded urban corridor along the Christina and
the Delaware Rivers (Table 2). Rehabilitation efforts on 11 of
these sites have significantly advanced beyond this preliminary
identification phase (Fig. 3). Progress varies among these 11
sites, ranging from the development of site-specific ecological
evaluations, to landowner negotiations, to acquisition of funding,
and implementation of the rehabilitation plan. Site-specific
descriptions and tracking forms outlining the project goals,
action steps needed, and evaluative criteria of several of these
projects are presented in the appendices. Provided in the
subsequent sections are updated progress reports for these 11
ongoing projects.

Broad Dyke Marsh

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife with substantial technical and administrative
support being provided by the New Castle Conservation District,
particularly in the design and construction of the proposed water
control structure., The Divisionof Air and Waste Management has
provided extensive information concerning potential contaminant
sources within the watershed and their likelihood of impacting the
project. The Division of Parks and Recreation is coordinating the
inclusion of portions of this marsh into the Delaware Coastal
Heritage Greenway Program. other Divisions and agencies have also
,provided support.

Studies initiated in 1987 have determined that the
successful, long-term restoration of the Broad Dyke Marsh is
dependent upon replacing the existing or installing an additional
water control structure (Delaware Mosquito Control Section 1988).
This new structure must be a larger, more specialized structure
that allows carefully controlled tidal exchanges while having the
capacity to release significant stormwater input. It should also

Table 2. Wetland sites proposed for rehabilitation under the 22
Northern Delaware Wetland Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP).

Site (n7-31) Acreage

Airport Marsh Wetland Complex 139
Army Creek Marsh 235
Artesian Marsh 136
Augustine Creek Wetland Complex 1130
Banning Park Marsh 84
Broad Dyke Marsh 210
Buttonwood Marsh 100
Cherry Island 325+
Christina Creek Marshes 225
Churchman's Marsh 250
The Delmarva Power and Light Impoundment 81
Dragon Run Marsh 615
Everglades Marsh 289
Gambacorta Marsh 41
Glenville Marsh 45
Hamburg Cove Marsh 202
Holloway Terrace Marsh 46
ICI Marsh 30
Luken's Marsh 215
National Guard Marsh 170
NeCastro Marsh @29
Newport Marsh 44
Nonesuch Creek Basin 588
Old Canal Marshes/Scott Run 542
Old Wilmington Marsh 325+
Pea Patch Island Marsh 90
Red Lion Marsh 465
Shellpot Creek Marsh 150+
Silver Run/Augustine Wildlife Complex 2115
South Wilmington Wetland Fragments 200
Thousand Acre Marsh 1288

Total 10,404+

Fig. 3. Wetlands restoration sites currently being developed or
implemented by the Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program (NDWRP).

operate in an automated fashion to eliminate the need for labor-
intensive management and maintenance. Because most of the
rehabilitation plans and management decisions regarding this
proposed project are dependent on the hydrology of Broad Dyke
Marsh being restored, rehabilitation efforts have focused on
obtaining designs, funding, and permits for this new water control
structure. Once this structure is in place, additional
rehabilitation efforts will continue.

Complementing the extensive studies and management practices
conducted in 1987-1989 (Delaware Mosquito Control Section 1988;
1990), a biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the
marsh was completed in November 1992 (Cole and Fabean 1992).
Information obtained in these studies has assisted in the
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the system. This modeling
(Williams and Broome 1992) has led to the design and final
selection of a $500,000 automated water control structure,
containing a vertical lift gate and automatic water-level sensors,
that allows daily tidal exchange and regulates marsh water levels.
This structure will be installed adjacent to the existing
structure, which will be maintained to increase outflow during
heavy storm events. Rehabilitation and water management plans
have also been developed (Appendix A), and are awaiting approval
by the Steering Committee. The permit submission process will be
initiated when these plans are approved.

Current ongoing management practices include an annual
maintenance program to control phragmites through aerial
applications of herbicide. An initial herbicide treatment of 112
acres was conducted in the late 1980's. In 1993, 38 acres of
persistent and regenerating stands were treated. Efforts are
underway to conduct controlled burns on several of these
persistent stands during the late winter of 1994. Additional
ongoing management practices include daily monitoring of marsh
water levels, annual surveys of wood duck production, seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding, and monitoring of floral and
faunal communities. Permanent vegetation transects and water
quality sampling stations will be established in the marsh during
the summer of 1994 to provide a baseline for evaluative criteria.

Both landowner and community support for this project have
been outstanding, with 90% of city of New Castle residents
supporting it (Barnekov and Appel 1993). The largest landowner,
the Trustees of New Castle Common, has provided significant
funding for the project. Obtaining non-fifiancial support has also
been successful. Two environmental groups from local high schools
have adopted the marsh through DNREC's Adopt-A-Wetland Program.
During the 1993 Delaware Coastal Cleanup, these environmental
groups initiated a trash cleanup in the marsh. These groups are
currently developing additional environmental education,
ecological monitoring, and cleanup programs through the assistance
of DNREC.

@pproval of the project by the appropriate regulatory
agencies is anticipated in June 1994. A final version of the
draft environmental assessment will be submitted in March 1994,
with the appropriate permits. Several site visits and
presentations have been attended by various regulatory agency
personnel, and all feedback has been positive with several
agencies providing helpful input regarding the development of the
rehabilitation plan and the environmental assessment. Partial
clearance for the project has been received by the State Historic
Preservation Office. Currently, a draft operation and maintenance
plan for the proposed water control structure has been developed.
Participants in this plan include the Delaware Division of Fish
and Wildlife, the New Castle County Public Works, the City of New
Castle, the Trustees of New Castle Common, and the New Castle
Immanuel Episcopal Church.

Funding support for the project has advanced slowly; however,
sufficient funding is anticipated to initiate construction of the
water control structure in the summer of 1994. Secured and
pending funding sources for the structure include:

Secured
EPA Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant $ 180,000
Trustees of New Castle Common 105,000
State of Delaware, FY-93 Appropriation 50,000
$ 335,000

Pending
New Castle County Public Works Department $ 100,000
State of Delaware, FY-94 Appropriation 50,000
Ducks Unlimited, Inc. (Delaware Chapter) 40,000
$ 190,000

Gambacorta Marsh

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife. The New Castle Conservation District is
assisting in the design of the proposed water control structure.
The District has also taken the lead in addressing a sedimentation
problem occurring in an adjacent lumber yard. Recent vegetation
control and construction practices within this lumber yard have
caused increased sedimentation of a portion of the marsh. The
District is pursuing the installation of a water conveyance system
with diversion berms, and subsequent revegetation of the area to
prevent additional sedimentation from occurring. once the
sedimentation is controlled, the silted-in area of the marsh will
be excavated. Other divisions and agencies have also provided
support. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation has compiled
a comprehensive nonpoint source pollution control plan for the
marsh. The Division of Air and Waste Management has provided

extensive information concerning potential contaminant sources in
the watershed, particularly the marsh sediment, and their
likelihood of impacting the project. The Division of Parks and
Recreation is coordinating the inclusion of portions of this marsh
into the Delaware Coastal Heritage Greenway Program.

The rehabilitation status of Gambacorta Marsh is that it is
awaiting funding and permit review. A biological inventory and
ecological evaluation of the marsh was completed in November 1992
(Cole and Fabean 1992), and the rehabilitation and water
management plans (Appendix B) were approved by the Steering
Committee in April 1993.

The water management plan was implemented in August 1993
after the existing water control structure was temporarily
modified to allow daily tidal exchange. Since the plan's
implementation, water levels and salinity have been monitored on a
weekly basis. Additional water quality parameters will be
monitored in the near future. Other ongoing management practices
include an annual maintenance program to control phragmites
through aerial application of herbicide. In 1993, 10 acres of
persistent and regenerating stands were treated. This control
plan, initiated in the late 19801s, has reduced the areal coverage
of phragmites within the 'marsh by approximately 82%. Efforts are
underway to conduct controlled burns on several of these
persistent stands during the late-winter of 1994. Annual surveys
of wood duck production and weekly surveys of waterbird use are
being conducted to determine the success of the wood duck nest
boxes and the water management plan, respectively. 'Seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding, and monitoring of floral and
faunal communities, are also being conducted. Five permanent
vegetation transects were established in the marsh during August
1993. These transects provide baseline data to evaluate and
modify the water management plan and future wetland rehabilitation
efforts.

Community support for this project has been outstanding as
determined by the mostly positive responses from visitors
utilizing the adjacent New Castle Scenic Walkway. Several walkway
users were concerned about the seasonal draw downs; however, an
interpretive sign will address these concerns and provide an
understanding of the management goals of the marsh. Although
participants of the 1993 Delaware Coastal Cleanup assisted in
removing a significant amount of trash from the marsh, DNREC is
still soliciting for a local environmental group to formally adopt
the marsh through the Adopt-A-Wetland Program.

The primary reason for the delay in implementing the
Gambacorta Marsh rehabilitation plan is that the landowner,
Trustees of New Castle Common, is currently funding another
project, Broad Dyke Marsh. The Trustees are understandably
hesitant to fund or approve extensive rehabilitation efforts on

Gambacorta Marsh until the other wetland rehabilitation project is
partially completed. However in September 1993, the Trustees
approved portions of an interim rehabilitation proposal for the
marsh. Within the framework of this proposal, the Trustees have
provided funding for additional phragmites control work, the
creation of scenic vistas along the Scenic Walkway, and the
construction of interpretive signs along the Scenic Walkway. The
phragmites control and clearing of vistas along the walkway were
preformed by the Trustees and the Division of Fish and Wildlife.
Additional assistance in the clearing of brush was obtained
through prison labor from the Delaware State Department of
Corrections. Construction of the interpretive signs is proposed
in the spring of 1994 after the Trustees and the Division of Parks
and.Recreation finalize the inclusion of the scenic walkway into
the Delaware Coastal Heritage Greenway Program. These signs will
be designed cooperatively among the Trustees and the Divisions of
Fish and Wildlife and Parks and Recreation. The DuPont Company
donated $5,000 to the Trustees to develop and construct these
signs.

The only item of the interim proposal that was not approved
by the Trustees was the construction of a 6-foot-high observation
platform overlooking the marsh. This item was placed on hold
because it was feared that the additional use of this structure
might exacerbate a parking problem at the entrance of the Scenic
Walkway. The Divisions of Fish and Wildlife and Air and Waste
Management are currently assisting in developing a resolution to
this parking problem through acquisition of property as part of
the Army Creek Superfund Natural Resources Damages settlement.

An environmental assessment and permit applications will be
submitted once funding for the new water control structure and
final approval by the Trustees is received. Several site visits
and presentations have been attended by various regulatory agency
personnel, and all feedback has been positive with several
agencies providing helpful input regarding the development of the
rehabilitation plan. Existing and potential funding sources for
this project include the Trustees of New Castle Common, Delaware
Department of Transportation, Brosius-Eliason Lumber Company, and
the DuPont Company.

Thousand Acre Marsh

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Soil and Water Conservation. The New Castle Conservation District
has administered a contract to develop a 2-foot contour map of the
marsh's 3,067-acre watershed. The Division of Parks and
Recreation's Natural Heritage Inventory is currently conducting a
biotic composition and natural community description of the marsh.
Other Divisions and agencies have also provided support.

This project was initiated by the Division of Fish and
Wildlife in 1991 through a grant provided by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. This grant provided the funding for completing
a draft report on the general background, description, and
management recommendations for Thousand Acre Marsh (Carter 1992a).
Information obtained in this and subsequent studies have assisted
in the development of rehabilitation and water management plans
(Appendix C). These plans will be submitted to the appropriate
regulatory agencies for permitting after reviewand approval by
the Steering Committee.

Several site-specific marsh and watershed rehabilitation
efforts are proposed for this marsh including: conducting an
extensive phragmites control program; installing a new water
control structure; utilizing innovative dredging technology to
restore "wet island" habitats; restoring channels to improve marsh
access and water circulation, and identifying areas within the
watershed where conservation practices would improve surface water
runoff quality. However, the implementation and funding of these
rehabilitation efforts are conditioned on the formation of a
landowner tax ditch association. This association would enable
the 22 private landowners to determinemanagement Actions based on
a majority vote, and provides for a legal mechanism in which
taxation within the association provides a source of funds for
marsh management. Several landowner meetings have been held (the
most recent in July 1993) to provide detailed overviews of the
marsh rehabilitation and tax ditch formation plans. These public
meetings were preceded and followed by meetings with individual
landowners to address specific concerns, questions, and needs. A
petition to investigate the feasibility of the formation of the
Thousand Acre Tax Ditch Association was signed by a majority of
landowners (55%) in July 1992. The Superior Court of Delaware
approved the formation of this association in March 1993. A final
vote by the landowners whether to form the Thousand Acre Tax Ditch
Association is expected in February 1994.

There appears to be a concern by some landowners regarding
the prospect of allowing limited estuarine exchange with Thousand
Acre Marsh. These concerns are in regard to potential changes in
marsh salinity and vegetation composition, and fluctuating water
levels. This sensitivity over tidal exchange was sufficient to
prevent the Division of Fish and Wildlife from undertaking an U.S.
Fish and wildlife supported estuarine fisheries habitat assessment
of the marsh. Not reintegrating this large wetland area with the
estuary would severely limit the number of regional multiple-use
objectives achieved by the restoration plan. Limited tidal
exchange would benefit water quality, fisheries use, control of
pestiferous mosquito populations, and two large wading bird
colonies within the corridor. Initiatives are now being made to
convince landowners of the necessity and benefits of restoring
limited estuarine exchange to the marsh.

Initiation of an environmental assessment and permit
applications are pending formation of the Tax Ditch Association
and its decision with regard to wetland rehabilitation activities.
However, state and federal wetland permits have been received to
construct 560 yards of rip-rap stabilization along an individual
landowner's property, and to address an erosion problem along the
intercoastal dike (Route 9). The rip-rap stabilization was
completed in the summer of 1993 and the erosion problem along
Route 9 will be addressed in January-February 1994. Additional
ongoing management practices include the February 1992
implementation of an interim water management plan, weekly
monitoring of water levels and water quality (salinity,
temperature,', dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus), and seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding.

Several site visits and presentations were attended by
various regulatory agency personnel, and feedback was mostly
positive. some concern was been raised regarding the funding and
involvement by public agencies for the benefit of a private
association; however, a position paper identifying the public
benefit of this rehabilitation project is being developed.
Additionally, the recent approval for the acquisition of 100 acres
of this marsh by the Division of Fish and Wildlife should also
enhance the public benefit of the proposed rehabilitation efforts.

Funding for this project has been received from the U.S. EPA
Delaware Estuary Program Grant ($41,500), environmental
reimbursement funds associated with the Presidente Rivera oil
spill ($13,000), and other unspecified penalty monies ($17,000).
The FY-94 DCMP Section 309 Enhancement Strategy for the NDWRP was
redirected to provide funding for the establishment of a detailed
nonpoint source pollution reduction plan and other wetland and
watershed enhancement and rehabilitation projects at Thousand Acre
Marsh. The Potential funding sources include the state bond bill,
the Army Corps of Engineers, and funds derived from self-taxation
by the Tax Ditch Association. The proposed Tax Ditch Association,
as a legally binding organization, is also eligible to apply for
wetland restoration funds from outside sources.

Delmarva Power and Light Impoundment (DPL Impoundment)

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife. The New Castle Conservation District has
assisted in developing watershed maps and addressing water supply
issues. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation has compiled
a comprehensive no 'npoint source pollution control plan for the
marsh. The Divisi on of Air and Waste Management has provided
extensive information concerning potential contaminant sources in
the watershed and their likelihood of impacting the project, in
particular a solid waste landfill within the proposed

rehabilitation area. other Divisions and agencies have also
provided support.

A biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the marsh
was completed in November 1992 (Cole and Fabean 1992), and a
rehabilitation plan (Appendix D) was developed. Current ongoing
management practices include a phragmites control program that was
initiated in 1992. This program involves annual aerial
applications of herbicide on phragmites stands followed by
controlled burns the subsequent winter. A partially successful
burn was conducted in March 1993, and 58 acres of persistent and
regenerating stands were retreated with herbicide in October 1993.
Additional management practices include an extensive topographic
survey of the marsh and surrounding upland areas, seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding, hydrological manipulations of
the existing water control structure, and monitoring of floral and
faunal communities.

The two landowners of this wetland have differed in their
response to the rehabilitation project. Delmarva Power has fully
supported this project through both their Real Estate Department
and Sportsmen Club. The Real Estate Department provided funding
for phragmites spraying, and the Sportsmen Club provided
assistance with the*controlled burns, hydrological manipulations,
and trash removal during the 1993 Delaware Coastal Cleanup. Star
Enterprises is supportive of the wetland rehabilitation
initiative, but they are not interested in consenting to a long-
term management agreement or providing any funding for the
rehabilitation of the DPL Impoundment unless they can receive
"environmental consideration" to be used as mitigation in an
unrelated project. However, recent information indicates that
Star Enterprises might reconsider consenting to a long-term
management agreement in the near future.

The current rehabilitation status of the DPL Impoundment is
that concerns regarding the feasibility of the rehabilitation
effort need to be addressed before the Steering Committee approves
the plan. one concern is that the proposed expansion of a sand
and gravel extraction operation in the watershed might divert a
significant amount of storm runoff away from the marsh and into
another watershed, critically lessening the water supply of the
marsh. This concern has recently been addressed by obtaining the
contour maps and sedimentation control plans for the proposed
extraction operation. These plans and maps indicate that the
extraction operation will not significantly impact the water
quality or supply for the proposed marsh. The other concern
pertains to whether the integrity of the existing dike will
support the proposed water levels. Efforts are currently underway
to have a registered engineer examine the dike and rehabilitation
proposal. An environmental assessment and permit applications
will be submitted when the rehabilitation plan is approved by the
Steering Committee; when funding for the new water control

structure is obtained; and when Star Enterprises supports a long-
term management agreement for their portion of the wetland.
Existing or potential funding sources for this project are
Delmarva Power and Star Enterprises.

NeLw2ort Marsh

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife; however, because this marsh has been
potentially impacted by the E.I. DuPont Newport Superfund Site,
the Division is coordinating this work with the Division of Air
and Waste Management and the other DuPont Newport Superfund
Natural Resources Trustees (U.S Fish and Wildlife Service,
National Marine Fisheries Service). other Divisions and agencies
have also provided support.

A biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the marsh
was completed in November 1992 (Cole and Fabean 1992), and a draft
rehabilitation plan was developed and will require approval by the
Steering Committee prior to submission for permits. Management
practices and further rehabilitation efforts on this marsh have
been curtailed until decisions regarding the potential impacts and
natural resource injuries associated with the Superfund site are
resolved. A primary concern is that by rehabilitating the marsh
prior to addressing the Superfund contaminant issues, we might be
increasing the potential risk of contamination to wildlife and
humans. Management practices have been limited to topographic
surveys of the marsh and surrounding upland areas, seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding, and monitoring of floral and
faunal communities. The phragmites control program initiated in
1992 was discontinued.

There has been considerable community support to rehabilitate
this state-owned property. The City of Newport has expressed a
desire to maximize the marsh's educational and recreational
potential, and a local high school has requested adopting it
through the DNREC Adopt-A-Wetland Program. This community support
will be utilized once the rehabilitation plan is finalized and the
permit process initiated, which are dependent on the Superfund
issues being addressed. If it is determined that the Superfund
site significantly impacted the wetland, then potential funding
for this project might be obtained through the DuPont Newport
Superfund Remediation Plan. If the wetland has not been
significantly impacted by the Superfund site, then restoration
funding might be obtained through the compensation for the
Superfund natural resource injuries.

Artesian Marsh

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife, with substantial technical and administrative
support being received from other Divisions and agencies. The
Division of Air and Waste Management has provided extensive
information concerning potential contaminant sources in the
watershed, technical assistance in sediment sampling for toxins,
and administrative assistance in coordinating potential
rehabilitation plans with the DuPont Newport Superfund Site. The
Division of Water Resources is currently assisting in the
development of a site-specific wetlands mitigation banking effort
to promote this wetland rehabilitation project. This Division has
also provided technical assistance in testing sediment samples.
The New Castle Conservation District has provided technical
assistance in conducting topographic surveys of the marsh and has
provided information regarding floodplain ordinances in the
watershed. Other Divisions and agencies have also provided
support.

A biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the marsh
was completed in September 1993 (Cole and Cole 1993), and a draft
rehabilitation plan (Appendix E) is being developed for review and
approval by the Steering Committee. Rehabilitation efforts for
this wetland have been delayed, because the marsh might have been
impacted by the DuPont Newport Superfund Site or several other
potential contaminant sources in the watershed. This site has
also been identified as a potential mitigation site for natural
resource damages associated with the superfund site. Therefore,
the Division is coordinating this restoration with the DuPont
Newport Superfund Natural Resources Trustees (Division of Air and
Waste Management, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service). Because of the concern for potential
contaminants, sediment sampling of the marsh was conducted in June
1993. This preliminary sampling identified high levels of zinc in
the sediment; however, additional sampling is required for
conclusive results. Rehabilitation plans will not proceed until
this issue is addressed, because by rehabilitating the marsh prior
to having contaminant issues addressed, we might be increasing the
risk of exposing wildlife and humans to toxins. Current
rehabilitation practices include conducting an extensive
topographic survey of the marsh, surrounding upland areas, and
adjacent flood plains; mapping and assessment of breaches in the
existing dike; daily monitoring of water levels in the adjacent
Christina River; seasonal inspections of mosquito breeding; and
monitoring of floral and faunal communities.

The property owner of the marsh, Artesian Water Company, is
interested in assisting in this rehabilitation, but desires
mitigation credit for possible use on a proposed reservoir
project. The DelDOT has also expressed interest in wetlands

mitigation at this site. During DelDOT's permitting process, the
Army Corps of Engineers has identified this marsh as the preferred
mitigation site for the wetlands lost by the proposed widening of
Interstate 95. The Divisions of Fish and Wildlife and Water
Resources are seeking a Departmental position that allows Artesian
Water, and possibly DelDOT, to receive future mitigation credit
for their support in this rehabilitation project. This policy
would differ from the Department's regular process of not pre-
disposing wetland mitigation decisions for projects not completed
or permitted.

When the various contaminant, Superfund, and landowner issues
are resolved, the rehabilitation plan, environmental assessment,
and permit applications will be submitted to the Steering
Committee and the appropriate regulatory agencies. Potential
funding sources for this project are those previously mentioned,
i.e., Artesian Water Company, DelDOT, and natural resource damages
associated with the DuPont Newport Superfund Site. Another party
interested in assisting DNREC in this project is the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, which has indicated that they would like to
become involved through their private lands initiative, the
Partners For Wildlife Program.

Auggstine Creek Wetland CqMlex

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife. The Division of Parks and Recreation's Natural
Heritage Program has recently completed floristic composition
studies and rare plant surveys of the marsh (Appendix F), and the
New Castle Conservation District has assisted in developing
watershed maps and sedimentation control plans. Other Divisions
and agencies have also provided support.

A biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the marsh
was completed in September 1993 (Cole and Cole 1993).
Complementing these studies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
funded a estuarine fish habitat suitability evaluation for the
marsh, designed and coordinated by the Division of Fish and
Wildlife and preformed by a contractual environmental consulting
firm (Environmental Consulting Services, Inc. 1993). A
rehabilitation plan is being developed for approval by the
Steering Committee. Current management practices include
hydrological manipulations of the water control structure to fine
tune and implement an interim water management plan. Hydrological
manipulations and weekly water level and salinity monitoring were
initiated in December 1992 in response to landowner reTjasts.
Design specifications and installation procedures have been
developed to install an automated water level recorder in the
marsh during the summer of 1994. A solution to a sedimentation
and highway stabilization problem along the intercoastal dike

(Route 9) is currently being developed with the assistance of
DelDOT and the New Castle Conservation District. Additional
ongoing practices include conducting an extensive topographic
survey of the marsh and surrounding upland areas, seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding, and monitoring of floral and
faunal communities.

The Augustine Creek Wetland Complex is owned by 46 different
landowners, with most of the property in private ownership (90%).
Currently, the Division of Fish and Wildlife is working with these
landowners to establish long-term conservation and water
management easements for the complex. The formation of a
watershed association similar to that proposed at Thousand Acre
Marsh is another long-term management option being inv 'estigated
for possible consideration. The three largest landowners,
representing 42% (471 acres) of the wetland complex, have
indicated a desire for a long-term management agreement. The
largest landowner, Delaware Wildlands (236 acres, 21%), has
provided funding for the short-term maintenance of the existing
water control structure and the installation of wildlife ;
enhancement structures. This conservation organizatio 'n also
allows environmental groups to conduct educational tours through
its Armstrong heronry, and has expressed a desire to contribute
additional funding to rehabilitate the marsh.

A grant application for $240,894 has been submitted to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for its 1994 National C 'oasta,l
Wetlands Conservation Grant. This grant would fund,,the
construction and installation of an additional water control
structure that would allow limited tidal exchanges, plus the
treatment of approximately 300 acres of monotypic phragmite's
stands. Last year a similar proposal for this project was.ranked
#1 in the Northeast Region and #11 nationally. Unfortunately,
only the top 10 proposals were funded. Preliminary feedback from
the granting agency does not look favorable again this year, but a
final funding decision has not yet been conveyed.. If funding is
obtained for this project, emphasis will be placed on finalizing
long-term management agreements and rehabilitation plans among the
many landowners, and completing the environmental assessment and
permit-applications for the appropriate regulatory agencies.
Other potential funding sources for this project include Delaware
Wildlands, DelDOT, Public Service Electric Gas, and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.

Old Wilmincrton Marsh

The rehabilitation of this wetland is being co-administered
by DNREC's Office of the Secretary and the Division of Soil and
Water Conservation; however, they are coordinating all efforts
with the Brandywine & Christina Rivers Task Force, the proponent

of this project. DNREC has agreed to assume the role of
"facilitator" for this project, but it cannot assume management:
responsibilities. The NDWRP has had little direct involvement to
date with this project. The Division of Air and Waste Management.
is assisting in addressing potential hazardous waste issues at the
site by developing an environmental investigation strategy through
its Christina River Basin Hazardous Waste Sites Restoration
Project. The Division of Parks and Recreation is investigating
recreational opportunities at the site, and the New Castle
Conservation District is assisting in addressing stormwater
flooding and nonpoint source pollution problems. other Divisions',
and agencies have also provided support.

Before rehabilitation efforts can be further pursued, the
potential of hazardous wastes at this site must be addressed.
primary concern is that by restoring the marsh to the proposed,
wildlife refuge and public recreation area prior to addressing
these contaminant issues, we might be increasing the risk of
contamination to wildlife and humans. A Departmental strategy,to
conduct sediment analysis throughout the project area is currently being developed. As proposed, all DNREC Divisions would
contribute to the funding for this sediment testing. Once the
contaminant issues are addressed and if it is determined that the
wetland rehabilitation effort should go forward, emphasis will be
placed on developing a biological inventory and ecological
evaluation of the marsh. Information obtained from these studies
will be used in the development of rehabilitation plans, which
will be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for
permits once approved by the Steering Committee.

The City of Wilmington and the Brandywine & Christina River
Task Force have been very supportive of the project. Land0wner
support has also been positive; however, once sediment testing
occurs this may change. Two landowners, Conrail and New Castle
County, have indicated a desire to donate or lease the land to
DNREC. However, DNREC will not accept any property suspected
containing hazardous wastes. The DCMP Section 309 Enhancement
Strategy has redirected funding for the establishment of a
detailed nonpoint source pollution reduction plan, plus other wetland and watershed enhancement and rehabilitation projects at
Old Wilmington Marsh. Other potential funding sources for this
project include the landowners of the marsh.

Army Creek Marsh

The wetlands of this project, being rehabilitated under the
direct guidance of the Army Creek Superfund Project; therefore,
the rehabilitation procedure for this project will differ from
those outlined in this planning document. The administrative

lead in preparing the wetland restoration plan is the Army Creek
Superfund Natural Resources Damages Trustees comprised of the
following agencies: Division of Fish and Wildlife, Division of
Air and Waste Management, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Marine Fisheries Service. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the Steering Committee will review the final
rehabilitation plan, but approval is only required among the
Trustees. The permitting process might differ in that it is built
into the Superfund guidelines; however, the appropriate regulatory
agencies will be provided an opportunity to comment. The Division
of Parks and Recreation is assisting the Trustees in the
acquisition of upland areas as compensation for natural resource
injuries, and in gaining marsh landowner cooperation to undertake
wetlands restoration. The New Castle conservation District will
assist in the preliminary assessment and design of the proposed
water control structure, and the development of an operation,
maintenance, and management plan for the structure. The
Department of Transportation is coordinating its proposed
construction plans of Route 9 with this wetland rehabilitation
project. other Divisions and agencies have also provided support.

A biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the
wetland complex was completed in November 1992 (Cole and Fabean
1992). Based on these and other studies associated with the
Superfund site remediation, a final wetlands rehabilitation plan
and its environmental assessment will be prepared and presented to
the Steering Committee and the EPA in December 1994. Once the
rehabilitation plan is completed, the Army Creek Superfund Natural
Resources Damages Trustees will implement the plan. Formal
contacts obtaining landowner support for the marsh restoration are
currently being initiated. It is anticipated that community
support for this project will develop following the proposed
August 1994 public presentation of the rehabilitation plan.
Funding for this project has been obtained through a mitigation
settlement for natural resource damages associated with the Army
Creek Superfund Site.

Airport-Marsh Wetland Complex

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife. The Division of Air and Waste Management has
provided extensive information concerning potential contaminant
sources in the watershed, and administrative assistance in
coordinating rehabilitation plans with the DuPont Newport
Superfund Site. Other Divisions and agencies have also provided
support.

A biological inventory and ecological evaluation of the
wetland complex was completed in September 1993 (Cole and Cole
1993), and a draft rehabilitation plan is being developed for

approval by the Steering Committee prior to submission for
permits. Rehabilitation efforts for this wetland complex have
been delayed, because the complex might have been impacted by the
DuPont Newport Superfund Site or several other potential
contaminant sources in the watershed. This site has also been
identified as a potential compensation site for natural resource
injuries associated with the Superfund site. Therefore, the
Division is coordinating this restoration with the DuPont Newport
Superfund Natural Resources Trustees (Division of Air and Waste
Management, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine
Fisheries Service). Rehabilitation practices have been limited to
inspections of the existing water control structure, seasonal
inspections of mosquito breeding, monitoring of floral and faunal
communities, and the aerial application of herbicide on 16 acres
of phragmites in 1993.

The development of community and landowner support for this
project were only recently initiated; however, the three largest
landowners (Delaware Department of Transportation, New Castle
County, Delmarva Power) are supportive of the project. Several
private landowners of small sections of the wetland complex have
also indicated their support. The Delaware Trappers Association
has unofficially adopted this wetland area. This Association has
conducted annual trash cleanups of the wetland complex and has
posted "No Dumping" signs in an attempt to curb this continuing
problem. A potential funding source for this project is the
pending mitigation settlement for natural resource injuries
associated with the DuPont Newport Superfund Site.

ICI Marsh

The administrative lead for this project is the Division of
Fish and Wildlife. Although an enhancement report of the area was
completed in 1991 by the Division and the Wildlife Habitat
Enhancement Council, the formal rehabilitation process of this
marsh has only been recently initiated. The landowner, ICI
Specialty Chemicals, wants to restore this degraded marsh to
encourage wildlife use, provide an aesthetic recreational area* for
its employees, and promote good public relations by being
responsible land stewards. The Delaware Nature Society has also
expressed support for this project and has attended site visits.
Ecological evaluations have been limited to site visits and
historical review of past practices within the marsh. Based on
this information, the Division has recommended that water and
sediment samples of the two lagoons at the site be tested for
contaminants prior to any restoration efforts being undertaken.
Funding for this project and the contaminant testing might be
obtained from ICI Specialty Chemicals.

