Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Status Report on 22 Key Policy Recommendations Proposed in
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage:
Tools for Biodiversity Conservation.
Curlew Sandpiper © Richard Szutenbach
June 2013
Acknowledgements
F
unding for this project was made possible thanks to generous contributions from the
Welfare Foundation, Ernest E. Stempel Foundation, Laffey-McHugh Foundation,
Marshall-Reynolds Foundation and the Delaware Chapter of The Nature
Conservancy. The contents of the report are the responsibility of the Delaware Chapter
of the Nature Conservancy. Report authors were Lynn A. Herman and Andrew T. Manus.
The authors wish to thank Debbie Heaton, former Director of Philanthropy at The Nature
Conservancy’s Delaware chapter, who catalyzed interest and secured necessary funding for
the project. Many individuals gratefully contributed their time and expertise in assisting
with research, taking time to talk and making respective staffs available, including Connie
Holland, Director, Delaware State Planning Office; Austin Short, Deputy Secretary,
Delaware Department of Agriculture; and David Small, Deputy Secretary, Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
This report respects confidentiality since
many agency staff members were assured that
comments would be without attribution.
The authors are however, very grateful
for the assistance and valuable insights
provided by a number of individuals in
the State Planning Office, Department
of Agriculture and the Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental
Control. A number of these individuals
were early contributors to the original
effort that produced Protecting Delaware’s
Natural Heritage. Others entered into public
service later but recognize the report’s value
to their respective programs and have referred
to it on a number of occasions.
Trees at The Nature Conservancy’s Edward H. McCabe Preserve © Andrew Root
2
Introduction
I
n 1998 Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
partnered with the Environmental Law Institute and a number of conservation
organizations to gain a better understanding of how Delaware’s laws, policies,
institutions and management tools could more effectively ensure that the state’s future
includes a vibrant economy, high quality of life and rich biological resources1. The results of
this effort culminated in 1999 with a public meeting and a 149-page report titled: Protecting
Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation.2
The 1999 report recommended a comprehensive statewide strategy along with a series of
components to focus on what would lead to the development of a plan around which public
agencies and private interests could rally to guide biodiversity conservation and restoration
in Delaware. The report articulated 22 key policy recommendations for the State of Delaware
and Delawareans to act upon.3 These key policy recommendations identified specific ways
that biodiversity conservation and restoration should be implemented in the state. To
date, there has not been a comprehensive
and systematic review of the status of these
22 key policy recommendations.
This report assesses the status of the 22
key policy recommendations proposed in
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage, including
whether or not they were implemented and
if so, describing the implementation that
was accomplished. Each summary shows
the agency primarily responsible for the
recommendation and views its progress in
terms of implementation.
This report also includes a scorecard rating
the level of implementation that has been
accomplished for each recommendation. A
score is expressed as a percentage range of
completion. This determination was based
on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level
of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copies and/or internet
links), and concurrence by the researchers.
Horseshoe Crabs on Big Stone Beach © Corinne Kee
3
Purpose of Assessment
P
rotecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage is a collection of public policy recommendations
aimed at advancing biodiversity4 conservation in Delaware. The report was never
adopted by state government as official policy. Rather, the report was intended to
provide Delaware agencies, organizations, local governments, corporations and citizens
with tools for devising a statewide strategy to promote and protect the conservation of
biodiversity. The report recognized that:
“If biological diversity is ever to be meaningfully conserved and restored, it must be integrated
into the fabric of state laws, policies and institutions” because, the report noted, “most of
the land management practices and individual decisions that contribute to habitat loss and
fragmentation, habitat degradation and exotic species invasions are profoundly affected by state
agency laws, regulations and policies.”
As a consequence, implementation of the 22 key policy recommendations has rested
primarily with agency staff, and to a limited
extent, with citizen conservationists and
organizations that provided information and
guidance to the Environmental Law Institute
(ELI) in developing the report. For each policy
recommendation we sought input from staff
members in relevant agencies to answer and
summarize the following questions:
1. How familiar was staff with the
recommendation?
2. What would successful
implementation look like?
3. What level of implementation was
achieved?
4. What is the intended result(s)?
5. Was someone formally designated to
work toward and track implementation
of the recommendation?
6. Was the recommendation
incorporated into an annual work
plan?
7. Has there been organizational (staff
and budget) capacity to undertake
implementation?
8. What type of stakeholder buy-in did/
does the recommendation have outside
of government?
A young boy explores the outdoors in Delaware © Jennifer Burns
4
Purpose of Assessment (continued)
In addition to cataloging the status of the key policy recommendations, this
project also gained valuable insights into the incredible “shelf-life” of Protecting
Delaware’s Natural Heritage. These insights can best be summarized as lessons learned
and include:
• Implementing recommendations were more successful when staff who managed the
programs for which the recommendations were made had the latitude to make the
necessary changes primarily through the modification of practices and procedures.
• In instances where recommendations required new laws, or regulatory or policy
changes, implementation was less successful and in several instances not attempted.
• The collaborative and consultative process used by ELI in developing and drafting
the report fostered a committed cadre of conservation professionals within state
government who took ownership for implementing recommendations related to
their programs.
• Recommendations that were clear,
concise and had an understood
purpose were accomplished and
implemented.
• Ownership by an agency or program
of a recommendation advanced
implementation.
Poplar Thicket © Steven Billups
5
Methods/Approach
T
his project began with an assumption about the influence that an external
publication (Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage) developed through a largely
collaborative process has had on actual efforts to affect agency and public policy
related to biodiversity conservation in Delaware. Four primary questions drove this inquiry:
1. Was Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage effective in bringing about change in
biodiversity conservation in Delaware?
2. What is the status of the 22 key policy recommendations outlined in the 1999 report?
3. Of the 22 key policy recommendations made, which ones have not been implemented?
4. For those key policy recommendations that were not implemented, what were the
reasons for the lack of action?
We began our inquiry by reviewing Protecting
Delaware’s Natural Heritage and identifying
key individuals within the Delaware
Department of Agriculture, Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control and the State Planning Office who
were both knowledgeable about the report
and had some responsibility and capacity to
implement the recommendations. During
our inquiry, we interviewed and consulted
with 45 individuals. Of this group, over half
of the individuals had directly participated in
the process with ELI to develop the report.
During this process, we also reviewed agency
materials and background reports that were
germane to the respective 22 key policy
recommendations. Much of this material was
identified in interview sessions with staff. This
information provided useful background and
context to our inquiry. What we found during
the course of our assessment is noted in the
summary of findings below. Specific details
regarding the status of each of the individual
22 key policy recommendations are included
in the full body of this report.
Red knots © Barry Truitt
6
Summary of Findings
T
his assessment is intended to provide the various interested “publics” and decision
makers concerned with biodiversity protection and restoration with a benchmark
against which future efforts to implement the key policy recommendations in
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage can be compared. Further, this effort begs the question:
What are the implications of this assessment for future management, policy and legislative
action by the responsible agencies and the conservation community in Delaware? This
Summary of Findings illustrates how this question might be addressed.
• Those recommendations that were fully implemented included numbers 1, 2, 10 and 16.
• Those recommendations that were partially implemented or had limited action included
numbers 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 22.
• Those recommendations that were not acted upon included numbers 3, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17
and 21.
• Those recommendations that were not
clear or understood included numbers
5 and 9.
For fully implemented recommendations,
it was clear that the respective agencies
responsible for the recommendation had
staff who took leadership and ownership for
implementation; there was agency support
for the effort; a clear legal basis existed; and
public support was evident.
These
findings
might
be
directly
applicable to the other categories of
recommendations, including those which
were only partially implemented. For example,
Recommendation #19, which called for the
establishment and maintenance of a statewide
biodiversity inventory and assessment, has
made considerable progress since information
derived from this program is used by a number
of agencies and conservation partners. While
heavily used, the program suffers from a
lack of support in the way of a full-time data
manager. This should be addressed through
the DNREC budget process or through some
other innovative funding scheme to support
this important program component.
Red-breasted Nuthatch © USFWS
7
Summary of Findings (continued)
Regarding recommendations that were not acted upon, such as Recommendation 7 that
calls for the establishment of a state non-tidal wetlands law, it should be determined
whether DNREC could make this a legislative priority. The need for such a law was
recognized by Governor Markell during his gubernatorial campaign. Further, DNREC
has commissioned a new evaluation by the ELI to inform the development of a common
vision for wetlands protection in Delaware that should create further public awareness and
support for this need.
