VWR � 1

The VirginiaWetlands ReportThe VirginiaWetlands Report

Winter/Spring 2001Vol. 16, No. 1

The VIMS Teaching Marsh: A Tidal WetlandRestoration and Education Project

Karen Duhring

Purpose & PlanningThe Teaching Marsh at VIMS is a

new educational resource located at theboat basin of the Gloucester Point cam-pus. The original concept for theTeaching Marsh was developed over 10years ago at the Center for CoastalResources Management. As part of itsadvisory activities, the Center sponsorstidal wetlands education opportunities,including field lessons. Due to the vari-ety and geographic distribution of tidalwetlands, it was a logistical challengeto transport students to and accessdifferent marshes for field learning op-portunities. The creation of a tidal wet-lands demonstration area at VIMS, or a“Teaching Marsh”, would alleviate thischallenge, while still providing invalu-able field experience as a compliment tostandard lectures.

The main objective of the VIMSTeaching Marsh is to provide a demon-stration area for the 37+ wetland plantspecies listed in the Tidal Wetlands Actof 1972 (Table 1). In addition to wetlandplant identification, the TeachingMarsh provides an opportunity to dem-onstrate tidal wetland community fea-tures, such as vegetation zonesbrought about by tidal range and eleva-tion. Also, the high productivity oftidal wetlands is demonstrated by thetypes and diversity of fish and wildlifepresent. The important wetland func-tion of filtering stormwater runoff be-fore it reaches a Chesapeake Baytributary can also be demonstrated.

Thanks to the generous support ofan anonymous donor, The Garden Clubof Gloucester, The Owens Foundation,Sassafras Farm, and Second NatureLandscaping, the idea hatched someten years ago has become the VIMSTeaching Marsh and is available forresearch projects and tours.

Design & ConstructionDr. Bill Roberts and Walter Priest of

the Center’s Wetlands Program wereresponsible for designing and con-structing the Teaching Marsh. An exist-ing tidal marsh restoration project at theVIMS Boat Basin and a stormwateroutfall from the Coleman Bridge (US 17)determined the project’s location. Af-ter a new riprap structure was installedalong the boat channel ten years ago,tidal marsh vegetation was also plantedto illustrate how structures and vegeta-tion can be combined for shorelinestabilization. The Coleman Bridgestormwater outfall was located at anexisting, natural tidal marsh impactedby 6-8 feet of fill and construction de-bris from a bridge expansion project.Stormwater runoff from the bridge con-tinued to be directed through the rem-nants of this marsh and provided thecentral point for the new TeachingMarsh.

Tidal wetlands vary in geographicallocation and salinity ranges, with cer-tain plant assemblages adapted to dif-ferent conditions. Since the VIMScampus is located near the mouth of the

York River, the salinity is too high forfreshwater wetland species to occurnaturally. It was necessary to designthe Teaching Marsh with separate tidalsalt marsh and freshwater components.Another design element was a perma-nent pool in both wetland areas, par-ticularly the salt marsh so it was notcompletely drained during low tide.

Construction of the TeachingMarsh took place during the summer of1999. First, the depth of existing fillwas determined to be 6-8 feet abovethe natural wetland soils. Excavationand removal of this fill was needed toachieve the correct elevations for wet-land restoration. However, a small areaadjacent to the boat channel was leftundisturbed to illustrate which plantspecies (e.g. red cedar, Juniperusvirginiana) will grow on artificial fill anddredge material.

Approximately one acre of fill wasexcavated and used to construct bermsseparating the fresh and salt-watercomponents. Interpretive walkwayswere planned along the top of theberms. A contained, upland dredgedmaterial disposal site was also con-structed with extra fill material removedfrom the Teaching Marsh. This con-tainment area will be used during futuremaintenance dredging of the boatchannel and basin where the VIMSfleet of research vessels is stationed.

The target grade for this wetlandrestoration was a 20:1 slope, withslightly steeper banks in the freshwater

2 � VWR

The Virginia Wetlands Report is a quar-terly publication of the Wetlands Pro-gram at the Virginia Institute of MarineScience of the College of William andMary. Subscriptions are available with-out charge upon written request to:Wetlands Program, Virginia Institute ofMarine Science, P.O. Box 1346,Gloucester Pt, VA 23062 USA.Address corrections requested.