PROJECT BUX)MRY AND ASSESSMENT OF FUTU EEEDS

The Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation Program like
many other large multi-agency initiatives was characteristically
"slow out of the starting blocks" in terms of achieving
benchmarks. This initial torpor was compounded by a change of
personnel both within the program and the Department overseeing
it. However, once this weaning period was completed, which
involved the program being stretched in many different directions
(some opposing), the program could better focus on addressing the
tasks and objectives it was intended to tackle. After 1.3 years
of implementation, the program has accomplished almost all of the
objectives it proposed during the first 2 years of DCMP funding,
namely to develop a planning and implementation document for a
regional, multi-objective strategy to rehabilitate degraded tidal
wetlands along the two urban river corridors.

The initial step required in developing this "regional"
strategy was to define the focus area of the program, i.e.,
identify the sites proposed for rehabilitation and establish the
initial boundaries of the corridors. Much of this work was
completed prior to the DCMP granting period (Carter 1991a);
however, this list of potential wetland rehabilitation sites
(Table 2) has been and will continue to be updated, refined, and
expanded as the program advances. A map (Fig. 3) identifying the
proposed wetland rehabilitation sites will be periodically
updated, identifying both primary target sites and successfully
restored projects.

Enormous effort was expended in developing a Steering
Committee and an administrative organization for the program that
maximized multi-agency resources and technical expertise, while
striving to minimize "turf battles", outside agendas, and biased
viewpoints. Although initially an arduous task, a framework was
developed that promoted a tiered organizational approach. After
several attempts to organize and convene a steering committee
comprised of all Department and outside agency representatives,
two items became apparent: 1) the technical expertise and
resources that each agency's representatives provided were
essential to the program; and 2) convening a large steering
committee on a monthly basis was logistically impractical,
extremely inefficient, and a burden on agency personnel whom were
only periodically involved in the program. Therefore, a two-
tiered approach was established whereby agency representatives
other than DNREC and NCCD staff were designated adjunct committee
status and were not requested to convene at monthly Steering
Committee meetings (Table 1). However, these adjunct committee
members were frequently included in the planning and evaluation
process, specifically during permit review, funding requests, or
rehabilitation plan review. This tiered approach was also adopted
to maximize Departmental resources and technical expertise within

the program's personnel organization. The tier approach is one in
which two Division co-administrators coordinate inter- and intra-
agency participation through the NDWRP program manager, who
coordinates the overall program goals through site-specific
project managers who are responsible for coordinating activities
associated with a specific wetland rehabilitation project.

Once the Steering Committee was organized, its initial task
was in developing program objectives. These objectives were
selected based on a regional perspective, whereby benefits of
individual rehabilitation projects could be maximized across an
entire corridor. These objectives also had to be multiple-use in
nature, so that in most cases objectives complemented each other
or at the very least did not compromise one another. And finally,
all objectives had to be capable of developing measurable
evaluative criteria in order to provide temporal measures of
success.

Biotic inventories and ecological evaluations of 9 proposed
wetland rehabilitation sites were completed during PY-91 (Cole and
Fabean 1992) and FY-92 (Cole and Cole 1993). These evaluations
and subsequent studies provided background information and
qualitative and quantitative data required to develop detailed
rehabilitation plans. These rehabilitation plans, although site-
specific, are developed under a corridor perspective, with
emphasis placed on achieving as many of the 11 regional multi-use
objectives as possible. Once the rehabilitation strategy is
developed, measurable evaluative criteria will be established for
each specific objective in order to provide temporal measurements
of success. A prerequisite to the long-term success of the
rehabilitation effort is the inclusion of operation, maintenance,
and management agreements in the rehabilitation plan. These
voluntary or enforceable agreements identify the responsibilities
of various agencies or parties in the rehabilitation process.
Without these operation, maintenance, and management agreements,
rehabilitation efforts might not be implemented, and those
objectives that are achieved could simply revert to their
previously degraded conditions.

Rehabilitation plans are maintained and updated on a
centralized tracking system. Each site-specific rehabilitation
plan provides information on all aspects of the project, ranging
from permit and funding status to project needs and completion
dates. The rehabilitation plan is outlined to emphasize regional
objectives, and is easily updated throughout the project's
development and implementation. Committee members and regulatory
agencies have found these trackable rehabilitation plans extremely
beneficial in providing a quick, detailed perspective of the
project prior to completion of environmental assessments and
permit applications. Addendums to the trackable rehabilitation
plans include maps, site descriptions, water management plans, and
structure designs.

Essential to the overall success of this rehabilitation
process is the cooperation and involvement of federal, state, and
local agencies; private industries; landowners, and private
environmental groups. Cooperation by governmental agencies has
included technical assistance, access to Departmental resources,
and funding support (Table 3). Many of these governmental
agencies were previously active or familiar with this wetlands
rehabilitation initiative, through their assistance with the
program's development for the preliminary rehabilitation efforts
initiated at Broad Dyke Marsh in 1987.

The NDWRP has also received substantial support from the
private sector. Private funding support has been received from
several industries and organizations including the Trustees of New
Castle Common, Delmarva Power, Ciba-Geigy, Brand Mid-Atlantic, and
DuPont (Table 3). Additional private support has been received in
the form of program promotional activities, landowner access, and
environmental fines and settlements. Private landowner
participation in this program has been outstanding, with over 86%
of those solicited allowing property access and supporting both
the program and site-specific project objectives.

Public support for the program has been received from several
environmental groups who became involved in the project through
several of DNREC's outreach programs, e.g., Adopt-A-Wetland,
Christina River Cleanup, Delaware Coastal Cleanup. The Adopt-A-
Wetland Program has been the most successful method of getting
environmental groups involved, with several groups adopting
rehabilitation sites and others currently in the process. The
Adopt-A-Wetland Program provides environmental groups an
opportunity to become actively involved in the rehabilitation and
protection of wetland areas by assisting in various activities,
such as trash removal, wood duck box installation and maintenance,
establishing and maintaining interpretative trails, and conducting
biological inventories. Although most of the public'support for
this program has been from local groups, several state-wide and
national organizations, such as The Delaware Nature Society and
Delaware Ducks Unlimited, have indicated their support.

Additional support from both the private and public sectors
is anticipated once the NDWRP brochure (Appendix G), published in
February 1994, is widely distributed. This color, tri-folded
brochure, designed to be utilized for public outreach and program
fund-raising, provides an overview of the program in an easy to
read format. The brochure identifies program goals, proposed and
current rehabilitation sites, restoration methods, and benefits of
wetland restoration. Periodic updates of the brochure will be
accomplished with inserts identifying, new project sites, funding
sources, and details on project successes.

Although the NDWRP planning and implementation document, with
its site reports, and an outreach brochure have been completed,

Table 3. Secured and pending funding sources for the Northern
Delaware Wetland Rehabilitation Program (NDWRP).

Funding source Amount

Secured
Army Creek Superfund Natural Resources Damages $ 600,000
Ciba-Geigy 310,000
EPA Section 319 Non-Point Source Pollution Grant 180,000
DCMP Section 309 Grant (FY-92 and FY-93) 128,000
Trustees of New Castle Commons 113,700
Brand Mid-Atlantic 100,000
State Bond Bill, FY-93 Appropriation 50,000
EPA Delaware Estuary Program Grant 41,500
Unspecified Fine Monies 17,000
Presidente Rivera Oil Spill Fine Monies 13,000
Division of Fish & Wildlife 8,160
DuPont 5,000
Delmarva Power 4,926
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mini-Grants (2) 91000
Total 11580,286

Pending'
National Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant $ 240,894
New Castle County Public Works Department 100,000
State Bond Bill, FY-94 Appropriation 50,000
Ducks Unlimited 40,000
Total 430,894

'This list is comprised on only those pending sources for which
funding amounts have been specified. Other potential funding
sources of unspecified amounts are not included.

several important tasks need to be completed. In the next year
@mphasis will be placed on addressing nonpoint source pollution
issues within the corridor, in conjunction with efforts to
implement Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Detailed maps depicting nonpoint source pollution sources within
the watersheds of all wetland restoration sites need to be
generated. These maps supplemented with aerial photos, soil maps,
and additional information will identify areas where stormwater
detention/retention, conservation, and best management practices
can reduce pollutant loading. The development and implementation
of site-specific nonpoint source pollution reduction plans
supported by the DCMP, for both an urban and a rural wetland
rehabilitation site are also anticipated next year, to demonstrate
the utility of this watershed-based approach.

Essential to maintaining the NDWRP's initial success is the
continued emphasis on actually implementing the regional wetland
rehabilitation strategy within the corridor, adhering to the
planning document whenever possible. In the next and subsequent
years, rehabilitation plans for additional sites need to be
developed; funding, rehabilitation plan implementation, and public
outreach efforts must continue; and completed projects must be
evaluated in regards to their successes and failures. only then
can the rehabilitative success of the Christina/Delaware Rivers
Urban Wetland Corridor be determined. Until then, this document
serves as the plan for the long-term rehabilitation needs of the
tidal wetlands and related aquatic habitats in Northern Delaware,
from which future coastal and wetland rehabilitation programs can
be developed.

LITERATURE CITED

BARNEKOV, T.K., and E. APPEL. 1993. Survey of Households: city
of New Castle. Del. Public Adm. Inst., Coll. Urban Affairs
Public Policy, Univ. Delaware, Newark. 102pp.

CARTER, D. 1991. The Christina and Delaware Rivers corridor: an
opportunity for the restoration of important wetland habitat.
Del. Ducks Unlimited Newsletter. Spring:33-34.

1991a. Christina and Delaware Rivers Wetland Corridor.
Unpublished. Del. Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Dover.

- . 1992. The Christina/Delaware Rivers Wetland Corridor
Rehabilitation Project. Unpublished. Del. Dep. Nat. Resour.
Environ. Control, Dover. 6pp.

Thousand Acres Marsh: general background, area
de;c 1992a.
ription, and management recommendations and alternatives.
Del. Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Dover. 119pp.

CHAMBERLAIN, E.B. 1951. A survey of the marshes of Delaware.
Final Rep. Pittman-Robertson Proj., Del. Board Game and Fish
Comm., Dover, 76pp.

COLE, R.V., and T. COLE. 1993. The Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program: a biotic inventory and environmental
evaluation of four candidate wetland restoration sites. Del.
Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Dover. 75pp.

, and T. FABEAN. 1992. The northern Delaware wetlands
rehabilitation program: a biotic inventory and environmental
evaluation of five candidate wetland restoration sites. Del.
Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Dover. 154pp.

DNREC (Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control). 1994. Comprehensive conservation and management
plan for Delaware's tidal wetlands. Del. Dep. Nat. Resour.
Environ. Control, Dover. 288pp.

DELAWARE MOSQUITO CONTROL SECTION. 1988. Broad Dyke Restoration
Project: first year annual report. Unpublished. Del. Dep.
Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Dover. 52pp.

1990. Broad Dyke Restoration Project: second year annual
report. Unpublished. Del. Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control,
Dover. 13pp and appendices.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING SERVICES, INC. 1993. Fish habitat
suitability evaluation of Augustine Creek Marsh for fishes of
the lower Delaware River. Prepared for Del. Dep. Nat. Resour.
Environ. Control by Environmental Consulting Services, Inc.,
Middletown, Delaware. 11pp. and appendices.

HARDISKY, M.A. and V. KLEMAS. 1983. Tidal wetlands natural and
human-made changes from 1973 to 1979 in Delaware: mapping
techniques and results. Environ Manage. 7:1-6.

KREAMER, G. 1993. Needs assessment for Delaware aquatic
resources education. Unpublished. Del. Div. Fish Wildl.,
Dover. 7pp.

TINER, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and
Wildl. Serv., Natl. Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MA and
Del. Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Wetlands Sect., Dover,
Coop. Publ. 77pp.

WILLIAMS and BROOME, INC. 1992. Preliminary design report for
Broad Dyke Marsh control works project. Prepared for,New
Castle Conserv. Dist. by Williams and Broome, Inc., Newark,
Delaware. 32pp. and appendices.

WESLAGER, C.A. 1947. Delaware's forgotten river: the story of
the Christina. Hambleton Co., Inc., Wilmington, Del. 266pp.

APPENDIX A

BROAD DYKE MARSH
REHABILITATION PLAN

........................ .......

Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program

BROAD DYKE MUME

A 210-acre freshwater tidal wetland located north of the city

of New Castle along the Delaware River. The marsh is surrounded on 3

sides by residential and commercial developments and on the east side

is separated from the Delaware River by a dike containing a water

control structure. This wetland is comprised of 160 acres of

estuarine marsh (76%), 50 acres of palustrine deciduous forest (24%),

and has an 1811-acre watershed primarily consisting of residential

and urban areas. Property owners are the Trustees of New Castle

Common and the New Castle Immanuel Episcopal Church.

This marsh was once a lush mosaic of rushes, sedges, cattails,

and smartweeds; and contained a high diversity of waterbirds and

other wildlife. In the mid-1600's the marsh was diked and drained to

accommodate agriculture and settlement of adjacent upland areas.

These practices have continued to the present resulting in 53% of the

marsh being dominated by the nuisance plant phragmites; a dramatic

decrease in the diversity of fish, wildlife, and plant species;

reduced wetland and water quality, and an increase in the potential

for pestiferous mosquito breeding.

Over the past two decades the water management plan for Broad

Dyke Marsh has essentially had a single purpose: prevent flooding of

the basins peripheral properties, from Delaware River water entering

on high tides or from upland storm runoff accumulating in the marsh.

This plan involved the installation of a concrete sluice comprised of

two 48-inch flap gates on the river side and riser board channels on

the marsh side. This water control structure is designed to allow

one-way flow out of the marsh, thereby allowing storm runoff to exit

the marsh while preventing river water from inundating the marsh

during tidal events. However because of the increase in upland

runoff, caused by increased development in the watershed, and the

elevation of the marsh surface relative to the Delaware River, the

existing structure is inadequate to handle storm runoff from severe

rain events. This flooding problem is periodically compounded when

individuals tamper with the flap gates by chocking them open and

allowing river tides to flood the marsh.

Extensive baseline studies and ecological assessments have

been conducted on Broad Dyke Marsh since 1987, and have led to the

development of preliminary water management and marsh rehabilitation

plans. Management practices initiated in 1987 have fine tuned these

plans and have partially restored the marsh. These practices include

experimental water level manipulations, phragmites control programs,
installation of wood duck boxes, and experimental plan@ing of

beneficial plant species. Although these efforts have indicated that

a positive restoration of Broad Dyke can be achieved, the successful,

long-term restoration of the marsh is dependent upon replacing the

existing water control structure. This new structure must be a

larger, more specialized structure that allows tidal exchange while

having the capacity to handle significant stormwater input, yet

operates in an automated fashion to eliminate the need for labor-

intensive management and maintenance.

Besides the obvious ecological value of this marsh, its

proximity within a mile of seven schools makes it an ideal site for

environmental eduction opportunities.

Broad Dyke Marsh E S(@N RM'
New Castle County, Delaware
X,
Opt 0
"p;
LOCATOR MAP
K

S KTON

M Open Water

Beaches, Bars and Mudflats,
Estuarine Emergent and NEW CASTLE MIDDL SCHOOL
Estuarine Emergentl'Beach/Mudflat
Palustrine Forested,
Palustrine Forested/Scrub Shrub an I
Palustrine ForesbedlEmergent

C-dy cars.-Ilm. U7I.9tWftd V //,X@

NORTHERN DELAWARE WETLANDS REHABILITATION PROGRAM

REHABILITATION TRACKING FORK

WETLAND PROJECT: BROAD DYKE MARSH UPDATED: 5 JANUARY 93

PROJECT MANAGER: Rob Hossler, Fish & Wildlife

PROJECT COMPLETIOH DATE! June 1998

REPORT STATUS: 1) Environmental Evaluation - Completed February
1993.
2) Water Management Plan - Completed 21 April 1993.
3) Operation, Maintenance, and Management Plan -
Draft completed 15 November 1993.

PERMIT STATUS: 1) COE 404 Permit - not initiated.
2) State Type II Permit - not initiated.
3) Subaqueous Lands Permit not required.
4) Environmental Assessment Draft completed 15
November 1993.
5) Pre-proposal presented to Joint Permit Processing
Committee on 18 February 1993. A site visit was
conducted on 12 May 1993.

FUNDING STATUS: 1) Secured - I
a. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Grant -
$80,000 for a new water control structure. Requires a $300,000 match
in n'on-federal nor non-DNREC funds and must be encumbered by 15
January 1994. b. State of Delaware - $50,000 FY-93 bond bill.
c. @rustees of New Castle Common - $100,000 firm
commitment in 1992 for water control structure. Provided $5,000 for
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of proposed water control structures
and, $6,600 over last 3 years for phragmites control.

2) Pending -
a. EPA-Section 319 Non-Point Source Pollution
Guidelines - $180,000 grant application for water control structure.
Decision expected 7 January 1994.
b. Ducks Unlimited - $40,000 considered for water
control structure. c. New Castle County - Interested in providing
funding for the water control structure if their operation and
maintenance responsibilities are reduced.

LANDOWNERS: Trustees of New Castle Common (Trustees) - own 162 acres
(77%) of the marsh and have consented to a long-term management
agreement for the marsh. The water control structure was installed in

BROAD DYKE MARSH 2

1975 by New Castle County Public Works; however, the responsibility
for the maintenance and operation of this structure is unclear. The
Trustees might provide assistance in the operation and maintenance of
the water control structures; additional phragmites control and
wildlife plantings; and installation of the boardwalks, elevated
observation platform, asphalt trail, or wildlife enhancement
structures, New Castle Immanuel Episcopal Church - owns 48 acres
(23%) of the marsh and have consented to a long-term management
agreement for the marsh.

PARTICIPATING PARTNERS: Trustees of New Castle Common, New Castle
Immanuel Episcopal Church, DNREC, New Castle Conservation District,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, New Castle
Public Works.

PUBLIC RELATIONS 1) Needs - Involvement of nearby communities in
certain aspects of the rehabilitation project.
2) Actions -
a) Environmental Groups - The McKean High School
and New Castle Middle School have adopted, through DNREC's Adopt-A-
Wetland program, the western and a portion of the middle basin,
respectively. Additional groups are being solicited for the remaining
portions of the marsh. These groups initiated a trash cleanup in this
marsh during the 2 October 1993 Delaware Coastal Cleanup. A New
Castle resident installed and is maintaining 8 wood duck boxes as part
of a community service project.
b) Adjacent Landowners - A public presentation,
on 13 October 1992, provided information on the tentative management
plans for the proposed rehabilitations of Broad Dyke Marsh. Once the
rehabilitation plan is approved and funding acquired, adjacent
landowners will be notified and asked to comment on the plan at a
public meeting. These comments will be incorporated into the
environmental assessment prior to its submission to permitting
agencies.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve water quality of both the marsh and
river through daily tidal exchange. Tidal exchange will provide
nutrient and organismic exchange between the water bodies, and
increase the volume of water exposed to wetland filtering and nutrient
uptake benefits.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. The existing water control structure has
essentially a single purpose - prevent the flooding of peripheral

BROAD DYKE MARSH 3

proRerties - by allowing one way flow of storm runoff out of the
marsh, while preventing tidal inundation. These practices essentially
drain this former tidal marsh, causing water quality to degrade to
levels that are detrimental to most aquatic life during the dry
season, while increasing the potential for pestiferous mosquito
breeding.
Experimental water level manipulations conducted in 1988,
determined that daily tidal exchange with the existing structure could
only occur on a limited basis without drastically increasing the
potential of flooding peripheral properties. In order to reduce this
flooding potential, constant monitoring along with labor intensive and
time consuming adjustments of the structure were required prior to and
following every heavy rain event or unusually high tide.
Additionally, these manipulations required that one flap gate be
chained open, which has been shown to create undue stress on the gate,
occasionally damaging it.

Hazardous Wastes and Toxins - Four potential hazardous waste sites
were identified in the vicinity of Broad Dyke Marsh. In 1988 a
federal Superfund remedial investigation of the Witco site, located
approximately 400 feet from the wetland, detected Tris(2-
chloropropyl)phosphate in marsh sediments and surface water. Although
caused by a large spill in 1977, the concentrations of trisphosphate
were considered too low to have significant biological impact.
During this investigation, Trichloroethylene (TCE) was detected
in groundwater at the site and in one sediment sample. The presence
of TCE, which was not associated with operations at Witco, has
resulted in a remedial investigation of the Castle Ford facilities.
Waste solvent and paint disposal from the body shop, located
approximately 500 feet from the wetland, have contaminated soils and
groundwater. The impact on the marsh has not been determined;
however, results from initial sampling might be available in the near
future. Although the direction of flow of the aquifer in this area is
towards the marsh, significant impact is not expected because there
was never a large, permanent contaminant source, i.e., underground
tank, and continued disposal has ceased. Therefore, impacts to the
marsh should be diminishing as the remaining TCE degrades. Another
potential source of TCE is the Knotts bus facility, located just south
of Castle Ford and approximately 600 feet from the marsh. The
.investigation of Castle Ford should also provide information on this
site.
The fourth potential hazardou's waste site is Chicago Bridge &
Iron, located approximately 1100 feet from the wetland and will be
investigated in 1994 This facility used pickle liquor, lowering the
pH of ground water. However because of the direction of flow of the
aquifer in this area, potential contaminants from this site are not
expected to impact Broad Dyke Marsh.
The DNREC Technical Services Section conducted tissue assays for
heavy metals and pesticides of brown bullheads (n = 5) captured in
Broad Dyke Marsh in September 1989. Results indicated that the toxins
tested for were either found below state and federal action levels or
were undetectable.

BROAD DYKE MARSH 4

Non-point Source Pollution - Non-point source pollution enters the
marsh from adjacent road runoff, storm sewer outflow from the
surrounding residential and commercial developments, and a drainage
ditch from an industrial park located approximately 0.9-mile north of
the marsh. The specific types and severity of these pollutants has
yet to be quantified. Because of the multiple sources of non-point
source pollution, education and mass media programs directed to
residents and facility managers that address best management practices
appear to be a solution.

CURRENT STATUS: Water quality sampling and elevation surveys of the
basin have been completed. The New Castle Conservation District has
determined the watershed of the marsh and its corresponding land uses.
Based on detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the basin and
the proposed new water control structure, respectively, limited tidal
exchange as proposed with the water management plan will allow an
exchange equivalent to approximately 10.4% (8.8 acre-feet) of the
marsh basin during each tidal cycle.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Installation of the proposed water control
structure.
COMPLETION DATE: February 1995

BITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Obtain comparable measurements of
water quality and assessments of volume exchange.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WETLAND HABITATS FOR WILDLIFE

SITE SPECIFIC OBJ2CTIVEz Improve wetland habitats by adhering to a
water management plan involving daily tidal exchange and periodic
water level manipulations; installing wildlife enhancement structures,
and conducting beneficial plantings for wildlife. Adherence to a
water management plan should improve habitats for wetland wildlife,
especially aquatic mammals, waterfowl, and other waterbirds, by both
adjusting the water level to accommodate the seasonal needs of these
pecies and allowing this level to fluctuate on a daily basis through
limited tidal exchange. These management practices should increase
tShe number, species, and reproductive success of wildlife using the
marsh.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Experimental water level manipulations
conducted by the Division of Fish and Wildlife (Division) in 1988
combined with a extensive phragmites control program conducted between
1986-1992 have increased the vegetation diversity of the marsh by 2.3%
(Simpson's Index) and improved it for wildlife. Since the water
manipulations were curtailed in 1991, one flap gate has been damaged
allowing a minimal amount of tidal exchange to occur. However, this

BROAD DYKE MARSH 5

minimal tidal exchange has protracted the marsh from degrading back to
its pre-manipulation state.
The installation of 30 wood duck nesting boxes between 1989-1991
@nd the planting of beneficial plant species have also attempted to
increase the diversity of the marsh and improve it for wildlife.
Nesting success in the duck boxes was excellent in 1992, with 84% of
the boxes indicating evidence of successful wood duck nesting. During
avian surveys conducted in the spring and fall of 1988, 19 species of
waterbirds or raptors were recorded for a combined total of 479 birds
and an average of 53.2 birds/survey. A total of 12 species of fish
are known to utilize the marsh. The planting of beneficial plant
species; however, had limited success. The 500 lbs. of barnyard grass
aerially dispersed in 1988 successfully germinated, but no natural
reseeding occurred in subsequent years. The 25 lbs. of wild rice sown
by hand in 1989 never germinated.

CURRENT STATUS: Biological and elevational surveys have been
completed and a detailed water management plan has been developed.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Implementation of a water management plan
after installation of the proposed water control structure. Daily
tidal exchange will promote tidal flushing and organismic exchange,
especially fish populations. This plan is subject to adjustment and
change based on the availability of additional information, climatic
conditions, and in order to better achieve all anticipated benefits
and regional objectives. Water levels are currently monitored via a
float-operated recorder, and would continue to be after implementation
of the proposed plan. Daily tidal exchange will only occur as long
as it is consistent with water level goals and the proposed reduction
in peripheral property flooding.
COMPLETION DATE: Implemented following
installation of water control structure (January 1995).

2) Evaluation of the reproductive success of
wood ducks in the existing nest boxes, with emphasis placed on the
occurrence of dump nesting. This evaluation will help determine where
additional boxes, if any, should be installed to improve reproductive
success of this species.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1995

3) Install wood duck, goose, mallard, and
osprey nesting structures. The number and location of these
enhancement structures will be determined based on success of existing
structures, and available of suitable microhabitats. Support in
installation of wildlife enhancement structures might be available
from the Trustees and/or private groups.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1996

4) Seeding of wild rice, and planting of river
bulrush and sweet flag rootstocks during periodic draw-downs. The
quantity planted will depend on the amount of suitable habitat
available following implementation of the water management plan.

BROAD DYKE MARSH 6

Financial support to purchase the seed might be.available from the
Trustees and/or private groups.
COMPLETION DATE: November 1995

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: The success of the water
management plan will be based on comparable surveys of waterbirds and
fish utilizing the marsh, and of permanent vegetation transects
established in the marsh during the summer of 1994. Success of
wildlife enhancement structures will be based on the reproductive
success of wildlife utilizing them. Success of beneficial wildlife
plantings will be based on successful regeneration of the species, and
their use by wildlife.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES CONTROL

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce the area covered by monotypic stands
of phragmites and increase the area covered by desirable emergent
vegetation. The percent cover of phragmites will be reduced to less
than 5% (11 acres). Phragmites cover will be confined to upland areas
and the wetland/upland fringe.
STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Previously, approximately 53% (112 acres) of
the marsh was dominated by large monotypic stands of phragmites;
however, treatments of aerially-applied herbicide during the late
1980's and early 1990's have reduced the percentage of phragmites
cover to 18% (38 acres). A controlled burn was conducted in February
1990; however, due to wet conditions it had limited success.

CURRENT STATUS: A follow-up application of herbicide was applied on
38 acres of phragmites on 30 September 1993. Funding provided by
Trustees of New Castle Common ($1,900).

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Apply herbicide (glyphosate) periodically on
monotypic stands of phragmites.
COMPLETION DATE: Annually as needed in early
Fall.

2) Controlled burning of phragmites (where
feasible) or other removal method of the standing dead canes will be
conducted following application of herbicide. Controlled burning
provides several additional benefits in controlling phragmites
including: exposing regenerating canes to the second year treatment
of herbicide, reducing gas exchange to surviving root stalks,
stimulating the release of nutrients for other plant species, exposing
the soil to sunlight, and Stimulate the germination of desirable
species in the existing seed bank.
COMPLETION DATE: In late winter, following the
application of herbicide.

BROAD DYKE MARSH 7

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success determined by the
reduction of monotypic stands of phragmites.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE SRALLOW WATER HABITAT DIVERSITY

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Increase the percentage and diversity of
open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats. The percent
cover of open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats will
range from 19-38% (40-80 acres) and 38-57% (40-120 acres),
respectively. Shallow water habitats will include numerous shallow
ponds, ditches, and flats.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Currently only 9% (19 acres) of the marsh
consistently retains open water habitat interspersed with desirable
emergent vegetation; however, following the implementation of the
water management plan this percentage might change.

CURRENT STATUS: Except for elevational and environmental surveys no
work has been conducted in the marsh.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Reevaluate the diversity of shallow water
habitats and the percentage of open water habitats following
implementation of the water management plan. In the event an increase
in this diversity or percentage is desired, a proposal'to increase
shallow water habitat diversity will be submitted either under the
Division's existing Open Marsh Water Management permit or through a
separate permit. COMPLETION DATE: October 1995 and annually
thereafter.

2) Excavation of sediment laden ditches and
ponds, and potentially the formation of a few new ditches, ponds, and
island habitats. New ponds will have tapered sides and most ponds and
all ditches will be shallow <18 inches in depth. Several ponds will
have sections excavated >18 inches in depth to provide habitat for
fish during droughts and draw-downs. Islands for waterfowl nesting
will be created by accumulation of construction spoil. Excavations
will be conducted using Division of Fish and Wildlife personnel and
equipment.
COMPLETION DATE: Dependent on annual
evaluations of existing of shallow water habitat diversity and
percentage of open water habitats.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: -success based on the diversity of
shallow habitats and the percentage of open water habitat.

BROAD DYKE MARSH 8

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve environmental education
opportunities for both general public and school groups by
constructing two boardwalks with interpretive signs, an observation
platform, and 700 feet of asphalt trail.
An approximately 1000-foot boardwalk would be constructed between
the marsh/upland interface along the southwest side of the marsh,
behind the New Castle Junior High,School. At the southeast terminus
of the boardwalk, a 12x12-gazebo with an open roof and 3 benches is
proposed. Access to the boardwalk would be via a ramp located
adjacent to the abandoned railroad bed/tressel, and proposed nature
and greenway trails behind the New Castle Junior High School.
An additional 800-foot boardwalk is proposed at the east end of
the marsh adjacent to the intercoastal dike along the Delaware River.
This proposed boardwalk would descend from the dike via switching
ramps. The boardwalk would extend northwest into the marsh
approximately 300 feet, and then curve back towards the dike forming a
half circle. At mid-length of the boardwalk, the deck would be
widened to provide a scenic viewing area with two benches. To provide
access to this boardwalk, approximately 1100 feet of the dike would
have to be resurfaced with an asphalt walkway. This trail and
boardwalk would provide a looped extension to the New Castle-
Dobbinsville Scenic Walkway.
The boardwalks would be wooden, approximately 5-fo"ot wide, built
on pilings at an elevation 4 feet above the maximum managed water
level (4.0 feet NGVD), and have handicap access incorporated where
feasible. Interpretive signs would be located along the boardwalks,
and paved walkway.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: There is no known organized or formal
environmental education being conducted at the marsh; even though,
there are seven schools located within I mile of the marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: A presentation and field trip explaining the Broad
Dyke Marsh Rehabilitation Project was presented to the New Castle
Middle School's Science Department on 22 November 1993 and 7 December
1993, respectively. Preliminary designs for the boardwalks,
observation platform, and access trails were completed 15 November
1993.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Develop final designs and construct the
boardwalks, observation platform, interpretive signs, and access
trails
COMPLETION DATE: September 1997

2) Promote the use of the marsh and its
interpretive trail through organized events, press releases, and by

BROAD DYKE MARSH 9

direct contact with school districts.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1998

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Improvements in environmental
education would be determined by surveys of public and school groups
utilizing the facilities.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE RECREATION AND AEST HETIC VALUES

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve recreational opportunities an d the
aesthetic value of the marsh by creating vistas (clearing phragmites
and dense shrub cover) along the dike between the river and the marsh,
and constructing a public canoe launch. These improvements would be
in addition to constructing two boardwalks with interpretive signs, an
observation platform, and 700 feet of asphalt trail.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. Recreational activities in Broad Dyke Marsh
include limited amounts of nature watching, crabbing, trapping, and
fishing. The location of the marsh behind the New Castle Middle
School and among several developments makes it an attractive area for
children and adolescents, as indicated by the presence of numerous
bike paths, play forts, and socializing areas. An existing access
road provides limited boat access to the center of the,@marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: A 1993 University of Delaware survey of New Castle
households found that 90% of the respondents indicated that the marsh
should be restored as a normal freshwater marsh - completed 26 April
1993. Preliminary designs for the canoe launch have been completed 15
November 1993.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Create vistas of the marsh along the
proposed extension of the Scenic Walkway by clearing brush and
phragmites along the dike between the river and the marsh. The
Trustees or the City of New Castle might provide assistance in
maintaining these clearings.
COMPLETION DATE: February 1995 - with annual
maintenance as needed.

