AMWS, Association of Massachusetts Wetland Scientists

LATEST NEWS

1/27/12

UMass-Amherst Releases Results of First Comprehensive Assessment of Ecological Integrity for Massachusetts

Maps of Habitat of Potential Regional and Statewide Importance (“Important Habitat Maps”) are now available for all Mass. cities and towns. In Nov. 2011 the Landscape Ecology Program at UMass-Amherst completed its first comprehensive, statewide assessment of ecological integrity using the Conservation Assessment & Prioritization System (CAPS), a software program that identifies and prioritizes land and waters for habitat and biodiversity conservation. Results from this assessment are now available at: www.umasscaps.org. They are available in four formats.

Maps for each city and town in Massachusetts depicting Integrated Index of Ecological Integrity (IEI) scores

Maps depicting “Habitat of Potential Regional and Statewide Importance” as defined in MassDEP’s “Massachusetts Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance for Inland Wetlands”

Georeferenced TIFF files (GeoTIFFs) for download and use with image viewers, web browsers or GIS software

Arc grids available for download and use with GIS software

For more information about CAPS see (www.umasscaps.org) or contact Scott Jackson (sjackson@umext.umass.edu; 413-545-4743).

12/31/11

Wetland Scientist Certification

After many months of private discussion, MassDEP has begun to publically talk about wetland scientist certification. We do not know the details yet--no one does--but if this occurs, it will likely be in the near future. AMWS anticipates that professional certification will require, in addition to academic standards and experience, continuing education and membership in a professional organization like AMWS.

Your membership in AMWS has never been more critical. Not only will you get breaking news about this issue here first, you will also get our newsletter, reduced rate professional workshops, networking, and opportunities to offer technical input to state and federal agencies. AMWS expects to be a direct participant with MassDEP when certification details are hammered out.

All AMWS memberships expire Dec. 31^st. To receive the Jan. AMWS newsletter and future emails, you need to renew now, if you haven’t already done so.

11/12/11

NEWLY PROMULGATED DEP EMERGENCY REGULATIONS

Brief Explanation and Rationale Changes: Damage from the October 29-30, 2011 Snowstorm occurred in many municipalities in the Commonwealth. In particular, extensive damage occurred to utility poles, electrical and telecommunication lines from fallen trees and tree limbs. To provide local officials flexibility to protect the public health, welfare, and safety where storm damage occurred, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has promulgated emergency regulations to allow for expeditious cleanup of storm debris and repair, when the damage occurred in wetland resource areas and waterways. Procedures under these emergency regulations have been varied from the normal provisions specified in the above referenced regulations to facilitate storm cleanup and property repairs, while ensuring that resource areas are adequately protected.

These rules apply to all municipalities located within the Commonwealth, allow the work described in the Storm Emergency Regulations, and are effective through January 30, 2012. Please note that these regulations do not allow work that is subject to an enforcement action commenced under the Wetlands Protection Act prior to October 29, 2011.

Web Link to View Regulations: The regulations are on the MassDEP website at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/newregs.htm#emerg

10/19/11

The USCOE District Engineer is soliciting comments on 26 projects which have applied for funding through Maine's in-lieu fee program.

See: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/Public Notices/pubnot4.asp?mystate_ME

10/01/11

The Mass. Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs announces that the Mass. Climate

Change Adaptation Report is available online at http://www.mass.gov/environment/cca

Development of this report involved the participation of over 150 citizens, stakeholders, and experts.

For the Executive Summary, click: eea_climate_adaptation_ExecSummary

8/30/11

USCOE ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING IRENE STORM DAMAGE REPAIR
On August 28,2011, winds, storm surge and flooding from Hurricane/Tropical Storm Irene
resulted in severe flooding and other storm related damages in the six New England states. As a
result, State and Federal disaster declarations were made throughout the region. It is anticipated
that owners of damaged property will want to conduct repair activities in the near future. This
advisory is intended to inform property owners of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
permit requirements for storm damage repairs proposed within the boundaries of the New
England District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Corps has Federal jurisdiction over activities that include dredging or construction in or over
navigable waters of the United States, certain excavation activities and the placement of dredged
or fill material into waters of the United States (including wetlands), and work affecting the
course, location, condition or capacity of such areas. Such activities may require a Department
of the Army permit, in accordance with 33 CFR 320-332. Please note that waters of the United
States also include intermittent streams, natural drainage courses, and wetlands that meet
applicable Federal criteria, regardless of their size.