Program Director: Dr. Carl HershnerHead, Wetlands Advisory Program: Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.Produced by: VIMS Publication Center

In this Issue:In this Issue:In this Issue:In this Issue:In this Issue:The VIMS Teaching Marsh:A Tidal Wetland Restorationand Education Project ....................... 1An Overview of Permitted TidalWetland Impacts for 2000 .................. 5The Stinging Sea Nettle .................... 6Calendar of Upcoming Events .......... 8Wetlands Management SymposiumFocuses on Technology andConservation .................................... 8

This report was funded, in part,by the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science and by theVirginia Coastal ResourcesManagement Program of the Depart-ment of Environmental Quality throughGrant #NA97OZ0181-01 of the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration,Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Man-agement, under the Coastal Zone Manage-ment Act, as amended.

The views expressed herein are those of the authorsand do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAAor any of its subagencies or DEQ.

Printed on recycled paper

pond. After excavating and final grad-ing, the extent of high and low tideswas monitored over an extended periodto determine where planting zonesshould be established. After the plant-ing areas were staked out, over 12,000plants were ordered from wholesalenurseries in Virginia and Maryland.The plant stock ranged in size from 2-inch peat pots to 5-gallon containersand the herbaceous species wereplanted on 12-inch centers. Shrubs andtrees were planted further apart.

Staff from the Center for CoastalResources Management planted all but10 of the 37 tidal wetland species listedin the Tidal Wetlands Act. Some of themore aggressive species, such as reedgrass (Phragmites australis) and cattail(Typha spp.) were not planted. Reedgrass was already present at the siteand readily colonized the marsh andadjacent banks after excavation andgrading. Some of the listed tidal wet-land plants, such as water hemp andwild rice, were not commercially avail-able.

The saltwater marsh was designedto include typical vegetation communi-ties. A “low marsh” between mean lowand mean high water was planted pre-dominantly with saltmarsh cordgrass(Spartina alterniflora). A “mid-marsh”(generally inundated only during abovenormal high tides) contains a variety ofspecies, including saltmarsh bulrush(Scirpus robustus), black needle-rush(Juncus roemerianus), three-square(Scirpus americanus) and big cordgrass(Spartina cynosuroides). The “highmarsh zone” at elevations inundatedonly during extreme high tide events,was planted with saltgrass (Distichlisspicata) and saltmeadow hay (Spartinapatens). A fringe of saltbushes, includ-ing marsh elder (Iva frutescens),groundsel bush (Baccharis halimifolia)and myrtles (Myrica spp.) was plantedaround the perimeter of the high marshto illustrate how this shrub zone de-fines the landward extent of tidal wet-lands.

A flat area was also included in thedesign of the saltwater marsh. Thisarea is only inundated during extremetides and subsequently there are highsalinity levels in the soil due to evapo-ration. Plant species, such as saltwort(Salicornia spp.) and sea oxeye(Borrichia frutescens), that prefer ir-regularly flooded, high salinity areaswere planted in this zone. Finally, onearea of the saltwater marsh was leftopen to demonstrate the importance ofnon-vegetated mud and sand flats,particularly when they are located adja-cent to vegetated wetlands. Non-veg-etated wetlands are the preferredhabitat for a variety of bottom-dwellinganimals, or benthos, including clams,worms, snails, and mussels.

The freshwater pond is directlyconnected to a larger stormwater reten-tion pond that collects runoff from theColeman Bridge. A backflow preven-tion device to inhibit tidal inundationinto the freshwater pond was installed.Although the freshwater component ofthe Teaching Marsh is not actuallytidal, the various plant species can stillsurvive because they also commonlyoccur in non-tidal streams, lakes andponds. A riprap spillway was con-structed over the berm between theponds to prevent flooding of the adja-cent roadway and parking lot duringheavy rainfall events. During drought,a simple control structure preventscomplete drawdown of the pond.

The freshwater wetland was de-signed to include permanent open wa-ter for yellow pond lily (Nupharluteum). Various emergent species wereplanted along shallow shelves aroundthe pond edge. These included arrow-head (Sagittaria latifolia), bultongue(Sagittaria falcata), pickerelweed(Pontedaria cordata), arrow arum(Peltandra virginica), sweet flag(Acorus calamus) and soft rush(Juncus effusus). Wetland shrubs andtrees were planted along the banks ofthe freshwater pond, including alder(Alnus serrulata), buttonbush(Cephalanthus occidentalis), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), marsh hibiscus(Hibiscus moscheutos) and marsh mal-low (Kosteletzkya virginica).