For those recommendations that were not clear or understood by the respective agencies
it would be appropriate to further consult with staff to determine the original intent of
recommendations number 5 and 9 and whether or not they might be recast in a way that is
germane to assisting in the protection of biodiversity conservation or simply dropped from
this agenda.
The above examples simply illustrate how
one might use this report to continue the
process of implementing the key policy
recommendations highlighted in the report:
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for
Biodiversity Conservation.
Within the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, funding for the project was provided by the Division of Fish
and Wildlife and the Delaware Coastal Programs. Funding to assist
with the publication of the final report was provided by the Delaware
Nature Society and the Delaware Chapter of The Nature Conservancy.
1
For a copy of the executive summary see: http://www.dnrec.state.
de.us/DNREC2000/Admin/Biodiversity/eliexecsumm.pdf
For a copy of the full report see: http://www.delawareenvirothon.org/
Protecting%20Delaware’s%20Heritage.pdf
2
These key policy recommendations are listed in the Executive Summary:
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation,
authored by the Environmental Law Institute and published in 1999.
3
The 1999 Environmental Law Institute Report defines biodiversity as
the “variety of life and its processes.” It includes “the variety of living
organisms, the genetic differences among them, and the communities
and ecosystems in which they occur.” A region once rich in native
species and ecosystem types that now has only uniform landscapes
with few species and little variation within species is biologically
impoverished. (ELI Report page 3).
4
Edward H. McCabe Preserve © Andrew Bowden
8
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
1
Delaware should exercise its authority to deny infrastructure and development funding for
projects that are inconsistent with state development policies, including development outside
of designated growth areas. The Quality of Life Act should be modified to require (rather than
merely allow) the state to deny funding for infrastructure projects whenever a proposed action
is inconsistent with state development policies.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
State of Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination (OSPC)
Major Actions Taken:
The primary purpose of the Delaware Quality of Life Act of 1988 was to utilize and strengthen County comprehensive planning as a
means of guiding and controlling future development within Delaware. Four major accomplishments helped to strengthen the original
intent of the legislation:
1. The completion of State Strategies for Policy and Spending in 1999, with updates in 2004 and 2010. The 2004 update by the
Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues was a comprehensive attempt, coordinated with local governments and state
agencies, to identify areas that had existing infrastructure to cost effectively support controlled growth.
2. The issuance of Executive Order No. 14, the Livable Delaware Agenda, by Governor Ruth Ann Minner, was a directive
for state agencies to implement Strategies for Policy and Spending. The primary principles identified in the 2004 Strategies
document included:
• Investing taxpayer funds efficiently to slow sprawl.
• Preserving farmland and open space.
• Encouraging redevelopment to avoid greenfields.
• Facilitating attractive and affordable housing.
• Preserving Delaware’s quality of life through sustainable development.
In addition, the 2004 Strategies document identified four state levels of investment (1-4), with priorities given by state agencies for
each investment level. Simplistically stated, Level 1 investment areas are areas where development is encouraged while Level 4
areas are those lands where development is discouraged. Selected examples of investment strategies for selected state agencies
include the following.
• A Level 1 investment area for the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) would be
areas dedicated to sewer funding, greenways, trails and recycling grants, while Level 4 investment areas would be those areas
with the highest priorities for open space preservation.
• Level 1 investment strategies for the Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA) would include the highest priority for community
and urban forestry while a Level 4 investment identified area would make farmland preservation the highest priority.
• The Delaware Department of Transportation (DELDOT) would give priorities in Level 1 investment areas for transportation
and transit enhancements, safe routes for schools and intersection improvements while Level 4 investment areas would be
targeted for corridor preservation.
(continued)
9
RECOMMENDATION
1
continued
3. In September 2001, under Governor Ruth Ann Minner’s tenure, the OSPC was instrumental in coordinating the passage of
House Bill 255, an integral component of the Livable Delaware Initiative requiring local governments (counties and municipalities)
to adopt comprehensive plans consistent with the State Strategies for Policy and Spending including Investment Levels 1-4.
County comprehensive plans must show future growth areas before they can annex, while local governments were required to
rezone after adopting comprehensive plans.
4. The passage of SB 65 in 2003 replaced the Land Use Planning Act with the Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS). PLUS
allows the State to review development proposals before developers have begun their investments thus reducing the pressure
to approve or deny projects after they have been started. SB 65 also added a review of residential subdivisions that were not
included in the Land Use Protection Act.
The OSPC also indicated that efforts are continuing through planning and specifically Master Planning and Complete Communities.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100% Complete
100%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #1 is 100%
80
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
60
40
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
During the final review of this recommendation, The News Journal
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
reported (April 02, 2013) that the Office of State Planning (OSP) would be
BLUE indicates the range of completion
moved administratively from the Office of Management and Budget to the
Delaware Department of Transportation. While not under the purview of
this review, this move had the potential (perception on the part of the public and other state, county and local governments) to lessen
the role and effectiveness of OSP. On May 28th, 2013 The News Journal reported that plans to transfer the OSP to the Delaware
Department of Transportation were blocked by the General Assembly’s Joint Finance Committee. The Joint Finance Committee felt
it important that the OSP remain an independent organization. The current location within the Office of Management and Budget has
provided the OSP with the forum to be highly effective with respect to statewide planning (and being an advocate for biodiversity
conservation), as evidenced during this review that this recommendation was 100% implemented.
20
Supporting References
•The Delaware Quality of Life Act of 1988
New Castle County: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c026/sc02/index.shtml
Kent County: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c049/sc02/index.shtml
Sussex County: http://delcode.delaware.gov/title9/c069/sc02/index.shtml
•Delaware State Strategies for Policy and Spending, 2010:http://www.stateplanning.delaware.gov/strategies/
•The Livable Delaware Agenda: http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/information/documents/ccspi_rep_01_03_08.pdf
•Delaware House Bill 255, 2001: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS141.NSF/vwLegislation/HB+255?Opendocument
•Delaware Senate Bill 65, 2003: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS142.NSF/vwLegislation/SB+65?Opendocument
•Complete Communities Literature Inventory Matrix:
http://completecommunitiesde.org/files/2012/12/Combined_Matrix12_18_12_MSedit.pdf
10
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
2
Amend existing county comprehensive plans to ensure that they are consistent with the state’s
development priorities. State designated growth and preservation areas are required by law to be
reflected in comprehensive plans at the county level. Require counties to develop zoning maps that
are in accord with their comprehensive plans. Areas designated as growth and preservation areas in
the county comprehensive plans should be reflected as such in the zoning maps.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
State of Delaware Office of State Planning Coordination (OSPC)
Major Actions Taken:
Two major accomplishments fulfilled Recommendation #2:
1. The completion of State Strategies for Policy and Spending in 1999 with updates in 2004 and 2010.
2. The passage of House Bill 255 in 2001.
In September, 2001, under Governor Ruth Ann Minner’s tenure, the OSPC was instrumental in coordinating the passage of House
Bill 255, an integral component of the Livable Delaware Initiative. HB 255 requires local governments (counties and municipalities)
to adopt comprehensive plans consistent with the State Strategies for Policy and Spending. County comprehensive plans must show
future growth areas before they can annex, while local governments are required to rezone after adopting comprehensive plans. The
zoning maps, which are consistent with County Comprehensive plans, have the force of law. In addition, comprehensive plans must be
reviewed every 5 years.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100% Complete
100%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #2 is 100%
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
80
60
40
20
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
During the final review of this recommendation, The News Journal
0
reported (April 02, 2013) that the Office of State Planning (OSP) would be
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
moved administratively from the Office of Management and Budget to the
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Delaware Department of Transportation. While not under the purview of
this review, this move had the potential (perception on the part of the public and other state, county and local governments) to lessen
the role and effectiveness of OSP. On May 28th, 2013 The News Journal reported that plans to transfer the OSP to the Delaware
Department of Transportation were blocked by the General Assembly’s Joint Finance Committee. The Joint Finance Committee felt
it important that the OSP remain an independent organization. The current location within the Office of Management and Budget has
provided the OSP with the forum to be highly effective with respect to statewide planning (and being an advocate for biodiversity
conservation), as evidenced during this review that this recommendation was 100% implemented.