The Corps expects that most activities needed to remediate storm damage would not be subject to
regulation under the exemptions found at 33 CFR 323.4(a)(2). In accordance with 33 CFR
323.4(a)(2), any discharge of dredged or fill material that may result from any ofthe following
activities is not prohibited by or otherwise subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CW A:
"Maintenance, including emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of currently
serviceable structures such as dikes, darns, levees, groins, riprap, breakwaters, causeways, bridge
abutments or approaches, and transportation structures. Maintenance does not include any
modification that changes the character, scope, or size of the original fill design." Emergency
reconstruction must occur within a reasonable period of time after damage has occurred in order
to qualify for this exemption. You are advised to contact us to determine if your proposed
activity falls under this exemption.

Most other work in waters of the United States would likely qualify for one of our state general
permits. A general permit is an authorization that is issued on a regional basis for a category or
categories of activities that are similar in nature and do not cause more than minimal individual
and cumulative adverse environmental effects. General permits substantially reduce the time
needed by the Corps to process applications, allowing adequate control of minor construction
while avoiding the lengthier processing required to issue an Individual Permit. There is one
CENAE-R general permit for each of the six New England states. To see a copy of the general permit for
your state, go to http://www.nae.usace.arrny.mil/Regulatory>> State General Permits/Permitting
» State General Permits.

If you intend to undertake any repair work in waters of the United States under the authorization
of a general permit, please thoroughly review the terms and conditions of the general permits and
note that some activities require written authorization prior to commencement of work. It is
imperative that the conditions and the management practices be followed explicitly. If you
are uncertain that the activity you propose qualifies for the exemption or a general permit you are
advised to contact our New England District Regulatory Office prior to the commencement of
work. Also note that just because a condition cannot be met does not necessarily mean that the
activity cannot be authorized; in those cases a formal application will have to be made to the
Corps for authorization by Individual Permit.

The general permits apply only to Department of the Army regulatory programs. Please note
that authorization by a Corps general permit does not obviate the need for state or local permits,
or other federal permits as required by law. It is recommended that you check with your state
and local governments in addition to any other federal agency that may have jurisdiction over
your project.

In cases where proposed work does not qualify for the exemption or a general permit, and the
situation would result in an unacceptable hazard to life, a significant loss of property, or an
immediate, unforeseen, and significant economic hardship if corrective action is not undertaken
within a time period less than the normal time needed to process a permit application under
standard procedures, the District can process an application for a permit under emergency
procedures, as stated in 33 CFR 325 .2(e)(4). You are required to contact us if you feel your
activity qualifies for the emergency procedures.

The Corps recommends that you retain for your records a copy of permits, photographs, drawings,
surveys, etc., for the structures or fill being repaired, replaced or rehabilitated and/or any other
documentation showing that the structure or fill was serviceable immediately prior to the storm
damage that occurred, or at the time the work was done.

For additional information regarding Corps permit requirements, please contact the New
England District office at (978) 318-8335 or (978) 318-8338. For more information on New
England District Corps of Engineers programs, see http://www.nae.usace.arrny.millRegulatory/

8/26/11

MassDEP issued emergency regulations today to allow repair to structures damaged by Hurricane Irene, when those structures are located within jurisdictional areas subject to the Wetlands Protection Act, Chapter 91, the Coastal Restriction Act and the Inland Restriction Act. The regulations are being issued as a precaution to allow for repairs to be made quickly to damaged structures and for debris to be cleared, such as trees knocked down by Hurricane Irene blocking roads located in Riverfront Areas or Barrier Beaches.