2) Refurbish the existing access road into a
public canoe launch. Financial assistance might be provided by
Wallop-Breaux funds, the Trustees, or the City of New Castle.
COMPLETION DATE: 4 April 1995

3) Determine the overall opinion of visitors
utilizing the recreation facilities in regards to recreational and
aesthetic value of the marsh.
COMPLETION DATE: June 1998

BROAD DYKE MARSH 10

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Improvements in the recreational
opportunities and aesthetic value of the marsh will be determined
through surveys of the use of recreational facilities, and visitor
responses to questionnaires regarding the marsh's aesthetic and
recreational value.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: REDUCE STORKWATER FLOODING

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce the stormwater flooding of peripheral
properties by increasing the outflow potential and having it occur
through timely releases. The scouring action associated with daily
tidal exchange will also potentially reduce flooding by maintaining a
channel on both the marsh and the riverside of the structure. This
daily channel maintenance will eliminate the problem of sediment
accumulating in front of the flap gates during periods of drought,
which previously prevented them from opening sufficiently to allow
storm runoff to leave the marsh.

OTATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Due to the relative elevations of the marsh
surface verses the mean river level, which has risen 0.5 ft over the
last 60 years, discharge of water out of the marsh can only occur for
about 4 hours out of every 12-5-hour tide cycle. Because of this
limited interval of discharge from the marsh, heavy rain events with
associated upstream runoff, which has increased with increased
development of upland area, elevates marsh water levels above
desirable levels occasionally causing flooding of peripheral
properties. This potential for flooding is compounded by both the
short concentration time of runoff into the basin (10 hours) and the
restriction in flow caused by the conduits under the abandoned
railroad embankment and the active railroad bridge. An additional
factor contributing to elevating water levels to undesirable levels,
is when individuals tamper with the flap gates by chocking them open
and allowing river tides to flood the marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: Detailed hydrologic and hydraulic modeling of the
@aarsh and evaluations of six potential water control structures,
including the existing structure, were completed 20 November 1992.
Based on this and supplemental information the District, Division, and
Trustees selected the scheme that involved the construction of a 8x3-
foot box culvert adjacent to the existing water control structure.
This new structure would have an automatically controlled vertical
lift gate activated by sensors recording both the river and the marsh
water levels. These sensors would relay water levels back to a -
programmable logic controller, which would then make the decision to
either open or close the sluice gate based on selected target settings
and logic scenarios. In the event of a system malfunction or power
failure, the structure would be equipped with a system that would send

BROAD DYKE MARSH

an alarm signal to the New Castle Police Station via telephone
service, and automatically cause the vertical lift gate to close.
Additionally by maintaining the two existing flap gates, if a
malfunction were to occur, outflow from the marsh would still occur as
with the existing system.
The additional water control structure should increase the
outflow potential by approximately 95%, and theoretically reduce the
overall probability and duration of flooding of most peripheral
properties by approximately 60%. However because of the limited
interval of discharge from the marsh, due to its elevation relative to
the river, flooding of peripheral properties may still occur,
especially to the commercial car-repair garage. Although under a
worst case scenario, in which the marsh is at full pool ( 0.0 ft NGVD)
and the maximum 6.25 hours of greatest stormwater concentration into
the marsh coincides with a 6.25-hour flood tide, the duration of
flooding of a 100-year storm would be reduced from 5.3 to 2.3 days.
This worst case scenario would be similar to that occurring during a
northeaster, in which significant precipitation occurs and an easterly
wind keeps the tide high for a prolonged period of time, thus
preventing outflow from the marsh. Additionally, under this worst
case scenario flooding of peripheral properties other than the
commercial car-repair garage, would require a 134-year storm event, an
increase of 5% over the existing structure. This storm event would
bring water levels to 3.0 ft NGVD, the maximum tolerable water level
by all landowners other than the owner of the commercial car-repair
garage. This water level would inundate halfway across the backyard
of the lowest-lying house within the basin.
Implementation of the proposed water management plan would
increase the average water level in the marsh by 0.5 feet (0.6 to 1.1
feet NGVD); however, it would not significantly increase the
probability of flooding peripheral properties. This lack of increase
in flooding is because the maximum water management level (0.0 ft
NGVD) would only occupy 12.7% of the volume of the marsh, as
determined at the maximum tolerable water level (3.0 ft NGVD).

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Monitor the impact of the proposed new water
control structure and water level manipulations, on the flooding of
peripheral properties, and make appropriate adjustments to the water
management plan. COMPLETION DATE: Continuous, following the
installation of the new water control structure.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Evaluations based on comparable
measurements of flooding severity, periodicity, and duration.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: 1) Restore and improve spawning, nursery, and
feeding sites for anadromous, estuarine, and riverine fishes.

BROAD DYKE MARSH 12

2) Protect and enhance existing populations
and critical habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
species of concern. The Natural Heritage Inventory has documented the
presence of several State Species of Special concern (Sl) in Broad
Dyke Marsh: purple-stemmed swamp beggar's-tick (Bidens connata),
Engelmann umbrella-sedge (Cyperus efigelmannii), redroot galingale
(Cyl2erus erythrorhizos), and an arrowhead (Sagittaria calycina).

3) Control pestiferous mosquito populations by
water management where practical, thereby enhancing biological control
via predacious fish and reducing the amount of chemical insecticides
required.

BROAD DYKE MARSH - WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN'

DATE MANIPULATION ELEVATION (NGVD) RATIONALE
(Pool level
at low tide)

1 March Reduce pool -1.3 ft - All flats Promotes maximum
30 April level to 0%, are exposed and flushing of accumulated
but allow approximately 16 overwinter detritus and
maximum tidal inches are sediment, while
b,c
exchange maintained in the permitting anadromous
ditches. fish exchange and
regrowth of emergent
plant species.

1-30 May Increase pool -0.8 ft - Inundates Increases pool level
level to 50% 52% of the flats at for waterfowl without
allowing an average depth of inundating nesting
limited tidal 2.6 inches with areas, while permitting
exchange. tidal fluctuations anadromous fish use and
of + 0.4 ft. regrowth of emergents.

I June- 31 Increase -0.5 ft - Inundates Provides habitat for
July pool level to 65% of the flats at waterfowl brood
75% allowing an average depth of rearing; increases
limited tidal 4.3 inches with invertebrate
exchange. tidal fluctuations populations; encourages
of + 0.4 ft. SAV growth; and
provides shallow mud
flats for waterbirds.

I Aug. 15 Decrease pool -0.8 ft - Inundates Exposes mud flats for
Oct. level to 50% 52% of the flats at migrating shorebirds;
allowing an average depth of promotes regrowth of
limited tidal 2.6 inches with late season annual
exchange. tidal fluctuations plant species; and
of + 0.4 ft. increases exchange of
estuarine fish species,
particularly for egress
following the nursery
season.

15 Oct. - Increase pool -0.2 ft - Inundates Provides habitat for
28 Feb. level to 100% 96% of the flats at waterbirds, waterfowl,
allowing an average depth of muskrats, and
limited tidal 7.3 inches with overwintering fish
exchange. tidal fluctuations species.
of � 0.2 ftd.

aWater management plan is subject to adjustments and change based on the
availability of additional information, climatic conditions, and in order to
better achieve all regional objectives.
bMaximum tidal exchange is equivalent to the maximum volume (not to exceed
0. 0 ft. NGVD) that allows the water level to recede to the 0% pool level
during an average tidal cycle.

cTentatively a drawdown to the 0% pool level, with limited tidal exchange
during each tidal cycle, will occur every 3 years to solidify the flats and
promote the revegetation of emergent plant species.
dThis maximum water management level (0. 0 ft. NGVD) will occupy approximately
12.7% of the capacity of the marsh if capacity is the maximum tolerable water
level (3.0 ft NGVD).

Propooed Ve3rtlcal Lif t Gate 9:13

IIv- A

...........
RIve3r Viev 04 low Noon

A
71
tj

stde Vlev

P VC VE A/ 7 101tO C-:5
OAJ
L--------- --i

Fr @X W1,05 ARCCASr CONC-, CULVER7'
u
MARSH IAIZ-fr
WOOD 0/4 Es

PROPOSED BROAD DYKE MARSH WATER CONTROL STRUCTURE

APPENDIX B

.....................
............. ....... ........
...................

GA.MBACORTA MARSH
REBABILITA TION PLAN

Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program .

GAN33ACORTA MAMBE

A 41-acre tidal freshwater wetland located within the New

Castle city limits and currently owned by the Trustees of New Castle

Common. The marsh is bordered on the south by the New Castle-

Dobbinsville Scenic Walkway paralleling the Delaware River, and

surrounded by urban and commercial development on the other sides.

The marsh's watershed encompasses 257.7 acres comprised of 143.7

(56*) and 114 (44%) acres of urban and non-urban land uses,

respectively. This former tidal wetland was a hazardous waste

disposal site having been drained and then filled with industrial

waste from Deemer Steel, the Abex Corp., and Wilmington Fibre Co. In

the mid 19801s, the waste was removed, the landfill capped, and a

system of monitoring wells installed. Investigations of the landfill

and monitoring wells have indicated that the landfill was
successfully capped and no impacts to groundwater are occurring.

The existing water control structure traverses under the

Scenic walkway and consists of a tide gate with a single 42-inch flap

gate that allows one-way flow of water out of the marsh. A sluice

gate structure containing riser boards maintains water levels. The

structure was constructed by the Delaware Department of

Transportation (DelDot) in 1953, and records indicate it is located

on public lands and maintained by DelDot. However, the City of New

Castle conducts regular inspections of the structure and preforms

minor maintenance. In 1989, the New Castle Conservation District

repaired the sluice gate structure and attached protective grates to

prevent tampering of the riser boards. The structure has been

temporarily modified to allow daily tidal exchange; however, the

volume of exchange is limited.

The marsh was dominated (90%) by large monotypic stands of

phragmites; however, Open Marsh Water Management practices (OMWM)

conducted by the Division of Fish and Wildlife in the early 1980's,

followed by installation of wood duck nesting boxes and phragmites

control in the late 1980's and early 1990's, have increased the

habitat and vegetative diversity of the marsh and improved it for

wildlife. The improvements to the marsh combined with its proximity

to the heavily used scenic walkway make it an ideal location to

facilitate the exposure of wetlands values and their associated

wildlife to the public.

Vegetation control and construction practices at a lumber

yard, located on the east side of the marsh, have recently caused

increased sedimentation of the adjacent marsh area. Additional non-

point source pollutants might be conveyed into the marsh through a

series of six ditches that drain into the marsh. These ditches

receive storm runoff from adjacent upland areas and Route 9.

Gambacorta Marsh
New Castle County, Delaware CIT F NEW TL

LOCATOR MAP

Open Water

Beachm Bars and Mudflats

Estuarine Emergent and
Eauarine EmergendBeach/Mudflat

iS
IM M'

NORTHERN DELAWARE WETLANDS REHABILITATION PROGRAM

REHABILITATION TRACKING FORM

WETLAND PROJECT: GAMBACORTA MARSH UPDATED: 6 JANUARY 94

PROJECT MANAGER: Rob Hossler, Fish & Wildlife

PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: July 1997

REPORT STATUS: 1) Environmental Evaluation - Completed 13 November
1992.
2) Water Management Plan - Completed 26 March 1992
and implemented 9 August 1993.
3) Operational Management Plan - not initiated.

PERMIT STATUS: 1) COE 404 Permit - not initiated.
2) State Type II Permit - not initiated.
3) Subaqueous Lands Permit not required.
4) Environmental Assessment not initiated.

FUNDING STATUS: 1) Secured -
a. Trustees of New Castle Common - $1,700 provided
over last 3 years for phragmites control.
b. DuPont Co. - $5,000 donated to the Trustees of
New Castle Common for installation of interpretive signs along scenic
walkway.

2) Pending
a. Trustees of New Castle Common Interested in
providing additional funding to this project; however, this funding is
most likely encumbered until rehabilitation efforts at Broad Dyke
Marsh are implemented.
b. Brosius-Eliason Co. - interested in partially
funding the excavation of the silted in area behind their lumber yard.

c. Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT)
constructed the structure and might provide partial funding for the
new structure.

LANDOWNERS: Trustees of New Castle Common (Trustees) - own the marsh
and have consented to a long-term management agreement for the marsh.
The water control structure was constructed by DelDOT and is listed as
being on public land. Operation and maintenance of this structure has
been a joint effort between the City of New Castle, the Trustees, the
New Castle Conservation District (NCCD), and the Division of Fish and
Wildlife. Prior to implementation of this project, the marsh's water
level was being managed by a local muskrat trapper under verbal
agreement with the City of New Castle. The Trustees and the City of
New Castle might provide assistance in the operation and maintenance

GAMBACORTA MARSH 2

of the water control structure; additional phragmites control and
scenic vista clearing; and installation of the elevated observation
platform, wildlife enhancement structures, and wildlife plantings.

PARTICIPATING PARTNERS: Trustees of New Castle Common, City of New
Castle. Brosius-Eliason Co.,DNREC, New Castle Conservation District,
DelDOT.

PUBLIC RELATIONS: 1) Needs - Involvement of nearby communities in
certain aspects of the rehabilitation project.
2) Actions -
a) Environmental Groups - Currently an
environmental group is considering being a sponsor for this marsh
through DNREC's Adopt-A-Wetland Program. A trash cleanup in this
marsh was initiated by several participants of the 2 October 1993
Delaware Coastal Cleanup. A New Castle resident installed and is
maintaining 12 wood duck boxes as part of a community service project.
b) Public Rresentations - Gambacorta marsh was the
site of Governor Castle's 28 October 1992 announcement of the Northern
Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation Project. A public presentation, on
13 October 1992, provided information on the tentative management
plans for the proposed rehabilitation of Gambacorta Marsh.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve water quality of both the marsh and
river through daily tidal exchange, and by reducing the transportation
of potential upland pollutants conveyed into the wetland by stormwater
runoff. Tidal exchange will provide nutrient and organismic exchange
between the water bodies, and increase the volume of water exposed to
wetland filtering benefits and nutrient uptake.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: The existing water control structure has
essentially a single purpose - Prevent the flooding of peripheral
properties - by allowing one way flow of storm runoff,out of the
marsh, while preventing tidal inundation. These practices essentially
drained this former tidal marsh, causing water quality to degrade
while increasing the potential for pestiferous mosquito breeding. The
structure has been temporarily modified to allow daily tidal exchange;
however, the volume of exchange is limited. Additionally, the portion
of the existing outlet pipe that extends into the river is degraded
and in need of repair or replacement.
Hazardous Wastes and Toxins @-'Four potential hazardous waste sites
were identified in the vicinity of Gambacorta Marsh. The marsh itself
was a hazardous waste disposal site having been drained and then
filled with industrial waste from Deemer Steel, the Abex Corp., and

GAMBACORTA-MARSH 3

Wilmington Fibre Co. In the mid-1980's, the waste was removed from
the marsh, the landfill capped, and a system of monitoring wells
installed. Investigations of the landfill and monitoring wells have
indicated that the landfill was successfully capped and no impacts to
groundwater are occurring. Tidal exchange is not expected to impact
the landfill due to the extensive layer of 6-inch rip-rap, overlaying
stone choked with sand and gravel, along the marsh border. However,
continued monitoring of this site should continue once tidal exchange
is increased.
In 1987, an investigation of the Deemer Steel facility, located
approximately 1000 feet north of the wetland, identified elevated
levels of lead in the drainage channel that bisects this facility and
drains into the marsh. Elevated levels of lead were also found in
marsh sediments; however, the levels at both sites were not considered
a significant threat to human health or the environment.
Additionally, these contaminants could have been transported by
stormwater from areas further upstream of the Deemer facility.
A portion of the New Castle Gas Co. coal gassification plant was
located in the north end of the marsh, evident by the brick silo
located in the center of the marsh (Boo-Boo Island). This plant
operated from the 1850's to about 1914, and during this time frame
waste coal tar could have been disposed in the marsh. Because this
compound does not move rapidly through groundwater, it is possible
that some of this material remains in the marsh. However, 80 years of
sediment deposition (potentially 30 inches) probably limits the
availability of this material to vegetation and benthic organisms.
Nevertheless, sampling for the presence of coal tar compounds should
be conducted prior to disturbing the sediment within the marsh.
Recent vegetation control and construction practices within a
section of the Brosius-Eliason Co. lumber yard have caused increased
sedimentation of a portion of the marsh. This section of the lumber
yard has historically and continues to be a primary storage area of
treated lumber. Treated lumber is frequently preserved with heavy
metals, which when exposed to elements might be released into the
substrate and then washed into the marsh by the increased erosion and
sedimentation occurring in the area. This potential is evident by the
large quantity of lumber treatment tags found along the marsh/upland
edge. Prior to excavating sediment from this area, some sampling
should be conducted in order to assess whether any sediment-bound
contaminants will be introduced into the marsh.

Non-point Source Pollution - Non-point source pollution enters the
marsh via six drainage ditches, of which only two drain upland areas
of significant acreage. of the other four, three receive road runoff
from Route 9, and the other drains a small commercial area near the
adjacent lumber yard. The specific types and severity of these
pollutants has yet to be quantified.

CURRENT STATUS: Water quality sampli.nag and elevation surveys have
been completed and the New Castle Conservation District has determined
the watershed of the marsh and its corresponding land uses. Drainage
ditches have been identified and mapped, but no practices or systems

GAMBACORTA MARSH 4

@or reducing potential non-point source pollution have been
implemented.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Conduct a preliminary hydrological study of
the marsh and the two large ditches draining into it.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1995

2) Modeling and engineering design to evaluate
the following water control structures: a) a self-regulating tide
gate controlled by floats that automatically opens and closes the gate
depending on river water levels; b) an automated electro-mechanical
vertical lift gate with sensors; and c) any other appropriate
structure. The selection of a structure will be based on several
factors including: ability of achieving regional objectives, volume
of tidal exchange, cost, ability to be retrofitted to existing
structure, versatility in manipulating water levels, storm release
potential, and operation and maintenance requirements.
COMPLETION DATE: June 1995

3) Installation of the selected water control
structure and replacement of the outlet pipe.
COMPLETION DATE: June 1996

4) Establish check dams or wetland vegetation
(preferably cattail) in the two existing drainage ditches to increase
water retention and pollutant filtering, if applicable.
COMPLETION DATE: August 1995 1,

5) Sample silted in area of marsh behind lumber
yard for heavy metals associated with treated lumber.
COMPLETION DATE: June 1994

6) Excavate the silted in area of the marsh
behind the lumber yard, and prevent additional sedimentation from
occurring by establishing a water conveyance system and a diversion
berm in the cleared portion of the lumber yard. Revegetate cleared
@reas with birds-foot trefoil or lathco flat pea. The lumber yard has
indicted that it is interested in assisting in this effort.
COMPLETION DATE: August 1994

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Obtain comparable measurements of
water quality within the marsh and downstream of the ditches, and
assessments of volume exchange.

GAMBACORTA MARSH 5

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WETLAND HABITATS FOR WILDLIFE

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve wetland habitats by adhering to a
water management plan involving daily tidal exchange and periodic
water level manipulations, installing wildlife enhancement structures,
and conducting beneficial plantings for wildlife. Adherence to a
water management plan should improve habitats for wetland wildlife,
especially aquatic mammals, waterfowl and other waterbirds, by both
adjusting the water level to accommodate the seasonal needs of these
species and allowing this level to fluctuate on a daily basis through
limited tidal exchange. These management practices should incr .ease
the number, species, and reproductive success of wildlife using the
-marsh.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) practices
conducted by the Division of Fish and Wildlife in the mid 1980's,
followed by phragmites control in the late 1980's and early 1990's,
and installation of 12 wood duck nesting boxes in 1991 have increased
the habitat diversity of the marsh and improved it for wildlife.
Nesting success in the duck boxes was good in 1992, with 64% of the
boxes indicating evidence of successful wood duck nesting. Wetland
habitats were also improved by the 1989 repair of the sluice
structure, which raised water levels within the marsh. During avian
surveys conducted in 1991-1992, 14 species of waterbirds were recorded
for a combined total of 178 birds and an average of 35."6 birds/survey.
Reproductive success of Canada geese and common gallinules have also
been documented in the marsh. A total of 12 species of fish are known
to utilize the marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: A detailed water management plan was implemented 9
August 1993. The implementation of this plan was possible by
temporarily modifying the water control structure to. allow limited
daily tidal exchange, and installing new riser boards to provide
greater flexibility in manipulating water levels. Daily tidal
exchange will promote tidal flushing and organismic exchange,
especially fish populations. This plan is subject to adjustment and
change based on the availability of additional information, climatic
conditions, and in order to better achieve all anticipated benefits
and regional objectives. Biological and elevational surveys have been
completed. Supplemental studies include weekly avian abundance and
diversity surveys, and weekly monitoring of water and salinity levels.
In August 1993, 5 permanent vegetation transects were established in
the marsh. The vegetation on these transects will be periodically
reassessed to evaluate the success of the-water management plan and
other rehabilitation efforts.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Evaluation of the reproductive success of
wood ducks in the existing nest boxes, with emphasis placed on the

GAMBACORTA MARSH 6

occurrence of dump nesting. This evaluation will help determine where
additional boxes, if any, should be installed to improve reproductive
success of this species.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1995

2) Install wood duck, goose, mall ard,
passerine, and squirrel nesting structures. The number and location
of these enhancement structures will be determined based on success of
existing structures, and the availability of suitable microhabitats.
Support in installation of wildlife enhancement structures might be
available from the Trustees and/or private groups.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1996

3) Seeding of wild rice, and planting of big-
leaved arrowhead tubers and river bulrush rootstocks during periodic
draw-downs. The quantity planted will depend on the amount of
suitable habitat available. Financial support to purchase the seed
might be available from the Trustees and/or private groups.
COMPLETION DATE: November 1995

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: The success of the water
management plan will be based on comparable surveys of waterbirds and
fish utilizing the marsh, and the permanent vegetation transects
established in the marsh during the summer of 1993. Success of
wildlife enhancement structures will be based on the reproductive
success of wildlife utilizing them. Success of beneficial wildlife
plantings will be based on successful regeneration of the species, and
their use by wildlife.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES CONTROL

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. Previously, approximately 90% (37 acres) of
the marsh was dominated by large monotypic stands of phragmites;
however, treatments of aerially-applied herbicide during the late
1980's and early 1990's have reduced the percentage of phragmites
cover to 17% (7 acres).

CURRENT STATUS: A follow-up application of herbicide was applied on 7
acres of phragmites on 30 September 1993. Funding provided by
Trustees of New Castle Common ($500).

GAMBACORTA MARSH 7

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Apply herbicide (glyphosate) periodically on
monotypic stands of phragmites.
COMPLETION DATE: Annually as needed in early
Fall. 2) Controlled burning of phragmites (where
feasible) or other removal method of the standing dead canes will be
conducted following application of herbicide. Controlled burning
suppresses phragmites through several methods including: exposing
regenerating canes to the second year treatment of herbicide, reducing
gas exchange to surviving root stalks, stimulating the release of
nutrients for other competing plant species, exposing the soil to
sunlight, and stimulating germination of desirable species in the
existing seed bank. COMPLETION DATE: In late winter, following the
application of herbicide.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success determined by the
reduction of monotypic stands of phragmites.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE:- INCREASE SHALLOW WATER HABITAT DIVERSITY

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Increase the percentage and diversity of
open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats.' The percent
cover of open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats will
range from 22-44% (9-18 acres) and 44-66% (18-27 acres), respectively.
Shallow water habitats will include numerous shallow ponds, ditches,
and flats.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Open Marsh Water Management practices
conducted in the early 1980's increased the percentage and diversity
of open water habitats; however, several of the ponds and smaller
ditches have silted in. Currently only 15.4% (6.3 acres) of the Marsh
consistently retains open water habitat interspersed with desirable
emergent vegetation; however, following the implementation of the
water management plan this percentage might change.

CURRENT STATUS: Except for contour and environmental surveys no work
has been conducted in the marsh.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Reevaluate the diversity of shallow water
habitats and the percentage of open water habitats following
implementation of the water management plan. In the event an increase
in this diversity or percentage is desired, a proposal to increase
shallow water habitat diversity will be submitted either under the
Division's existing Open Marsh Water Management permit or through a
separate permit.

GAMBACORTA MARSH 8

COMPLETION DATE: June 1997 and annually
thereafter.

2) Sample the proposed excavation sites for the
presence of coal tar compounds.
COMPLETION DATE: July 1997

3) Excavation of sediment laden ditches and
ponds, and potentially the formation of a few new ditches, ponds, and
island habitats. New ponds will have tapered sides and most ponds and
all ditches will be shallow, :@18 inches in depth. Several ponds will
have sections excavated >18 inches in depth to provide habitat for
fish during droughts and draw-downs. Islands for waterfowl nesting
will be created by accumulation of construction spoil. Excavations
will be conducted using Division of Fish and Wildlife personnel and
equipment.
COMPLETION DATE: Dependent on annual
evaluations of existing shallow water habitat diversity and percentage
of open water habitats.

BITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success based on the diversity of
shallow habitats and the percentage of open water habitat.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE RECREATION AND AESTHETIC VALUES

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve recreational opportunities and the
aesthetic value of the marsh by creating vistas (clearing phragmites
and dense shrub cover), constructing a 6-foot-high observation
platform, and constructing interpretative signs along the New Castle-
Dobbinsville Scenic Walkway.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: The Scenic Walkway receives a considerable
amount of visitor use; however, scenic vistas of the adjacent marsh
and its wildlife are limited to a few small openings through the
phragmites and dense brush between the walkway and the marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: Implementation of the water management plan and other
rehabilitation efforts in the marsh have recently generated interest
in the marsh and its management plan. In response to this interest
the Division of Fish and Wildlife proposed the previously mentioned
rehabilitation plans to the Trustees. Vistas of the marsh along the
Scenic Walkway were created in 1993 by the Trustees with assistance
from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and the State Department of
Corrections. In mid-September, Division employees sprayed upland
vegetation with herbicide using a vehicle-mounted power sprayer. In
October, prison labor removed the dead vegetation.

GAMBACORTA.MARSH 9

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Determine the overall opinion of visitors
utilizing the walkway, in regards to the aesthetic and recreational
values of the marsh both prior to and after the implementation of the
marsh rehabilitation plan.
COMPLETION DATE: September 1994

2) Maintain vistas of the marsh along the
Scenic Walkway by clearing brush and phragmites. The Trustees and the
State Department of Corrections has provided assistance in this
effort.
COMPLETION DATE: Annual maintenance as needed.

3) Construct interpretive signs along the
Scenic Walkway providing a mechanism to environmentally educate users
about the marsh and the river. The Trustees are funding this project
through a donation from the DuPont Co.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1994.

4) Construct an observation platform along the
Scenic Walkway, overlooking the marsh. Assistance in the construction
of the platform might be provided by the Trustees; however prior to
its construction, a parking problem along the Scenic Walkway needs to
be addressed.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1995

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Improvements in the recreational
opportunities and aesthetic value of the marsh will be determined
through surveys of the observation tower's use, and visitor responses
to questionnaires regarding the marsh's aesthetic and recreational
value.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: REDUCE STORKWATER FLOODING

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce stormwater flooding of Route 9 by
maintaining the drainage ditches entering into the marsh and
monitoring the impact of the water management plan on them.
Stormwater flooding of Route 9 should be eliminated, except following
unusually heavy rain events.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: A drainage ditch near the intersection of
Route 9 and Washington Street becomes choked with vegetation, trash,
and sediment; thereby, impeding stormwater runoff and causing flooding
of Route 9 following heavy rain events.

CURRENT STATUS: The drainage ditch was cleared in March 1992 and
inspected in November 1992.

GAMBACORTA MARSH 10

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Periodic inspections and clearing of
drainage ditches entering the marsh. Clearing will be conducted by
Division of Fish and Wildlife personnel and equipment.
COMPLETION DATE: Inspections will be seasonal,
while clearing will be on an as needed basis.

2) Monitor the impact of tide gate
manipulations, tidal exchange, and installation of check dams on
stormwater surge, making appropriate adjustments as necessary.
COMPLETION DATE: ongoing and coinciding with
water manipulations.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Evaluations based on comparable
measurements of flooding severity, periodicity, and duration.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES.: 1) Restore and improve spawning, nursery, and
feeding sites for anadromous, estuarine, and riverine fishes.

2) Protect and enhance existing populations
and critical habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
species of concern. The Natural Heritage Inventory has documented the
presence of the Engelmann umbrella-sedge (Cyperus engelmannii), a S1
State Species of Special Concern, in Gambacorta Marsh.
3) Control pestiferous mosquito populations by
water management where practical, thereby enhancing biological control
via predacious fish and reducing the amount of chemical insecticides
required.
4) Increase environmental education
opportunities for both general public and school groups.

GAMBACORTA MARSH - WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN'

DATE MANIPULATION ELEVATION (NGVD) RATIONALE
(Pool level
at low tide)

1 March Reduce pool 0.75 ft - All flats Promotes maximum
15 April level to 0%, are exposed and flushing of accumulated
but allow approximately 2 and overwinter detritus and
maximum tidal 11 inches are sediment, while
b,c
exchange maintained in the permitting anadromous
ponds and ditches, fish exchange and
respectively. regrowth of emergent
plants species.

16-30 April Increase pool 1.15 ft - Inundates Concentrates
level to 25% 27% of the flats at invertebrates and
allowing an average depth of exposes mud flats for
limited tidal 2.5 inches. waterfowl and
exchange. shorebirds,
respectively, while
permitting anadromous
fish use and regrowth
of emergents plants.

1-30 May Increase pool 1.41 ft - Inundates Increases pool level
level to 50% 45% of the flats at for waterfowl without
allowing an average depth of inundating nesting
limited tidal 4.5 inches. areas, while permitting
exchange. anadromous fish use and
regrowth of emergents.

1 June- 31 Increase 1.83 ft - Inundates Provides habitat for
July pool level to 72% of the flats at waterfowl brood
75% allowing an average depth of rearing; increases
limited tidal 7.7 inches. invertebrate
'exchange. populations; encourages
SAV growth; and
provides shallow mud
flats for waterbirds.

1 Aug. 15 Decrease pool 1.41 ft Inundates Exposes mud flats for
Oct. level to 50% 45% of the flats at migrating shorebirds;
allowing an average depth of promotes regrowth of
limited tidal 4.5 inches. late season annual
exchange. plant species; and
increases exchange of
estuarine fish species,
particularly for egress
following the nursery
season.

15 Oct. - Increase pool 2.33 ft - Inundates Provides habitat for
28 Feb. level to 100% 100% of the waterbirds, waterfowl,
allowing existing flats at muskrats and
limited tidal an average depth of overwintering fish
exchange. 11 inches species.

aWater management plan is subject to adjustments and change based on the
availability of additional information, climatic conditions, and in order to
better achieve all regional objectives.
bMaximun tidal exchange is equivalent to the maximum volume (not to exceed
the level that causes peripheral flooding of adjacent properties) that allows
the water level to recede to the 0% pool level during an average tidal cycle.

CTentatively a drawdown to the 0% pool level, with limited tidal exchange
during each tidal cycle, will occur every 3 years to solidify the flats and
promote the revegetation of emergent plant species.

APPENDIX C

.....................

THO USXfND ACRE MARSH
REHABILITA TION PLAN

Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program

Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation Project

Thousand Acre Marsh Watershed Protection
and Wetland Rehabilitation Project

Preliminary Tracking Form

Contacts:

David Carter and Elaine A. Logothetis

Delaware Coastal Management Program
Division of Soil & Water Conservation
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control

..............
...... ..... ........... ........
............ .. ... ...... . . . ......... ........
....... ....... .... ........... .. .....
. ........ ...
..... ......... ... :
........... ..... ...

..... ........... ....... . ..... .
............................

....... .............
Thousand.....Acre:::. . . .......... ..... .. ...........
. .......... -...-
.. ..... ........ . . .......
. ..... ..... .. .. ..... .
..........
............
........ ... .. .........
.. ..... . .. . ..
..............
ar. er @@..iDSWC/lD@@..:...,...@@@@@.......@,@,@..,.,.@......
..........
rpjed&@:.Coor @=atozs:::: Dav:L B C t
......................
..........
/!DC
Elaine..W.: Logotheti, . : ......
.............
. ............ .....