The Teaching Marsh constructionwas completed in the fall of 1999, justone week before Hurricane Floyd, dur-ing which the entire vicinity of the newproject was inundated. A majority ofthe plants survived this event, butthere was severe erosion along theunvegetated berms and walkways.Overall survival of the planted stockcould not be determined until the fol-lowing spring. After repairing the ero-sion damage and cleaning up hurricanedebris, the first group tours were ledthrough the new marsh during fall pub-lic events.

The First Year - 2000Almost all of the planted stock

showed signs of new growth in thespring of 2000. One area of blackneedlerush (Juncus roemerianus) did

VWR � 3

not survive, prob-ably because theindividual plantswere not planteddeep enough andthey were washedaway during the hur-ricane event. An-other blackneedlerush area maybe inundated toofrequently for opti-mum growth. Thisplant is typicallyfound landward ofmean high water.None of the plantedsaltmarsh bulrush(Scirpus robustus)survived eventhough planted inthree different areas.Failure of this species may be due tounsuitable salinity levels or because itwas not healthy stock. The perimeteredge of salt bushes was also planted atan elevation above periodic storm tideevents. Small seedlings have spreadinto the adjacent high marsh at lowerelevations demonstrating a range ofsuitable habitat.

Bare intertidal areas remaining in thelate spring were planted with moresaltmarsh cordgrass. Additional spe-cies not included in the first installationwere also planted, including saltwort,sea oxeye, and saltmarsh aster. Thesaltbushes were alsopruned to encouragebranching.

Staff at the Centerfor Coastal Re-sources Managementsurveyed the Teach-ing Marsh to providea scaled map. KarenDuhring and Dr. BillRoberts designedand published aninterpretive brochurefollowing numberedstations. The 15-page pamphlet high-lights the vegetationcommunities at theTeaching Marsh, aswell as the important

functions and values of tidal wetlands.Over 200 plant identification plates

were ordered and installed. A localtrophy shop provided plates engravedwith common and scientific names ofthe plants. The identification plateswere adhered to small acrylic posts andinserted next to a corresponding plant.Red numbered plates were also in-stalled to provide sequential viewingstations identified in the brochure.

The Gloucester Garden Club spon-sored an official dedication of the VIMSTeaching Marsh on April 15, 2000, dur-

ing the annual VIMSOpen House. Unfor-tunately, inclementweather preventedthe ceremony frombeing held outdoorsin the TeachingMarsh as plannedand the official rib-bon-cutting ceremonywas celebrated in-doors. In spite of therain, several peopletoured the new marshand expressed inter-est in returning tomonitor its progress.

One of the lastcomponents of theTeaching Marsh to beinstalled was a “But-terfly Garden”, which

was planted along the main entranceroad to the Boat Basin in July 2000.Over 30 species of flowering perennialsnative to the coastal plain of Virginiawere planted based on a garden designby Denise Greene of Sassafras Farm inHayes. The Butterfly Garden containsa native species of goldenrod, milk-weed, aster, coneflower, sunflower andother plants that provide food andhabitat for butterflies and their caterpil-lars. The main objective of this sectionis to demonstrate how native plants canbe decoratively used in any garden to

provide color, diver-sity and habitat.

Teaching MarshVisitors Duringthe First Year

Since it openedfor visitors, over 300people of all interestlevels and ages havevisited the TeachingMarsh. The first largegroup tours were heldduring the summer of2000. Over 150 highschool students fromRichmond and North-ern Virginia visitedthe Teaching Marsh.Younger children (6-8yrs.) attending the

The VIMS Teaching Marsh, newly planted.

The VIMS Teaching Marsh after one year.

4 � VWR

Gloucester County summer MarineScience Camp also came to learn abouttidal wetlands at the Teaching Marsh.Issues discussed with the studentsincluded stormwater runoff, plant andanimal adaptations, pollu-tion and wildlife habitat.

Sixty-eight participants attended aTidal Wetlands course taught by Dr.Bill Roberts and sponsored annually bythe Center for CoastalResources Manage-ment. A field sessionconducted in theTeaching Marsh re-viewed the relationshipof the plant communi-ties to the extent oftidal inundation, aswell as nutrient cy-cling, identification offish caught in themarsh and other issuesof interest to the par-ticipants.