Supporting References
•Delaware House Bill 255, 2001: http://www.legis.delaware.gov/LIS/LIS141.NSF/vwLegislation/HB+255?Opendocument
•The Livable Delaware Agenda: http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/information/documents/ccspi_rep_01_03_08.pdf
•Delaware State Strategies for Policy and Spending, 2010: http://www.stateplanning.delaware.gov/strategies/
11
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
3
The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control should move quickly to meet its
legal obligations under the Land Protection Act by providing counties with detailed maps of State
Resource Areas (SRA’s). Based on these maps, all three Delaware counties should comply with the
Land Protection Act by adopting overlay zoning ordinances and environmental design standards
to protect SRA’s.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
Delaware’s Land Protection Act states: Chapter 75, Section 7507 (2):
Update the state resource area maps, in consultation with county government, at least every 5 years. (c) Upon adoption of the
state resource area maps the Department shall send copies to the affected county for inclusion in the conservation element of
their respective comprehensive plans, and send copies to affected municipalities for inclusion in their respective comprehensive
plans. Updated state resource area maps shall also be submitted to said agencies no later than 1 year prior to mandatory
comprehensive plan updates required in Delaware Code.
In 2006, then Secretary John Hughes wrote landowners included in the SRAs the following:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that property you own is within a designated SRA. These areas are important to every
present and future citizen of this State and you should be proud to own land in one of these special areas.
Implementing SRA protection needs to happen at the state and local levels. I will be providing the SRA maps to the counties for
consideration as they update and implement their comprehensive land use plans. The counties will use them as they plan for
future growth and adopt or revise land development and protection programs. Once the SRAs are implemented, we will see the
difference and appreciate the tools that the General Assembly gave us to protect our natural resources.
There has been a great deal of public discussion about the mapping and SRA designation process. I believe these maps will
lead to smarter development of our precious resources. The State has been repeatedly asked to address the issues of urban
sprawl, pollution from development, and lack of open space for humans and wildlife alike. The maps will serve as a tool for county
governments to ensure that future development allows for things that all Delawareans can agree we need: trees, wildlife, clean
water, clean air and elbow space. It is the State’s mission to make sure that we protect everyone’s interests in the development
of our resources, including the interests of future generations who will inherit Delaware as we leave it for them.
Some have suggested that this designation is a taking of your property rights. I do not believe this to be the case, and I do not
believe that property values will plummet as a result of this designation. The Act does not prohibit development in these areas;
rather, it promotes development in a more environmentally sensitive manner. The Act requires the counties to consider programs
to promote smart development, including density bonuses, credits and incentives for landowners involved in land protection, and
a program to allow trading or transferring of those credits and incentives. Such programs can help maintain the value of lands
in SRAs.
We encourage you to participate in your county’s comprehensive plan and implementation process. You should also be aware
that the Land Protection Act requires the counties to develop a process for landowners to appeal SRA designation.
This effort by DNREC to comply with the Land Protection Act was subject to a law suit. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were private
landowners and others. The suit was heard in the Court of Chancery by Master Sam Glasscock. He concluded: DNREC’s SRA maps
are void.
No new action on implementing the SRA provision under the Delaware Land Protection Act has been taken at this time.
(continued)
12
RECOMMENDATION
3
continued
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
80
The level of implementation for Recommendation 3 is 0%
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Technically DNREC is out of compliance with the Land Protection Act.
60
40
0% Complete
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Supporting References:
•Letter from John A. Hughes, DNREC Secretary, to Landowners. September 27, 2006.
•Master’s Report, In Court of Chancery C.A. No. 2641-MG
•Delaware’s Land Protection Act states: Chapter 75, Section 7507
13
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
4
Enhance the effectiveness of the state Endangered Species Act. Revise the Act to include a prohibition
on the taking of listed species, a requirement for listing of species, a requirement for consultation
with the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control on actions that may impair
habitat or species viability, a requirement for recovery plan development, and a provision for critical
habitat designation. Extend protection to Delaware plants that are endangered, threatened, and
species of concern either by including plants in the legal definition of “species” or by enacting a
separate plant protection law. Also, revise the Act to extend protection to threatened species and
species of concern in the state.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
In 2011, Senator McDowell introduced Senate Bill 149 to amend Title 7 of the Delaware Code relating to Conservation and Endangered
Species. The bill was drafted with some input from DNREC. The bill was assigned to the Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Committee on June 23, 2011. No further action has been taken on this bill.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation 4 is 1 - 10%
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
A great deal of General Assembly and DNREC staff work went into the
drafting of SB 149. DNREC needs to determine in light of the above
recommendation if SB 149 or some version of it needs to become a current
administration priority.
80
60
1-10% Complete
40
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Supporting References:
•Senator McDowell. 2011. Senate Bill 149. An Act to Amend Title 7 of the Delaware Code relating to Conservation and
Endangered Species. Dover, Delaware. 146th General Assembly.
14
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
5
Regularly update the list of “rare” species that are afforded protection under the state’s freshwater
fishing and hunting regulations.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
A review of the full Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage report and discussions with DNREC staff revealed that no such list of “rare”
species that are afforded protection under the state’s freshwater fishing and hunting regulations exists in Delaware Code or regulations.
As a result, the intent of this recommendation is unknown.
That said, DNREC staff noted that the Division of Fish and Wildlife published revised Endangered Species Regulations for public
comment in the Delaware Register of Regulations, VOL 16, ISSUE 7 on Tuesday, January 1, 2013. The public comment period closed
on March 06, 2013.
When adopted, these proposed regulations provide that the Division of Fish and Wildlife may remove species from the State Endangered
Species list in addition to adding species to the list. It further adds criteria that can be used to add species to the list. This action removes
and adds species to the current list.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation 5 is not applicable
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation,
a review of supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence by the researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Monitor and respond to public comments on recently proposed revised State Endangered Species Regulations and assess whether
additional protections for state listed endangered species are warranted.
Supporting References:
Delaware Register of Regulations, VOL 16, ISSUE 7, Tuesday, January 1, 2013.
15
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
6
Amend the state tidal wetlands law to provide protection for buffer areas adjacent to tidal wetlands.
The law should also be amended to require local governments to adopt the appropriate tools to
protect critical wetlands and buffers.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
No specific action was taken on the implementation of the above recommendation. Staff did acknowledge the need for buffers and
noted that the recommendation has been the basis for DNREC to explore other non-regulatory options to establish buffers to protect
critical wetlands. These options have included:
a. Pursuing available grants for wetland health assessment within watersheds.
b. Utilizing new mapping that identifies the status of tidal wetlands.
c. Taking advantage of available tidal regulatory maps.
d. Developing maps for enforcement of the 50 foot buffer requirement in Sussex County.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
80
The level of implementation for Recommendation 6 is 0%
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
60
40
0% Complete
20
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
Staff noted that opening the existing wetland laws is required to meet
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Recommendation 6. Staff did note that counties are attempting to address
the issue of buffers through the Comprehensive Plan process. It was also noted that the issue of buffers will be revisited in the current
Environmental Law Institute effort to develop a Delaware Wetland Strategic Plan.
Supporting References
•Sussex County Zoning Ordinance: http://ecode360.com/8884945
•Sussex County Buffer Ordinance Upheld
http://www.coastalpoint.com/content/county_wins_battle_over_dnrec_over_pcs_regs
•DNREC Wetlands Mapping: http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Admin/DelawareWetlands/Pages/Mapping.aspx
•DNREC Tidal Wetland Regulatory Maps:
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Admin/DelawareWetlands/Pages/Regulations.aspx
16
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
7
Enact a non-tidal wetland law to provide sufficient protection for habitats and waters of the state
not sufficiently protected by the federal 404 program. Secure sufficient appropriations for effective
administration of the law.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
In 2002, Representative Cathcart introduced HB 340. This legislation was to amend Title 7 of the Delaware Code relating to wetlands.
Specifically the bill’s synopsis noted:
The federal government administers a regulatory program pursuant to the Clean Water Act for protecting wetlands in Delaware.
On January 9, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the federal government had exceeded its statutory authority over isolated,
freshwater wetlands. As a result of this Supreme Court decision Delaware’s ecologically important isolated wetlands such as
Delmarva bays, dune swale wetlands, Atlantic white-cedar swamps, bald cypress swamps, and sea-level fens no longer receive
any federal protection. This Act is intended to address the recent decision by giving the Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control the authority to designate up to 50,000 acres to protect Delaware’s most unique wetlands such
as Delmarva bays, dune-swale wetlands, Atlantic white-cedar swamps, bald cypress swamps, sea-level fens and certain
ecologically important freshwater wetlands that are no longer under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The Secretary of
the Department is required to adopt maps designating the location of, and procedures for, delineating these unique wetlands.
The bill was reported out of committee on June 20, 2002. It was never reintroduced in subsequent sessions of the General Assembly.