The cover letter explaining the regulations and the regulations may be found at the following link:

http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/newregs.htm#emerg

8/05/11

For the latest Mass. General Permit Modification (07.28.11) as well as the copy provided by the Corps with the changes highlighted, click the Library button above. (Information provided courtesy of John Rockwood, EcoTec)

7/18/11

DFW TO HOST TORNADO DAMAGE SITE WALK FOR PUBLIC

On Thur., 8/11/11, from 6:30-7:30 pm, the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) will host a public site walk to view and discuss tornado damage impacts at the McKinstry Brook Wildlife Management Area (WMA) in Southbridge and Sturbridge. The tornado impact site walk has been added to a series of public walks on WMAs this summer and fall. Despite the damage and loss caused by the tornados, this dramatic wind event provides a unique learning opportunity to observe and discuss the historical role that natural disturbance processes have played in shaping a diversity of wildlife habitats across the Massachusetts landscape. DFW biologists, ecologists, and foresters will be on hand to discuss habitat impacts associated with tornadoes and other high wind events. Staff will also talk about how land use changes by people have limited other natural disturbances such as beaver flooding and fires that historically provided additional open wildlife habitats across the landscape. Meet at the gravel parking area at the south end of the WMA in Southbridge, rain or shine. (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/habitat/maps/wma/centralwma/mckinstrybrookwma.pdf)--Mass. Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife (Information provided courtesy of John Rockwood, EcoTec)

7/05/11

Comment Period Ends 8/04/11 on Proposed Corps In Lieu Fee Program

The District Engineer of the New England District, Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) has received a draft instrument dated June 30, 2011 for an In-Lieu Fee (“ILF”) Program covering the State of Maine. This is an existing ILF Program and the draft instrument, when finalized, is intended to bring it into compliance with 33 CFR 332, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (“Mitigation Rule”). For more info, see http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/PN/05/2005-01143_070511.pdf —Jennifer McCarthy, Chief, Regulatory Division

4/26/11

Oxbow Associates, Inc. (Boxborough, Mass.) hosted the 10th AMWS networking event on Mon., April 25th, at Buca di Beppo in Shrewsbury. The early evening joint networking event with MACC included dinner, a raffle and a view of crew boats on adjacent Lake Quinsignamond.

4/04/11

New Publication Available – the Field Guide to Carex of New England, by Dr. Lisa A. Standley, has been published by the New England Botanical Club. This wire-bound book contains matrix keys and dichotomous keys to all 188 species of Carex recorded from New England, with clear descriptions and illustrations for each species.   To purchase, send a check for $26.00 payable to the New England Botanical Club to: Lisa Standley, VHB, 101 Walnut Street, Watertown MA 02472.

3/29/11

Connecticut DEP Reports didymo discovered in the West Branch Farmington River

First Confirmation of this Invasive Species in Connecticut

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced that the highly invasive freshwater alga, Didymosphenia geminata, known as “didymo”, has been discovered in the West Branch Farmington River, a very popular trout stream in northwestern Connecticut.

The presence of didymo was first confirmed in the northeastern United States in 2007, and has since spread to other popular trout streams in a number of northeastern states (New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia). This is the first report of didymo in Connecticut.

DEP first learned of the possible presence of didymo in the West Branch Farmington River from several anglers on March 18^th. One of these anglers also provided an initial sample to DEP. Following initial review by DEP staff, samples were sent to the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation where biologists have direct experience identifying didymo. Late last Friday, Vermont officials confirmed that the sample was indeed didymo.

“This find is very troubling,” said DEP Deputy Commissioner Susan Frechette. “Extensive blooms of this organism can harm the river ecosystem and decrease its recreational and economic value. In an effort to confirm identification, staff from DEP’s Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse surveyed a number of sites in the river and a major tributary along a seven mile stretch of the West Branch Farmington River in Hartland and Barkhamsted. Unfortunately numerous clumps of didymo were found at all the surveyed sites in the river downstream of the Riverton bridge. Once didymo has spread, there’s no practical way to remove it from a river.”

Didymo is most frequently found in cold, relatively shallow streams and rivers having a rocky bottom, characteristics that are also typical of good trout habitat. During blooms, didymo can form thick mats of material that feel like wet wool and are typically gray, white and/or brown, but never green in color. These mats form on the bottoms of rivers and streams and can potentially smother aquatic plants, aquatic insects and mollusks, impact fish habitat, and alter aquatic food chains. Dense mats of didymo can also reduce the recreational and aesthetic value of the affected river. Since didymo also prefers areas open to sunlight, it is not anticipated that this species will become problematic in smaller headwater streams as long as they have well shaded riparian and naturally forested riparian areas.