Another 37 adultsparticipated in appliedresearch related toexperiential learning,by comparing lessonslearned via lecture tothat retained after adirect experience in theTeaching Marsh.Other groups that re-ceived guided tours of the TeachingMarsh during 2000 included the Collegeof William and Mary Alumni Associa-tion, the Alliance for Chesapeake Bayand the Outdoor Writers Association.

High School Student ProjectsThe Center for Coastal Resources

Management sponsored twoGovernor’s School students during thesummer of 2000. These high schoolstudents were directed to investigateand report findings related to researchat the Teaching Marsh. AlanMehrzad’s research project was titled“The Correlation Between the WaterQuality and Benthic Communities of theVIMS Teaching Marsh.” Alan collectedwater and sediment samples from vari-ous locations to correlate the waterquality of stormwater before and afterflowing through the Teaching Marshand comparing the results to analysis

of benthic communities, a standardbiological indicator of stream pollution.

Courtney Barker conducted “AStudy of the Vegetation and Commu-nity Structure of the VIMS TeachingMarsh” to generate the first baselineGIS map of the Teaching Marsh. Al-though the GPS unit Courtney used tomap the vegetative communities did nothave enough resolution, her project

outlined a useful protocol to monitorand study changes in vegetation com-munities, stem densities and tidal flows.

Ashley Smith studied the toleranceof a wetland tree species, red maple(Acer rubrum) to various salinity re-gimes within the Teaching Marsh. Herfindings illustrated the sensitivity ofsome wetland species to slight eleva-tions in salinity, emphasizing the needto understand the physical characteris-tics of a marsh restoration site beforeselecting and installing any plant mate-rials.

The Teaching Marsh was featuredin the regional Hampton Roads Garden-ing & Home Magazine in August 2000.The feature article introduced the newdemonstration area to the entire Hamp-ton Roads community. Many peoplehave visited the Teaching Marsh orcontacted VIMS to schedule tours as aresult of this publicity.

Maintenance ProgramA majority of this habitat demon-

stration area is self-sustaining. Grassmust be periodically removed from thegravel walkways. The plant identifica-tion plates are cleaned and replacedwhen necessary, and litter is removed.Only limited horticultural type mainte-nance is needed.

To encourage natural reseedingand distribution, main-tenance of the Teach-ing Marsh must beselective. Desirablespecies must be recog-nized and left in place.Pioneering plants thatquickly colonize openareas such as theTeaching Marsh areremoved, once duringthe spring and again inlate summer beforegoing to seed. Some ofthe nuisance speciesmanaged in the Teach-ing Marsh includefennel, vetch, nutgrass, and Bermudagrass. Dock (Rumexspp.) and reed grass(Phragmites australis)are actually listed inthe official definition ofvegetated wetlands,

but they can also outcompete otherdesirable plants. Vines that compete formoisture and nutrients are removedbefore they become entangled in thetrees and shrubs. Insects are closelyobserved and identified, and the hostplants monitored for severe damage,before pest control methods are se-lected.

During the winter when the marshplants are dormant, the only mainte-nance performed is a weekly patrol forlitter, primarily blown into the TeachingMarsh area from the Coleman Bridgeand the adjacent public park and boatramp. The backflow prevention deviceis also cleaned out periodically. Duringthe summer rainy season, the waterlevel in the freshwater pond is carefullymonitored. If the Boat Basin entranceroad is threatened by flooding, the

Continued on page 7

Bill Roberts (L) uses the Teaching Marsh as backdrop forlesson in wetland plant ecology.

VWR � 5

T he year 2000 was avery busy one in

terms of permit activity intidal Virginia. The previ-ous record year (1998)was easily surpassed byalmost 100 applications.After a drop in activity tobelow 800 applicationreviews per year in themiddle of the decade,2000 continued a rapidincrease in permit activitythat began in 1996 (Fig-ure 1). Based on VIMSpermit activity recordsthrough the first twomonths of this year, 2001is on a pace that is similarto that of 2000 and maybe another record year.