............... -... .. ...........
@[email protected] 12: :4.994. ............
....................... .
. ........ ... ............
............
..........
.. . ... ........... .. .....
................. .....
.......... . . .... . .. ......... ...
... ........... .... ....... ...... .. ..... ..
... .......
............ . . .....
. ........ .. .. .......... .. ..... -__ .....
...........
..........
......... . . .......

. .. ..............
. . ... . ..................
. .. ........... ....

A. Pxoject Desaription

The proposed management scheme for the Thousand Acre Marsh
is a comprehensive watershed approach to the management of
wetlands. This project the first of its kind in Delaware and its
success may serve as a prototype for future marsh management. By
novelly incorporating Delaware's Tax Ditch Program as the essence
of management, long term funds, managers and maintenance is
secured. In the absence of the Tax Ditch Organization, the
future of the marsh, adjacent and regional resources are in
jeopardy.
The Thousand Acre Marsh Project is an ecosystem based,
comprehensive watershed restoration, protection, and management
project that shall involve numerous governmental agencies and 22
private landowners. The project intends to coordinate numerous
proven water quality improvement technologies, land protection
approaches, wildlife management techniques, wetland management
techniques, and habitat restoration techniques to improve and
protect the 3,067 acre watershed (see project organization and
flow chart). More importantly, the project will creatively use
Delaware's Drainage Code (7 Delaware Code, Chapter 41) to ensure
a coordinated long term commitment from landowners through a
legally binding watershed plan and a dedicated funding source to
ensure long term success.

The project plans to utilize upgraded technologies for
dredging and dredge material placement for the purposes of marsh
restoration and creation. This procedure will utilize as much as
160,000 cubic yards of dredge material removed during the
restoration of in-basin tidal creeks. This material will be used
in a beneficial manner for the restoration of wetlands via the
creation
of "wet islands" in open water areas and for the
enhancement of several areas of deteriorated emergent marsh.

These areas were locations of historic emergent wetlands which
have been lost due to sediment deprivation from tidal exclusion
(impounding), land subsidence due to approximately 150 years of
drainage, and inadequate water management.

This project is expected to improve water quality, restore
approximately 25,000 linear feet of tidal streams, create 34
acres of "wet island", emergent wetland area in the former
location of the wetlands, and re-invigorate 25 acres of
threatened emergent wetland by the replenishment of low level
marsh with thin layered dredged material. The construction phase
of this project is expected to last approximately one year.

Methods and technologies to be tested and upgraded include:
1) comprehensive watershed management approaches which will
require extensive interagency and private sector coordination; 2)
wetland restoration technology; 3) dredge operations for the
restoration and enhancement of wetlands; 4) thin layer
application of dredged material; and 5) innovative approaches for
coordination of private lands management.

B. Project Benchmark Dates

1.) Meet with Tax Ditch Commissioners 4/30/93
(completed)
2.) Survey water level benchmarks 5/5/93
(completed)
3.) Site visit with Natural Heritage Staff 6/4/93
(completed)
4.) MOA with Natural Heritage Staff 6/8/93
(executed)
5.) Begin weekly water quality monitoring for 6/4/93
temperature, salinity, DO, nitrogen, & (executed)
phosphorus)

6.) Watershed Topography mapping 6/14/93
(completed)
7.) Joint Permitting Committee Meeting 6/17/93
(completed)
8.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
.(Presentation to Design and 6/29/93
Planning Branches) (completed)

9.) Site visit by DSWC administrative staff 7/1/93
regarding project planning and management (completed)

10.) Tax Ditch organization Meeting 7/29/93
with all Landowners (completed)

11.) JPPC meeting regarding Rte. (Shoreline 11/18/93
Stabilization Project (completed)

12.) Site visit with JPPC to assess proposed 12/3/93
permit required projects (completed)

13.) Open Space Council approved of approximately
100A of Warren tract for purchase of public 12/7/93
lands (completed)

14.) Tax Ditch Referendum February 94

15.) Initiate permit process for Aquatic December 93
Rehabilitation activities (continuous)

C. ReWrt Status

1.) Draft Report - Thousand Acre Marsh: General
Background, Description, and Management
Recommendations and Alternatives (pgs. 119)
* Completed February 1992.

2.) Final Tax Ditch Commissioners Report
e Final Report - expected January 31, 1994

3.) Natural Heritage Inventory Biotic Composition
and Natural Community Description
e January 15, 1994

4. Non-Point Source Pollution Assessment and
Recommendation Report
e expected September 30, 1994

D. Permit Status

1.) State of Delaware Subaqueous Lands Permit for the
construction of 560 cubic yards of rip-rap stabilization
and 50 cubic yards associated fill on Selby tract.

Permit No. SP-0302/92
Issued April 22, 1993

2.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit for the
construction of 560 cubic yards of rip-rap stabilization
and 50 cubic yards associated fill on Selby tract.

Permit No. CENAP-OP-R-199200588-36 (NP13)
Issued March 26, 1993

3.) Permit type under review of DNREC Wetland Branch and U.S.
ACE for Delaware Rte. 9 Shoreline Stabilization Project
via DelDOT.

4.) No other permit needs have been definitively identified

at this time. Initiation of permit activities is pending
landowner decisions with regards to the extent of wetland
dependent activities to be undertaken as part of the
project. Permits effort will be initiated as needed.
Completion time for permits and Environmental
Assessments between 3-5 months.

5.) Joint Permit Processing Committee received project scope
(June 17, 1993). Suggested to apply for one permit that
included all project activities.

E. Funding

1.) Secured
a. Environmental Fines
. Presidente Rivera $ 13,000 (expended)
. Other Penalties
Unspecified Source $ 17,000 (expended)
NPS Encumbered Account $100,0001
b. DCMP Section 309 Grant
(Oct. 1993 - Sept. 1994) $ 64,000'
c. U.S. EPA Delaware Estuary
Program Grant $ 41,500
d. DelDOT Shoreline Stabilization
Project $ 50,000
e. Land Protection (Warren Tract) $390,000

2.) Non-Secured
a. State General Funds for Dredging
b. Additional Fines Monies
c. Additional Federal & State Grants
d. Tax Ditch Fees

3.) Cost-Share Programs
a. Phracrmites control
b. BMPs for aglands (NCCD, ASCS, SCS)

only a portion of this amount is available for
Thousand Acre Marsh

F. Landowners

Property ownership is distributed amongst 22 owners of 19
separate parcels of land. Historic landowner disputes over marsh
management have significantly hindered wetland management. In
order to resolve long standing conflicts, a Tax Ditch Association
has been proposed to ensure one voice in management decisions and
to provide a dedicated source of funds for long term marsh
management and maintenance. If this organization is approved via

landowner votes and superior court concurrence, decisions of this
association will be legally binding and enforceable. Note that
in Deceember 1993, the Open Space Council approved the purchase
of approximately 100 acres on the Warren tract for public land.

G. Project Participants

9 Landowners (Proposed Tax Ditch Association)
* New Castle Conservation District
9 USDA Soil Conservation Service
* Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
� Division of Soil & Water Conservation
. Division of Parks & Recreation
� Division of Fish & Wildlife
� Division of Water Resources
9 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
. ocean and Coastal Resource Management
9 Delaware Department of Transportation (Del DOT)
0 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Design and Planning Branches
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

H. Other Potential Paz-ticipants

e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
o NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service
* Delaware Department of Agriculture
e University of Delaware,,Department of Agriculture
Cooperative Extension Service
9 New Castle County

.. ........ ........ .........
. .........
... .................... -...
................
.............
mprova a 2 .............................. .................
..-Gb I ty'...I.-
....... . . .. ....... .

A. Condition Prioz- to Project

There is limited quantitative data of water quality., however,
qualitative information has identified algae and phytoplankton
blooms, and fish kills which are indicative of excess nutrients
and other water quality problems.

Although some past efforts have been made to develop
Agricultural Conservation and Management Plans for aglands within

the watershed, a coordinated and concentrated watershed approach
was not apparent. Many agland areas are still in need of
conservation plans or plan updates. This will require
significant technical assistance to local farmers as well as a
source of funds for plan implementation.

In addition, potential conversion of watershed uplands from
aglands to residential land use exists. This land-use change may
potentially increase toxic inputs from urban sources as well as
nutrient loadings from a high concentration of on-site septic
systems. It may also affect watershed hydrology.

B. Site Spgcific Objective 1.1

Reduce pollutant loadings fz-om watershed area
surface water z=off.

1.) Tasks Reguired to Meet Objective I.1:

a. Develop and inventory all agricultural lands in the
watershed, a listing of any lands covered by SCS,
Conservation District, or ASCS Agricultural Conservation
and Management Plans. Conduct an assessment of all plans
identified. This will determine the level of compliance
with plans and develop a list of those areas in which
efforts should be directed to develop additional plans.

b. Identify specific locations where implementation of
conservation practices would improve surface water runoff
quality. This may include potential locations,for grassed
waterways, manure management sheds, buffer strips,
integrated crop management areas, nutrient management
areas, etc. An estimate of implementation costs will also
be included for each site specific conservation measure or
best 'management practice (BMP) identified.

c. Conduct an assessment of the NPS impacts of the planned
residential development on the former Port Penn Hunting
Club property. Identify any additional management
measures which could reduce these impacts (eg. vegetated
roadside ditches instead of curbs, wet stormwater
retention basin, etc.).

d. Develop a detailed map of the watershed's drainage system.

e. Generate an estimate of the surface water recharge
potential for Thousand Acre Marsh in an average year, wet
year, and drought year. (SCS TR55 or AGNPS continuous
simulation/unit hydrograph approach).

f. Identify land-use and land-cover types.

g. Conduct detailed mathematical model of runoff quality
with an emphasis on nutrients and sediments to simulate
the impact of various conservation practice scenarios on
water quality. The model will utilize Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Model (AGNPS) for priority
agricultural watershed areas.

h. Develop a two foot contour map 'of watershed area to
improve accuracy of watershed modelling for NPS.

2.) Current Status of Objective I.1

a. A 2 foot contour map of the watershed has been conducted
under a contract administered by the New Castle
Conservation District. The map is available in both hard
copy and digital (DWG Format) form.

Status: Completed
Cost: $ 21,000

b. Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Project encompassing
all other tasks under Objective I.1 will be initiated.

Status: October 1, 1993
Completion Date: September 30, 1994
Cost: Approximately $ 30,000 (secured)

c. Perform weekly gross water quality analysis by DSWC staff.

Status: continuous
Cost: DSWC In-Kind Staff Time

d. Conduct hydrologic analysis of marsh and tidegates.
Initial analysis completed by DSWC Engineer

Cost: Engineering Staff Time
DSWC In-Kind Services

e. Initiate study to assess the phosphorus loadings from,
agriculutral lands. DSWC responsible for sample
collection and UofDE and SCS conduct analysis.

status: Started 12/20/93, thwarted by weather
conditions will continue once ground thaws
Cost: DSWC Staff Time
$7.00/sample

C. Site SR@cific Objective 1.2

Improvements of vaterbody vater quality through
the implementation of any applicable measure at
receiving vater end of vatershed.

1.) Tasks Recruired to Meet Objective 1.2

a. Evaluate various options for structural improvement to
enable desired water management.

b. Install new or retrofit existing tide gate with
alternative structure that will enable increase water
management flexibility and limited tidal flushing.
* Possible renovation of the historic flow direction and
tidal prism via installation of a tide gate structure
between the marsh and C-D canal.
e Increase water management flexibility via retrofit of
existing structure.

c. Permit tidal exchange of impoundment with estuarine waters
during low salinity seasons of year (Spring).

1. Provide for dilution of nutrients in marsh basin with
tidal waters in a reach of Delaware River that is not
significantly impaired by nutrient concentrations (1992
305(b) Water Quality Inventory Reports).
2. Improve dissolved oxygen concentrations through the
increase in water mixing and circulation, and addition
of more oxygenated estuarine waters.

2.) Current Status of Objective 1.2

Status: Pending formation of Tax Ditch Association
Cost: Unknown - Pending Engineering and Design
(Estimate $ 15,000 - $ 125,000 dependent upon
structure)

D. Site SRgcific Objective II.1

Implement a consistent approach to vatex-
management at the Thousand Acre Marsh.

1.0 Tasks Reguired to Meet Objective II.1

a. Include water management schedule in Final Tax Ditch
Commissioners Report to provide the mechanism for
mandatory compliance.

b. Establish a Tax Ditch Association by landowner majority
vote to ensure one voice in management decisions and to
provide a legal mechanism for taxation. The dedicated

source of funds will cover a part of initial project costs

and long term maintenance of the water control
structure, channel maintenance, and Phracrmites control.

c. Assist landowners in the coordination and implementation
of an interim water management plan.

2.) Current Status of Oblect II.1

a. Tax Ditch Association
� Petition filed in Superior Court - July 14, 1992
� Superior Court order that the Tax Ditch commissioners
Review Plan in accordance with Chapter 41, Title 7,
Delaware Code 1953, as amended.
- Issued March 12, 1993
� Tax Ditch Commissioners Review
Initiated May 3, 1993
� Interim Landowner Meeting - July 29,. 1993
. Landowner Vote on Tax Ditch - Early Fall 1993

Cost: DCMP Grant Staff and State Drainage
Program Staff Time

b. Assist Landowners with Interim Water Management Regime
� Currently carried out by landowners in accordance with
March 1993 to February 1994 water management schedule.
Technical assistance provided by David Carter and Elaine
Logothetis.

Cost: DSWC Staff Time

. ... .. ............ . ...........
. ........... ........ ........
. . ............

.............. ..........
. .. ......... 1. a ..-We 2:1&1 @4
............ .. ......
............ ........
I t* H
.. ...........
......... ..... .. .. . .....

A. Condition Prior to Project

Thousand Acre Marsh is a low level impoundment with water
levels regulated via tide restricting flapper gates and an inland
riser board weir. This type of structure provides very limited
flexibility for wetlands water management and has been the
subject of long standing contention amongst the numerous marsh
property owners.

Due to the combined effects of natural processes and
inconsistent management efforts, the wetland area has
experienced a general decline in habitat quality for
approximately two decades. Evolution of the marsh area has been
toward a shallow, sediment laden, open water area; devoid of
vegetation important for waterfowl, waterbirds, muskrats, and
most other wetland wildlife species.

B. Site Spgcific Objective III.1

Improve Vegetative Diversity

1.) Tasks Reguired to Meet oblective III.1:

a. Eradicate Phracmites with basin wide spray program
followed by out-year maintenance spray program. For
long term control, implement a low level (acreage) annual
treatment program for spot treatment of areas of
Phragmites re-invasion.

b. Implement a consistent water management plan to
encourage recovery of emergent vegetation in open water
areas.

c. Vegetation planting should not be necessary due to
natural seed bed, however some supplemental plantings may
be initiated in designated areas, such as; erodible
soils, island creation sites, exposed sediments, buffer
strips, and reclamation sites.

Cost: Unknown (will be included with dredge operation
budget)

2.) Current Status of Objective III.1

a. Phragmites control - Pending approval of Tax Ditch for
basin wide treatment.

Cost: Year 1 400 acres @ $ 60.00 = $24,000.00@
Year 11 400 acres @ $ 38.00 = $15,200.00

----------
Total = $39,200.0'
Annual out-year maintenance
35 acres @ $102.90 = $ 3,600.00

b. Water Management

1. Pending approval of Tax Ditch Association - cost
analysis for implementation.
Cost: $500.00 - $1000.00 /year (Proposed Tax Ditch
Association annual fees)

2. Following schedule of interim water management regime
for 1993 - 1994 seasons with landowner and interagency
coordination.

C. Site Spgcific Objective IIX.2

Shoreline stabilization and vetland in-basin
erosion control

1.) Tasks to Meet Site Specific Objective 111.2

a. Vegetative losses have been a result of exposure to the
open water marsh. This direct exposure has subjected the
@horelines to harsh winds and wave action. Utilize
innovative dredging technologies to restore "wet island"
emergent wetland that will reduce wind fetch and dissipate
wave energy.

b. Coordinate with Del DOT for a shoreline stabilization
using fabric and rip rap to prevent over flow erosion of
Route 9 embankment during coastal storms.

c. Environmentally sensitive bioengineering techniques have
been proposed; such as the natural fibre logs (Bio-LogsR)
and vegetative plantings in areas of severe shoreline
erosion.

2.) Current Status of Objective 111.2

All tasks pending approval of Tax Ditch Association.

D .Site S2gcific Objective IXX.2

Conduct In-Basin channelization vith Cookie Cutter
for improved vater circulation and marsh access.

1.) Tasks to Meet Objective 111.3

a. Limited channel restoration may be accomplished with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and/or Pennsylvania
Department of Fish and Game Cookie Cutter. The equipment
has been designed for shallow depths and a channel width
of eight feet.

b. For channel maintenance, Cookie Cutter channelization may
be periodically required. Regular maintenance funds
may be procured from the Tax Ditch program.

Cost: Maximum of $15,000.00

2.) Current Status of Objective 111.3

Pending approval of Tax Ditch Association

E. Site SRgcific Objective XXX.4

Restore emergent vegetation and tidal stream size
and depths to pre-1940s characteristics.

1.) Tasks to Meet Site Obiective 111.4

a. Dredging feasibility analysis, Environmental Assessment
and cost analysis.

b. Conduct sediment analysis, for physical characteristics
and for any potential pollutants of concern.

c. Restore tidal creeks via relatively new, innovative and
beneficial dredging techniques. At a minimum, create 34
acres of "wet island" and emergent low marsh, and
reinvigorate 25 acres of threatened marsh via thin layer
of dredged material.

d. Monitor during and after dredging operations.

e. Implement limited tidal flushing as part of water
management plan.

2.) Current Status of Objective 111.4

a. Pending approval of Tax Ditch Organization
* Met with DSWC Staff, Joint Permit Processing
Committee, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with regards
to feasibility, permits and procurement of funds.
* Cost analysis

Cost: Pending Design

...................
... .. ..........
........ ..... .. ................ ...... .. ...... ... ....... ..... ...................,
...... .... ..... ..... .. ........ ......... .. .
...............
esources
XV40. prove:: WildlIf R ... ...
............. .
...... ......

A. Site Spgcific Objective IV.1

improve species diversity and protection of
organisms utilizing watershed

1.) Tasks to meet site specific objective IV.1

a. Implement previously outlined Wetland Management and
Aquatic Habitat Rehabilitation activities.

b. Encourage landowner participation on this level.
Basic wildlife management practices allow for the
landowner to becore actively involved in the watershed

management plan. Tools such as those listed below,
stimulate the landowners to reap the rewards of their own
management in consumptive and non-consumptive uses and may
foster stewardship and land protection for future
generations.

List of potential conservation practices:
1. install nest structures (i.e. wood duck and bluebird
boxes)
2. permit only ethical hunting practices
3. leave snags
4. create or widen buffer and/or riparian zones
5. harvest 90% crop and leave lot as wildlife food
6. encourage designation of sites as refuge or natural
areas on and/or amongst property boundaries.

2.) Current Status of Objective IV.1

a. SCS and NCCD have worked in the past with some property
owners on agricultural conservation planning.

. .... .....
Goal,::
. .. .. . . .....

A. Site Spgcific Objective V.1

Preserve and protect as much undeveloped land in
the vatershed as possible.

1.) Tasks to meet Site Specific Objective V.1

a. Coordinate with Open Space Council for easements,
development rights, deed restrictions, land trusts,
natural area protection and acquisition.

b. Coordinate with DP&R for natural areas protection.

c. Inquire with DE Department of Agriculture for
applicability and/or availability of participation with
the federal Farmland Preservation Program.

2.) Current Status of Objective V.1

Open Space Council approved the purchase of approximately
100 acres of palustrine forest on the Warren tract for
public lands.

Other land protection efforts at this time are
confidential.

DCW110MA.TM

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

Thousand Acre Nbrsh
New Castle County, Delaware

LOCATOR MAP

HR I RIP,

R
T
10,

,gg.

MTIOKAL WEnMDS INVENTORY.

Open Water
Bm&.m Bam md MmMab 40:q

arine
Eftsbm'jine ===WIldflat
bamne an& Mumb md "P.
Estuarine Scrub %trub/anergent
PhJushine Enwgeryt and
Nusbine ErnergeWopen Water
PWLWAne Foreited,
Pau5bine F res;tedraub Shrub and
P20ine FoorertedlEmergerd
Pa uOin 5= %mb and
Pa:tlMne 5crub
e 61shm&lEmergmt g
U.

N@ C.M1. C-LI. nbmd

APPENDIX D

..... ...........
.......... ........ ...........

DEL"VA POWER & HT:::::
IMPOUNDMENT
REHABILITATION PLAN

.......... ......... ......... ..... ... ...... .................... .... .......

Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program

DELNRRVIL POWER AND LTGNT IMPOUNDMMT

An 81-acre impoundment located at Hamburg Cove on the

Delaware River, 2 miles northwest of Pea Patch Island. The site was

a former tidal wetland that was diked and filled with dredge spoil in

the 19501s. The spoil increased the elevation of the marsh above sea

level by approximately 14 ft, eliminating tidal influence. In the

1970's this area was used as a mitigation site for compensation of

another dredge disposal site by the Getty Oil Refinery. Mitigation

involved creating several shallow ponds and installing a water

control structure. In 1973, a 500 kv power line was constructed

across the marsh, and an 1100-foot culvert pipe was installed to

divert storm runoff from the marsh and into an adjacent watershed.

Current landowners are Delmarva Power and Star Enterprises. A

portion of the marsh is currently used by the Delmarva Power

Sportsmen's Club for recreational hunting.

The existing water control structure is over 40 years-old

and nonfunctional in terms of maintaining, increasing, or

manipulating water levels. This inability of the structure to retain

water combined with the fact that the marsh's only hydrologic input

is rainfall, have contributed to the marsh becoming dominated by a

monotypic stand of phragmites. Currently, 3 small shallow

depressions (totaling 3.5 acres) consistently retain water, 2 only

seasonally. Two degraded ponds (7.8 acres combined) adjacent to the

marsh receive a significant amount of the storm runoff from the

marsh's watershed. These ponds provide limited hydrologic input to

the marsh, but they and can be utilized to create a stair-step

reservoir system between the ponds and the marsh, thereby benefiting

all three waterbodies. A sand and gravel extraction operation within

the marsh's watershed has been identified as potentially impacting

the marsh's water quality and supply. Over the last 4 years,

pestiferous mosquito breeding in this marsh hasbeen sufficient to

warrant an average of 1.25 aerial applications of insecticide per

year.

The marsh is a potentially important area for wildlife. It is

in close proximity to the Pea Patch Heronry, the largest wading bird

colony on the Atlantic Coast north of Florida, and Hamburg Cove, an

important area for migrat ing black ducks. The juxtaposition of the

marsh among primarily agriculture lands the adjacent to 2 ponds

inhabited by a beaver colony increases this value. Delaware's only

consistently successful osprey nest in the upper Delaware River is

located on one of the 500 kv power line towers within 1 mile of the

marsh.

The Delmarva Power
and Light Impoundment
New Castle County, Delaware

LOCATOR M4P

SAND AND GRAVEL PIT

DF&L ImpmMment

NATION& WETIANDS INVENTORY:
IM Open Water REt LION CREEK

Pakstrine EmerWt and
Pallibizirle Enoersent(open Water
Pakstrine Scrub Shrub and
Pakistrine Scrub/Shruhimergent

NORTHERN DELAWARE WETLANDS REHABILITATION PROGRAM

REHABILITATION TRACKING FORM

WETLAND PROJECT: D.P. & L. IMPOUNDKM UPDATED: 26 JANUARY 94

PROJECT MANAGER: Rob Hossler, Fish & Wildlife

PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: 31 MAY 1995

REPORT STATUS: 1) Environmental Evaluation - Completed 18 November
1992.
2) Water Management Plan - not initiated, dependent
on water control structure design.
3) Operation, Maintenance and Management Plan not
initiated.

PERMIT STATUS: 1) COE 404 Permit - not initiated.
2) State Type II Permit - not initiated.
3) Subaqueous Lands Permit - not required.
4) Environmental Assessment - not initiated.

FUNDING STATUS: 1) Secured -
a. Delmarva Power - $4,926 provided over last 2
years for phragmites control.
b. Delmarva Power Sportsmen's Qub - Donated an
unknown amount to the Delaware City Fire Department for their
assistance with the 1993 controlled burn.
c. Rivision of Fish and Wildlife - $1,260 provided
over last 2 years for phragmites control.

2) Pending -
a. Delmarva Power - Potentially interested in
providing additional funding to this project.
b..Delmarva Power Sportsmen's Club - interested in
providing additional funding to this project.
c. Star EnterRrise - A potential funding source.

LANDOWNERS: Delmarva Power (Delmarva)- owns 57 acres (70%) of the
marsh including the water control structure. The property is
currently used by the Delmarva Power Sportsmen's Club (Sportsmen's
Club) for recreational hunting. Both Delmarva and the Sportsmen's
Club have consented to a long-term management agreement and Delmarva
has issued an access permit to conduct biological surveys. Delmarva
might provide assistance in the installation of the proposed water
control structure, and additional phragmites control efforts. The
Sportsmen's Club is interested in assisting with the installation of
the proposed water control and wildlife enhancement structures; the
operation and maintenance of these structures; and additional
phragmites control and wildlife plantings.

D.P. & L. IMPOUNDMENT 2

Delmarva Power has identified a 2.1-acre solid waste landfill
within the proposed rehabilitation area. This fly ash and sludge
landfill was capped in 1982, and in accordance with state regulations
has been maintained with vegetative cover and monitored with wells for
5 years. Well abandonment was conducted in the winter of 1993.
Delmarva Power has requested that the landfill not be inundated with
water or physically disturbed by construction,.i.e.,,ditch or pond
construction. This request should not significantly affect
rehabilitation efforts because the landfill cap is approximately 4
feet above existing water levels. The landfill is currently vegetated
with a mix of phragmites and old field species; however, phragmites
control practices and reseeding of upland plant species can
rehabilitate this area into a more desirable habitat type. The
proposed rehabilitation plan does not pose a threat to releasing any
potential contaminants from this landfill.

Star Enterprises (Star) - owns 24 acres (30%) of the
marsh, including the two ponds proposed as water supply reservoirs.
The property's trapping rights are currently leased to a local
resident. Although Star considers the project worthwhile, they are
not interested in consenting to a long-term management agreement or
providing any funding for rehabilitation unless they can receive
"environmental consideration" to be used against their proposed future
dredge disposal sites.. However, recent information indicates that
@tar might reconsider consenting to a long-term management agreement
in the neat future.

PARTICIPATING PARTNERS: Delmarva Power, Delmarva Power Sportsmen's
Club, DNREC, and New Castle Conservation District. 1,

PUBLIC RELATIONS 1) Needs - Inclusion of Star Enterprises as a
participating partner in the project.
2) Actions -
a) Environmental Groups - The Sportsmen's Club
has assisted in controlled burns and temporary modification of the
existing water control structure. The Sportsmen's Club is also
enhancing adjacent upland areas by conducting wildlife habitat
improvements, i.e., border cuttings, beneficial plantings, and the
creation of clearings. The Sportsmen's Group participated in the 2
October 1993 Delaware Coastal Cleanup.
b) Landowners Consultations with Star are
ongoing.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WETLAND HABITATS FOR WILDLIFE

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE% Improve wetland habitats by increasing
habitat diversity, installing wildlife enhancement structures, and

D.P. & L. IMPOUNDMENT 3

adhering to a water management plan involving periodic water level
manipulations. The increase in habitat diversity will be accomplished
by increasing the percentage of open water and desirable emergent
vegetation habitats to-21-42% (17-34 acres) and 42-63%@(34-51 acres),
respectively. Adherence to a water management plan should improve
habitats for wetland wildlife, especially aquatic mammals, waterfowl
and other waterbirds, by adjusting the water level to accommodate
@heir seasonal needs when possible. These management practices should
increase the number, species, and reproductive success of wildlife
using the marsh.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Habitat types of the marsh are comprised of
the following approximate percentages: 81% (65 acres) monotypic
stands of phragmites, 4% (3.5 acres) open water habitat interspersed
with desirable emergent vegetation, 15% (12.5 acres) upland habitats.
During avian surveys conducted in 1991-1992, 17 species of waterbirds
and raptors were recorded for a combined total of 67 birds and an
average of 13.4 birds/survey. The only known waterbirds or raptors
nesting in the marsh or the adjacent area were a pair of osprey and a
pair of Canada geese.
The existing water control structure, consisting of 5, 30-inch-
diameter outlet pipes, is nonfunctional in terms of maintaining,
increasing, or manipulating water levels. Additionally, a 1100-foot
culvert pipe diverts a significant,amount of storm runoff from the
marsh and into an adjacent watershed. These two structures
essentially limit the amount of water in the marsh, thereby decreasing
habitat diversity by promoting dominant monotypic stands of
phragmites.

CURRENT STATUS: Biological and initial contour surveys have been
completed. Additional elevation surveys are currently being conducted
of surrounding upland and agricultural lands to determine the maximum
allowable water level. Temporary modifications have been made to the
existing water control structure to slightly increase the water level
in the marsh. These modifications have included sealing several of
the outlet pipes with expandable foam epoxy donated by,Delmarva Power.
Contour maps and sedimentation control plans for the sand and gravel
extraction operation within the marsh's watershed have been obtained.
These plans and maps indicate that the extraction operation will not
significantly impact the water quality or supply for the proposed
marsh. Land use mapping of the watershed has been completed.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Completion of elevation surveys to determine
the maximum and minimum allowable water levels and water supply
requirements. COMPLETION DATE: March 1994.

2) Evaluate the structural integrity of the
existing dikes for use as an impoundment through consultation with a
registered civil engineer.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1994.

D.P. & L. IMPOUNDMENT 4

3) Monitor the sedimentation and erosion
control practices, and the reestablishment of contours conducted by
the extraction operation. Promote best management practices where
current techniques are inadequate.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1994.

4) obstruct the culvert that is diverting storm
runoff from the marsh. COMPLETION DATE: May 1994.

5) Remove existing nonfunctional water control
structure by removing all above ground structures, and then sealing
the remaining pipes with expandable foam epoxy.
COMPLETION DATE: October 1994

6) Install a 48-inch stop-log structure
connected to a 2-foot-diameter, aluminum outflow pipe that traverses
through the dike. Install a riprap spillway at the outflow (river
side). Set riser boards from the minimum to the maximum allowable
water levels. Riser boards will be initially set at the maximum
allowable level in order to assist in the control of phragmites and to
determine an approximate 100% pool level, based on "average"
hydrologic inputs and outputs. Periodic manipulations of the water
level to improve regional objectives will be made as needed after
estimates of the approximate 100% pool level are determined. Delmarva
might provide assistance in the installation of the structure.
COMPLETION DATE: October 1994

7) Install two water control st@uctures and an
emergency spillway in the dikes of the two adjacent ponds creating a
stair-step reservoir system between the ponds and the marsh. This
stair-step system would allow greater flexibility in manipulating
water levels in both the marsh and the ponds, and would allow
beneficial draw downs of the ponds, thus promoting submerged and
emergent aquatic vegetation growth. The water control structures
would be 48-inch, stop-log structures connected to a 2-foot-diameter
aluminum outflow pipe. A 20-foot-wide grassed emergency spillway
ould be constructed in the dike between the two ponds.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1995

8) Install wood duck and passerine nesting
boxes, and goose and osprey nesting platforms. The number and location
of these enhancement structures will be determined based on the
approximate 100% pool level. Support in installation of wildlife
enhancement structures is anticipated from the employee sportsmen
club. COMPLETION DATE: March 1995

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: The success of the proposed
habitat improvements will be based on comparable surveys of waterbirds
utilizing the marsh, and of permanent vegetation transects established
in the marsh during the summer of 1994. Success of wildlife

D.P. & L. IMPOUNDMENT 5

enhancement structures will be based on the reproductive success of
wildlife utilizing them.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES CONTROL

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce the area covered by monotypic stands
of phragmites and increase emergent vegetation diversity. The percent
cover of phragmites will be reduced to less than 5% (4 acres).
Phragmites cover will be confined to upland areas and the
upland/wetland fringe.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. The marsh is a large monoculture of
phragmites, characteristic of sites that were disturbed by the
disposal of dredge spoil. Approximately 81% (65 acres) of'the marsh
is covered by this single species.