Circa 2005, Dr. Jerry Kaufman from the University of Delaware, with encouragement from several ENGOs and Middletown area
legislators, prepared a draft Freshwater Wetlands Act based on the New Jersey freshwater wetlands legislation known as the Ogden
Act. According to Dr. Kaufman, the drafted bill was heard in committee without any additional action. No record of this bill can be found
in the General Assembly’s legislative archives, and though available from him in draft, was never formally introduced as a General
Assembly bill.
During the 2008 primary election for Governor, the candidates were asked by The News Journal (17 February 2008) to answer a series
of questions, including, “If you support an effort for state regulation of freshwater wetlands, how would you build consensus among
stakeholders, especially the farm and development lobby?”
Then candidate and now Governor Jack Markel responded:
“First, building consensus takes commitment and leadership from the top. I will provide that. Protecting freshwater wetlands
cannot be an afterthought; it’s worth the significant investment of time and political capital it takes to build understanding and
consensus.
Second, I would form a Wetlands Protection Work Group that would include members of my administration, academics, nonprofit
organizations, developers and scientists. The panel would have a mandate to develop recommendations within six months that
specifically address how best to protect each category of wetlands in our state, specifically the Palustrine, Estuarine, Marine,
Riverine and Lacustrine. I’d also direct the group to make long-term recommendations on climate change and sea level policy,
which may be the greatest threat to our wetlands.
Finally, it takes willingness to expend political capital to get all the stakeholders to the table, and I have that. Once a dialogue
is started we need to begin with the things on which everyone agrees. Farmers, builders, environmentalists and every other
Delawarean know that we need to preserve our quality of life if Delaware is going to remain a great place to buy a home, run a
business, maintain the family farm or raise a family.”
(continued)
17
RECOMMENDATION
7
continued
In August 2010, the Environmental Law Institute issued a report titled: Delaware Wetland Program Review. In that report it was noted:
“A variety of wetland habitat types are found in Delaware. Wetlands help control flooding and reduce storm damage, trap
sediments and pollutants that otherwise might enter waterways, help to recharge groundwater, and serve as habitat for many
species of wildlife. Wetlands are also an important cultural resource, supporting many traditions and customs in Delaware. The
state, however, has lost more than 50 percent of its historic wetlands, primarily due to conversion for agriculture. This trend in
wetland loss continues today, as wetlands are increasingly threatened by residential, commercial, and urban development. In
fact, Delaware lost more wetlands in the past 15 years (1992-2007) than were lost in the previous 10 year period (1981-1992).
The majority of these losses, approximately 99 percent, were to non-tidal/freshwater wetlands. Gaps in federal jurisdiction
and the lack of a state non-tidal/freshwater wetlands protection statute leave more than 30,000 acres of wetlands in the state
vulnerable and without protection.
The Delaware legislature has adopted laws to protect tidal and very large non-tidal wetlands and subaqueous lands. However,
Delaware still primarily relies on federal authority over non-tidal wetlands. Delaware remains the only one of the five Mid-Atlantic
states without its own non-tidal wetlands law.”
To date, no Wetlands Protection Work Group has been established by the Markell administration, although, DNREC has held four biennial
Delaware Wetlands Conferences over the last decade. The 2012 Conference’s purpose was intended “to offer scientists, resource
managers, and decision makers alike the opportunity to convene for one day to showcase recent advances in the wetland discipline.” At
this conference DNREC scientists stated that from 1992-2007, Delaware lost more than 3,000 acres of vegetated wetlands.
In an April 18, 2012 Cape Gazette article, DNREC Secretary Collin O’Mara is quoted, “Through a combination of incentive programs,
market-based mechanisms and appropriate regulatory requirements, I am confident that we can protect these critical natural resources
[non-tidal wetlands] for the benefit of current and future generations.” In the article, O’Mara said he will not propose legislation or new
regulations in 2012 for wetlands. He said he plans to continue working with the Corps to develop a state program over the next year.
Specifically he stated, “We need to start making the case for wetlands. We need to make sure everyone is aware of their importance.”
As of 2013, DNREC has a contract with the Environmental Law Institute to assist in the development of a Delaware wetland protection
strategic plan. Phase 1 to Develop a Common Vision for Wetland Protection in Delaware is underway. Phase 2 to develop a strategic
plan for protecting wetlands in Delaware will address “the various goals of each program, identify existing capacity, and allocate
responsibilities among the various programs in the Department [DNREC]. The plan will also set measureable goals and outcomes for
wetland protection in the state.”
On June 06, 2013 the Delaware State Senate passed Senate Bill 78, An Act to Amend Title 7 of the Delaware Code Relating
to Non-Tidal Wetlands. The bill is awaiting action by the Delaware House. The bill, if passed and signed into law by the Governor,
will establish a Wetlands Advisory Committee “to develop comprehensive recommendations for conserving and restoring non-tidal
wetlands in Delaware”…as well as amending Delaware Code “to expedite resolution of violations…and allow the Secretary [DNREC] to
issue after-the-fact permits and assess administrative penalties as appropriate.” Should this legislation become law its implementation
should be closely monitored.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
80
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation 7 is 0%
60
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
40
0% Complete
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
(continued)
18
RECOMMENDATION
7
continued
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
There is a great deal of awareness of the functions and values of freshwater wetlands within DNREC and in Delaware’s environmental
community. DNREC has expended a great deal of staff time and effort in creating awareness and documenting the problems that need
to be addressed to enable the development of a comprehensive freshwater program for the state. What is needed at this time is a
champion within the administration to lead this effort. This effort should build upon the wealth of information currently available and do
it in a way envisioned by Governor Markell. It appears that the current ELI contract work with DNREC will provide a path forward that
may assist with the implementation of this recommendation.
Supporting References:
•Dr. Jerry Kaufman. University of Delaware. Personal communication. February 11, 2013.
•Environmental Law Institute. Delaware Wetland Program Review. August 2010.
•DNREC seeks to create nontidal wetland program by Rachel Swick Mavity. April 18, 2012. CapeGazette.com.
•Environmental Law Institute and Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control. Scope of Work: Delaware
Wetland Protection Strategic Plan. Dover, Delaware. 2012.
19
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
8
Adopt water quality criteria specific to wetlands. Adopt and implement regulations guiding
Delaware’s §404 program for approving, conditioning or denying federal §404 wetlands permits.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
Per interviews with DNREC staff, no action has been taken on this recommendation. There are no wetland specific standards in the
State’s water quality standards.
In a recent ELI 2010 Report it is noted that:
Delaware has not adopted water quality standards (WQS) or designated uses specific to wetlands. However, WQS and
designated uses apply to all “waters of the state,” which explicitly include wetlands. Surface WQS are narrative and numeric
in nature and include criteria related to temperature, dissolved oxygen, bacteria, nutrients and toxic substances. State WQS
designate wetland-related uses, including fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat and primary and secondary contact recreational
activities. Anti-degradation standards are not specifically identified for wetlands, and so the provisions that apply to all “waters of
the state” also apply to wetlands.
State regulations require that water quality certification applications include a description of the feasible alternatives considered
to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to or loss of State waters. An alternative is judged to be feasible if “it is available
at the time of application, if it is capable of being carried out and if it would eliminate or reduce impact to State waters after
taking into consideration cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.” The state is also authorized
to analyze several aspects of a proposed project, including its impact on existing or designated uses; impacts on the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of the receiving waters’ aquatic ecosystem; effects on hydrology, circulation patterns and
water movement; secondary impacts; and cumulative effects. The WSLS issued 61 §401 certifications in the two year period
from 2008 - 2009, a significant portion of which involve nationwide permits. The majority of individual permits were for DelDOT
projects. WSLS denies a small number of authorizations each year, but more typically, section staff work with applicants to
redesign projects that meet approval. WSLS staff relies on qualitative assessment to make certification decisions, as determined
by the state’s water quality regulations.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
80
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation 8 is 0%
60
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Staff has noted that this concept has merit but no staff capacity or funding
exists to move this along toward implementation.
40
0% Complete
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Supporting References:
•Environmental Law Institute. Delaware Wetland Program Review. August 2010.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Admin/DelawareWetlands/Pages/Wetland-program-review.aspx
20
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
9
Amend Delaware’s subaqueous lands law to eliminate the requirement of navigability.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
DNREC staff interviewed were not clear about the intent of this recommendation. The Environmental Law Institute report stated that
DNREC has been considering seeking an amendment of the statute eliminating the phrase ‘navigable water,’ thereby removing the
requirement that the water be capable of supporting commerce before it could be regulated. DNREC staff were not aware of this effort.