The following is abrief summary of permitted tidal wet-land impacts in Virginia, based on thedata base maintained by the WetlandsProgram of the Virginia Institute of Ma-rine Science. Scientists from the pro-gram visit each application site andenter the data directly into the database as part of their application reviewprocess. Maintenance of this data baseand presentation of these data wouldnot be possiblewithout the fundingof the VirginiaCoastal ResourcesManagement Pro-gram (NOAA) andthe efforts of per-sonnel from boththe Wetlands andComprehensiveCoastal InventoryPrograms of theCenter for CoastalResources Manage-ment at VIMS.

The data indi-cate that for theyear 2000, localwetlands boards

and the Virginia Marine ResourcesCommission permitted 20.7 miles ofshoreline alterations. That is, 20.7 milesof new shoreline hardening using eitherriprap revetment or vertical bulkhead.This number compares to an annualaverage of 19.2 miles which has oc-curred over the 13 years that the database has been in existence (1988-2000).The primary reasons for shoreline hard-

ening are protection againsterosion and the effects ofgradual sea level rise. Thedata also indicate the pref-erence for the use of riprapover bulkheads which is afurther extension of a previ-ously identified trend (Fig-ure. 2). The figure alsodemonstrates that the year2000 was an average yearfor total length of shorelinehardening.

Even though 2000 was arecord year in terms of per-mit activity, this was notreflected in permitted wet-land impacts. The data baseindicates that the 22.6 acretotal for vegetated and non-vegetated wetland impactspermitted in 2000 was well

below the annual average recordedsince 1988 and far below the recordimpact year of 1990 when over 80 acresof wetland impacts were permitted.Again, as in most previous years, thedata indicate that a majority of the im-pacts allowed were in non-vegetated asopposed to vegetated wetlands(Figure 3).

The data also demonstrate that of allthe shoreline activities re-quiring a permit, the mostwetlands impacts, totaling7.6 acres, occurred as a re-sult of riprap revetments.The second highest level ofimpact resulted from generalfill within wetlands and to-taled 4.7 acres. These totalswere followed by bulkheadinstallation and riprap toeprotection ranking third andfourth with annual totals of1.8 and 1.4 acres of wetlandimpact, respectively.

Even though the num-bers for 2000 are smaller than

An Overview of Permitted Tidal WetlandImpacts for 2000

Tom Barnard

0

5

10

15

20

25

Mile

sof

Sho

relin

e

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000Year

Bulkhead Riprap

Shoreline Alterations

Figure 1. Annual tidal permit application reviewactivity in Virginia during the decade of the 1990’s.

Figure 2. Annual miles of Virginia shoreline hardenedusing riprap or bulkhead. Continued on page 7

6 � VWR

The Stinging Sea Nettle (Jellyfish)Bill Roberts

Wetland Denizens���

��

�

As the summer sun heats thewaters of the Chesapeake Bay

one’s thoughts turn to a refreshingswim on a hot, hazy afternoon. Unfortu-nately, as the summer progresses, thesewarmer temperatures present an idealenvironment for the ubiquitous sting-ing sea nettle, Chrysaora quin-quecirrha, which matures in the Bayalong with other species of jellyfish.

Jellyfish belong to the biologicalphylum Cnidaria (ny-DEHR-ee-uh), alsoreferred to as Coelenterata (so-lin-terr-RAH-ta). Included in this phylum arethe corals, which compose our coralreefs, and sea anemones. This group ofsea creatures is named for their com-mon characteristic, that we all haveexperienced, painfully I should add, atsometime in our lives: the stinging cellcalled a cnidocyte (NYD-uh-syt). Eachstinging cell contains a trigger, a sting-ing organelle called a nematocyst (neh-MAT-oh-sist) and a potentially painfuldose of toxins which irritates and in-flames the skin, forming painful rashes.Whenever an unsuspecting fish or anunlucky swimmer comes in contact withthe trigger mechanism of the cnidocyte(stinging cell) it discharges the nemato-cyst and its toxins much like a harpooninto the unfortunate victim. AllCnidarians are carnivores. When smalland immature they feed on zooplanktoncontaining copepods and the larvae offish and crabs. As they grow in size theCnidarians switch to larger prey itemssuch as small fish and shrimp. The tox-ins stun the prey which is then drawninto the centrally located mouth andforced into the digestive system. Thehapless fish is consumed as a mealwhile we are doomed to hours of pain-ful itching, burning and stinging.