CURRENT STATUS: An initial application of herbicide was applied on 52
acres (80%) of phragmites on 30 September 1992. This application was
followed by a controlled burn in March 1993. A second application of
herbicide was applied on 13 acres of untreated phragmites, and 50
acres of regenerating phragmites on 30 September 1993. Funding was
provided by Delmarva Power ($4,926) and the Division of Fish and
Wildlife ($1,260).

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Apply herbicide (glyphosate) periodically on
monotypic stands of phragmites.
COMPLETION DATE: Annually as needed in early
Fall.

2) Controlled burning of phragmites (where
feasible) or other removal method of the standing dead canes will be
conducted following application of herbicide. Controlled burning
suppresses phragmites through several methods including: exposing
regenerating canes to the second year treatment of herbicide, reducing
gas exchange to surviving root stalks, stimulating the release of
nutrients for other competing plant species, exposing the soil to
sunlight, and stimulating germination of desirable species in the
existing seed bank.
COMPLETION DATE: In late winter, following the
application of herbicide.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success determined by the
reduction of monotypic stands of phragmites.

D.P. & L. IMPOUNDMENT 6

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE SHALLOW WATER HABITAT DIVERSITY

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Increase the percentage and diversity of
open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats. The percent
cover of open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats will
range from 21-42% (17-34 acres) and 42-63% (34-51 acres),
respectively. Shallow water habitats will include numerous shallow
ponds, ditches, and flats.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Only 4% (3.5 acres) of the marsh
consistently retains open water habitat interspersed with desirable
emergent vegetation. This shallow water habitat is comprised of 3
small ponds. Approximately 81% (65 acres) of the marsh is covered by
a monoculture of phragmites.

CURRENT STATUS: Except for contour and environmental surveys, no
habitat diversity-related work has been conducted in the marsh.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Evaluate the necessity of testing sediments
for,potential contaminants prior to excavating ditches and ponds.
COMPLETION DATE: July 1994.

2) Design a system of interconnecting ditches
and ponds with interspersed island habitats. Ponds will have tapered
sides and most ponds and all ditches will be shallow <18 inches in
depth. Several ponds will have sections excavated >18 inches in depth
to provide habitat for fish during droughts and draw-downs. Islands
for waterfowl nesting will be created by accumulation of construction
spoil. The proposal to increase the shallow water habitat diversity
will be submitted either under the Division's existing Open Marsh
Water Management permit or through a separate permit.
COMPLETION DATE: November 199 4.

3) If necessary, sample the proposed excavation
sites for the presence of contaminants.
COMPLETION DATE: Might not be required.

4) Excavate ditches and ponds, and construct
island habitat using Division of Fish and Wildlife personnel and
equipment.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1995, depending on
sediment sampling requirement.

BITE BPECIVIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success based on the diversity of
shallow habitats and the percentage of open water habitat.

D.P. & L. IMPOUNDMENT 7

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: MOSQUITO CONTROL

BITE OPECIPIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce pestiferous mosquito populations by
establishing predacious fish populations. Mosquito populations are
anticipated to be reduced to <1 larvae/dipping unit, based on periodic
inspections for breeding activity.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Rain events cause the flooding of previously
exposed oviposition sites and promote mosquito breeding. However, the
marsh currently has a limited amount of area inundated with sufficient
depths or durations of water to support predacious fish. During the
previous 4 years, pestiferous mosquito breeding averaged 3.4
larvae/dipping unit and was sufficient to warrant an average of 1.25
aerial applications of insecticide per year, totaling 47 lbs of
pesticide product.

CURRENT STATUS: Except for the collection of environmental data and
conducting routine mosquito control pratices, no work has been
conducted in this marsh.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Stocking of ponds and ditches with
predacious mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) at a rate of 500
fish/acre. Fish will be obtained from Division of Fish and Wildlife
ponds and previously stocked areas.
COMPLETION DATE: May 1995

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success of biological mosquito
control programs will be based on comparable indices of mosquito
breeding.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: 1) Improve water quality by wetland filtering,
especially non-point source pollution from adjacent agricultural
fields, and gravel extraction areas.

2) Protect and enhance existing populations
and critical habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
species of concern. Emphasis will be placed on enhancing the site for
foraging use by the Pea Patch Island wader colony.

APPENDIX E

..,4RTESI" MARSH
REHABILITA TION PLAN

Northern Delaware Wetlands
Rehabilitation Program

ARTEST" MAR K

An 134-acre tidal freshwater marsh located south of Churchman's

Marsh, along Interstate 95 in Stanton. The marsh is bordered by the

interstate to the north, by the Christina River on the south and east,

and by an office complex to the west. In the southwest corner of the

marsh, the Division of Fish and Wildlife maintains the Churchman's

Boat Ramp facility. The marsh is currently owned by the Artesian

Water Company and is leased for cattle grazing.

This formerly productive marsh was contiguous with Churchman's

Marsh, and was considered an important area for migrating waterfowl.

However in the 19601s, Artesian marsh was diked and used as a dredge

disposal site during the construction of 1-95. This accumulation of

dredge spoil raised the elevation of the marsh by approximately 3.5

feet, above the average high tide of the Christina River.

Characteristic of sites that were diked and filled With dredge spoil,

the marsh became a large monoculture of phragmites. This percentage

of phragmites was reduced by the grazing of cattle and the restoration

oflimited tidal exchange through several breaches in the dike.

Currently the marsh is comprised of: 39% monotypic stands of

phragmites, 32% cattle grazed rushes, 17% forested willows, 5% cattail

stands, 4% upland areas, and 3% other wetland emergent plants.

The marsh still retains its floodplain values by accepting

floodwater during storm surges and unusually high tides. However,

this periodic flooding promotes pestiferous mosquito breeding by

inundating previously exposed oviposition sites. This mosquito

breeding problem is compounded by the grazing of cattle in the area.

The cattle create small depressions (hoof prints) throughout the

marsh, which retain a high nutrient content (manure) and act as

breeding pockets for mosquitos. In 1992, pestiferous mosquito

breeding in this marsh was sufficient to warrant 7 aerial applications

of insecticide, totaling 3,875 lbs of pesticide product. Another

potential problem with this marsh is its proximity to several

Superfund or other state-listed hazardous wastes sites.

The juxtaposition of this marsh to 1-95, the boat ramp facility,

and among several residential neighborhoods presents a ideal situation

to increase the recreational and educational benefits of a wetland.

Additionally, the tremendous wildlife value that the adjacent

Churchman's marsh currently and historically has had, indicates the

wildlife potential for a rehabilitated Artesian Marsh

M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

Mesian Marsh
New Castle Gc)unty, Delaware

LOCATOR MW
CHURCHMANS
MARSH

FRI.

Estuarine Emergent and
Estuarine Emergent/Readti/Mudiflat

CHURCHMANS oi I it a
BOAT 'ji Ii,
RAMP

NORTHERN DELAWARE WETLANDS REHABILITATION PROGRAM

REHABILITATION TRACKING FORM

WETLAND PROJECT: ARTESIAN MARSH UPDATED: 26 JANUARY 94

PROJECT MANAGER: Rob Hossler, Fish & Wildlife

PROJECT COMPLETION DATE: March 1998

REPORT STATUS: 1) Environmental Description - Completed September
1993.
2) Water Management Plan - not initiated.
3) Operation, Maintenance, and Management Plan - not
initiated.

PERMIT STATUS: 1) COE 404 Permit - not initiated.
2) State Type II Permit - not initiated.
3) Subaqueous Lands Permit not required.
4) Environmental Assessment not initiated.

FUNDING STATUS: 1) Secured - Ciba-Geigy - contributed $310,000
towards tidal wetlands rehabilitation in Christina River basin, a
portion of which will be used on Artesian Marsh.
2) Pending -
a. Artesian Water Company - Interested in
providing funding to this project.
b. Delaware Department of Transportation
(DelDOT) - Potentially interested in funding this project as
mitigation for the proposed expansion of Interstate 95.
c. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Interested in
funding this project through their Partners for Wildlife Program.
d. DuPont Company - Potential funding source
through mitigation of natural resource damages associated with the
DuPont Newport Superfund Site.

LANDOWNERS: Artesian Water CoMpany (Artesian) - owns the marsh and is
interested in assisting in its rehabilitation and long-term
management, but desires mitigation credit for possible use on the
proposed Churchman's Reservoir Project or other appropriate projects.
The property is currently leased for cattle grazing; however, Artesian
has indicated that this practice might not be continued in 1994. The
Division of Fish and Wildlife maintains the Churchman's Boat Ramp,
located adjacent to this marsh on the Christina River.

PARTICIPATING PARTNERS: Artesian W"-ter Company, DNREC, New Castle
Conservation District, and New Castle County.

ARTESIAN MARSH 2

PUBLIC RELATIONS: 1) Needs
a) Landowners Development of a mitigation
policy that provides for the establishment of future wetland
mitigation credit (mitigation banking).
b) Environmental Groups - Involvement of nearby
communities in certain aspects of the rehabilitation project.
2) Actions -
a) Landowners - A departmental policy is being
developed that allows for the establishment of future wetland
mitigation credit (mitigation banking). Artesian Marsh is being
proposed as the experimental prototype for this policy.
b) Environmental Groups - The Churchman's Boat
Ramp has been a staging area for the annual Christina River Cleanup,
co-sponsored by Artesian Water Company.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE WETLAND HABITATS FOR WILDLIFE

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve wetland habitats by increasing
habitat diversity, installing wildlife enhancement structures, and
adhering to a water management plan involving daily tidal exchange and
periodic water level manipulations. The increase in habitat diversity
will be accomplished by increasing the percentage of open water and
desirable emergent vegetation habitats to 19-37% (25-50 acres) and 37-
55% (25-74 acres), respectively. Adherence to a water management plan
should improve habitats for wetland wildlife, especially aquatic
mammals, waterfowl and other waterbirds, by adjusting the water level
to accommodate their seasonal needs when possible. These management
practices should increase the number, species, and reproductive
success of wildlife using the marsh.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Habitat types of the marsh are comprised of
the following approximate percentages: 39% (52 acres) monotypic
stands of phragmites, 32% (43 acres) of rushes, 17% (23 acres) of
willow, 5% (7 acres) cattails, 4% (5 acres) upland , and 3% (4 acres)
of other emergent plants. During avian surveys conducted in 1993, 2
species of waterbirds were recorded for a combined total of 4 birds
and an average of 2.0 birds/survey. Aerial waterfowl surveys of the
adjacent Churchman's Marsh have recorded 81.7 birds/survey indicating
the rehabilitation potential for Artesian Marsh.
The area was a former freshwater tidal marsh which was diked and
used as a dredge disposal site during the construction of 1-95 in the
19601s. Tidal exchange occurs in this marsh through 10 breaches in
the dike along the Christina River, but this exchange is limited as
the accumulation of spoil has raised the marsh elevation approximately
0.1 feet (4.4 feet NGVD) above average high tide (4.3 feet NGVD).
Approximately 7% (9 acres) of the marsh is exposed to daily tidal
flushing. Although the marsh is above average high tide, it still

ARTESIAN MARSH 3

retains its floodplain values by@accepting floodwater during storm
surges and unusually high tides.

Hazardous Wastes and Toxins - This marsh and the spoil deposited in it
during the 1960's might have been impacted by the E.I. DuPont Newport
Superfund Site, located approximately 1.3 miles downstream, or several
other potential contaminant sources in the watershed. Because of this
concern, 2 sediment samples of the marsh was collected in June 1993
and analyzed for potential contaminants. This preliminary sampling
identified levels of zinc in the sediment 2.0 to 4.6 times higher than
concentrations at which adverse biological effects are frequently or
always observed among most species (Long and Morgan 1991). However,
in order to obtain conclusive results, additional sampling is
required.

Non-Roint Source Pollution - Non-point source pollution entering the
marsh is limited to storm runoff from an office complex. Road runoff
from the adjacent interstate is diverted away from the marsh via a
borrow ditch.

CURRENT STATUS: Ecological evaluations, including extensive contour
and vegetation surveys have been conducted. A water level recording
device has been established at the adjacent Churchman's Boat Ramp to
chart hydrological data. Sediment sampling has revealed questionable
zinc levels, requiring additional sampling prior to entertaining any
sediment disturbing activities.
ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Additional contaminant sampling is required,
including water samples and acid volatile sulfide sediment testing to
determine dissolved zinc concentrations and zinc bioavailability,
respectively. COMPLETION DATE: August 1994.

2) Conduct modeling (HEC II) to determine the
impact of moving spoil and impounding the marsh on the floodplain.
Assistance might be obtained from the New Castle County Planning
Department.
COMPLETION DATE: September 1994.

3) Conduct modeling and engineering designs to
predict the hydrology and hydraulics of the proposed impoundment and
water control structures, respectively.
COMPLETION DATE: August 1995.

4) Plug the 10 breaches in the dike, two with
48-inch-diameter Delaware rice trunk water control structures, and two
with sheet metal weirs and 20-foot-wide riprap emergency spillways.
These weirs and spillways will be designed to accept and release storm
surges and unusually high tides.
COMPLETION DATE: June 1996.

ARTESIAN MARSH 4

S) scrape approximately 93,702 yds3 of sediment
from 88 acres of the marsh, to an average elevation of 3.8 feet NGVD
(0.5 feet below average high tide). The Delaware Department of
Transportation (DelDOT) might be interested in assisting with this
excavating. COMPLETION DATE: October 1996.

6) Install wood duck, goose, mallard, osprey,,
squirrel, bat, and passerine nesting structures. The number and
location of these enhancement structures will be determined based on
the availability of suitable microhabitats. Support in installation
of wildlife enhancement structures might be available from local
school groups and the private sector.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1997

7) Conduct plantings of beneficial species for
wildlife during periodic draw-downs. The quantity planted will depend
on the amount of suitable habitat available. Support in installation
of wildlife enhancement structures might be available from local
school groups and the private sector.
COMPLETION DATE: October 1997

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: UNDESIRABLE PLANT SPECIES CONTROL

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce the area covered by monotypic stands
of phragmites and increase emergent vegetation diversity. The percent
cover of phragmites will be reduced to less than 5% (6 acres).
Phragmites cover will be confined to upland areas and the
upland/wetland fringe.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. The marsh contains a large monoculture of
phragmites, characteristic of sites that were disturbed by the
disposal of dredge spoil. Approximately 39% (52 acres) of the marsh
is covered by this single species. Cattle grazing during 7 months of
each year has prevented this species from dominating a larger portion
of the marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: No phragmites control efforts have occurred at this
site.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Apply herbicide (glyphosate) periodically on

ARTESIAN MARSH 5
monotypic stands of phragmites. COMPLETION DATE: Annually as needed
in early Fall with the first anticipated application occurring
September 1997.

2) Controlled burning of phragmites (where
feasible) or other removal method of the standing dead canes will be
conducted following application of herbicide. Controlled burning
suppresses phragmites through several methods including: exposing
regenerating canes to the second year treatment of herbicide, reducing
gas exchange to surviving root stalks, stimulating the release of
nutrients for other competing plant species, exposing the soil to
sunlight, and stimulating germination of desirable species in the
existing seed bank. COMPLETION DATE: in late winter,
following the application of herbicide.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success determined by the
reduction of monotypic stands of phragmites.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE SHALLOW WATER HABITAT DIVERSITY

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Increase the percentage and diversity of
open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats. The percent
cover of open water and desirable emergent vegetation habitats will
range from 19-37% (25-50 acres) and 37-55% (25-74 acres),
respectively. Shallow water habitats will include numerous shallow
ponds, ditches, and flats.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: No portion of the marsh consistently
maintains open water habitat and only 7% (9 acres) is dominated by
desirable emergent vegetation. Approximately 39% (52 acres) of the
marsh is covered by a monoculture of phragmites.

CURRENT STATUS: Except for extensive contour and environmental
surveys, no habitat diversity-related work has been conducted in the
marsh.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Design a system of interconnecting ditches
and ponds.with interspersed island habitats. Ponds will have tapered
sides and most ponds and all ditches will be shallow, @@18 inches in
depth. Several ponds will have sections excavated >18 inches in depth
to provide habitat for fish during droughts and draw-downs. Islands
for waterfowl nesting will be created by accumulation of construction
spoil. The proposal to increase the shallow water habitat diversity
will be submitted either under the Division's existing Open Marsh

ARTESIAN MARSH 6

Water Management permit or through a separate permit.
COMPLETION DATE: November 1996.

2) Excavate ditches and ponds, and construct
island habitat using Division of Fish and Wildlife personnel and
equipment.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1997.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success based on the diversity of
shallow habitats and the percentage of open water habitat.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: IMPROVE RECREATION AND AESTHETIC VALUES

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve recreational opportunities and the
aesthetic value of the marsh by constructing a greenway trail from the
Division of Fish and Wildlife boat ramp, along the dike and then
looping back along a raised walkway paralleling 1-95. Additionally,
along this trail a blind will be constructed to be used for
photography and as a dog retrieving training area.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: Recreational use of Artesian Marsh are
limited to a few fisherman who fish the Christina River from the dike
and from boats launched from the adjacent ramp, and a local trapper
who pursues muskrats in the marsh's tidal guts.

CURRENT STATUS: No recreation-related work has been conducted for
this project.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Construct a circular greenway around the
perimeter of the marsh. This construction would include clearing and
grading a trail from the Division of Fish and Wildlife boat ramp along
the existing dike. The spoil scraped off the marsh to form the
impoundment would be used to create a 10-foot-high, 62-foot-wide,
elevated walkway paralleling 1-95 and connecting to the existing dike.
A trail would also need to be cleared and graded along the upland area
on the west side of the marsh to connect the Division of Fish and
Wildlife boat ramp with the raised walkway.
COMPLETION DATE: May 1997.

2) Construct a blind along the trail to be used
for photography and as a dog retrieving training area.
COMPLETION DATE: July 1997.

3) Determine the overall opinion of visitors
utilizing the recreation facilities, in regards to the aesthetic and
@ecreational values of the marsh both prior to and after the
implementation of the rehabilitation plan.

ARTESIAN MARSH 7

COMPLETION DATE: September 1997.

4) In order to accommodate the anticipated
increase in visitor use, establish portable toilet facilities and
enlarge the parking facilities at the Division of Fish and Wildlife
Churchman's Boat Ramp.
COMPLETION DATE: March 1998.

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: INCREASE ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Improve environmental education
opportunities for both general public and school groups by
constructing an environmental interpretative trail along the marsh's
proposed greenway.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT: There is no known organized or formal
environmental education being conducted at the marsh; eyen though,
there are seven schools located within 2 miles of the marsh.

CURRENT STATUS: No education-related work has been conducted for this
project.

ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Develop final designs and construct the
interpretive signs. COMPLETION DATE: July 1997

2) Promote the use of the marsh and its
interpretive trail through organized events, press releases, and by
direct contact with school districts.
COMPLETION DATE: August 1997

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Improvements in environmental
education would be determined by surveys of public and school groups
utilizing the facilities.

ARTESIAN MARSH 8

REGIONAL OBJECTIVE: REDUCE MOSQUITO BREEDING

BITE 82ECIFIC OBJECTIVE: Reduce pestiferous mosquito populations by
reducing potential breeding sites, and by establishing predacious fish
populations. Mosquito populations are anticipated to be reduced to <1
larvae/dipping unit, based on periodic inspections for breeding
activity.

STATUS PRIOR TO PROJECT:. Rain events and unusually high tides cause
the flooding of previously exposed oviposition sites, and promote
mosquito breeding. However, the marsh currently has a limited amount
of area inundated to sufficient depths or durations to support
predacious fish. This mosquito breeding problem is compounded by the
grazing of cattle in the area. The cattle create small depressions
(hoof prints) throughout the marsh, which retain a high nutrient
content (manure) and act as breeding pockets for mosquitos. In 1992,
pestiferous mosquito breeding averaged 1.74 larvae/dipping unit and
was sufficient to warrant 7 aerial applications of insecticide,
totaling 3,875 lbs of pesticide product.

CURRENT STATUS: Except for collecting of environmental data and
conducting routine mosquito control practices, no work has been
conducted in this marsh.
ACTION STEPS NEEDED: 1) Discontinue the grazing of ca"ttle in the
marsh.
COMPLETION DATE: April 1994.

2) Stock ponds and ditches with predacious
mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki) at a rate of 500 fish/acre. Fish
will be obtained from Division of Fish and Wildlife ponds and
previously stocked areas.
COMPLETION DATE: May 1997.

SITE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE EVALUATION: Success of biological mosquito
control programs will be based on comparable indices of mosquito
breeding.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: 1) Restore and improve spawning, nursery, and
feeding sites for anadromous, estuarine, and riverine fishes.

2) Protect and enhance existing populations
and critical habitats of threatened and endangered species and other
species of concern.

ARTESIAN MARSH 9

3) Improve water quality of both the marsh and
the river through increased wetland filtering and nutrient uptake.

Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
Division of Fish & Wildlife
Richardson/Robbins Building
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903

Official Business, Penalty For Private Use $300.

rn
M

AUGUSTINE CREEK MARSH
BIOTIC INVENTORY AND NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION

Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory
Division of Parks and Recreation
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Dover, Delaware

February 1994

AUGUSTINE CREEK MARSH
BIOTIC INVENTORY AND NATURAL COMMUNITY EVALUATION

Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory
Division of Parks and Recreation
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Dover, Delaware

February 1994

EVMODUCTION

A biological inventory of Augustine Creek Marsh, New Castle County, Delaware was conducted
in 1993 by the Delaware Natural Heritage Inventory. This survey was requested and funded by
the Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control,
to assess the biological components of the marsh so that data collected can be considered in
future management plans.

Augustine Creek Marsh is used extensively for public and private recreation, especially hunting
and fishing. A portion of the area is owned and managed by Delaware Wildlands that includes
some of the more diverse sections of the Augustine Creek Marsh, as well as an active great blue
heron colony.

The Augustine Creek Marsh is located south of the town of Port Penn and is bounded on the
north by the St. George's-Port Penn Road, and on the east by the Delaware River. The southern
boundary is Route 423 (McDonough Road) and the western boundary is Route 420 (Port Penn-
Boyd's Comer Road).

Objectives:

(1) To determine and map the gross biotic composition of the marsh based on dominant
vegetation present.

(2) To undertake an inventory for rare plant species (species of special concern).

(3) To undertake a cursory inventory of the marsh for rare animals.

METHODS

During the months of August, September and October 1993, several random field surveys were
made of the Augustine Creek Marsh. It was expected that much of the survey work would be
done by boat, however water levels in August were generally too low for this survey method
to be practical. At this time, several surveys were conducted on foot, and access to the marsh
was from the adjacent uplands. In October, water levels were higher and surveys were
accomplished almost entirely by boat.

Individual survey sites are assigned a letter, from A to F (see Appendix III, page 13). Natural
communities were characterized at observation points within individual survey sites (each
observation point is assigned a number, see Appendix III, page 13). At each observation point,
data were taken on plant species composition and relative abundance. Dominant species were
also noted. Plants that could not be identified in the field to the species level, were collected and
identified in the lab. Uncertain species identification are indicated on the data sheets (and on the
species list) by an sp. after the genus name.

After data were compiled, the dominant vegetation types were determined and mapped (see
Appendix III, page 13), using survey data and through a review of 1988 color infi-ared aerial
photography. In addition, location maps for plant species of special concern are included (see
Appendix III, page 13). Surveys for rare species were incomplete, as staff time was limited.
Future inventory work may reveal the presence of additional rare species.

RESULTS

The vegetation in the eastern section of the marsh is dominated by dense, monospecific stands
of Phragmites australis. From the start of the survey in August, until approximately early
October, water levels were relatively low, water temperatures were high, and algal blooms were
common. In some portions of the eastern section there is a narrow fringe of emergent vegetation,
which includes: Peltandra virginica, Pontederia cordata, Echinochloa waltefi, and other
common brackish-to-fresh water emergent species.

As one moves west (upstream), emergent plant species become more abundant. Dominant
emergent vegetation includes: Echinochloa walteii, Polygonuin lapathifoliwn, Peltandra
virginica, and Hibiscus moscheutos. Nuphar lutea and Ludwigia palustfis are also found in
abundance within this area.

Overall species diversity appears to be low in the Augustine Creek Marsh (see Appendix 1, page
10 for a list of plant species associated with the Augustine Creek Marsh). Sixty eight species of
vascular plants were identified, which is rather low for a fresh to brackish, emergent wetland.-
Eight alien species of plants were also identified, indicating an environment that is somewhat
stressed.

The establishment of the invasive plant species Phragmites australis is a serious problem
throughout the marsh. The alien Lythrwn salicaria (purple loosestrife) is also quiet abundant.
Phragmites and purple loosestrife are displacing many of the emergent plant species of the
wetland, and control methods should be undertaken to help restore biodiversity to the marsh.

Only two State rare plant species were found during this survey (see Appendix III, page 13):
Polygon= densiflonan (dense Rower knotweed S1, extremely rare, 5 or fewer occurrences in
the state) and Spartina pectinata (slough cordgrass SI). A more intensive search of the marsh,
particularly along the upper reaches of the tributaries, over an entire growing season, may prove
to be more productive.

Overall habitat quality of the Augustine Creek Marsh was subjectively assessed as ranging from
poor to good.

Augustine Creek Marsh was found to be heavily used by wading birds, shore birds, raptors,
waterfowl, etc. over the entire season (see Appendix II, page 12 for bird species observed at
Augustine Creek Marsh).

SURVEY SITE DESCRIMONS

The following information contains brief descriptions and locations of survey sites (A through
F, see Appendix M, page 13). Natural communities are described, and community scientific and
common names are given.

AREA A

This.rather small survey site is along the shoreline of the Delaware River. To reach this site,
proceed south on Route 9 from the village of Port Penn. Just past Augustine Beach, where
Route 9 curves to the right, there is a pull-off between the road and the river. The Observation
Point is at the shore where the path from the parking area ends. This site appears to be a
popular fishing spot.

The shoreline consists of a sandy substrate with some rip-rap material throughout.

Observation 1: Spaidna aftern#bm shoreline (cord grass shoreline). This point is a narrow
fringe of vegetation ranging from several emergent species at the rivers edge, to shrubs and trees
at the road. The dominant woody species is Bacchalis halimifiblia, while the dominant
herbaceous species are Spartina aftemiflora and Phragmites australis. This community is
subjected to tidal fluctuations and erosion along the exposed shoreline. Negative impacts from
recreational use includes trash disposal and trampling.

Species of Special Concern: -

Spartina pectinata (Sl) - A clump of plants, approximately 5 meters by 3 meters, with ca 50
culms. To date, this is the only known site for this species in the state of Delaware.

AREA B

This area includes the shoreline of the eastern end of the Augustine Creek, west of Route 9. This
area was surveyed by canoe, but since water levels were very low, only a portion could be
explored from the water. The shoreline generally consists of a narrow fringe of emergent
plants, which includes: Peltandra virginica, Leersia oryzoides, Echinochloa walteli, and
Potygonwn species. Just above the emergent zone the communities vary, with the dominant
plants being either Phragmites australis or Hibiscus moscheutos. Woody vegetation varies in
dominance, between Diospyros virginiana, Vibumwn dentatum., Comus sp., and Rhus copallina.

Observation 1: Phmgmifes austmUs brackish shoreline. At this point there is a narrow fringe
of emergent vegetation and a monospecific stand of Phragmites australis.

Observation 2: Hibiscus moscheutos - Echinochloa walteii brackish marsh (marsh mallow-
Walter's millet brackish marsh). This community is along a smaller stream leading into the
main Augustine Creek. Within this larger community is a small pond/cove dominated by 7ypha

latifolia and Scirpus tabemaemontand. Phragmites australis was less common here, and there
generally appears to be greater species diversity.

Species of Special Concern:

Polygonum densiflorum (SI) - This species is relatively frequent along the shoreline of
Augustine Creek, growing in shallow water mixed with other Polygon= species.

AREA C

This area is on Delaware Wildlands property; to reach this site, proceed south on Route 9 from
Port Penn,, when Route 9 turns sharply south, continue on Route 423 (McDonough Road). Turn
onto the first road on the right. Although this area contains dense stands of Phragmites australis,
it does not dominate, as it does in the eastern sections of the marsh. The vegetation is relatively
diverse and the area seems to support many bird species.

Observation 1: Hibiscus moscheutos - Leersia oryzoides - Peftandra virginica fresh to
brackish marsh (marsh mallow - rice cutgrass - arrow arum marsh). A heterogeneous marsh
with a variety of species assemblages. A zone of woody vegetation between the marsh and the
agricultural fields is dominated by Nburnwn dentatwn and also includes Rhus copallina and
Diospyros Wrginiana.

Observation 2: Hibiscus moscheutos - Echinochloa walteii fresh to brackish marsh (marsh
mallow - Walter's millet marsh). This emergent wetland has a berm across its outlet. It
appears to be impounded, but low water levels and thick vegetation make that determination
difficult. The wetland outside the "impoundment" is a scrub-shrub wetland. Observation point
2 includes only the emergent wetland. The vegetation is relatively diverse; Phragmites australis
dominates in a small portion of the area, mainly along the northeast woody edge.

Species of Special Concern: No State species of special concern were found in this area.

AREA D

This area is on Delaware Wildlands property; to reach the site, proceed south on Route 9 from
Port Penn; when Route 9 turns sharply south, continue on Route 423 (McDonough Road). Turn
onto the first road on the right. Continue on the dirt farm road and turn into the lane just beyond
the house trailer on the left. All the observation points in Area D are on this peninsula. An
active great blue heron nesting colony is visible across the marsh in Cumples Woods. The marsh
is used extensively by herons, as well as by many other waders, ducks, ospreys, and other birds.
This is a relatively diverse, high quality marsh.

Observation 1: Hibiscus moscheutos - Leersia oryzoides fresh to brackish marsh (marsh
mallow - rice cutgrass marsh). This is a diverse wetland, closely bordering a small creek
entering the larger marsh. Common emergents include Echinochloa walteri, Rwnex verticillatus,

Peltandra Wrginica, and 7ypha latifolia. Polygonum densiflorwn is frequent at this observation
point. There is woody vegetation throughout the area, with an abundance of trees and shrubs
along the wetland-upland interface, species include: Salix nigra and Vibumwn dentatwn.

Observation 2: Typha angusqoUa fresh to brackish marsh (narrowleaf cattail marsh). This
is a broad marsh, which gently grades to agricultural fields. Although dominated by 7ypha, the
marsh is relatively diverse, with frequent occurrences of Swnbucus canadensis, Solidago rugosa,
Potygonwn densiflonan, and other species.

Observation 3: Cephalanthus occidenwhs - Hibiscus moscheutos fresh to brackish marsh
(button bush - marsh mallow marsh). This wetland is dominated by woody vegetation,
including C occidentalis, Rosa palustfis, and Comus sp.

Observation 4: Bidens sp. - Echinochloa walteli fresh to brackish marsh (tickseed -
Walter's millet marsh). This is a broad, relatively diverse marsh. Some sections of the marsh
are dominated by 7ypha latifolia and Phragmites australis. The Bidens species that is dominant
in the marsh, was not blooming at the time of the survey and could not be identified. Other
common species found were: Polygonum spp., Scirpus cypefinus, Solidago rugosa, and several
grasses.

Species of Special Concern:

Polygonum dens#Torum (Sl) - Is frequent at observation point 1, common at point 2.

AREA E

The objective of the Area E survey was to cover all the major channels of Augustine Creek by
boat for a general study of cover types. This survey was limited by low water depths in the
smaller channels and detailed investigations of each observation point could not be done. The
survey was conducted beginning at the boat launch where Route 9 crosses Augustine Creek. It
progressed going west (upstream), generally following the main channel to the bridge where
Route 420 (Port Penn-Boyd's Corner Road) crosses the creek. There is an active beaver dam
below the bridge (between observation points 12 and 13). Going back downstream, observations,
were made in several of the guts, minor channels, and feeder streams up to points where access
was limited by low water depths.

Observation 1: Phmgmites austmUs brackish shoreline (common reed shoreline). This is
the boat launch site at Route 9. There is a sandy landing with Acer negundo. The banks of the
creek here are dominated by Phragmites australis.