Humans are the primary vector responsible for the recent spread of didymo. Anglers, kayakers and canoeists, boaters and jet skiers can all unknowingly spread didymo. The microscopic cells can cling to fishing gear, waders (felt soles can be especially problematic), boots and boats, and remain viable for months under even slightly moist conditions. To prevent the spread of didymo to additional waters, DEP asks that anglers, especially those who also fish the Farmington River or streams outside Connecticut, and other users practice CHECK, CLEAN, DRY procedures.

CHECK: Before leaving a river, stream or lake, remove all obvious clumps of algae and plant material from fishing gear, waders, clothing & footwear, canoes & kayaks, and anything else that has been in the water and look for hidden clumps. Leave them at the site. If you find any later, clean your gear and dispose of all material in the trash.

CLEAN: Soak/spray & scrub boats and all other “hard” items for at least one minute in either very hot (140°F) water, a 2% bleach solution, or a 5% dishwashing detergent solution. Absorbent materials such as clothes and felt soles on waders should be soaked for at least 40 minutes in very hot water (140°F), or 30 minutes in hot water (115°F) with 5% dishwashing detergent. Freezing thoroughly will also kill didymo.

DRY: If cleaning is not practical, after the item is completely dry to touch, wait an additional 48 hours before contact or use in any other waterway.

The above procedures will also be effective against other unwanted organisms.

Didymo is just one of a number of aquatic invasive species that have either invaded the state or are threatening to do so. DEP will continue its work to combat the spread of invasive species, focusing on prevention, education and early detection. DEP is an active member of the Invasive Plants Council and supports both an Invasive Plant Program and an Aquatic Nuisance Species Program in collaboration with the University of Connecticut. When available, DEP has provided funding from a variety of sources to educate the public on the threats posed by invasive species and to combat specific invasive species including fanwort, water chestnut and hydrilla. In addition, the DEP has recently proposed new regulations to prohibit the possession or importation into the state of a number of invasive invertebrates.

Since its discovery in the northeast in 2007, DEP has taken additional precautions to prevent the introduction and/or spread of didymo (and other invasive species). DEP’s Inland Fisheries Division instituted an operational “Biosecurity” policy for its own field operations, including elimination of the use of felt-soled waders. Also, as part of its invasive species outreach efforts, informational fliers on didymo were distributed to many of the state’s bait & tackle shops and information about didymo has been prominently displayed in the CT Anglers Guide and on its website.

Individuals wishing to report possible sightings of didymo and other aquatic nuisance species can contact DEP’s Inland Fisheries Division at 860-424-3474. More information on didymo and other aquatic nuisance species can be found on the DEP website (www.ct.gov/dep) or in the CT Angler’s Guide (www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/fishing/anglers_guide/anguide.pdf). An excellent source for detailed information on didymo is the Biosecurity New Zealand web site (http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo).

(Information provided courtesy of Gillian Davies, BSC Group)

3/15/11

USCOE General Permit Notice

The Public Notice for the proposed modifications to the General Permit is posted online. Changes are primarily for corrections or clarifications necessary since the GP was reissued Jan., 2010. It is especially important to hear from those who work with this regularly to ensure a balanced approach. Comments are being accepted for 30-days, and should be directed to: gregory.r.penta@usace.army.mil

--Karen Adams, Chief, Permits & Enforcement, New England District Corps of Engineers

See http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/09/2009-01217_10Mar11.pdf

www.nae.usace.army.mil

1/06/11

National Wetland Plant List Federal Register Notice

As of January 6, 2011, the Federal Register Notice for the National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) has been announced and published. (http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-01-06/pdf/2011-3.pdf). Comments are being sought. For those with computer problems, there is a "Contact Us" email link on the NWPL homepage (http://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). Note that visitors will have to accept the Department of Defense(DoD) web certificate to enter the site the first time, and that the NWPL link may be very slow to load.

--Ruth Ladd (Chief, Policy Analysis & Technical Support Branch Regulatory Division, New England District Corps of Engineers; Ruth.M.Ladd@usace.army.mil)

12/10/10

Update on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetland Mapping Activities in Massachusetts

The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Program (NWI) has recently published a report on wetlands of Cape Cod and the Islands. It summarizes updated wetland inventory data for this area. The inventory included expanding traditional NWI classifications to include descriptors for wetland landscape position, landform, water flow path, and waterbody types (LLWW descriptors). The latter data were used to produce a preliminary landscape-level assessment of wetland functions which is also presented in the report in the form of narrative and maps. The report is posted online at: http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wetlands/publications/Wetlands of Cape Cod_Final_Report.pdf.