Another common characteristic ofthe Cnidarians is their radial symmetry,meaning that no matter how the organ-ism is divided through the central axis,

both sides are identical. The body partsof Cnidarians are arranged in a circularfashion around the central axis, muchlike the spokes of a wheel. This radialsymmetry allows the Cndarians to reactto stimuli equally well from all sides.

Cnidarians can occur as one of twobasic body forms in their life cycle. Thestinging sea nettle begins life as a free-swimming cylindrical larvae called a

planula (plah-NU-la) which become partof the Bay’s floating plankton. Theplanula soon attach themselves toshells, pilings, seaweeds and othersubmerged strata. These attachedplanula develop into a polyp (PAHL-uhp) which is generally a benthic life

form characterized by a cylindrical bodythat has an opening at one end, themouth, usually surrounded by ten-tacles. These Polyps form large colo-nies and each may be specialized forfeeding, defense or reproduction.These polyp colonies overwinter andas the Bay’s waters warm in the spring,the sessile or stationary reproductivepolyps produce the more commonlyrecognized life form of jellyfish, themedusa. The immature medusa is a free-floating stage resembling an invertedbowl called a bell and eventually devel-ops into the mature stinging sea nettle.By mid-summer, the mature sea nettlespopulate the higher salinity waters ofthe Bay and its tributaries and are readyto prowl the Bay in search of small fishand unwary swimmers. During years ofhigh rainfall that generally lower theBay’s salinity, jellyfish are usually lessof a problem. While a formidable preda-tor itself, this jellyfish is also prey forseveral species of fish, sea turtles andcrustaceans. Fortunately, since thestinging sea nettle is mostly water, ittakes a lot to make a meal! By summer’send the medusa forms both male andfemale gonads which produce gametesthat unite to form the free-swimmingplanula. As fall approaches and coolerwater temperatures arrive, this and mostother jellyfish, disappear.

The stinging sea nettle is not astrong swimmer but is capable of loco-motion by rhythmic contractions andexpansions of the medusa bell. Gener-ally it uses the changing tides and as-sociated currents to distribute itselfthroughout the Bay in search of food.

For more detailed information con-cerning the life cycle of the stinging seanettle and other jellyfish common to theChesapeake Bay, please consult Life inthe Chesapeake Bay, by A.J and R.L.Lippson.

Stinging nettle medusa

Treatment for a Jellyfish StingTreatment consists of removing theTreatment consists of removing theTreatment consists of removing theTreatment consists of removing theTreatment consists of removing thetentacles, preferably with gloves,tentacles, preferably with gloves,tentacles, preferably with gloves,tentacles, preferably with gloves,tentacles, preferably with gloves,washing the affected area with sea-washing the affected area with sea-washing the affected area with sea-washing the affected area with sea-washing the affected area with sea-waterwaterwaterwaterwater, immersing the part in vinegar, immersing the part in vinegar, immersing the part in vinegar, immersing the part in vinegar, immersing the part in vinegarfor 20 to 30 minutes, applying a dryfor 20 to 30 minutes, applying a dryfor 20 to 30 minutes, applying a dryfor 20 to 30 minutes, applying a dryfor 20 to 30 minutes, applying a drypowder or shaving soap and scrapingpowder or shaving soap and scrapingpowder or shaving soap and scrapingpowder or shaving soap and scrapingpowder or shaving soap and scrapingthe area with a sharp knife to removethe area with a sharp knife to removethe area with a sharp knife to removethe area with a sharp knife to removethe area with a sharp knife to removeany nemacysts embedded in the skin,any nemacysts embedded in the skin,any nemacysts embedded in the skin,any nemacysts embedded in the skin,any nemacysts embedded in the skin,washing the area thoroughly withwashing the area thoroughly withwashing the area thoroughly withwashing the area thoroughly withwashing the area thoroughly withsoapy watersoapy watersoapy watersoapy watersoapy water, and then applying a cor, and then applying a cor, and then applying a cor, and then applying a cor, and then applying a cor-----ticosteroid-analgesic-antihistamineticosteroid-analgesic-antihistamineticosteroid-analgesic-antihistamineticosteroid-analgesic-antihistamineticosteroid-analgesic-antihistamineointment. Systematic manifestationsointment. Systematic manifestationsointment. Systematic manifestationsointment. Systematic manifestationsointment. Systematic manifestationsare best treated symptomaticallyare best treated symptomaticallyare best treated symptomaticallyare best treated symptomaticallyare best treated symptomatically.....