Observation 2: Polygonum pennsylvanicum brackish shoreline (smartweed shoreline). There
is a narrow emergent zone here, which includes Rwnex verticillaws, Panicum dichotomiflonan,
and Peltandra Wrginica. The slightly higher woody zone is dominated by Diospyros virginiana
and Rhus copallina.

Observation 3: Phragmites australis brackish shoreline (common reed shoreline). Although
Phragmites australis dominates this area, there were many emergent species along a narrow
inundated zone. These include Peltandra virginica, LudWigia palustris, and Pontederia cordata.

Observation 4: Echinochloa walteri - Ludwigia palustris brackish marsh (Walter's millet -
water purslane marsh). This point is a shallow pond/cove off the main creek. Phragmites
australis is common in this area and Typha latifolia is frequent.

Observation 5: Typha latifolia brackish marsh (broadleaf cattail marsh). Another shallow
cove near Observation Point 4, with somewhat different vegetation. In addition to the dominant
T. latifiblia, Scirpus tabernaemontanii is frequent.

Observation 6: Phragmites australis brachish shoreline (common reed shoreline). The
shoreline emergent includes: Leersia oryzoides, Peltandra virginica, and Scirpus
tabemaemontanii.

Observation 7: Polygonum pennsylvanicum - Leersia oryzoides fresh to brackish shoreline
(smartweed - rice cutgrass shoreline). The narrow emergent zone is bordered by a broader
zone of woody vegetation, dominated by Diospyros virginiana and Rhus copallina.

Observation 8: Hibiscus moscheutos fresh to brackish marsh (marsh mallow marsh). This
point is dominated by H. moscheutos. The emergent zone includes Nuphar lutea, Peltandra
virginica, and Rumex verticillatus. N. lutea increases in abundance going upstream, beginning
in this area.

Observation 9: Phragmites australis - Peltandra virginica brackish shoreline (common reed
shoreline). This narrow emergent zone includes Rwnex verticillatus, Hibiscus moscheutos, and
Ludwigia palustris.

Observation 10: typha latifolia - Polygonum lapathifolium fresh to brackish marsh/shoreline
(broadleaf cattail - nodding smartweed marsh/shoreline). The creek banks here are thickly
lined with P. lapathifioliwn and Ludwigia palustis. T. larifolia dominates the marsh beyond.
Viburnum dentatum and Lythrum salicaria are scattered throughout this area of the marsh in
thick, dense stands.

Observation 11: Hibiscus moscheutos - Nuphar lutea fresh to brackish shoreline ( marsh
mallow - spatterdock shoreline). At this point, there are patches of Vibumum dentatwn
scattered among the H. moscheutos. N. lutea is abundant in the channel.

Observation 12: Nuphar lutea - Ludwigia palustris fresh to brackish shoreline (spatterdock-
water purslane shoreline). Phragmites australis and Lythrwn salicaria are common here and
there is a zone of woody vegetation dominated by Vibumum dentatwn and Diospyros virginiana.

Observation 13: Nuphar lutea - Ludwigia palustris fresh water shoreline (spatterdock-water
purslane shoreline). This observation point is found just above the beaver dam; Rosa palustris
dominates the woody zone here.

Observation 14: Acer rubrum - Viburnum dentatum wooded wetland/shoreline (red maple-
arrowwood wetland/shoreline). This is a forested flood plain wetland dominated by Acer
rubrum. There is little herbaceous vegetation, which includes Onoclea sensibilis and Boehmeria
cylindrica.

Observation IS: Nuphar lutea - Ludwigia palustris fresh water shoreline (spatterdock-water
purslane shoreline). This observation point is very similar to #13. Rosa palustils dominates the
woody zone here.

Observation 16: Hibiscus moscheutos - Ludwigia palustris fresh water marsh (marsh mallow
- water purslane marsh). This marsh is located near the bridge crossing on Augustine Creek
(Pole Bridge Road/Port Penn-Boyd's Comer Road). The vegetation is a mixture of woody and
herbaceous species, including Cephalanthus occidentalis, Salix nigra, Acer rubnan, Leersia
orywides, Scirpus cypefinus, and Peltandra virginica.

Observation 17: Nuphar lutea - Peftandm virginica fresh water gut/shoreline (spatterdock-
arrow arum gut/shoreline). This point is a shallow gut off the main creek, below the beaver
dam. Common emergent plants include: Acorus calwnus and Rumex verticillatus. Beyond the
emergent zone, Hibiscus moscheutos and Viburnwn dentatum are abundant.

Observation 18: Polygonum pennsylvanicum - Peftandra Wrginica fresh water gut/shoreline
(nodding smartweed - arrow artun gut/shoreline). This gut branches off Augustine Creek
further downstream than #17. The water levels are relatively shallow here and plants species
found were: Nuphar lutea, Leersia orywides, and Rume-x verticillatus. Mum= dentatwn
occurs at slightly higher elevations along the stream banks.

Observation 19: Hibiscus moscheutos - Peltandm Wrginica fresh to brackish shoreline
(marsh mallow - arrow arum shoreline). This point is near the mouth of a stream entering
Augustine Creek from the southwest. There is some invasion of Phragmites australis, but it is
not dominant. Other emergent plants include: Juncus effiaus, Polygonum lapathifiblium, and
7ypha latifiblia.

Observation 20A: Phmgmites austmlis fresh to brackish marsh/shoreline (common reed
marsh/shoreline). Although P. australis is the dominant species in this area, there are many
emergents on the shoreline, including: Echinochloa walteri, Leersia orywides, Peltandra
virginica, and Hibiscus moscheutos.

Observation 20B: Echinochloa waltefi - LudMgia palustris fresh to brackish cove/pond
(Walter's millet - water purslane cove/pond). A shallow pond adjacent to the main creek.
Common species include Scirpus tabemaemontanii, Hibiscus moscheutos, LudMgia palustfis,

and Peltandra virginica.

Observation 21: Typha Wolia - Hibiscus moscheutos - Rumex veyficillatus fresh to brackish
shoreline (broadleaf cattail - marsh mallow - swamp dock shoreline). Common species
include: Echinochloa walteri, Leersia oryzoides, 7ypha Wfolia, and Ludwigia palustris.
Viburnum dentatum is abundant in the woody zone.

Observation 22: Echinochloa walterf - Polygonum anfolium fresh to brackish marsh/wet
meadow (Walter's millet - halberd-leaved tearthumb marsh/wet meadow). This point (north
side of Augustine Creek) is accessed by a boardwalk leading into the marsh from the adjacent
upland. The area is dominated by Panicwn dichotomiflon4m and P. virgatwn.

Observation 23: Echinochloa wafteri - Leersia oryzoides fresh to brackish shoreline (Walter's
millet - rice cutgrass shoreline). This point (as well as #24 and #25) is upstream in one of the
larger streams flowing from the north into the eastern portion of Augustine Creek. Many
emergent plants are found growing along the shoreline, and there is a dense woody zone
dominated by Vi*burnwn dentatum and Diospyros virginiana.

Observation 24: Viburnum dentatum - Leersia oryzoides fresh to brackish shoreline
(arrowwood - rice cutgrass shoreline). The woody zone is close to the shoreline here,
dominated by V. dentatum, Diospyros virginiana, and Rhus copallina. Echinochloa walteri,
Ludvvigia palustris, Leersia orywides and Rumex verticillatus make up the relatively sparse
emergent community.

Observation 25: Viburnum dentatum- Echinochloa waUerf fresh to brackish shoreline
(arrowwood - Walter' millet shoreline). Emergent plants are abundant at this observation
point, and include Leersia orywides, Lud%dgia palustris, and Hibiscus moscheutos.

Species of Special Concern: No State species of special concern were found in this area.

AREA F

This area includes wetlands associated with a headwater wetland/stream that leads to Augustine
Creek Marsh, as well as a marsh reached by a boardwalk. Access to both areas was through
the Fortner property bordering the north edge of the creek. The boardwalk is reached by driving
through the Fortner property agricultural fields to the edge of the marsh.

Observation 1: Hibiscus moscheutos - Sagiuaria Wfolia fresh to brackish marsh (marsh
mallow - arrowhead marsh). This area was observed from the more western of two
boardwalks constructed into the marsh from the north side of Augustine Creek Marsh. As the
elevation increases, species such as Polygon= afifoliwn and Echinochloa walterii become more
common, with slightly more elevation, woody species such as Viburnum dentatwn become
dominant.

Observation 2: Zkania aquatica fresh water marsh (wild rice marsh). This nearly monotypic
stand of Z aquatica is located in the upper portions of a headwater stream that leads to a
tributary of Augustine Creek. The swale/depression in which it is located is surrounded by
wooded wetlands dominated by Acer rubrwn. A large stand of Phragmites australis is located
nearby.

Observation 3: Hibiscus moscheutos - Typha lWolia - Phragmites austmUs fresh to brackish
marsh (mixed marsh). This observation point followed the stream toward Augustine Creek.
Species found, generally form large, rather monotypic stands throughout the marsh. Species
diversity is relatively low here, and the area appears to be disturbed (earth-moving, ditching,
etc.).

Species of Special Concern: No State species of special concern were found in this area.

ZOOLOGICAL PqVENTORY RESULTS

Although not specified in the scope of this project, a limited zoological inventory was done. Bird
species were recorded when seen, but other animals were not specifically searched for. It is
difficult to speculate to what extent this system provides feeding or breeding habitat for many
of the animal species present. Future zoological inventories should be done to determine the
significance of Augustine Creek Marsh to breeding birds, migratory birds, invertebrates
(dragonflies, Lepidopteran species, etc.) and fish. A bird species list with state ranks can be
found in Appendix II.

Pea Patch Island, which lies approximately 8 miles northeast of Augustine Creek Marsh is the
largest multi-species heronry on the Atlantic coast north of Florida. Preliminary results from
a study undertaken on Pea Patch Island in 1993 (Manomet Bird Observatory), to determine
critical foraging areas for these species, indicates that Augustine Creek Marsh is providing
important feeding habitat for this colony. Great egrets (Casmerodius albus), snowy egrets
(Egretta thula), little blue heron (Egretta caendea), cattle egret (Bulbulcus ibis), glossy ibis
(Plegadis falcinellas), and great blue, herons (Ardea herodeas) all use this system regularly.

Ospreys were observed during each visit (one to three per visit). This indicates that Augustine
Creek Marsh may provide important foraging habitat for this species. Osprey populations have
declined in northern Delaware, so these observations may be significant in terms of habitat
management for this species.

APPENDIX I

PLANT SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH AUGUSTINE CREEK MARSH
1993
(incomplete)

Acer rubrum red maple
Acer negundo box elder
Acorus calamus sweetflag
Amaranthus cannabinus water hemp
Baccharis halimifolia groundsel bush
Bidens sp. beggarticks
Boehmeria cylindrica false nettle
Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush
Cyperus erythrorhizos red-root nut-sedge
Cyperus odorata fragrant nut-sedge
Cyperus sp. an umbrella sedge
Diospyros virginiana persimmon
Echinochloa walteri Walter's millet
Eclipta prostrata Yerba-de-tajo (alien)
Erechtites hieracifolia fire-weed
Eragrostis sp- love grass
Eupatorium dubium joe-pye-weed
Eupatoriwn pilosum hairy thoroughwort
Euthamia graminifolia slender fragrant goldenrod
Hibiscus moscheutos marsh mallow
flex verticillata winterberry
Impatiens capensis jewel weed
Iris pseudacorus yellow iris (alien)
Juncus effusus smooth rush
Leersia oryzoides rice-cut grass
Lemna minor duckweed
Lobelia cardinalis cardinalflower
Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle (alien)
Ludwigia palustris water purslane
Lycopus americanus water horehound
Lythrum salicaria purple loosestrife (alien)
Microstegiurn vimineum alien grass (alien)
Nuphar lutea spatterdock
Onoclea sensibilis sensitive fern
Panicum dichotomiflorum fall panic grass
Panicum virgatum switch grass

Peltandra virginica: arrow arum
Phragmites australis common reed
Pluchea odorata marsh fleabane
Polygonwn arifolium tearthumb
Polygonum densiflorum (SI) smartweed
Polygonum hydropiperoides mild water pepper
Polygonum lapathioium pale smartweed (alien)
Polygonum pennsylvanicum Pennsylvania smartweed
Polygonwn punctatwn water smartweed
Polygonwn sagittatum arrowleaf tearthum
Polygonwn sp. smartweed
Prunus serotina black cherry
Rhus copallina winged sumac
Rosa palustris swamp rose
Rumex verticillatus swwnp dock
Sagittaria latifolia broad-leaf arrowhead
Salix nigra black willow
Sambuccus canadensis elderberry
Scirpus cyperinus woolgrass sedge
Scirpus tabernaemontanii bullrush (alien)
Scutellaria lateriflora mad-dog skullcap
Setaria magna giantfox-tail
Solidago rugosa rugose goldenrod
Spirodela polyrhiza duckweed
Typha angustifolia narrow-leaf cattail (alien)
Typha latifolia broad-leaf cattail
Verbena hastata wild vervain
Viburnwn dentatum southern arrowood
Zizania aquatica wild rice

APPENDIX II

BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED AT AUGUSTINE CREEK MARSH
1993

Great blue heron (Ardea herodeas) S2B
Great egret (Casmerodius albus) S2B
Green heron (Butorides striatus S5B
Snowy egret (Egretta thula) SIB
Little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) S2B
Cattle egret (Bulbulcus ibis) S2B
Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellas) S2B
Canada goose (Branta canadensis) S3B, S5N
Wood duck (Aix sponsa) S4B
Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) S4B
American black duck (Anas rubripes) S4B
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) S5B
American coot (Fulica americana) S2B, S3N
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca) S3N
Common tern (Sterna hirunqdo) S1B, S3N
Osprey (Pandion haleatus) S4B
Red-tailed hawk (Buteo Jamaiccensis) S5B
Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) S5B
Tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) S4B
Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus) S5B
Gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) S5B
Eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe) S5B
Common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) S5B
Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) S5B
Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) S5
Indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea) S5B
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis) S5

APPENDEK M

MAPS AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Survey Areas, A through F
Figure 2: Observation Points for Survey Areas A, B, C, D, F
Figure 3: Observation Points for Survey Area E
Figure 4: Species of Special Concern
Figure 5: Vegetative Cover Types

STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
89 KINGS HIGHWAY, P.O. BOX 1401
DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

OFFICIAL BUSINESS, PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

40-06-00

STATE RANK

S1 Extremely rare within the state (typically 5 or fewer occurrences) or because some factor
immediately threatens the future existence of this species within the state.

S2 Very rare within the state (typically 6 to 20 known occurrences). Species is succeptable
to becoming extirpated.

S3 Rare to uncommon; typically 21 to 100 kn own occurrences. S3 species are not
immediately threatened with extirpation, but may be if additional populations are destroyed.

S4 Species apparently secure within the state under present conditions.

S5 Species very common throughout the state; demonstrably secure under present conditions.

SU Species status uncertain within the state. Usually an uncommon species which is believed
to be of conservation concern but there is inadequate data to determine degree of rarity.

SH Species historically known from the state but populations or reproductive evidence not
verified for an extended period of time (usually 15 + years). There are expectations that this
species may be rediscovered.

SX Species presumed to be entirely extirpated from the state. All historical locations and/or
potential habitat has been inventoried unsuccessfully. There are no expectations that this species
will be rediscovered within the state.

SE Exotic (introduced through human infiuence) within the state; not a part of the native
fauna.

SR Reported from the state, but no evidence exists for accepting or rejecting the report.

SRF Reported falsely from the state but this report persists in the literature.

SA A species which occasionally accidentally enters the state.

SC A species which casually enters the state on a periodic basis but there is no evidence
of reproduction or of potential reproductive habitat existing within the state.

For long distance migrant animals, a particular species' breeding status may be very different
than its noribreeding status, i.e. a species which winters commonly in Delaware may be a rare
breeder within the state. B and N qualifiers are used to denote breeding and nonbreeding
status respectively. For example, the Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) is an uncommon
winter resident but a very rare breeder and is therefore ranked SlB, S3N. A Z qualifier is used
to denote species which regularly migrate through the state but do not breed or winter in
Delaware. For lepidoptera, species, however, a SZB rank can be given for those individuals
which regularly migrate through the state, breed, but no individuals survive to maturity.

DOMINANT VEGETATION TYPES:

RP: Rosa palustris

HM: Hibiscus moscheutos

S/S: Scrub-Shrub (Viburnum dentatum, Diospyros virginiana, Rhus copallina)

PFO/AR: Palustrine Forested/Acer rubrum

TL: Typha latifolia

ME: Mired emergents

PIC,

JAV

t.0tr

Figure 5: Vegetative Cover Types

't@

fl" c

I
i
I
t
-PblvqoyN(Ayy\ a, * @l OfLL Vy-\ .
I
i

i
0

1:5

if
1 8)
12 1 I@k
.1
I
I q e /:FA nr4 f- Cpe .
ur @
vq 5

ICIps vi t

's
prea

Figure 2: Observation Points for Survey Areas A, B, C, D, F

11
0-

I'll
E . 0
AU
e- C 6'Q
(9
9

L---@j

cz%s U..21'-ATEQS el
- Figure 1: Survey Areas, A through F

APPENDIX IV

FIEID FORMS

STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
89 KINGS HIGHWAY, P.O. BOX 1401
DOVER, DELAWARE 19903

OFFICIAL BUSINESS, PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

40-06-00

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: 2. Site name:

3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:
Fq,@ wit405'A CKA.,-, r EAZ S
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
0?>23q.5 C I T-f
B. state: 9. County: 10. Town:
, Zf- IqGw CASTLE-
11. Directions.
pA o0' lcfil@@tLO-
,5 V--7- 9 , a@@r I
+ AU
ctus road auf-s s@n&rpul +0
iy6i I -@o pop U-1 lx@ @@5

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

P--r
A"A

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point.: Observation Point: Observation Point:

Community name: Community name: Community name:
Spwfina 61-krni%ro, L*,01dAVk
soil comments: soil comments: Soil comments:
-Xr)LL mota;@TCL

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:

+6yruL

Herb: Herb: Herb:

Commentsi Comments: Comments:
IN& ay-ea@
(AislKw6tot 6,1
5M\je@/-@Al plC(Le-d-

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)
tj
bgi-. cir'l 6?(j4h

X
K@

Lop- is R_ I -b CrE

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values)

Species Ob # cv Species Ob # CV Species Ob CV
I - I - I -
Acorus calamus - - - - - - @npaticns capensia - - - - - - Tbalictr= pubescens - - - - - -
AUsma subcordatum - - - - - - Iris pseudaconis - - - - - - Thtlypteris paLustris - - - - - -
Amaranthus c-m-binus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Ambrosia trifida - - - - - - Juncus ac,,mmn,tus - - - - - - Triad. vixginicum - - - - - -
Amorphs frutescens - - - - - - Juncus caaadensis - - - - - - Typtut angustifolia - - - - - -
Apios americana - - - - - - Juncus effusus - - - - - - T. x glauca - - - - - -
Aslepias incamaLa - - - - - - L=rsia oryzoides T. latifolia - - - - - -
Aster puniccus - - - - - - LzcrsL,a Vu,gu,u*ca - - - - - - Vaccinium corymb. - - - - - -
Aster sp. - - - - - - Lcmna minor - - - - - - Viburnum rccogn. - - - - - -
Bid= bidentoides - - - - - - Lilaeopsis chmcnsis - - - - - - Viola sp. - - - - - -
Bidens connats iliura superburn - - - - - - Wofffia brazillensis - - - - - -
Bidcns coronata - - - - - - Lobelia cardiaalis - - - - - - 7;7nnia aquatica - - - - - -
Bidens frondosa - - - - - - Ludwigia palustris - - - - - -
Bidens brvis - - - - - - Ludwigia peploides . . . . . . OTHER
Bideus polylepis - - - - - - Lycopussp. - - - - - -
Carex strith - - - - - - Lysimachia tenutris . . . . . .
Carex sp, Lytbr= sahcaria
- - - - - - - - - - - - Y" cqmazu@ -is.
Cepbalanthus occidentalia Nuphar lute&
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Ceratophyllum demersum - - - - - - Osmunds cinn, omea @'i n cs@
Cicuta maculata - - - - - - Oxypolis rigidior - - -
Cinna arundinacea - - - - - - Panicum virgatum - i- - - - - - -
Clethra ainifolia - - - - - - Panicurn sp. - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cornus amornum, Peltandra virginica
Comus racemosa Phalaris anmdinacea
Cryptotacnia canadensis - - - - - - Phragmites australis
Cuscuta sp. - - - - - - Pluchea odoratgL
Cyperus odoratus; - - - - - - Polygonum, arifolium - - - - - - - -
Cyperus eng. - - - - - - P. hydropiperoide3 - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cyperus eryffirorbizos - - - - - - P. punctatum - - - - - - - - - - - -
cypcrus esculentus - - - - - - P. sagittatum - - - - - - - - - - - -
cyperus sp. - - - - - - Pontedcria. cordata - - - - - - -
Decodon verticillatus - - - - - - Pdlimniura capillac. - - - - - - - - - - - -
Echinochloa crusgal - - - - - - Riccia fluitans
Echinochloa walteri - - - - - - Rosa palustris
Elcocharis obtusa R. multiflora
Eleocharis palustris - - - - - - Rumcx verticiU. - - - - - -
Eleocharis parvula - - - - - - Sagittaria calycina - - - - - -
Elcoebaris tenuis S. Latifolia
Erethtitcs; hieracifolia - - - - - - Salix nligra
Eupatorium sp. Sarnolus parvulus - - - - - -
Euthamia sp. Scirpus cyperinus - - - - - -
Fraxinus pensylvanica - - - - - - S. fluviatilis
Glyceria sp. - - - - - - S. pungens
Heteranthera rcaifortnis S. robustus
Hibiscus moscheutoa Sium suave
Humulus japorucus Spargazu- curycarp.
Hydrocotyle americans - - - - - - Spartina alterniflora ajrL
11ex opaca - - - - - - S. cynosuroides - - - - - --
Rex verticiU ta - - - - - - Spirodela polyrhiza - - - - - -
L.. -)(- @FAC,4c-A Ct;-rU/rY,_

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: 2. Site name:

3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:
F-93 C. WIALMrm Fix,,4 woy
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: - 7. Quadcode: Fo? 5-5-57-
oqo?oq-3 260 .UMP-E- C( 7A,-u-cr-16f-,Yj1- 3 7092-4-5-
8. State: Z!@- 9. County: /14 EW C .4 S 77- 10. Town: '@QV-7- -PV- /14 A]
11. Directions:
'70 rfach &,d I P-T' sot@-111
-@xe vi Y1.
4ttju YH ne- M 0,P

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

IOPL^D IS PON D

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

ion Point: observation Point: Obse n Point:
0bservat 2 rva@,
Community name: Community name: Communit "17 e:
EBISMILICALL'f-3 71toft- C1415T0'9.1(ALL\43 TIDA<- y
VIRhcv- [email protected] MhRS+I-
Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil co nts:
D-4T Y--b)
Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shk@@
INC>5?y ros/ \14 6u i-nLA

Herb: Herb: Herb:

6wiya'-U&

Comments: Comments: Commer@ s
Kv,&h o@- f^r@ caeic VAAJ,(- SOYY\.Q- obot6 CL4Y-01-
bLj WO-1, --
taw-r ry"
5cat@ered @ZJLA,-U" [email protected] -T. [C(4i@Glrc- J0yy\;V-Na-f%Ce-
yyw@-e, ai\4eyse- covy\MU@y'\'i-He's.
TKe- 1-fm lshyuAo We&rd @d
C r-fa(!@
Y\ -@@ OL rt 0@ . byy/

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise- location of observation points)

pilik

24
_4

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

species Ob # 060- Species Ob Species Ob # ob
1 2 1 1 2-

Acorus calamus - - - - - - Impatiens capeasis - - - - - - Thalictrum pubescens . . . . . .
Afisma subcordatum Iris pseudacorus - - - - - - Thelypteris palustris - - - - - -
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Ambrosia trifida Juncus acuminatus - - - - - - Triad. virginicum - - - - - -
Amorpha frutescens - - - - - - Juncus canadensis - - - - - - Typha angusufoda 'Mr-- EP-:F--
Apios americans Juncus effusus T. x glauca - - - - - -
Aslepias :1 Fie Lzersia oryzoides T. latifolia
Aster puniceus L=rsia virginica Vaccinium corymb.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
A StCT 3P. -77- Lemna minor - - - Viburnum recogn.
Bidens bidentoides - - - - - - Lilaeopsis chinensts . . . . . . Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lillurn superbum - - - - - - Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronata LobeLia cardinalis 7;7mia aquatics - - - - - -
Bidens ftondc, Ludwigia palustris
Bidens Laevis - - - - - - Ludwigi3 peploides OTHER
Bidens polylepis - - - - - - Lycopus sp. - - - - - - PrUv%kS 5AY6+ir\P- ---
Carcx suicta Lysimachia terrearis . . . 0"5 WaGX0L- -f&&;::. ---
Carex sp. - - - - - - Lythrum salicaria DTsf-- --- 50.3?%jr0SViV5ir1ian 6 M4 -
CephaiAnthus occidentalis --- -I&E Nuphar lutca - - - - - - Vi 6s)-a@+6
Ceratophyllum demersum - - - - - - Osmunda cinn-momea - - - - - -
Cicuta maculata Oxypolis rigidior
Ciana arundinacca - - - - - - Pamcurn virgatum DUE:-
Panicum djChtDrhd@r.
Clethra alnifolia TN
Cornus amomum - - - Peltandra virginica 29:Z M-71 - - - - - -
Corous racemosa Pbalaria arundinacea - - - - - -
Cryptotacnia canadensis Phragraites australis COM
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorata, - - - - - -
Cypcrus odoratus -F Polygonum arifolium V;VE, - - - - - -
Cyperus eng-channu - - - - - - -x-p-demManwn QL@
Cyperus crythrorhizos - - - - - - P. otiacopiperdidA& r-@@.
Cyperus esculentus - - - - - - P- PUi%C*CLft- - - - - - -
Cypents sp. - - - - - - Pontederin cordata - - - - - - - - - - - -
Decodon verticillatus Ptilimni- capillac- --- -_ -_ -_I -_ -_ --
Echinochloa crusgaW Riccia fluitans - - - - - -
Echinochloa walteri Rosa palustris - - -
FIcocharis obtusa R. multiflorn
Eleocharis palustris, - - - - - - Rumex vcrticifl.
Eleochaxis parvula - - - - - - Sagittaria calycins.
Eleocharis tenuis S. ladfolia
Erechtites hieracifolia M7 Saa nigra - - - - - -
Eupatorium ru@osu WN Samolus parvulus.
Eutharnia sp. - - - - - - SCL,TPUS. cypermus
Fraxinus pensylvanica S
Glyceria sp. - - - - - - S. pungens
Heteranthcra rcniformis S. robustus
Hibiscus moscheutos i4:17- -gzt-U- Sium suave
Humulus japonicus Sparganitun. eurycarp.
- - - - - - - - - - - --
Hydrocotyie americans - - - - - - Spartina alterniflofa
Ilex opsca S. cynosuraides
flex verticillata Spirodela poly&iza

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION
1. Survey site name: A0".ST-7r,1F-- uzc-cAt- 2. Site name: F-A CCD
3. Source code; 4. Surveyors:
F-q':SWi/,q /2- cj t rATT-k-S
5. Date: 0q,j 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcade:
'f 3 Thqt-o-p-'s
8. state,.... 9. County: 10. Town:
NfU3 CA-STL E
11. Directions:
q - )ZI- 9 iuyvl S C eydi YA@
0-n c-DeN a-L-r -Fu r rj ory@ ro a,( a-,., r
ay\ 4a@ ro -,-,a 4t@

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

UPL Zelzm
CR S Fly- 0 N.