The report went on to say, The statute could define ‘navigable waters’ in terms of the federal Clean Water Act definition, which interprets
the term more broadly. The federal definition, it was felt, would give the state more latitude and allow for broader protection of aquatic
species and water quality.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation 9 is not applicable
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation,
a review of supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence by the researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Not Applicable
Supporting References:
Not Applicable
21
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
10
Improve nutrient management practices in the animal industry through the adoption of
appropriately stringent nutrient management regulations, such as time-of-year restrictions on
manure spreading. Develop a nutrient applicator license or certification program.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA)
Major Actions Taken:
The Delaware Nutrient Management Program was established in June 1999 as a result of the Delaware Nutrient Management Law
(DEL C. Title 3, Chapter 22). The Nutrient Management Program oversees all aspects of nutrient management in Delaware including:
1. Nutrient Management Relocation
2. Delaware Manure Matching
3. Nutrient Management Planning Program Complaints & Investigations
4. Research
5. Certification and Education
The establishment of the Delaware Nutrient Management Program and the Delaware Nutrient Law resulted in the formation of the
Delaware Nutrient Management Commission (DNMC). In addition to the traditional agricultural nutrient management program, the
DNMC oversees nutrient application on all golf courses, which benefit from the phosphorous ban on urban fertilizer use implemented in
neighboring states. In fact, home fertilizer producing companies that ship only “no” or “low” phosphorous fertilizers in neighboring states
include Delaware for use in the large hardware stores like Lowes and Home Depot. The DNMC also develops and monitors regulations
pertaining to waste management for Animal Feeding Operations (AFO’s) and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s)
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)
The federal Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to regulate the
discharge of pollutants from point sources to Waters of the United States. The federal NPDES permit program expressly includes and
defines Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) as a point source. In years since, several actions took place with regard to
this program which relate to this Recommendation.
• 1983 USEPA delegated to the DNREC the authority to administer and enforce the NPDES program.
• 1999 Delaware enacted the Nutrient Management Law which created the Delaware Nutrient Management Commission, housed
in the Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA) and established the Nutrient Management Program. The Nutrient Management
Law mandates that all farmers, golf courses and other nutrient handlers develop and implement nutrient management plans,
maintain handling records and submit annual reports. The actions initiated by the two state agencies are a necessary step to
achieve Delaware’s water quality goals, protect the “waters of the state” and continue the United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s (USEPA) delegated program. (Part 122, Sub Sections 122 and 412 of the CWA requires states to develop regulations
governing the discharge of nutrients from farms into nearby waterways. These state regulations are required in order to keep our
“at least equal to” status with USEPA’s requirements.)
• 2003 EPA issued new CAFO rules that required certain CAFO operators to seek coverage of a NPDES permit. These rules were
appealed by industry and environmental groups.
• 2005 The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the CAFO rules did not comply with the CWA. To meet the 2nd Circuit Courts ruling,
EPA revised the CAFO rules in 2006 and supplemented it in 2008.
(continued)
22
RECOMMENDATION
10
continued
• 2010 DNREC, DDA and the Commission developed a regulatory program that would meet this and other criteria The 2010 7201
Regulations Governing the Control of Water Pollution, Section 9.5 were the first result of that effort.
It became apparent during the initial redrafting of the regulations in 2010, through comments received during that regulation
promulgation process and further examination of the then current MOA by DDA and DNREC staff, that an MOA (written in
2000) needed to be rewritten to provide further clarity related to the roles of each agency. A new 2010 MOA is now in effect and
compliments the amended draft regulations. The new MOA more accurately expresses the authorities, roles and responsibilities
of the two agencies This MOA set the framework for joint (DDA and DNREC) promulgation of the 2011 amended Draft CAFO
regulations under statutory authorities in Del. C., Title 3, Chapter 22, and Del. C., Title 7, Chapter 60.
• 2011 After promulgation of the 2010 7201 Regulations Governing the Control of Water Pollution, Section 9.5, EPA informed
DNREC and DDA that the 2010 version was not adequate to satisfy US Environmental Protection Agency criteria. The 2011
amended Draft 7201 Regulations Governing the Control of Water Pollution, Section 9.5 were the result of those discussions to
achieve equal to status with new approved federal directives, and will most effectively and efficiently address nutrient pollution
considering Delaware’s particular circumstances.
• 2012 The final regulations were promulgated on November 11, 2011. EPA Region III issued an approval letter to Delaware for our
CAFO program on January 19, 2012.
100% Complete
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #10 is 100%
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and internet links) and concurrence by
the researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
DDA routinely reviews their technical standards for the nutrient management
program and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are reviewed on an
annual basis.
80
60
40
20
0
Supporting References:
•Delaware Nutrient Management Law
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title3/c022/index.shtml
•NPDES Program
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/
•NPDES CAFO Final Rule
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/regresult.cfm?program_id=7&view=all&type=1
•Delaware CAFO Program
http://dda.delaware.gov/nutrients/nm_CAFO.shtml
•DNREC/DDA Regulations Governing the Control of Water Pollution
http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title7/7000/7200/7201.shtml
23
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
11
Eliminate exceptions for agricultural practices that are detrimental to water quality and biological
resources, and provide appropriate incentives for improving existing conditions.
Repeal agricultural exemptions in the Erosion and Sediment Control Law and encourage the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its determination that waterways in basins of less
than 800 acres are considered ditches. This would remove the exemption of ditching activities from
environmental review and permitting requirements under the federal Clean Water Act, state tidal
wetland law and other state laws.
Adopt regulatory and cost-share incentive programs to encourage the construction and maintenance
of buffers and habitat corridors along drainage ditches.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
According to DNREC staff:
Agricultural operations have never been “exempt” from the Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Law. The Law has always
required the need for an approved Conservation Plan for crop and animal production.
In addition, the DNREC, Division of Soil and Water’s Sediment and Stormwater Program recently upgraded its requirements for
the construction of new buildings and structures related to agriculture production and operations. Standard Plans to control soil
erosion from specific activity related to both Tax Ditch maintenance and construction of agricultural structures are being produced
by the Conservation Districts for Cooperators.
Tax Ditch maintenance work that has land disturbance greater than one acre is now required to have NPDES permit coverage.
The DNREC Drainage Program working with the DNREC Division of Soil and Water’s Sediment and Stormwater Program
developed a “Standard Plan for Tax Ditch Maintenance.” Since the one-acre threshold applies at 750’ linear feet of ditch dipout,
nearly all dipout projects require a standard plan that dictates which best management practices are to be used and applies to
all ditches, not just those with a drainage area over 800 acres.
The costs associated with eliminating this agreement would be programmatic in terms of needing additional staff to process
environmental permits for activities that are already being constructed according to best management practices. The additional
permitting would not appreciably change the ditches less than 800 acres that are constructed. Funding for additional staff is not
available at this time. It is also the understanding of DNREC staff that the original agreement was done in cooperation with the
USACOE, EPA and DNREC Wetland and Subaqueous lands section to focus permitting and regulatory efforts on areas with
the need for resource protection. They also noted that the 800-acre determination does not apply to tidal streams as stated in
Recommendation #11.
Recommendation #11 specified that there should be an adoption of regulatory and cost-share incentive programs to encourage the
construction and maintenance of buffers and habitat corridors along drainage ditches. DNREC staff specified that:
The Delaware Nutrient Management Program was established in 1999 as a result of the Delaware Nutrient Management Law.
The Mission of the Nutrient Management Program is to manage those activities involving the generation and application of
nutrients in order to help maintain and improve the quality of Delaware’s ground and surface waters and to help meet or exceed
federally mandated water quality standards, in the interest of the overall public welfare. The Law and Program require Nutrient
Management Planning on any lands of 10 acres or greater that receive the application of nutrients, and for those managing
Animal Feeding Operations (AFO’s) with greater than 8 Animal Units.
(continued)
24
RECOMMENDATION
11
continued
According to DNREC staff:
The DNREC Conservation Cost Share program will provide approx. $2.0 Million dollars in 2012 for the planting of Cover Crops,
such as Rye, Barley and Wheat to sequester nutrients that are made available to but not completely utilized by commodity crops
(primarily corn) and vegetable crops.
75-99% Complete
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #11 is 75 – 99 %
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the
researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Staff at DNREC also felt that with respect to the 800-acre stream/ditch
determination, that:
80
60
40
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Although this recommendation has not been implemented and the Division of Soil and Water’s Drainage Program does not
support implementation, other measures—including the requirement of Standard Plans for the protecting of the State’s water
quality and biological resources—are being met as well as they would be if additional permitting were required.