VWR � 7

most of the previously studied 13 years,permitted activities continue to ad-versely affect relatively large areas ofthe ecologically higher rated Group Iwetlands. 2000 was the fifth lowest yearfor total impacts to the salt marshcordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, commu-nity (0.9 acres) and the fifth highest forimpacts to intertidal beach habitat (2.7acres). This may only be a function of agiven community’s position in the land-scape (fringing intertidal) or may in-volve many other factors. Furtheranalysis will be necessary if this ques-tion and the many others that thesedata may generate are to be fully an-swered.

Finally, the data base indicates thatthe permit process produced 3.3 acresof compensatory mitigation comparedto the previously mentioned 22.6 acresof wetlands impact. Even though it isclear that all of the 22.6 acres are notdirect losses of wetlands, it also ap-pears to be true, based on preliminaryanalysis, that losses were much greaterthan the 3.3 acres of compensatorymitigation. What is not clear at this timeis whether the combination of these 3.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Acr

es

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Vegetated Nonvegetated

Annual Wetland Impact Totals

acres and the other wetlands restora-tion programs within the state equal orexceed the actual wetland losses occur-ring annually and therefore whether theCommonwealth continues to losemarshes at a steady rate or is beginningto approach the goal of no net loss ofwetland resources.

An Overview of Permitted TidalWetland Impacts for 2000continued from page 5

Figure 3. Annual permitted vegetated andnon-vegetated wetland impacts.

More details from the data base willbe forthcoming in a VIMS technicalreport due out later this year. Anyonewishing to view data for specific locali-ties and/or watersheds can query thedata base directly from the VIMS homepage at: http://www.vims.edu/ccrm/ .

control structure is opened to allow thepond level to fall.

The Second Year � 2001Several projects have already been

completed in 2001. Nancy Wilson, withthe Information Technology & Net-working Services department, set up avirtual tour of the Teaching Marsh onthe VIMS web site. This online tour isbased on the original brochure. It in-cludes photographs and plant identifi-cation drawings, in addition to thenarrative text describing each numberedstation. Related links to other web sitesare also provided.

Several volunteers have been re-cruited to assist with routine mainte-nance and leading tours through the

VIMS Teaching Marshcontinued from page 4

Teaching Marsh. Training sessions areplanned and reference materials will beprovided for the volunteer docents.Routine maintenance of the TeachingMarsh will begin in April, 2001 and willcontinue until October.

Summer courses being planned bythe Center for Coastal Resources Man-agement this summer may include ses-sions in the Teaching Marsh, includingcourses on Wetland Delineation, Wet-land Mitigation and Wetland PlantIdentification.

For More InformationIf you would like more information

about the VIMS Teaching Marsh or thissummer’s course offerings, please con-tact Dr. Bill Roberts, Wetlands Educa-

tion Coordinator, Center for CoastalResources Management at (804) 684-7395 or wlr@vims.edu. You can alsovisit the VIMS web site atwww.vims.edu. A link to the TeachingMarsh can be found in the OngoingResearch section of the Home Page.

8 � VWR

Calendar of Upcoming Events

May 15-18, 2001May 15-18, 2001May 15-18, 2001May 15-18, 2001May 15-18, 2001 VIMS VIMS VIMS VIMS VIMS WWWWWetland Plant Identificationetland Plant Identificationetland Plant Identificationetland Plant Identificationetland Plant Identification CourseCourseCourseCourseCourse, Gloucester PointFor more information contact Dr. Bill Roberts, wlr@vims.edu or (804) 684-7395 or 684-7380

May 14-16, 2001May 14-16, 2001May 14-16, 2001May 14-16, 2001May 14-16, 2001 Assessing the Health of Assessing the Health of Assessing the Health of Assessing the Health of Assessing the Health of WWWWWetland Life: Policyetland Life: Policyetland Life: Policyetland Life: Policyetland Life: Policy, Science & Practice., Science & Practice., Science & Practice., Science & Practice., Science & Practice.Sponsored by EPA and running concurrently with:

May 16-18, 2001May 16-18, 2001May 16-18, 2001May 16-18, 2001May 16-18, 2001 Communities Communities Communities Communities Communities WWWWWorking for orking for orking for orking for orking for WWWWWetlands Conference, etlands Conference, etlands Conference, etlands Conference, etlands Conference, Orlando, Fla.Sponsored by The Isaac Walton League of America and EPA.For Information updates contact, www.iwla.org/sos/awm

May 27-June 1May 27-June 1May 27-June 1May 27-June 1May 27-June 1 2222222222ndndndndnd Annual Meeting of the Society of Annual Meeting of the Society of Annual Meeting of the Society of Annual Meeting of the Society of Annual Meeting of the Society of WWWWWetland Scientistsetland Scientistsetland Scientistsetland Scientistsetland Scientists, ChicagoContact: (217) 333-2888, (FAX) 333-9561, or www.sws.org/chicago/.