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT,

Observation Point: Observation Point: Observation Point:

Community name: Community name: Community name:

PREs)+ GIRAcvuso MA12-SK
Soil comments: Soil.comments: Soil comments:

Dominant species Dominant specie s: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:

Herb: Herb: Herb:
(+i &@c Lze'" I +/-PC. I -r,*ii Z> F-A Hminzo5/ ,
os/ &*41NO@@HLOA

Comments: Comments: Comments:
-rl.,js 4yep*, 7D-Rw-6y-ed+o &)W&Y,,a berm
SU.P'P0"*- @iytLs
kr ry-,@ re-
phvajr'. Y@ttr abrn@ VA&yd- .rATU'UnOW

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)
-7-

120 10

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

species Ob # Ob 44F Species Ob species Ob ob*f:

Acorus calamus - - - - - - Impatiens capeasis - - - Thalictrum pubesccns . . . . . .
Afisma subcordatum - - - - - - Iris pseudacorus - - - - - - Thelypteris palustris - - - - - --
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad - - - - - - -
Ambrosia trifida - - - - - Juncus acuminaws - - - - - - Triad. virgiaicum - - - - - -
Amorpha frutesccns - - - - - - Juncus canadcnsis - - - - - - Typha, ang-ustifolia - - - - - -
Apios arnericaaa - - - - - - Juncus effusus T. x glauca
Aslepias incarnata - - - - - - Leersia oryzoides aZ-0-- Rai T. latifolia
Aster puniceus - - - - - - Ltersia virginica Vaccinium, corymb.
Aster sp. Lzmna n-Linor DEF-1 Viburnum recoga.
Bidens Ulaeopsis chinensis - - - - - - Viola sp.
Bidens connata. Lilium superbum - - - - - - Wolffia braziliensis - - - - - -
Bidens coronata - - - - Lobelia cardinali3 7;7-n;- aquatica - - - - - -
Bidens frondosa - - - - - - Ludwigia palustris i&i --C&T--
Bidens larvis Ludwigia pcploides . . . . . . OTHER
Bidens polytepis Lycopus Rp- [email protected] C:,@,
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Carex strieta Lysimachia termstris \11 M16@
carex
LYLhrum saficuis L6,Y MA
E ---
Cephalanthus occidentalis - - - - - - Nupbar lutes, - - - - -bopl@nvyi 1(rdricak--- EV-E-z
Ccratophyllum demersum - - - - - - Osmunda cinn-momea --- -
Cicuta maculata Oxypolis rigidior
Cinna arundinacea Panic= Vifgatnra NCM@1#9) U M
Clethra alnifolia - - - - - - Panicum(kvvlrom - - - - - -
Cornus amonturn - - - - - - Peltartdra virginica acK E&Z@- - - - - - -
Cornus racemosa Phalaris arundinscea
CryptoLsenia canadcasis - - - - - - Phragmitea ausU63 EoD- - - - - - -
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorata - - - - - -
Cyperus odoratus Polygonum Fifolium - - - - - -
C@yperus eng P.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Cypems erjthrorhizos P. hj6roj@-pem& A (50 IT - - - - - -
Ofperus esculentus P. pei%,,Nj\fdAtWM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cyperus sp. Pontedcria cordata - - - QL L
Decodon verLicillatus Ptilimnium capWw . . . . . . . J
Echinochloa crusgal Riccia fluitans
Echinochloa walteri --Ul-K- Mly Rosa palustris rr
Eleocharis obtusa R. multiflom
Elcocharis palustris Rumex verticiU, C6@-
Eleocharis parvuls - - - - - - Sagginaria calycina - - - - - -
Elembaris tettuis S. latifolia. --- -Yif-
Erechutes hieracifolia Salix nigra - - - - - -
Eupatorium &kj@kum Samolus parvulus
Euthamis sp. - - - - - -- Scirpus cyperinus
Fraxinus pensylvanica - - - - - - S. fluviatilis - - - - - -
Glyceria sp. - - - - - S. pungcns - - - - - --
Heteranthera reniformis S. robustas - - - - - -
Hibiscus moscheutos Sium suave
Humulus japonicus - - - - - -- Spargani- auycwp . . . . . . .
Hydrocoryle americans Spartins. alterniflora - - - - - --
Ilex opaca - - - - - - S. cynosuroides - - - - - -
S iirodela polyrhi7A BkZ,@
ta P

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey s ite name: Aoct03-rINF- CRE-'g- 2. Site name: 14eF-A

3. source Code: 4. Surveyors:

5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
-rAWP_S
8. State: T) F_ 9. County: /YEL"') (A-STI_@_@ 10. Town: -Po A:r 31z! 1-4 Iq
11. Directions:
7@,@ P-04t` 'i SOLL+h whan a* 9 -tLtrvi SoLO
tic-loy)mA.9 Vi Rd _TL& Ysi o-n 4-o tKe_ road OV\ -t
-%rrv, rmck o-,A 1,eft I(As+ poa+ -hu_ Ytouse_ -troL@(w. Fot(o,,, rocLj Cs4-@ 41D
K" @i fAd /)-nct,s

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. econnalsance Diagram:

I \fscr, MA ES W

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT
Observation-Point: Observation Point: .2 Observation Point:
Community rLame: Community name: Community name:

FK*S14 rIA" H
Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:
'SATVf_*TM -> 1/4 ON D4--E-b, -D 1/1 Li/4 D,+-rF- 1/4 L)74 D-4,1re-0
r\UL4C_-f
Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:.,. Tree/Shrub:

LnLP4 0 N
_,+f4 !>

Herb: Herb: Herb:
G I'v- 0-5 IZ_ f_ g_g S I A 7ypttA ANCrOS7-7FOI@4,4 jq18/56LJ_5

Comments: Comments: Comments:

5irx;1 4 -e) e
C rfeA- -
CxrMikf v e7@@ G-r\, ea,
a
@

_t
2, @econnj_,,n,, lia,,,*

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)

N USGS TAYLOR'S BRIDGE
QUAD

X165

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

Species Ob # Ob # Ob# Species Ob # Ob # Ob # Species Ob # Ob # Ob #
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Acorus calamus --- --- Impatiens capensis --- --- Thalictrum pubescens --- ---
Alisma subcordatum --- --- Iris pseudacorus FRE --- Thelypteris palustris --- ---
Amoranthus cannabinus --- --- Juncus acuminatus --- --- Toxicodendron rad. --- ---
Ambrosia trifida --- --- Juncus canadensis --- --- Triad. virginicum --- ---
Amorpha frutescens --- --- Juncus effusas FRE --- Typha angusifolia --- ABUN
Apoios americana --- --- Leersia oryzoides ABUN --- T. x glauca --- ---
Aslepias incarnata --- --- Leersia virginica --- --- T. latifolia _ COM --- COM
Aster puniceus --- --- Lernna minor --- --- Vaccinium corymb. --- ---
Aster sp. --- --- Lilaeopsis chinensis --- --- Viburnurn recogn. COM ---
Bidens bidentoides --- --- Lilium superbum --- --- Viola sp. --- ---
Bidens coronata --- --- Lobelia cardinalis --- --- FRE Wolffia braziliensis --- ---
Bidens frondosa --- --- Ludwigia pahistis --- --- Zizania aquatica --- ---
Bidens laevis --- --- Ludwigia peploidea COM ---
Bidens polylepis --- --- Lycopus sp. --- --- OTHER
Carex stricta --- --- Lysimachia terrestris --- --- FRE Solidago semperivirens INF ---
Carex sp. --- --- Lythrum salicaria --- --- Commelind sp. INF ---
Cephalanthus occidentalis --- --- ABUN Nuphar hitea --- --- Solidago rugosd --- COM
Ceratophyllum demersum --- --- Osmunds cinnamornea --- --- Verbeno hcototo --- FRE
Cicuta masculata --- --- Oxypolis rigidior --- --- Sombucus candensis --- FRE
Cinna arundinacca --- --- Panicum virgatum FRE --- Eupatorium dubiurn --- --- FRE
Clethra alnifoila --- --- Panicum sp. --- --- --- ---
Cornus sp. FRE --- FRE Peltandra virginica COM --- --- ---
Cornus racemosa --- --- Phalaris arundinacea --- --- --- ---
Cryptotaenia canadensis --- --- Phragmites australia COM --- --- ---
Cuscut sp. --- --- Pluchea odorata --- --- --- ---
Cyperus odoratus --- --- Polygonum arifolium --- --- --- ---
Cyperus engelmannii --- --- P. hydropiperoides --- --- --- ---
*Cyperus erythrorhizos INF --- *P. densifloruim FRE COM --- ---
Cyperus esculentus --- --- P. sagittstum --- --- --- ---
Cyperus sp. --- --- Pontederia cordata FRE --- --- ---
Decodon verticillatus --- --- Ptilimnium capillac. --- --- --- ---
Echinochloa crusgalli --- --- Riccia fluitans --- --- --- ---
Echinochloa walteri COM --- Rosa palustris --- --- FRE
Eleocharis obtusa --- --- R. multiflora --- ---
Eleocharis palustris --- --- Rumex vericill. ABUN ---
Eleocharis parvula --- --- Sagittaria calycins --- ---
Eleocharis tenuis --- --- S. latifolia FRE ---
Erecbtites hieracifolia FRE --- Salix nigra FRE
Eupatorium pilosum INF --- Samolus parvulus --- ---
Euthamia graminifolid --- COM Scirpus cyperinus --- ---
Fraxinus pensylvanica --- --- S. fabernaernontanii FRE ---
Glyceria sp. --- --- S. pungens --- ---
Heteranthera reniformis --- --- S. robustus --- ---
Hibiscus moscheutos ABUN FRE ABUN Sium suave --- ---
Humulus japonicus --- --- Sparganium eurycarp. --- ---
Hydorcotyle americana --- --- Spartina alterniflora --- ---
Ilex opaca --- --- S. cynosuroides --- ---
Ilex verticillata --- --- Spirodela polyrhiza --- ---

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES: * species of special concern

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: 2. Site name:

3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:
- F:q3 LoN C. TE e.-'@
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
0&.2-5(73 -rh-*-0P-,5 -if. I
8. State: 9. County: 10. Town:

11. Directions-

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

t4 A\(Fje@@
WAN MA"tf

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point: observation Point: Observation Point:

Community name: Community name: Community name:
C4L570aAcAtLY3 -rjz,4(-
PUS14 -MtV-Aa1Sff MA"-ff-
soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

:ST.491-t-
Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
bP1fAL,+NT-ff0S
ocr- tbeNrM-As

Herb: Herb: Herb:
cf. (nd-;n 61&oyn)/
Eck@nochca2,

Comments: Comments: Comments:
ReA &h-,," diks-e- ad-
i-A a rsh AA- e dy- 66 or-
durruina@td 6,f Twklb,
@ @A@F@jj@

WC,

rot ry.;
C-h

CLU S
LL

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)

(see page 1)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent over
values]

Species Ob # Species Ob # Species Ob #
4 4 4

Acorus calamus --- --- Impatiens capensis --- --- Thalictrum pubescens --- ---
Alisma subcordatum --- --- Iris pseudacorus --- --- Thelypteris palustria --- ---
Amaranthus cannabinus --- --- Iris versicolor --- --- Toxicodendron rad. --- ---
Ambrosia trifida --- --- Juncus acuminatus --- --- Triad. virginicum --- ---
Amorpha frutescens --- --- Juncus canadensis --- --- Typha angustifolia --- ---
Apios americana --- --- Juncus effusus --- --- T. x glauca --- ---
Aslepias incarnata --- --- Leersia oryzoides --- --- T. latifolia_ ABUM ---
Aster puniceus --- --- Leersia virginica --- --- Vaccinium corymb. --- ---
Aster sp. --- --- Lemna minor --- --- Vibumum recogn. --- ---
Bidens sp. ABUN --- Lilaeopsis chinensis --- --- Viola sp. --- ---
Bidens connata --- --- Lilium superbum --- --- Wolffia braziliensis --- ---
Bidens coronata --- --- Lobelia cardinalis --- --- Zizania aquatica --- ---
Bidens frondosa --- --- Ludwigia palustris --- ---
Bidens laevis --- --- Ludwigia peploides --- --- OTHER
Bidens polylepis --- --- Lycopus sp. --- --- Verbena hastata FRE ---
Carex stricta --- --- Lysimachia terrestris --- --- Solidago rugoso COM ---
Carex sp. --- --- Lythrum salicaria FRE --- Onoclea sembilis FRE ---
Cephalanthus occidentalis FRE --- Nuphar hitea --- --- Microsteglum Vimineum COM ---
Ceratophyllum demersum --- --- Osmunda cinnamornea --- --- Granuneae cp. COM ---
Cicuta maculata --- --- Oxypolis rigidior --- --- --- ---
Cinna arundinaces --- --- Panicum virgatum --- --- --- ---
Clethra alnifolia --- --- Panicum sp. --- --- --- ---
Cornus amomum --- --- Peltandra virginica --- --- --- ---
Cornus racemosa --- --- Phalaris arundinacea --- ---
Cryptotaenia canadensis --- --- Phragmites australis (ABUN)---
Cuscuta sp. --- --- Pluchea odorats --- ---
Cyperus odoratus --- --- Polygonum arifolium --- ---
Cyperus engelmannii --- --- P. hydropiperoides --- ---
Cyperus erythrorhizos --- --- P. pennsylvaniasm COM ---
Cyperus esculentus --- --- P. sagittatum COM ---
Cyperus sp. --- --- Pontederia cordata --- ---
Decodon verticillatus --- --- Ptilimnium espillac. --- ---
Echinochloa crusgalli --- --- Riccia fluitans --- ---
Echinochloa walteri ABUN --- Rosa palustri --- ---
Elcocharis obtusa --- --- R. multiflora --- ---
Eleocharis palustris --- --- Rumex verticill. --- ---
Eleocharis parvula --- --- Sagittaria calycins --- ---
Eleocharis tenuis --- --- S. latifolia --- ---
Erechtites hieracifolia FRE --- Salix nigra --- ---
Eupatorium sp. --- --- Samolus parvulus --- ---
Euthamia sp. --- --- Scirpus cyperinus COM ---
Fraxinus pensylvanica --- --- S. fluviatilis --- ---
Glyceria sp. --- --- S. pungens --- ---
Heteranthera reniformis --- --- S. robustus --- ---
Hibiscus moscheutos FRE --- Sium suave --- ---
Humulus japonicus --- --- Sparganium eurycarp. --- ---
Hydrocotyle americana --- --- Spartina alterniflora --- ---
Ilex opaca --- --- S. cynosuroides --- ---
Ilex verticillata --- --- Spirodela polyrhiza --- ---

F. ADDITIONAL NOTE:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: AO&rds-"NE CREEIV-- 2. Site name:
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors: C, 5
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
10 a 2-'r -@, -7ml-6 r-'% -pl, P-1 D&-r- A) a A-Wmtf- Ct r%./ qO -7 5-4Z, 5170 7 5 55-
8. state: - 9. County: 10. Town: ' - I
.DE- /1-1 *- Lk> C,4 -S vz@ --Pf- /N 1,4
ll. Directions:
v-) W K-o--c. ro &a cy-o,%s@ -4u
<f,Ar-vr,@ -V'YN@e, 'Ls a bo6i
+0 -4 -2-0 -%-,,-t -'V@c v-, ds (Oy@

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

.C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point: observation Point: Observation Point:

Community name: Community name: Community name:
6p,4@- tf -, H-(@F- (-I rqf-

Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

Dominant species Dominant species; Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
ACe/y- fzys
6 OpLi

Herb: Herb: Herb:
,R\VtTwzz@ ffmm@)%nl CU YVN

Comments: comments: Comments:
T(@ @rj r

Avyy,,@YN 04 a
sww,@@r 6"e4jL
"j,

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and.w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

Species Ob#1 OB#2 OB#3 SPECIES OB#1 OB#2 OB#3 Species Ob#1 OB#2 OB#3

Acorus calamus Impatiens capensis ThAlictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordatum - - - - - - Iris pscudacorus Thelypteris palustris
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendroc rad.
Ambrosia trifida Juncus acuminatus - - - - - - Triad. virginicum
Amorpha fruteseens Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia
Apios americana Juncus effusus - - - - - - T. x glauca
Aslepia incarnata Leersia oryzoides - - - - - - T. latifolia INF
Aster puniceus Leersia virginica Vaccinium corymb.
Aster sp. - - - - - - Lemna minor - - - - - - Viburnum recogn. - - - - - -
Bidens bidentoides Lilacopsis chinensis Viola sp.
Bidens connata - - - - - - Li1ium superbum - - - - - - Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronala - - - - - - Lobelia cardinalis - - - - - - Zizania aquatics
Bidens frondosa Ludwigia palustris COM
Bidens laevis - - - - - - Ludwigia peploides . . . . . . OTHER
Bidens polylepis Lycopus sp. Acernegrundo FRE
Carex stricta - - - - - - Lysimachia terrestria Rhus copalina COM
Carex sp. - - - - - - Diospyros virginiana COM
- - - - - - Lythrum salicaria - - - - - - Microstegium vimixeum COM
Cephalanthus occidentalis Nuphar lutca - - - - - -
Ceratophyllum demersum Osmunda cinnamomea
Cicuta maculata - - - - - - Oxypolis rigidior
Cinna arundinaces Panicum virgatum
Clethra alnifolia Panicum dichotomoflorum FRE
Cornus amomum - - - - - - Peltandra virginica INF COM
Cornus raccmosa Phalaris arundinacca
Cryptotacnia canadensis - - - - - - Phragmites australis DOM DOM
Cuscuta sp. - - - - - - Pluchea odorata INF
Cyperus odoratus Polygonum arifolium
Cyperus engelmannii - - - - - - P. bydropiperoides
Cyperus erythrorhizos - - - - - - P. pennsylvanicum - - -COM
Cyperus esculenrus P. sagitiatum - - - - -
Cyperus sp. Pontederis cordata - - - - - FRE
Decodon verticillatus - - - - - - Pulimnium capillac . . . . . .
Echinochloa crusgalli - - - - - - riccia fluitans - - - - - -
Echinochloa walteri - - - - - - Rosa palustris - - - - - -
Eleocharis obtusa R. multiflora
Eleocharis palustris Rumex verticill. FRE
Eeleocharis parvula - - - - - - Sagittaria calycina
Eleocharis tenuis S. latifolia
Erechlites hicraeifloia COM Salix nigra
Eupatorium sp. Samolus parvulus - - - - - -
euthamia sp. - - - - - - Scirpus cyperinus - - - - - -
Fraxinus pensylvanica - - - - - - S. fluviatilis - - - - -
glyceria sp. - - - - - - S. robustus - - - - - -
Heteranthera reniformis - - - - - - Sium suave - - - - - -
Hibiscus moshceutos FRE INF Sparganium eurycarp.
Humulus japonicus Spartina alterniflora
Hydrocotyle americana S. cynosuroides - - - - - - -
Ilex opaca - - - - - - Spirodela polyrhiza . . .
Ilex verticillata

F. ADbITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION
1. Survey site name: A0&-0.S11/,iF- CRE-F-W-- 2. Site name: po@ 2--
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors: C.
5. Date: 6. usGs Quad: 7. Quadcode:
1-1)@ / 1) 9L 14-WIX9 f- Ct T@-j 3 c7o -7 5-IZ. 3170 7 5 55-
8. State: 9. County: 10. Town:

11. Directions:
0jKs,-.rc- rc>&ct
C,@rt-r-@ -n%a.-ee- is a la,,-c-i-, Cx, .e- L.,rts-i- 0--
+o byick5e rzb 6,,(
f-o-. 5 %

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

?01'4D

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point: Observation Point: Observation Point:

Community name:LH5Wr@ft,y]TjDk, Community name: Community name:
bR4"-kS1+

Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:
-TAcyt1doJ-ed -TY\ (A rN 0(6),Xd s&+u,&Kd -:@JmkvwLca@L

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:

Herb: Herb: Herb:
Eck%A
(K@/' I ypha 4h fttpa,

Comments: Comments: Comments:
Is
11-z , OA@ 19-1
ca-@r- of -q\.Q- rrw n c Mk .
ck! fferC,-@@R fD--7" rIQ

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

Species OB#4 OB#5 OB#6 species Ob #4 Ob#5 Ob#6 Species ob#4 ob#5 ob#6

Acorus calamus Impatiens capensis Thalictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordatum Iris pseudacorus - - - - - - Thelypteris paulstris - - - - - -
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Ambrosia trifida Juncus acuminatus - - - - - - Triad. virginicum - - - - - -
Amorpha fruteseens Juncus canadensis - - - - - - Typha anustuifolia
Apios americana Juncus effusus - - - - - - T. x glauca
Aslepias incarnala - - - - - - Leersia oryzoides - - - - - - T. latifolia pre Dom
Aster puniccus Leersia virginica Vaccinium corymb.
Aster sp. Lemna minor Viburnum recogn.
Bidens bidentoides Lilacopsis chinensis Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Wolfria braziliensis - - - - - -
Bidens coronata Lobelia cardiaalis Zizania aquatica
Bidens frondosa - - - - - - Ludwigia palustris
Bidens laevis - - - - - - Ludwigia peploides OTHER
Bidens polylepis Lycopussp. - - - - - -
Carex stricta - - - - - - Lyimacbiatermatris - - - - - -
Carex sp. Lyuuum saficaria - - - - - -
Cephalanthus occidentalis Nuphar lutea
Ceratophylium demersum - - - - - - Osmunda cinnamomea - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cicuta maculats - - - - - - Oxypofis rigidior - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cinna arundinacca Paicurn virgatum
Clethra alnifolia - - - - - - Panicum sp.
Cornus amomum - - - - - - Peltandrs virginica
Cornus racemosa Phalaris arundinacca
Cryptotaenia canadensis - - - - - - Phragmites Australis - - - - - -
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorata
Cyperus odoratus FRE Polygonum
Cyperus engelmannii - - - - - - P. hydropipcroides - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cyperus erythrorhizos - - - - - - P. punctatum - - - - - -
Cyperus esculentus P. sagimatum - - - - - -
Cyperus sp. Pontederia cordata
Decodon verticillatus - - - - - - Pilimunium capillac.
Echinochloa crusgalli Ricci fluitans - - - - - -
Echinochloa walteri Ross palustris
Eleocharis obtusa R. multiflora
Eleocharis palustris Rumex verticill
Eleocharis parvula - - - - - - Sagitaria calycina - - - - - -
Eleocharis lenuis S. latifolia
Erechtites hicracifolia Salix nigra
Eupatorium sp. Samoulus parvulus
Fraximus penaylvanica Scirpus cyperinus
Glyceria sp. S. taberneemontonli
Heteranthers reniformis S. pungens
Humulus japonieus S. robustus
hydrocotyte americana Sium suave
Nex opaca Sparganium eurycarp.
Nex verticillats Spartina alterniflora
S. cynosuroides
Spirodela polyrhiza

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: CRF-F-W-- 2. Site name: /A 9,EA

3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:
Fq S(k>l N 2 C. W 1- 1/-4 K-
5. Date: 10 2- 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
-@s P-a>6-C A) LL AA-W/h<f- Ct 3 qO -7 5-4j:, 3-?o 7 5 55-
8. State: -DE- 9. County: 10. Town:
11. Directions:
CAjK-oc- ro&ct
CA(-t-o- -ry\.a@ e, is a cx, 4- -,ms-t- c,- A-u5LLS+jyr,--(fV-CCj,--
+o by-ick5e Cf7m3irn &-C- RX-. 4 ".1)

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. econnaisance Diagram:

L A-OCT - CR664-0

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT
observation Point: Observation Point: e5 Observation Point:
C.ommunity name: Community name: Community name:
-8"r,Y-k,St+

Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:
a;vu --i,> iywk Y)CLOR& nu Y\d a--W

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
ZiMNrct> 3YrLA-z,

Herb: Herb: Herb:
-@0@460-f"LA'1\ t-kb&&An, -@@ral Mks
Mf 0,@pLofGL@s 2z'
Comments: Comments: Comments:

e
@2e,connaisance Diagram:

V@G- r rm,@.) 2-o-n e-
isryD-w eyn

CTYUS 4ec@fs IyNcrtca-ksly@

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and w/cover values: (estimate percent cover

Species ob#7 ob#8 ob#9 Species ob#7 ob#8 ob#9 Species ob#7 ob#8 ob#9
Acorus calamus Impatiens capensis Thalictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordaium Iris pseudacorus Thelypteris palustris
Amaranthsu cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Ambroisis trifida Juncus acuminatus Triad. virginicum
Amorpha frutescens Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia
Apios americana Juncus effusus T. x glauca
Aslepias incarnata Leersia oryzoides T. laufolia
Aster puniceus Leersia virginica Vaccinium corymb.
Aster sp. Lemna minor Vibumum recogn.
Bidens bidentoides Lilaeopsis chinensis Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronata Lobelia cardinalis Zizania aquatica
Bidens frondosa Ludwigia palustris
Bidens laevis Ludwigia peploides Other
Bidens polylepis Lycopus sp. Rhus copalina Com
Carex stricta Lysimachis terrestris Drospyras vorgomoam Com
Carex sp. Lythrum salicaria Microstegium viminaum Com
Cephalanthus occidentalis Nuphar lutes
Ceratophyllum demersum Osmunda cinnamomes
Cicuta maculata Oxypolis rigidor
Cinns arundinsces Panicum virgatum
Clethra slinifolia Panicum dichotomoflorum Fre
Cornus amomum Peltandra virginica Inf Com Abun
Cornus racemosa Phalaris arundinacca
Cryplotaenia canadensis Phragmites sustralis Inf Dom
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorsts Ind
Cyperus odoratus Polygonum arifolium
Cyperus engelmannii P. bydropiperoides
Cypres erythrorhizos P. pennsylvanicum
Cypcrus esculentus P. sagittatum
Cyperus sp. Pontederia cordata Fre
Decodon veritcillatus Pulimnium capillac.
Echinochloa crusgalli Riccia fluitans
Echinochloa walteri Rosa palustris
Eleocharis obtusa R. multiflora
Eleocharis palustris Rumex verticill. Fre Com Com
Eleocharis tenuis Sagittaris calycina
Ereehtites hieracifolia Fre S. latifolia
Eupatorium sp. Salix nigra
Euthamia sp. Samolus parvulus
Fraxinus pensylvanica Scirpus cyperinus
Glyceria sp. S. fluviatilis
Heteranthers reniformis S. pungens
Hibiscus moseheutos Fre Dom Com S. robustus
Humulus japonicus Sium suave
Hydrocotyle americana Sparganium eurycarp.
Ilex opaca Spartina alteriflora
Ilex verticillata S. cynousuroides
Spirodela polyrhiza

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: CRF-F-W-- 2. Site name:

3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:

5. Date: 6. USGS @uad: 7. Quadcode:
8. State: 9. County: CET%f @ 3 qO -7 5-45-1, 3q0 7 5 55-
-b E- . 10. Town:
ll. Directions:
-r,4A@
C-@vr-@ -ryva,-ee, IS a bc6i o,
+0 by-iGkDe. Cro-@5%,- o cor,@

B. TOPOGRAPHY

'12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

.4oo- Cazer--

C.- VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point: Observation Point: observation Point:

Community name: Community name: Community name:

Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

s ct

Dominant species Dominant species:. Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
om(A rn r4e(@5y@@U hr-

Herb: Her-b: Herb:
4pha-- /,P0urUVy\- PAU jdu)l --
u#a
Comments: Comments: Comments:
C yu d

Lk) a
Iwran@
I h'r-'n a

u r n u m r
C),
'4M A61 I a

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS(in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of oberservation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and w/cover values: (estimate percent cover
values)

Species ob#10 ob#11 ob#12 Species ob#10 ob#11 ob#12 Species ob#10 ob#11 ob#12

Acorus calamus Impatiens capensis Thalictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordatum Irsi pseudaconus Thelypteris paulustris
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendra rad.
Ambrosis trifida Juncus acuminatus Triad. virginicum
Amorpha frutescens Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia
Apios americana Juncus effusus T. x glauca
Aslepias incarnata Leersia oryzoides T. latifolis DOM
Aster puniceus Leersia virginica Vaccinum corymb.
Aster sp. Lemna minor Vibumum recogn. ABUN ABUN DOM
Bidens bidentoides Lilaeopsis chinensis Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronata Lobelia cardinalis Zizania aquatica
Bidens frondosa Ludwigia patustris ABUN ABUN
Bidens lacvis Ludwigis peploides OTHER
Bidens polylepis Lycopus sp. Diospyros virginiana COM
Carex stricta Lysimachia terrestria
Carex sp. Lythrum salicaria ABUN COM
Cephalanthus occidentalis Nuphar lutes INF ABUN ABUN
Ceratophyllum demersum Osmunda cinnamonxnea
Ciciuta maculata Oxypolis rigidior
Cinna arundinacca Panicum virgabum
Clethra alnifolia Panicum sp.
Comus amomum Peltandra virginica
Comus racemosa Palaris arundinacea
Cryptotaenia canadensis Phragmites australis
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorats
Cyperus odoratus Polygonum arifolium
Cyperus engelmannii P. hydropoperoides
Cyperus erythrorhizos P. lapathifollum ABUN
Cyperus esculentus P. sagitatum
Cyperus sp. Pontederia codats
Decodon verticillatus Pilimnium capillac.
Echinochloa crusgalli Riccia fluitans
Echinochios walteri Rosa palustris INF
Eleocharis obtusa R. multiflora
Eleocharis palustris Rumex verticill.
Eleocharis parvula Sagittaria calycina
Eleocharis tenuis S. latifolia
Erechtites hieracifolia Salix nigra
Eupatorium sp. Samolus parvulus
Euthamia sp. Scirpus cyperinus
Fraxinus pensylvancia S. fluviatilis
Glyceria sp. S. pungens
Heteranthera reniformis S. robustus
Hibiscus moscheutos ABUN Sium suave
Humulus japonicus Sparganium eurycarp-
Hydrocotyle americana Spartina alterniflors
Ilex opaca S. cynosuroides
Ilex verticillata Spirodel polyrhiza

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FOFU4 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. amwvav ALUA namii A06ru-S"/,ir- 2. aLt" h&ffiat
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors: C. UJ i i%A S 1 P4
S. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
2--r c(T-4 3 -70 -7 5-�Z, 3'70-7 5- 55-
8. state: -DE- 9. County: N C-0- 5 rz- E- 10. Town: '-Po M7- --Pf- /-4 N
ll. Directions:
-raa@ YZ-O.T t- -@,e,, Vn Uj Kj__Vt. ro &C( oy-OSS-es (A S-hN@
-r(vaee- ca,-,..e. cr- "Lk S+i rQ- (f re e-k-
+o bridk5e crm5%f-, o -C- R;T-. .4 20 C -%-vt -Vr- v% y%

B. TOPOGRAPHY

econnaisance Diagram.:

L Auct -Qzte-r- M@

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT-,
Observation Point: 15 Observation Point: H Observation Point:
Community name: Community name: Community name:
FRF-5k-@)5t+0Q-L(--4 E-
Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:
s4ftj,r@@d -:,-, Ln"cla)a-d 5 &@Ur6ifd ---->In urd 4ed --> 1n,-Ly-%dc*6

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
ql'@Urnum Rmc& P,@,Us+ri S@
(1cognitum
Herb: Herb: Herb:
@tA d U-) Nup'hcvr W LI54'&-
L@-k CL pc@ k3t r-f
Comments: Comments: Comments-T
TVV-,., @@ree, @i @ust FlooJ plair) doyr"&-@Rd 1 6r- f-0
b - rxk -
abm'T-e- )Qjz 6@xr CA &-rn c@@d /5.
ro
ShrAdld -
W@

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]
Species ob# ob# Ob# species Ob# 0b# Ob# Species Ob# Ob# Ob#
13 14 15 13 14 15 is- 13 14 15
Acorus calamus - - - - - - Impatiens capensis Tbalictrum pubsceans
Alisma subcordatum Iris pseudacoru - - - - - - Thelypteris palustris
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris Versicolo Toxicodendron rad
Ambrosia trifida Juncus acuminatus Triad. virginicum
Amorpha frutescens Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia - - - - - - -
Apios americana Juncus effusus T. x glauca - - - - - -
Aslepias incarnata Leersia oryzaides T. latifolia
Leersia virginica vaccinium corymb.
Aster puniccus - - - - - - Lemna minor - - - - - -
Lilaeopsis chinensis Viburnum rccogn.
Aster.sp. - - - - - - Lcmna minor - - - - - -
- - - - - - Lilacopsis chinensis - - - - - - Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronata Lobelia cardinalis Zizania aquatica - - - - - -
Bidens frondosa Ludwigia palustris
Bidens laevis Ludwigia peploides
Ludwigis peploides OTHER
Bidens polylepis - - - - - - Lycopus sp. Diospyros virginiana
Carex sp. - - - - - - Acer rubrum
Carex stricta - - - - - - Lysimachia terrestria Onocleasensibilis
Cephalanthus occidentalis Lythrum salicaria MIN Boehmeriacylindriea
- - - - - - Nuphar lutes
Ceratophyllum demcersum - - - - - - Osmunda cinnamomea
Cicuta maculatas - - - - - - Oxypotis rigidior - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cinna arundinacca Panicum virgatum - - - - - - - - - - - -
Clethra alnifolia Panicurn sp. - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comus amomum Peltandra virginica
- - - - - - Phalaris arundinaces - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comus racemoss Phragmites australis
Cryptotacnia canadensis Pluchea odorats - - - - - -
Cuscuta sp. Polygonum arifolium
Cyperus odoratus - - - - - - P. hydropiperoides - - - - - -
Cyperus engehnanaii - - - - - - P. punctabum - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cyperus crythrorhizos - - - - - - P. sagittatum - - - - - -
Cypcrus esculentUS - - - - - - Pontederia cordata - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cyperus sp. - - - - - - Poilimnium capillac. - - - - - -
Decodon verticillatus - - - - - - Riccia fluitans - - - - - -
Echinohloa crusgalli - - - - - - Rosa palustria - - -
Echinochloa walteri - - - - - - R. multiflora
Eleocharis obtuse Rumex verticill.
Eleocharis palustris - - - - - - Sagittaria calycina - - - - - -
Eleocharis parvula - - - - - - S. Latifolia - - - - - -
Eleocharis tenuis Salix nigrs
- - - - - - Samolus parvulus - - - - - -
Erechutes hieracifolia - - --- - - Svirpus cyperinus - - - - - -
Eupatorium sp. S. fluviatilis - - - - - -
Euthamia sp. - - - - - - S. pungens - - - - - -
Fraxinus pensylvanica - - - - - - S. robustus - - - - - -
Glyceria sp. Sium suave - - - - - -
Heteranthera reniformis Sparganium eurycarp. - - - - - -
Hibiscus moscheutos Spartins alterniflora - - - - - -
Hydrocoryle americana - - - - - - S. cynosuroides - - - - - -
Llex opaca Spirodela polyrhiza - - - - - -
Llex verticillata

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONVAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: A06r-tjS-"f4F- CREE-@-,- 2. Site name: A por4p
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode: (70 -7 57-qZ, 570 7 5- 55-
P-vb(rc ct r%f
8. State: 9. County: NEc-@ C.45ME_ 10. Town: 'TO VZ@ --Pf-/-4 /14
11. Directions-
S- -11-, KA,,c- ro &ct (AS-h-11-
C-rt-c)- -tN%z@e- Ls a bc6i o--
+o brick C- Crty;>5ir, a -P R;r -4 -L0 C -@bt -,Or- -&3ti CC5

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point Observation Point: Observation Point:

Community name: community name: community name:
FP,Z614 WAIE49- xrkA4Z64 r Pzni WAVA G-IJT- /S VICQEJAN E- CT0T-f!5140RV-,LjNF--
Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

M UNT1,61- TE D

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
Sa[IA Ceph34.--,@s V i @Ourv@ V-V,
6CCiAzyCk-t,,kiS OtLMLIrn
M05N", I fecogn; 4-(A v-
Herb: Herb: Herb:

W "uj-s Wd &Y-
LIL) (@A 8111-
S. N RA e--

Comments: Comments:, Comments:

-Th ay cr,
-We -@r id js@,tjj@ ot)j- qzj
y-
L
C M $$in d% Au@u @@. Y\@ C ru-p- MCL@Y\ Crcvk,
cuclldAkatks UO-01" betow- beave7-
haf*);
CU@,@ r\ &,'XCL- 06
jr\( ria"'s I(
L

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES {by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