Supporting References
•Delaware Erosion and Sediment Control Law
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c040/index.shtml
•Delaware Drainage Program
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/swc/Pages/DrainageTaxDitchWaterMgt.aspx
•Delaware Nutrient Management Law
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title3/c022/index.shtml
•Delaware Sediment and Stormwater Program
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/swc/pages/sedimentstormwater.aspx
25
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
12
The Delaware Department of Agriculture Forest Service should develop rules and regulations
to implement its new authority to require landowners to submit notification to the agency
prior to commencing planned silvicultural activities. The agency should make development of
forest management plans mandatory under the notification process, develop notification and
management plan review process to ensure that landowners seeking approval for a planned harvest
include in their plans appropriate conservation provisions, and reserve the right to approve,
condition, or deny proposed harvests if appropriate conservation measures are not included in
harvest or management plans.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (DFS)
Major Actions Taken:
The DFS developed regulations that require landowners and timber buyers to notify the DFS prior to commencing silvicultural activities
exceeding one acre that could produce erosion or sedimentation—timber harvests and shearing and piling (bulldozing). The complete
regulations for silvicultural activities are available at the DDA web site and are referenced below.
The DFS does not require a management plan as part of the notification process. The DFS does encourage landowners to develop a
forest management plan and provides them with this service free-of-charge. Additionally, tracking the percentage of timber harvests
taking place on privately owned lands that follow a forest management plan serves as a performance measure for DFS. A summary of
this performance measure, by state fiscal year, is presented below and illustrates how the percentage of timber harvests following a
forest management plan have increased from 6 percent in FY01 to, on average, about 33 percent over a decade.
Timber Harvests on Private Lands Follow a Forest Management Plan:
FY01: 6% (230/3,814 acres)
FY02: 11%
(317/2,995 acres)
FY03: 22%
(341/1,581 acres)
FY04: 48%
(1,876/3,929 acres)
FY05: 17%
(475/2,850 acres)
FY06: 46%
(1,325/2,858 acres)
FY07: 34%
(1,256/3,679 acres)
FY08: 23%
(610/2,690 acres)
FY09: 36%
(953/2,615 acres)
FY10: 54%
(2,403/4,487 acres)
FY11: 37%
(1,202/3,227 acres)
FY12: 29%
(549/1,866 acres)
(continued)
26
RECOMMENDATION
12
continued
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
50-74% Complete
80
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #12 is 50-74%
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the
researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Forest management plans remain voluntary even though technical
assistance provided by DFS is available at no cost to the landowner.
60
40
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Supporting References
•Silvicultural Activity Regulations, DDA Statutory Authority: 3 Del.Code. Section 1101: Forest Service Regulations.
http://dda.delaware.gov/forestry/forms/ES%209-26-02.pdf
27
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
RECOMMENDATION
13
Require strict implementation of wetland mitigation policies, ensuring that rigorous alternatives
analysis is conducted. If mitigation banks are utilized to compensate for permitted losses, banks
should support functioning wetlands prior to the withdrawal of credits, success criteria should take
biological diversity into account, and long-term management responsibility should be secured.
Similar standards should be developed for other compensatory mitigation approaches, including
on-site mitigation. Commission a study to review the permit and ecological success of existing
compensatory mitigation projects.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
Section 404 permits are required of landowners and others planning to do work that will impact wetlands. Application for a Section 404
permit is made to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Philadelphia District. DNREC has had a long standing joint review process
with the Corps regarding Section 404 decisions. During this process, the mitigation hierarchy of avoiding wetland impacts where
practicable; minimizing potential impacts to wetlands; and compensating for any unavoidable impacts through activities to restore or
create wetlands is followed.
To date, DNREC has not established a mitigation bank. While the Delaware Department of Transportation (DELDOT) and several
private entities have, there are no statewide standards governing the administration and evaluation of project success. However, a
recent ELI Report (2010) noted a lack of guidance on wetland mitigation. Specifically in its report to DNREC it noted.
Delaware regulations authorize the state to require mitigation for some impacts resulting from wetlands and subaqueous lands
permits and water quality certification projects. Cu.rrently, however, compensation is not consistently required for all impacts
resulting from approved NWPs, §401 certifications, or state permits. Further, the state lacks updated policies on compensation,
in-lieu fee mitigation, mitigation banking, and avoidance and minimization. The state’s policies have not been reviewed since new
federal regulations on compensatory mitigation were issued in 2008. State monitoring and oversight of compensation sites could
also be improved. Further, the state has not conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the ecological success of compensation
in the state.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
80
The level of implementation for Recommendation #13 is 1-10%
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff and their
estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting documents
(hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the researchers.
60
40
1-10% Complete
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
(continued)
28
RECOMMENDATION
13
continued
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Though the implementation of mitigation policies is lacking, DNREC works with and monitors the establishment of a private mitigation
bank in Sussex County. Specifically DNREC notes that:
The first private wetland mitigation bank in Delaware is being established in Sussex County. The Nanticoke and Indian River
Mitigation Bank is located on the drainage divide of these two water bodies. This bank will serve as a pilot project for using
established wetland assessment methods created by the DNREC Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Program. Both rapid and
comprehensive assessment methods are available and the banker has agreed to use these methods to determine ecological
uplift that is tied to performance standards and credit release. Quantitative and qualitative data such as number of stems per acre
of specific species of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation is based on reference standard wetland sites at other locations
in Sussex County. This is the first use of wetland assessment methods in a regulatory context in Delaware and integrating
wetlands assessment into existing regulatory processes is being pursued by DNREC and EPA as a better method versus simply
considering wetland acreage and type in impact assessment and compensatory replacement. (Personal communication Mark
Biddle March 11, 2013).
Supporting References
•Details on the proposed wetland bank in Sussex County:
http://www.ecosystempartners.com/nanticokeheadwaters
•National Mitigation Guidelines and Information:
http://www.epa.gov/owow_keep/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation/index.html
•Environmental Law Institute, 2010, Delaware Wetland Program Review
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/Admin/DelawareWetlands/Pages/Wetland-program-review.aspx
29
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
14
Secure a stable annual source of funding for the Open Space Program and the Agricultural Lands
Preservation Program.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) and Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA)
Major Actions Taken:
The current status of the Open Space Program and the Agricultural Lands Preservation Program is for each program to receive, from
the State Realty Transfer Tax, a total of $10,000,000 per program per year. The Open Space Program was initially established in 1990
by Governor Castle with funding floated from bonds prior to the collection of the tax revenues. In July 2005, an amendment to Chapter
54 of Title 30 of the Delaware Code specified that $10 million from Realty Transfer tax receipts shall be transferred annually to the
Agricultural Lands Preservation Program, beginning with FY06.
These annual apportionments, while law, are subject to adjustment through Budget Epilogue by the Delaware General Assembly as
part of the annual budget process. The result is that apportionments have been variable. For example, after being fully funded in FY
08, Open Space Program funding was reduced to $5.1 million and $2.5 million in FY 09 and FY 10 respectively. Funds were again fully
restored in FY 12 and FY 13 but have been reduced to $2 million in the Governor’s recommended FY 14 Bond Bill.
A referenced summary of apportionments is:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 144th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE BILL NO. 525 (Fiscal Year 2009)
Section 12. Open Space Funding. Notwithstanding the provisions of 30 Del C., c. 54, § 5423 (b)(2) and § 5423 (c)(1), at the
close of Fiscal Year 2009, the State shall transfer $900,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Endowment Account in the Delaware
Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund and $5,100,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Project Account in the Delaware Land
and Water Conservation Trust Fund.
Section 13. Farmland Preservation Funding. Notwithstanding the provisions of 30 Del C. c. 54 § 5426, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2009, the State shall transfer $6,000,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Farmland Preservation Fund maintained under
3 Del. C. c. 3.
DELAWARE STATE SENATE 145th GENERAL ASSEMBLY SENATE BILL NO. 190 (Fiscal 2010)
Section 6. Open Space Funding. Notwithstanding the provisions of 30 Del. C., c. 54, § 5423 (b)(2) and § 5423 (c)(1), at the
close of Fiscal Year 2010, the State shall transfer $450,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Endowment Account in the Delaware
Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund and $2,550,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Project Account in the Delaware Land
and Water Conservation Trust Fund.