July 15-19, 2001July 15-19, 2001July 15-19, 2001July 15-19, 2001July 15-19, 2001 Coastal Zone 2001, Hands Coastal Zone 2001, Hands Coastal Zone 2001, Hands Coastal Zone 2001, Hands Coastal Zone 2001, Hands Across the Across the Across the Across the Across the WWWWWateraterateraterater-Linking Land, Lake and Sea.-Linking Land, Lake and Sea.-Linking Land, Lake and Sea.-Linking Land, Lake and Sea.-Linking Land, Lake and Sea. Cleveland.Contact: (843) 740-1279 or email Jan.Kucklick@noaa.gov

The Twentieth Annual Virginia Wetlands ManagementSymposium was held on February 24, 2001 with the TurnerHall auditorium on the Hampton University campus accommo-dating 126 pre-registrants. The symposium is sponsored eachyear by the Hampton University Center for Marine andCoastal Environmental Studies and the Virginia Marine Re-sources Commission, Habitat Management Division. Four ofthe featured speakers were from the Center for Coastal Re-sources Management at the Virginia Institute of Marine Sci-ence with one each from the Department of EnvironmentalQuality, the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department,the Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the MarineResources Commission. Each of the talks was well receivedand generated numerous questions from the interested attend-ees.

Karen Duhring of VIMS was the first speaker and her talkillustrated how Global Positioning System (GPS), GeographicInformation System (GIS) and new computer technologieshave been utilized to create an improved VIMS Shoreline Per-mit Application Report. The new format delivers significantlymore technical information than the old format while the timelost to mailing is eliminated through the posting of the reporton the web. In response to questions from attendees, it wasexplained that the VIMS comments are written in the contextof, and are notably enhanced by, the new technologies andmuch more than a few color illustrations is lost if the report isnot considered as a package.

Shep Moon of the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance De-partment spoke next regarding the problem his agency is en-countering where localities are meshing wetlands and riparianbuffer management. The problem is with the apparent percep-tion in many localities that since a shoreline erosion controlstructure is an allowed use in the Chesapeake Bay Preserva-tion Act, it exempts permitees from having to maintain or re-

store the natural vegetation in the Resource Protection Arealandward of a permitted structure. His agency is trying tospread the word that a shoreline permit does not automaticallyexempt a homeowner from preserving the riparian buffer onhis property.

Ellen Gilinsky of DEQ next brought everyone up to datewith the development of Virginia’s Non-tidal Wetlands Regu-lations and the plans to implement the controversial new lawin October of 2001.

Dave Norris illustrated for the group the programs in placeunder Virginia’s Wetland Restoration Initiative and this paral-leled very well with Tom Barnard’s talk which reported annualnet losses of tidal wetlands in the state according to the VIMSpermit data base. (See related article on page 5 in this issue.)

Kirk Havens and Lyle Varnell reported on their research.Kirk described his monitoring of the aggressive invader,Phragmites australis, in created wetlands and potential meth-ods of controlling the plant. Lyle’s talk stimulated a great dealof discussion among the attendees as he demonstrated howhe had used field data from natural creek marshes to create amathematical model that can be used to design a created wet-land and eliminate much of the guess work which has led tofailures and/or extended establishment periods in previousattempts at anthropogenic wetland creation.

Jay Woodward of the Marine Resources Commission re-ported on the Lancaster County Wetland Board’s efforts,using their civil charge receipts, to vegetate eroding areasalong the Belle Isle State Park shoreline. This was a success-ful, cooperative effort that may serve as a model for futureenvironmental enhancements.

There being no bills before the Legislature pertinent totidal wetlands, the symposium ended after an open forum inwhich several issues of concern were introduced and dis-cussed by those in attendance.

Wetlands Management SymposiumFocuses on Technology and Conservation