SPECIES OB# OB# OB# SPECIES OB# OB# OB# SPECIES OB# OB# OB#
16 17 18 16 17 18
Acorus calamus ABUN Impatiens capensis Thalictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordatum Iris pseudacorus Thelypteris palustris
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Ambrosia trifida Juncus acuminatus Triad. virginicum
Amorpha frutescena Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia
Apios americana Juncus effusus T. x glauca
Astepias incarnata Leersia oryzoides ABUN ABUN T. latifolia COM COM
Aster puniceus Leersia virginica Vaccinium corymb.
Aster sp. Lemna minor COM Viburnum recogn ABUN ABUN
Bidens bidentoides Lilacopsis chinensis Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronata Lobelia cardinalis Zizania aquatica
Bidens frondosa Ludwigia palustris ABUN
Bidens laevis Ludwigia peploides
Bidens polylepis Lycopus sp.
Carex stricta Lysimachia terrestris OTHER
Carex sp. Lythrum salicaria FRE Acerrubrum COM
Cephalanthus occidentalis FRE FRE Nuphar lutea ABUN ABUN Diospyros virginiana COM
Ceratophyllum demersum Osmunda cinnamomea
Cicuia maculata Oxypolis rigidior
Cinna arundinacea Panicum virgatum
Clethra alnifolia Panicum sp.
Cornus sp. FRE Peltandra virginica FRE ABUN ABUN
Cornus racemosa Phalaris arundinaces
Cryptolaenia canadensis Phragmites australis
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorats
Cyperus odoratus INF Polygonum arifolium
Cyperus engelmannii P. lapothifolium ABUN
Cyperus erythrorhizos P. punctatum
Cyperus esculentus P. sagittatum
Cyperus sp. Pontederia cordata
Decodon verticillatus Ptilimnium capillac.
Echinochloa crusgalli Riccia fluitans
Echinochloa walteri Rosa palustris
Eleocharis obtusa R. multiflora
Eleocharis palustris Rumex verticill. ABUN COM
Eleocharis parvula Sagittaria calycina
Eleocharis tenuis S. Latifolia
Erechtites hieracifolia Salix SD. COM
Eupatorium sp. Samolus parvulus
Euthamis sp. Seirpus cyperinus COM
Fraxinus pensylvanica S. fluviatilis
Glyceria sp. S. pungens
Heteranthera reniformis S. robustus
Hibiscus moscheutos DOM ABUN Sium suave
Humulus japonicus Sparganium eurycarp.
Hydrocotyle americana Spartina alterniflora
Hex opaca S. cynosuroides
Hex verticillata INR Spirodela polyrhiza

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: A06r-U5-"NF- 2. Site name: A I@U-
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors: C. S
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
Igi @z 2- -13, -TA'ILOVA ccr-1 3 qO -7 5-�@ V0 7 5 55-
8. state: 9. County: 10. Town: wx- -pg-/-4 /,j
-I>E- /1-1 E u,,.> C-4
ll. Directions:
gOuTz- WKA@c- ro&ct
C,,rt-c@ -ry\.a@e
+0 b 6 ck5e
a R.;T-. .4 -2-0 -1@r -&njC('5 (OyyLe,@

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT
observation Point: Observation Point: .20A Observation Point:
Community name: Community name: Community name:
FP,;964 -D5KkKISH C(NE/POAD
Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

S,P,TUgAJE,D->
AwgA-yx-c) I ti U N ",M-Z) j^UNt@xTEI>

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:

Herb: Herb: Herb:
-0 &NKocVxkC.,a,- Lvdw;j i 6.
\jiTinira. mbschev-4,os waiteri @6 i Lkz--'rr-f _,>

Comments: comments: Comments:
-TKjs poirok- CS Srr,*-LL
SkvALL,,@ p"/ co"re-
ad, i a cx-v@ 4,1 uL

Y"@ dzy" n &-r;:;Ir-

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy ana
indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

Species Ob # Ob # Ob# Species Ob # Ob # Ob # Species Ob # Ob # Ob #
19 20A 20B 19 20A 20B 19 20A 20B

Acorus calamus Impaticus capensis Thalictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordatum Iris pscudacorus INF Thelypteris palustris
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Amorpha frutescens Juncus acuminstus Triad. virginicum
Apios americana Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia
Aslepias incarnata Juncus effusus FRE T. x glauca
Aster puniceus Leersia oryzoides ABUN ABUN COM T. latifolia FRE FRE FRE
Aster sp. Lemna minor Vaccinium corymb.
Bidens bidentoides Lilacopsis chinensis FRE Viburnum recogn.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Viola sp.
Bidens frondosa Lobelia cardinalis Wolffia brazilieosis
Bidens lacvis Ludwigis palustris COM ABUN ABUN Zizania aquatica
Bidens polylepis Ludwigis peploides
Carex stricta Lycopus sp. OTHER
Carex sp. Lysimachia terrestris
Cephalanthus occidentalia Lythrum salicaria
Cerstophyllum demersum Nuphar lutea COM FRE
Cicuta maculata Osmunda cinnamomea
Cinna arundinacca Oxypolis rigidior
Clethra sinifolia Panicum virgatum INF
Cornus amomum Panicum sp.
Cornus recemosa Peltandra virginica ABUN COM COM
Cryptotacnia canadensis Phalaris arundinacca
Cuscuta sp. Phragmites australis COM DOM
Cyperus odoratus Pluchea odorats
Cyperus engelmannii Polygonum arifolium
Cyperus erythorhizos P. tapathifolium INF
Cyperus esculentus P. punctatum
Cyperus sp. INF P. sagittatum
Decodon verticillatus Pontederia cordata FRE FRE
Echinochloa crusgalli Ptilimnium capillac
Echinochloa walteri COM ABON Riccia fluitans INF
Elchocharis obtusa Rosa palustris
Elcocharis palustris R. multiflora
Elchocharis parvula Rumex verticill ABUN ABUN COM
Elchoaris tenuis Sagittaria calycina
Erechtites hicracifolia S. latifolia
Eupatorium sp. Salix nigra
Euthamia sp. Samolus parvulus
Fraxinus pensylvanica Scirpus cyperinus FRE
Glyceria sp. S. tabernaemontanii FRE COM
Heteranthera reniformis S. pungens
Hibiscus mosheutos ABUN COM COM S. robustus
Humulus japonicus Sium suave
Hydrocotyle americana Sparganium eurycarp.
flex opaca Spartina alterniflora
flex verticillata S. cynosuroides
Spirodela polyrhiza

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION
1. Survey site name: 2. site name: hg@c4 (DE
3. Source Code: FqSco,^420 4. Surveyors: C. W L- 1 P4 V-
5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
-wit.6gA. -Ps Ribcf-r- IDELA-Q349f- c(TS4 3 qO 7 5-q@-, NO 7 5 55-
8. state: -J>E- 9. County: NZL@--> C-&5,ME- 10. Town: ' -PC. VZ7- --PE /14 N
11. Directions:
WKj--Yc- ro&c( Cy-c)NS-C& (A S-h,-R-
C,-Y-t-c@ -revaee- is a bo6i la,--c-k- - C,,&-e- L-,ms-t- cr- Yk- (f
+0 briGkDc- cy-t@5if, 0 R-;T- -4 20 C '5

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12.*Reconnaisance Diagram:

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT

Observation Point: observation Point: Observation Point:
. . - . -2-1 .23
Community name: Community name: Community name:
FREZ0 --)' 11P-A-CY-1.5ti bPwY@wt Sft"LJNF--
Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

S#Tu ?-A49D /q V 6 hT-u 9- h- T-F--@ 5ATUC-k4so ---> wquKb.@

Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:

N;bWrt\LAM

Herb: Herb: Herb:
T%ha @A ib is CUS e6xincy-h 106. j1@,.jq0r%UVy% Eck@1nachic>a>

Comments: Comments: Comments:
06" - a ftaoruwr .
-This obs. P6, r",* WZ6& 2@:t-
i K.O. @f -
-p.,SL Oyea wajs dov.;r\adXd
Qy6Ty,@r\eJec
1>

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and
indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES [by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover
values]

Species OB# OB# OB# Species OB# OB# OB# Species OB# OB# OB#
21 22 23 21 22 23 21 22 23
Acorus calamus Impatiecens capensis Thalictrum pubescens
Alisma subcordatum Iris pscudacorus Thelypteris palustris
Amaranthus cannabinus Iris versicolor Toxicodendron rad.
Ambrosia urifida Juncus acuminatus Triad. virginicum
Amorpha frutescens Juncus canadensis Typha angustifolia
Amorpha americana Juncus effusus T. x glauca
Aslepias incarnata Leersia oryzoidea ABUN ABUN T. latifolia ABUN FRE COM
Aster puniceus Leersia virginica Vaccinium corymb.
Aster sp. Lemna minor Viburnum recogn. ABUN ABUN
Bidens bidentoides Lilacopsis chinensis Viola sp.
Bidens connata Lilium superbum Wolffia braziliensis
Bidens coronata Lobelia cardinalis Zizania aquatica
Bidens frondosa Ludwigia palustris ABUN ABUN
Bidens sp. Ludwigia peploides OTHER
Bidens polylepis Lycopus sp. Rhus copalina COM
Carex stricta Lysimachia terrestris Setaria INF
Carex sp. INF Lythrum salicaria Diospyros virginiana ABUN
Cephalanthus occidentalis Nuphar lutea Baccharis holimifolia INF
Ceratiphyllum demersum Osmunda cinnamomea
Cicuta maculata Oxypolis rigidior
Cinna arundinacea Panicum virgatum FRE
Clethra alnifolis Panicum dichotomoflorum COM
Cornus amomum Peltandra virginica COM
Cornus racemosa Phalaris arundinacea
Cryptotaenia canadensis Phragmites australis FRE INF
Cuscuta sp. Pluchea odorats
Cyperus odoratus Polygonum arifolium ABUN
Cyperus erythrorhizos P. lapathifolium FRE
Cyperus esculentus P. punctatum
Cyperus sp. P. sagitatum
Decodon verticillstus Pontederia cordata
Echinochloa crusgalli Pulimnium capillac.
Echinochloa walteri COM ABUN ABUN Riccia fluitans
Eleocharis obtusa Rosa fluitans
Eleocharis palustris Rosa palustris
Eleocharis parvula R. multiflora
Eleocharis tenuis Rumex verticill. ABON
Erechtites hieracifolia INF Sagittaria calycina
Eupatorium sp. S. latifolia
Euthamia sp. Salix nigra
Fraxinus pensylvanica Samolus parvutus
Glyceria sp. Scirpus cyperinus
Heteranthera reniformis S. Taberraemontanii INF
Hibiscus moscheutos ABUN FRE FRE S. pungens
Humulus japonicus S. robustus
Hydrocotyle americana Sium suave
Hex opaca Sparganium eurycarp.
Hex verticillata Spartina alterniflora
S. cynosuroides
Spirodela polyrhiza

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: A06rU.S-T-INE 'fREE-r-- 2. Site name:
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:

5. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
5 74'ye-o r-'S 1-@ 9- 11>(Cf- /D EL,4-W11A f- cc T-,j -70 -7 5-4Z 370 7 5 55-
8. state: 9. County: 10. Town:
IDE- - Nt".>
11. Directions.
",ITP-- WKac. ro&c( (A R-
C,-rve,@ -rna@e- t,@s-@- o-, A-CIIJ Lt S4i
+0 by-id5e Cfv-.3jr, 0 v, a,s a, d

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT
observation Point: 2-A Observation Point: 2-5 Observation Point:
Community name: Community name: Community name:
FP,z,&4 SWoRzL-4,N&

Soil comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:

SATL)QA-'rW ---> )A 0 ND-4-@ S4T.-,)rLATSD--> IAUN-b-+TE2@>
Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
ce, co) Yv4u vv, q Q 109rKh ry-\

Herb: Herb: Herb:

L-ecy-5i6 wa@4cTj

Comments: Comments: Comments:

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and w/cover values: (estimate percent cover values)

Column (1)

Species Ob #24 Ob #25 Ob#

Acorus calamus
Alisma subcordatum
Amaranthus cannabinus
Ambrosia trifida
Amorpha frutescens
Apios americana
Aslepias incarnata
Aster puniceus
Aster sp.
Bidens bidentoides
Bidens connata
Bidens coronata
Bidens frondosa
Bidens laevis
Bidens polylepis
Carex stricta
Carex sp.
Cephalanthus accidentalis
Ceratophyllum demersum
Cicuta maculata
Cinna arundinacca
Clethra alnifolia
Cornus amomum
Cornus racemosa
Cryptotaenia canadensis
Cuscuta sp.
Cypertus odoratus
Cypertus engelmannii
Cypertus erythrorhizos
Cypertus esculentus
Decodon verticillatus
Echinochloa crusgalli
Echinochloa walteri COM ABUN
Eleocharis obtusa
Eleocharis palustris
Eleocharis parvula
Eleocharis tenuis
Erechlites hjeracifolia
Eupatorium sp.
Euthamia sp.
Fraxinus pensylvanica
Glyceria sp.
Heteranthera reniformis
Hibiscus moscheutos FRE FRE
Humulus japonieus
Hydrocotyle americana
Ilex opaca
Ilex verticillata

Column (2)

Species Ob #24 Ob #25 Ob #

Impatiens capensis
Iris pseudacorus
Iris versicolor
Juncus acuminatus
Juncus canadensis
Juncus effusus
Leersia oryzoides ABUN COM
Leersia virginica
Lemna minor COM
Lilaeopsis chinensis
Lilium superbum
Lobelia cardinalis
Ludwigia palustris COM COM
Ludwugia peploides
Lycopus sp.
Lysimachia terrestria
Lythrum salicaria
Nuphar lutes
Osmunda cinnamomes
Oxypolis rigidior
Panicum virgatum
Panicum sp.
Peltandra virginica
Phalaris arundinacca
Phragmites australis
Pluchea odorata
Polygonun sp. INF
P. hydropiperoides
P. punctatum
P. sagittatum
Pontederia cordata
Ptilimnium capillac.
Riccia fluitans
Rosa palustris
R. multiflora
Rumex verticill. COM FRE
Sagittaria calycina
S. latifolia
Salix nigra
Samolus parvulus
Scirpus cyperinus
S. tabernae montama INF
S. pungens
S. robustus
Sium suave
Sparganium eurycarp.
Spartina alterniflora
S. cynosuroides
Spirodela polyrhiza

Column (3)

Species Ob #24 Ob #25 Ob #

Thalictrum pubescens
Thelypteris palustris
Toxicodendroa rad.
Triad. virginicum
Typha angustifolia
T. x glauca
T. latifolia INF
Vaccinium corymb.
Viburnum recogn. COM ABUN
Viola sp.
Wolffia braziliensis
Zizania aquatica

OTHER
Baccharis halimifolia FRE
Diospyras virginiana COM
Rhus copalina COM

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

FORM 1: RECONNAISANCE / DELAWARE DRAFT 1993 MARSH SURVEYS
A. IDENTIFIERS/LOCATION

1. Survey site name: Aoori@T-7r4f- 2. Site name: A K FA
3. Source Code: 4. Surveyors:
Ff1w1tq SL C.
S. Date: 6. USGS Quad: 7. Quadcode:
(:qo3q3 166ALOam (--try 6?01.55-25-
8. State: -@D @- 9. County: 14w> C,45m f_ 10. Town: @0 V T- -@,e I-Vlq
71. Directions:
ob%yNwrn '@o -5'art mchd -n@ W"knyl - -bo-@Gi *5 (0-f ykz",- [Zoo. A
kyv.,- -pc5yt- --@t ciozz 4m -ry@

B. TOPOGRAPHY

12. Reconnaisance Diagram:

UILWID
F94Z tlhtz5

C. VEGETATION/HABITAT
Observation Point: Observation Point: Observation Point: 3
Cgmmunity name: Community name: Community name: 7 T fdj-
;rIZESH wArTZjZ MA-j2zj+ NW-W -Do 2,W-AC-P&H MAV-1SH

Sail comments: Soil comments: Soil comments:
S#-yoXh4t.t@ --> S4-TUf--A-TZb JN U/V aA rEd)
MUCV-V SUQ@ST-PA-T-E-
Dominant species Dominant species: Dominant species:
Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub: Tree/Shrub:
ticer rU-1cr(Av-,,

Herb: Herb: Herb:
41815r-L)-f> / S,4cjrr,,@-91,4 :21ZA-NIA AqUA-TICAr tiliBISCL)_5 MOSCHEUTOS

Comments: Comments: Comments:
Spe,cjeS C-m-,pi4inS:)ryW16,- -@h @s @Uvy@ S4-&-y' ak- 0,6 R)ff&w@ @3 -hNe cvcek- +z@6,d,
Awo@ CL%L& L"@s IRT,.& v-,cL Auj .M&rs.h J@,@ oe,.-#2- j-tKQ-
V-- h-o-myw aLo,@S +Ke- LVtele-Suffm*d
ovzeyvtct,@z@ 6@-fdwoj@. I " M;C@-@ cr6 5+&YdS 0-@ 4jb L@,,,
wDocLO a w ak@ - NCJC( L,-r-* 6
14@5Kky elk\16-Hmas hbus-f- LQUCU
\4f7,e-+0+,Dy@ Ocatr-
yy\:sT. Nec@y6Lf [b@w cU v-e, s+,/.
3h Y\CTf ue\s +0 j@@ iY\ UY,0@ p@c- SV-a-r@ 6b yvo4r- Vu Y.\ sfucbk d
06@4@w" rna%, L.,L- cruk/ 01;z, CN@
W64C-r - L'@@ - . ...........

D. OBSERVATION POINTS LOCATIONS (in space below attach topo photocopy and indicate precise location of observation points)

E. LIST OF PLANT SPECIES (by strata and w/cover values: [estimate percent cover values]

Column (1)

Species Ob #1 Ob #2 Ob #3

Acortus calamus
Alisma subcordatum
Amaranthus cannabinus
Ambrosia trifida
Amorpha frutescens
Apios americana
Aslepias incarnata var. pulchra INF
Aster puniceus
Aster sp.
Bidens bidentoides
Bidens sp. ABUN
Bidens coronata
Bidens frondosa FRE
Bidens laevis
Bidens polylepis
Carex stricta
Carex sp.
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Ceratophyllum dermersum
Cicuta maculata
Cinna arundinacea
Clethra alnifolia
Cornus amomum
Cornus racemosa
Cryptotaenia canadensis
Cuscuta sp.
Cyperus odoratus
Cyperus engelmannii
Cyperus erythrorhizos
Cyperus esculentus
Cyperus sp.
Decodon Verticillatus
Echinochloa crusgalli
Echinochloa walteri FRE COM
Eleocharis obtusa
Eleocharis palsutris
Eleocharis parvula
Eleocharis tenuis
Erechtites hieracifolia
Eupatorium sp.
Euthamia sp.
Fraxinus pensylvanica
Glyceria sp.
Heteranthera reniformis
Hibiscus moscheutos ABUN ABUN
Humulus japonicus
Hydrocotyle americana
Ilex opaca
Ilex verticillata
Impatiens capensis
Iris pseudacorus
Iris versicolor PRE
Juncus acumimatus
Juncus canadensis
Juncus effusus
Leersia oryzoides COM ABUN
Leersia virginica
Lemna minor COM
Lilaeopsis chimensis
Lilium superbum
Lobelia cardinalis
Ludwigia palustris
Ludwigia peploides
Lycopus mericenus FRE
Lysimachia terrestris
Lythrum salicaria
Nuphar lutea
Osmunda cinnamomea
Oxypolis rigidior
Panicum virgatum
Panicum sp.
Peltandra virginica FRE
Phalaris arundinacea
Phragmites australis FRE COM ABUN
Pluchea odorata
Polygonum arifolium COM
P. hyfropiperoides
P. punctatum
P. sagittatum
Pontederia cordata
Ptilimnium capillac.
Riccia fluitans
Rosa palustris
R. multiflora
Rumex verticill. FRE
Sagittaria calycina
S. latifolia COM
Salix sp. FRE
Samolus parvulus
Scirpus cyperinus
S. fluviatilis
S. pungens
S. robustus
Sium suave
Sparganium eurycarp.
Spartina alterniflora
S. cynosuroides
Spirodela polyrhiza
Thalictrum pubescens
Thelypteris palustris
Toxicodendron rad.
Triad. virginicum
Typha angustifolia
T. x glauca
T. latifolia COM
Vaccinium corymb.
Viburnum sp. COM
Viola sp.
Wolffia braziliensis
Zizania aquatica ABUN

OTHER
Scutellania laterifolla INF
Rhus copalina FRE
Diosyros virgiana FRE
Lonicero Japonica FRE
Boehmeria cylindrica FRE
Onodea sensibius FRE
Acer rutorum COM
Erigrostis hyemale PRE
Microstegium Wimineum COM

F. ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Dept. of Natural Resources & Environmental Control
Division of Fish & Wildlife
RichardsonJRobbins Building
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903

Official Business, Penalty For Private Use $300.

. . .........

14"

NORTHERN DELAWARE

X, 0

't 0'

A& k A
lie

lot
All.

T
he Northern Delaware turn marshland into farmland.
Wetlands Rehabilitation Other areas were drained in
Program was established hopes of decreasing mosquito
by the Department of Natural populations. And still other wet-
Resources an d Environmental lands were drained to support a
Control to bring together civic growing population and its atten-
and business leaders, scientists, dant industrial, residential, and
resource managers, and property highway expansion. Installing wood duck boxes isjust
owners to develop strategies to Despite nearly three centuries one way to help attract wildlife back
restore nearly 10,000 acres of of environmental abuse, however, to once-degraded marshes.
wetlands-31 distinct sites- Delaware's northern marshes can
along the Christina and Delaware be brought back to life. and islands-all can help attract
rivers in New Castle County. wildlife to once-damaged marshes.
How Do You
Control Nuisance Plants.
W RiESTORE A NIARSH? Phragmites is a tall, tasseled plant
The Northern Delaware that can overtake a wetland, form-
Wetlands Rehabilitation ing dense stands of little value to
Program seeks to achieve wildlife. When interspersed
the following goals. among other plants and open
Improve Water Quality. water, however, Pbragmites
Nf can provide good habitat.
One key to restoring most
Thus, the goal is to control
7"r.' degraded marshes is to re-
establish their hydrology- rather than eradicate this
that is, daily tidal exchange plant. The current practice
,91"
between marsh and river. is to spray Phragmites with
Water control structures can herbicides in late summer,
Nearly 10, 000 acres of tidalfresbwater marshes in be installed, permitting the followed by the controlled
New Castle County are targetedfor restoration by the
Northern Delaware Wetlands -Rehabilitation Program. tides to flush nutrients and burning of dead, standing
aquatic organisms into and canes during winter.
These marshes once contained out of the marsh as well as in- Control Mosquitoes. Histori-
some of the state's richest water- crease the volume of water that cally, wetlands were drained
fowl populations and served as can be cleansed by the wetland. as a mosquito control mea-
important nursery grounds and Another key is controlling the sure. However, removing the
breeding habitat for a wide variety inputs of pollution to the marsh, water from the wetland sur-
of fish and other wildlife. conveyed during storms, through face creates a prime egg-
They also helped filter pollu- implementation of non-point laying site for floodwater
tants and sediments out of river source control plans. mosquito species. Heavy
water and provided a buffer zone Increase Wildlife Populations. rains or malfunctioning tide
during storms, protecting proper- Constructing duck and songbird gates can then flood the
ties from flooding. boxes, establishing preferred food marsh, permitting mosquito
The marshes that are the focus and cover plants, adjusting water eggs to hatch and the larvae
of this recovery initiative have levels to accommodate the needs to develop, essentially pro-
undergone a varied history of of aquatic mammals, water birds, moting mosquito breeding.
change over the years: some and endangered species, and Several practices can help
were drained by early Dutch and increasing the diversity of shallow- control mosquito populations
Swedish settlers, who wanted to water habitats -ponds, ditches, in wetlands and decrease the

Phragmites is a tall, tas- Curr
seled reed that can quickly requi
overtake a wetland, fo",n-
Ali

tbep
ing thick stands that are durii
relatively useless as wildlife wbe),
habitat. Controlling the its wi
spread of tbisplant is a planj
jor goal of marsh also i
ma
restoration. whic
thep

use of insecticides: increase the
abundance of mosquito-eating
fish and insect, increase the ac-
cess of these species to mosquito
breeding areas, and elminate
mosquito egg-laying sites.
Control Flooding. Wetlands
help soak up water during heavy
rains. Rehabilitation efforts focus
on installing new water control
structures or improving the effi-
ciency of existing ones to expe-
dite floodwater removal without
flooding adjacent properties.
Reduce Shoreline Erosion. As
buffer strips between land an
sea, wetlands absorb wave action
and protect shoreline soils with
an extensive root network. These
features can be enhanced by
revegetating exposed shoreline
or installing other forms of
erosion control, such as riprap.
Improve Recreational & Edu-
cational Opporutunities. Rehabili-
tation plans for many wetlands
include installing nature trails
and greenways, observation
towers, and canoe and boat
ramps. Environmental curricula
will give school groups and
the public the opportunity to
learn more about wetlands and
their values.

WHAT WETLANDS
ARE TARGETED FOR
REGABILITATION?

Planning has begun for reha-
biliating four northern marshes:
Gambacorta and Broad Dyke
marshes in New Castle, Augustine
Marsh near Port Penn, and Old
Wilmington Marsh.
Gambacorta Marsh. This 41-
acre marsh, located within the
New Castle city limits, is owned
by the Trustees of New Castle
Common. It is bordered on the
east by a recreational trail that
runs atop a dike, which isolates
the marsh from the Delaware

WHY SHOULD WE RESTORE DELAWARE'S NORTHERN MARSHES?
That good is a marsh? To Delaware, 38% of the state's
some folks, the word marsh endangered species rely on wet
is synonymous with "muck" and lands for breeding, nesting, forag-
mosquitoes." But a marsh is ing, or resting. These species
worth much more than that.... range from barking tree frogs to
bald eagles and bog turtles.
Like giant kidneys, marshes
filter out nutrients, suspended A marsh is like a big sponge
sediments, toxic substances, during heavy rains, soaking
and other pollutants from local up floodwater and then
waters thereby improving slowly releasing it down-
water quality. river after peak storm flows
have subsided.
Coastal freshwater marshes sup-
port the largest and most diverse Wetlands provide a host Wetlands act as buffer strips
populations of birds and are of benefits, from clean- between sea and mainland
vital habitats for ducks, geese, sing coastal waters of absorbing wave action from
herons, egrets, and shorebirds. pollutants to providing storms. and thereby reducing
Many other wildlife depend on vital wildlife habitat. shoreline erosion.
wetlands, from deer to turtles.
Marshes provide a wealth of
The wetlands of the Delaware and shad, herring, catfish, recreational activities including
Christina rivers provide spawning crabs, and perch. birdwatching, boating, fishing,
nursery, and feeding site for eels, wildlife photography, hunting,
Many endangered species de- hiking, and crabbing.
pend on wetlands for survival. In

nt Phragmites control
es aerial spraying of
ant with an herbicide
g the late summer
the plant is storing
uter reserves. As the
stores nuitrients, it
ikes in the herbicide,
weakens and kills
ant.

The winter after Phragmites
is sprayed with an herbicide,
the dead, standing canes
are burned, freeing
areas for colonization
by plants more beneficial
to wildlife.

River. However, the dike does water-out of the marsh. Occa- Augustine Creek Mars& This
contain a water control structure. sional malfunctions, however, 1,130-acre wetland south of Port
on its other three sides, the marsh have caused flooding of adjacent Penn is bordered to the east by
is surrounded by urban and com- properties. In addition, the one-
mercial development. way exchange of water has
Part of the marsh was drained degraded the marsh and made it a
and used as landfill for industrial potential breeding ground for
waste. However, the waste has mosquitoes. Plant and animal di-
been removed, and the landfill versity are down, and Pbragmites
site has been capped. has taken over parts of the marsh.
Gambacorra Marsh is already A recent temporary water
on the rebound. Pbragmites con- management plan allowing tidal Restoration effbils can b@lng back a di-
trol efforts have cleared part of exchange, combined with a versity ofplants to afonnerly degraded
the marsh, the addition of wildlife Pbragmites control program and mamb, providing attractive babitatfor
habitat enhancement structures installation of wildlife enhance- waterfowl, turtles, and other wildlife.
has attracted more waterfowl, ment strucrures, has restored much
the water control structure has of the marsh's biodiversity. A de- Route 9 and surrounded by agricul-
been temporarily modified to sign for a new water control struc- tural lands. The wetland is owned
allow daily tidal exchange, ture also has been selected. It will by many different landowners
and a water management allow managers to continue to im- including the State and Delaware
plan has been implemented. prove tidal exchange between Wildlands Inc., a private nonprofit
Preliminary plans call for marsh and river, and release flood- conservation organization.
permanently modifying the waters rapidly during major storms. Migrating and wintering
existing water control struc- Preliminary plans call for add- waterfowl make extensive use
ture to allow for daily tidal ing more wildlife enhancement of the 912-acre tidal impound-
exchange, clearing clogged structures and open water habitat ment within this wetland as
waterways to increase open for mosquito- eating fish, continu- do migrating neotropical shore-
water habitat, continuing ing Phragmites control, and birds. Surrounding the impound-
Phragmites control, and en- building a trail, boardwalk, obser- ment are forested areas that are
hancing the recreational and vation tower, and canoe launch. critical habitat for many wildlife,
educational opportunities
presented by the walkway.
Broad Dyke Mars& Lo-
cated north of New Castle
and owned by the Trustees
of New Castle Common and
New Castle Immanuel Epis-
copal Church, this 210-acre
tidal freshwater marsh is
bordered on three sides by 41,@11*90'
44
housing developments and
A,@
separated from the Delaware
River by a dike containing a
water control structure,
This structure is designed Gambacorta Marsh in New Castle already is beginning to reboundfrom years of envi-
to allow a one-way flow of ronmental abuse. 16

7bis technician is checking Marsbesprovide a host of ir
a water samplefor mosquito environmental benefits, 71,
larvae. Years ago, many from filtering pollutants ?I
New Castle County marshes from the water to providing M
were drained as a mosquito wildlife habitat, but they 7e
control measure. But over also offer us a wide range U
time, these areas became less of recreational opporruni- 7r,
efficient in removing rain- ties, from canoeing and ;0
water and essentiallypro- fishing, to birdwatcbing 7i(
moted mosquito breeding. 0!@@ and other activities. ? I

BRINGING THE PAST TO LIFE IN DELAWARE'S MARSHES

Not long after their arrival in Delaware in the 1600s,Dutch and Swedish
settlers began to build dikes to drain the extensive freshwater tidal
marshes of the northern portion of the state. Today, some 300 years later,
a nearly continuous series of dikes
and tide gates extends from Wilming-
ton south along the lower Delaware
River to Port Penn, and west along the
Christina River to Churchman's Marsh.

Despite this rigorous drainage sys-
tem, as recent as 40 years ago, many
of northern Delaware's tidal marshes
were still productive habitats, thick
with stands of wild rice, cattails, sweet
flag, rushes, smart weed, and other
plants favored by birds, waterfowl,
muskrats, and many other wildlife.

Indeed, these marshes were full of
life. Aerial waterfowl censuses in
1950-51 registered from 705 to 1,516
waterfowl per square mile-dramati-
cally eclipsing the statewide average Urbanization, coupled with drainage
of 155 waterfowl per square mile. An activities, destroyed or seriously damaged
aerial count on November 1, 1950, re- many of Delaware's northern wetlands,
corded as many as 15,000 pintail which once hoasted the largest waterfowl
ducks on the Newport marshes at one populations in the state. The top photo
time. And in 1957, the marsh areas was taken of Broad Dyke Marsh, near
from the Christna Rvier to the C&D New Castle, in the 1940's. The bottom
Canal were estimated to produce photo shows the same marsh in 1973.
about 20,000 muskrat hides each year. With proper management techniques,
once-degrated marshes can be restored.
Eventually, however, increasing urbanization and constant drainage took
their toll on these marshes, rendering many areas unsuitable for wildlife.

Can these marshes be saved? A major restoration project at the 615-acre
Dragon Run Creek Impoundment, just northwest of Delaware City, is proving
that through water management and water-quality improvement, the past
can be brought to life again. This site is now a diverse wetland with more
than 35 palnt and 200 bird species, an abundance of game fishes including
largemouth bass and chain pickerel, and a wide range of mammals such as
beaver, otter, and mink. Presently, Dragon Run Creek Impoundments is one
of the most important waterfowl areas in northern Delaware.

HOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY I
i ,
3 6668 14111983 6 @

I
I
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I