Section 7. Farmland Preservation Funding. Notwithstanding the provisions of 30 Del. C. c. 54 §41 5426, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2010, the State shall transfer $3,000,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Farmland Preservation Fund maintained
under 3 Del. C. c. 3.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 145th GENERAL ASSEMBLY HOUSE BILL NO. 500 (Fiscal 2011)
Section 12. Open Space Funding. Notwithstanding the provisions of 30 Del. C. c. 54, §5423 (b)(2) and §5423 (c)(1), on or
before December 15 of Fiscal Year 2011, the State shall transfer $3,000,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Project Account in the
Delaware Land and Water Conservation Trust Fund.
Section 13. Farmland Preservation Funding. Notwithstanding the provisions of 30 Del. C. c. 54 §5426, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2011, the State shall transfer $3,000,000 of realty transfer taxes to the Farmland Preservation Fund maintained under
3 Del. C. c. 3.
The apportionments in FY 12 and FY 13 were fully funded at $10 million as per Delaware Code.
30
(continued)
RECOMMENDATION
14
continued
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
75-99% Complete
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #14 is 75-99%
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the
researchers.
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
DNREC staff indicated that the level of implementation is as stable as is
currently possible short of a constitutional amendment that would restrict
the use of budget epilogue to adjust annual apportionments. This is unlikely
given the variability of the State of Delaware’s annual tax collections and
the need for the State to balance their budget.
100%
80
60
40
20
0
0%
Supporting References
•Delaware Land Protection Act
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c075/index.shtml
•Delaware Open Space Program
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/OpenSpaces/Pages/OpenSpaceProgram.aspx
•ELI Report on Biodiversity and Open Space
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/OpenSpaces/Pages/OpenSpaceProgram.aspx
•Delaware Budgets Various Years, Delaware General Assembly
http://legis.delaware.gov/billtracking
31
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
RECOMMENDATION
15
Revise the Land Protection Act to create a matching grant program within the Open Space Program.
Matching funds could be allocated to local governments and conservation organizations to acquire
open space in areas consistent with the state’s conservation goals.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
No action has been taken on this recommendation.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
80
The level of implementation for Recommendation #15 is 0%
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the
researchers.
60
40
0% Complete
20
0
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
Given the variability of funding outlined in Recommendation #14, it is
BLUE indicates the range of completion
unlikely that this recommendation will be acted on in the near future or
until such time that annual and stable full funding is achieved and there is an interest on the part of Non-Government Organizations and
DNREC to develop a matching funds program.
Supporting References
•Delaware Land Protection Act
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c075/index.shtml
•Delaware Open Space Program
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/OpenSpaces/Pages/OpenSpaceProgram.aspx
•ELI Report on Biodiversity and Open Space
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/OpenSpaces/Pages/OpenSpaceProgram.aspx
32
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
16
Revise the scoring system of the Agricultural Lands Preservation Act to give increased weight to
wetlands, forest, areas in close proximity to open space, windbreaks, buffer strips and other natural
amenities on agricultural lands.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Agriculture, Aglands Use Planning and Preservation Section
Major Actions Taken:
Since 1999, the Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Program has revised its scoring system on multiple occasions to include
a greater emphasis on environmental criteria including biodiversity. Those environmental criteria have been incorporated into the
Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) scoring system—developed to identify and rank farmland for preservation suitability and
eligibility—and into “strategy maps” which the Agricultural Lands Preservation Foundation uses to determine eligibility for program
participation. Site conditions include a variety of factors that estimate a property’s likelihood to remain as agricultural land (e.g., proximity
to development, proximity to sewer, amount of agricultural investment on the farm, etc.).
DDA worked with DNREC to incorporate their latest biodiversity GIS layer (Delaware Ecological Network—DEN) into the LESA scoring
system in 2012. Farms identified by DNREC as important within the DEN receive a higher LESA score. However, it is important to
note that the LESA score is only used to qualify properties for the Aglands Preservation Program; selection for easement purchase
(permanent preservation) is based solely on the level of discount. All program participants applying for the limited preservation funds
available compete annually and the final selections are based solely of the level of discount from the total development rights value.
100% Complete
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #16 is 100%.
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
80
60
40
20
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
0
It should be noted that participation in this program is entirely voluntary on
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
the part of the landowner. Further, those lands that are to be considered
BLUE indicates the range of completion
must be eligible. All lands considered in the program are scored as noted
above under Major Actions Taken. The pool of eligible farms during any one round all compete against each other and are selected
based upon the single criterion of level of discount offered. This provides a level playing field for all landowners choosing to participate
in the program.
During our review several professional staff made the point that those landowners who participate in the program do so out of a desire
to see their land remain in agriculture and not be developed. In a number of instances it was pointed out that these property owners
typically are good stewards of the lands that they have put in the preservation program and are the ones that take advantage of the
various state and federal conservation cost share programs.
Supporting References:
•Planning Farmland Preservation: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title3/700/701.pdf
•Delaware Land Evaluation Site Assessment System (LESA)
http://aglandpreservationdelaware.com/category/land-evaluation-site-assessment-lesa/
33
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
RECOMMENDATION
17
Amend the Agricultural Preservation Program to provide greater incentives to district landowners
to engage in environmentally beneficial practices. Provide enrolled landowners with tax credits
for implementing agricultural conservation management plans. The Delaware Department
of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should
coordinate to give additional preference to landowners enrolled in Agricultural Preservation
Districts to encourage them to apply for cost-share funding through existing Farm Bill and wildlife
enhancement programs.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA)
Major Actions Taken:
Per interviews with DDA staff, no action has been taken on this
recommendation.
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
80
60
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
100%
40
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #17 is 0%
0% Complete
20
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the
researchers.
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
Implementing this recommendation as stated will require legislation to amend the Agricultural Lands Preservation Act. Currently the
agricultural preservation program has a high participation rate and there are typically not enough funds to support willing participants.
When it comes to targeting which agricultural lands could take better advantage of environmental cost share programs within a specific
watershed it is not a given that those currently in the preservation program would be the highest priority.
Supporting References
Not Applicable
34
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
18
Within the Division of Fish and Wildlife, consolidate the Non-game Program and Delaware Natural
Heritage Program in a Wildlife Diversity Program. Establish the Wildlife Diversity Program at the
section level or integrate it into the division in such a manner as to ensure that it receives attention
equal to that of the wildlife and fisheries sections. Secure a stable source of funding for the program
and use donated tax check-off funds for restoration and research activities.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
The Non-game Program and Natural Heritage Program are within the Division of Fish and Wildlife under the Wildlife Section. The two
programs were combined into the Natural Heritage, Endangered Species & Private Lands Programs. As of March 2013, the Natural
Heritage, Endangered Species & Private Lands Program has been reorganized and is now called the Species Conservation and
Research Program. The non-game and heritage functions are located within this program. The private lands function is now located
within the Division’s Wildlife Section, managed under the Habitat Conservation and Management Program. A program manager is
responsible for administering new Species Conservation and Research Programs and reports to the Wildlife Section Administrator.
It is not its own section but has been integrated into the Division and serves as the lead for conducting environmental reviews and
technical assistance. The program is funded through both a line item in DNREC’s budget and with federal funding (State Wildlife Grants
administered by the USFWS).
The tax check-off funds are used to support activities within the Species Conservation and Research Program. This would include
restoration and research activities.
100%
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
25-49%
Complete
80
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #18 is 25-49%.
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
60
40
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
BLUE indicates the range of completion
The recent reorganization of the Natural Heritage, Endangered Species &
Private Lands Programs into the Species Conservation and Research Program may assist in gaining additional visibility and influence
for the functions provided by this program. Funding for the program continues to be a challenge. Currently the program manager for the
Species Conservation and Research Program is a state merit employee as is one environmental scientist. The remaining 6 employees
are Kent Conservation District (KCD) Environmental scientists.
A stable source of funding for “wildlife diversity” has not been achieved. There is $197k for nongame/natural heritage in the Division’s
General Fund budget (line item). This funding has been constant since FY 2002. These dollars are not sufficient to cover salaries of 6
KCD contractual FTEs and the research and monitoring activities necessary to support the program.
Supporting References:
Personal communication with DNREC staff, March, 2012
35
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
RECOMMENDATION
19
Develop a statewide biodiversity inventory and assessment methodology – drawing from existing
sources of biological data, such as the Delaware Natural Heritage Program and Gap Analysis Project—
to identify biologically critical areas for targeting incentive programs, management resources,
acquisition funding, cost-share programs, long-range planning, and restoration activities. Provide
this biological information to Delaware’s land management, economic development, transportation
agencies, local governments, and conservation organizations in a format that can help guide
on-the-ground decision-making.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)
Major Actions Taken:
The referenced Delaware Natural Heritage Program, which as of March 2013 became the Species Conservation and Research Program,
has applied and used the Natural Heritage Methodology as its standard for the development of a statewide biodiversity inventory. In
fact, DNREC staff can provide several examples of how the program’s data and expertise has been used, including to guide Phragmites
control efforts, influence the expenditure of landowner incentive cost share, improve management practices on state lands, influence a
University of Delaware research project on Bob White quail, and support land acquisition projects in the State’s Open Space Program.
Data and information from the program have also directed DNREC’s Preliminary Land Use Service (PLUS) process and is considered
a credible source of information by the State Office of Planning and Coordination.
The Species Conservation and Research Program’s database, together with the Delaware Wildlife Action Plan (DEWAP), also supports
environmental reviews and technical assistance implemented by a State Wildlife Grant project.
From December 16, 2008–September 30, 2011, the project used the information in conducting 1,699 project reviews totaling more than
3,155 hours of staff time. Approximately 642 (38%) of the proposed projects submitted for review had the potential to impact Species of
Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) or habitat that supports SGCN. The final performance report for the State Wildlife Grants Project
No: T2-1-T-1: Environmental Review and Technical Assistance provide a number of examples illustrating how the Program leveraged
the existing biodiversity database and DEWAP.
75-99% Complete
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
100%
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
80
The level of implementation for Recommendation #19 is 75-99%
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by
the researchers.
60
40
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
(continued)
36
RECOMMENDATION
19
continued
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
The program has been well received by partners. However it lacks a full-time data manager position. As demands on the program grow,
this staffing shortcoming could affect the timely delivery of environmental review and technical assistance services based upon up to
date data.
Supporting References
•Natural Heritage Methodology
http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/heritagemethodology.jsp
•Delaware Wildlife Action Plan:
http://www.natureserve.org/prodServices/heritagemethodology.jsp
•Delaware Federal Assistance Final Performance Report, 2011, Project Number T2-1-T-1, Environmental Review and Technical
Assistance, 12/16/2008 – 09/30/2011
37
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
RECOMMENDATION
20
Develop management plans for each of Delaware’s public land holdings that address biodiversity
conservation and restoration goals. Require regular updates to reflect new trends in wildlife and
recreational use, include regular updates on exotic species, ensure that each agency’s constituents
are being served, and ensure that management activities reflect current scientific understanding
and do not adversely affect species diversity.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), Division of Fish and Wildlife; Delaware Department of
Agriculture (DDA), Delaware Forest Service (DFS)
Major Actions Taken:
The DNREC Division of Fish and Wildlife has implemented an internal process that addresses biodiversity conservation and restoration
goals on the Wildlife Management Areas under their jurisdiction. While no staff was formally assigned with the responsibility to handle
this recommendation, the Regional Wildlife Biologists and their supervisor, the Program Manager II, are developing management
documents for each of the State’s Wildlife Management Areas. To date, comprehensive wildlife area management plans have been
completed for Assawoman Wildlife Management Area, Robert L. Graham Wildlife Management Area and Prime Hook (State) Wildlife
Management Area. These plans can be viewed on the Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Web Page (referenced below).
The DFS developed comprehensive forest management plans for the three state forests within the past six years. While the DFS had
inventoried the timber resources located on much of its lands and developed management plans for some properties, these forest
management plans serve as the first long-term, comprehensive analysis of the state forests. including not only a timber inventory and
management prescription for each forest stand but also an inventory of the threatened and endangered species, cultural resources,
water resources, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.
Management plan completion dates for each State Forest:
• Blackbird State Forest Plan Completed in 2006
• Redden State Forest Plan Completed in 2008
• Taber State Forest Plan Completed in 2008
Additionally, beginning in 2012, the DFS required that farmers renting cropland in a state forest maintain a cover crop during the winter
months (either to harvest for grain or simply as winter cover). Fall application of nitrogen and phosphorus is prohibited. The DFS is
phasing this requirement into all of its cropland leases as they expire; full implementation will occur in 2014.
DFS: 100%
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
100%
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
80
The level of implementation for Recommendation #20 is 25-49% for
DNREC and DFW; The level of implementation for Recommendation
#20 is 100% for DFS.
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by
the researchers.
DNREC: 25-49% Complete
60
40
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
(continued)
38
RECOMMENDATION
20
continued
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
This review focused on the state’s two primary land management agencies: DNREC’s Division of Fish and Wildlife and the Delaware
Forest Service. Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage also made a minor reference to a need for DNREC’s Division of Parks and
Recreation to include biodiversity conservation considerations when updating State Park Management Plans. This was not included
in the review. Based on what was reviewed, it was determined that the DNREC’s Division of Fish and Wildlife should complete wildlife
management area plans for the remaining wildlife areas under their jurisdiction.
Supporting References
Delaware Division of Fish and Wildlife Management Area Plans.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/Hunting/Pages/HuntingMaps.aspx
39
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
RECOMMENDATION
21
Amend Delaware’s Farmland Assessment Act to allow lands managed for conservation purposes to
be eligible for property assessment at current use, as are lands that sell agricultural, horticultural
or forestry products.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Delaware Department of Agriculture (DDA)
Major Actions Taken:
No direct action was taken on this recommendation.
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0% 1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
80
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #21 is 0%
60
This determination is based on interviews with selected agency staff
and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of supporting
documents (hard copy and/or internet links), and concurrence by the
researchers.
40
0% Complete
20
0
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99% 100%
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
BLUE indicates the range of completion
It was noted that DDA did not oppose property tax reductions for lands
managed for conservation purposes; the agency does not believe that
amending the Farmland Assessment Act to include these lands was the proper course. Instead, a recommendation was made to pursue
legislation to establish a separate property tax assessment specifically for conservation lands that could be managed by DNREC.
Supporting References
Not Applicable
40
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
RECOMMENDATION
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
22
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, Delaware Department
of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Delaware Department of Agriculture, and other
state and local natural resource agencies should coordinate efforts to promote voluntary private
land conservation programs that benefit biodiversity.
Lead Agency for Implementation:
Multi-Agency Effort
Major Actions Taken:
In 2005, the Delaware Chapter of The Nature Conservancy reached out to other Non-Governmental Organizations and state and federal
agencies to compile a listing of technical and cost-share assistance programs that were available for private landowners interested in
pursuing conservation options on their land. The compilation focused on programs related to protecting and restoring wildlife habitats,
conservation easements and conservation best management practices and was included in a resource kit made available to Delaware
landowners participating in several “Conservation Options” forums hosted by the Conservancy between 2005 and 2010.
During the same period, DNREC’s Division of Fish and Wildlife compiled all available federal, state and county conservation district
landowner incentive programs. This effort resulted in a brochure for landowners containing program descriptions, contacts and sources
of technical assistance and funding for the restoration and protection of habitats for wildlife and biodiversity. This brochure was used
by the federal, state and local agencies and environmental Non-Governmental Organizations to promote private land conservation
programs throughout Delaware. (A link to the program is included in the references below.)
Level of Implementation Accomplished:
The level of implementation is based on the following ranges:
0%
1-10%
11-24%
25-49%
50-74%
75-99%
100%
80
100%
The level of implementation for Recommendation #22 is 25-49%.
This determination is based on interviews with selected/knowledgeable
agency staff and their estimate of the level of implementation, a review of
supporting documents (hard copies and/or internet links) and concurrence
by the researchers.
25-49%
Complete
60
40
20
0
Remaining Issues/Concerns:
0%
1–10% 11–24% 25–49% 50–74% 75–99%
BLUE indicates the range of completion
This type of effort is difficult to sustain over time. These programs and the
associated outreach are usually the first ones to be cut during tight budget
times. Coordinating the various federal, state, county and NGO programs available to private landowners is a challenge.
100%
Delaware has beta tested a version of LandServer, a conservation assessment tool and services for landowners made available
thanks to the Pinchot Institute for Conservation. The program is able to generate basic information on land tracts and provide a
coarse assessment of natural resource conservation opportunities. The current status of this program and use in Delaware should be
determined and ways to promote it considered.
Supporting References:
•Delaware Land Owner Incentive Program link:
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/fw/SiteCollectionDocuments/FW%20Gallery/Landowner%20Incentive%20Rev30SM.pdf
•The Delaware Chapter of The Nature Conservancy. 2005. Conservation Options for Delaware Landowners: A Forum and
Resource Kit. Wilmington, Delaware.
•LandServer
http://www.landserver.org/
41
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
Notes
42
Delaware Biodiversity Scorecard
Protecting Delaware’s Natural Heritage: Tools for Biodiversity Conservation
Notes
43