Another report summarizing NWI data for the entire Northeast Region (Maine through Virginia) identifies the extent of wetlands mapped by the program in each state (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wetlands/pdf/Northeast_Wetlands_Final_Report.pdf). Nearly 540,000 acres were inventoried in Massachusetts. Wetlands therefore represent about 11 percent of the state's land area.

The FWS also upgraded its regional wetland website (http://www.fws.gov/northeast/wetlands/) to include access to many published reports, powerpoint presentations, as well as providing general and status information about NWI activities in the Northeast Region.

The NWI is cooperating with the MADEP to convert state wetland data for western Massachusetts to the federal wetland classification system, so the data can be entered into the national wetlands geospatial database.   LLWW descriptors will also be added to these data which increases the functionality of the data. The NWI data can be easily accessed using an online tool called the "Wetlands Mapper" which allows users to easily view the data on a current aerial image (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html ). NWI data can also be viewed on Google Earth through a function that can be added to Google Earth from the NWI website (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/GoogleEarth.html). For additional information about the NWI Program, contact Ralph Tiner, Regional Wetland Coordinator at ralph_tiner@fws.gov

12/02/10

Drought Advisory Ends

The Massachusetts Drought Management Task Force officially declared the drought advisory over on 11/19/10. MassDEP elaborates, noting that during fall, winter and spring months, many intermittent streams in Massachusetts typically are flowing, so it is less likely that documented observations will be made during winter months to prove that a stream otherwise deemed perennial pursuant to 310 CMR 10.58 is intermittent.

As background, DEP notes that many intermittent streams in Massachusetts flow approximately 9 months of the year, and seasonally cease flowing in August or September due to drop in the water table. DEP further notes that this is consistent with current USGS stream gauge and groundwater level data. DEP points out that USGS river gauges throughout Massachusetts show river flow is now back in the normal range (25% to 75% flow duration), although discharge has dipped back below normal in some gauged rivers in Central Massachusetts. However, DEP says that even those gauges show that the rivers have flow. In addition, DEP says that USGS groundwater wells indicate normal groundwater levels (which support streamflow) throughout much of Massachusetts .

For more information, see MassDCR's web site at: http://mass.gov/dcr/waterSupply/rainfall/drought.htm

11/17/10

Real Estate, Business, Construction and Environmental Law Alert
GUIDANCE ON THE "PERMIT EXTENSION ACT"

The August "Permit Extension Act" provides a very valuable two-year extension to qualifying real estate development permits that were in effect or existence between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010. Last week, the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) issued helpful guidance in the form of "Frequently Asked Questions" to assist regulatory agencies, property owners and consultants in implementing the Act.

The FAQ clarifies and confirms many aspects of the Act, such as:

The Act automatically extends the permit by operation of law, so that a permit holder and issuing agency are not required to take action to activate the extension. However, an issuing agency may issue an extension form to a permit holder who requests such a document.

The Act is not limited to state-issued permits; the two-year extension applies to all qualifying permits issued by any town, city, regional or state entity.

Permits related to pre-development activities, such as the clean-up of oil or hazardous materials, are not affected by the Act. Such pre-development activities are considered to be independent undertakings outside the context of a larger development project and, therefore, are not covered by the Act.

The Act extends building permits that were issued or in effect between August 15, 2008 and August 15, 2010.

MEPA certificates, decisions, and waivers are covered, so that qualifying certificates will have two additional years before a "lapse of time" will have occurred that would otherwise have triggered a Notice of Project Change or a new Environmental Notification Form.

Importantly, the Act revives and extends any permit or approval that may have expired during the qualifying period of August 15, 2008 through August 15, 2010. Thus, for instance, "a permit that expired on July 1, 2009, is now revived and set to expire on July 1, 2011." Also, a permit is revived even if an extension had been previously denied by the agency.

The Act provides an additional two years to the original term of the permit even if it was not due to expire until after the qualifying period of August 15, 2008 through August 15, 2010. Thus, "if a permit or approval was due to expire on September 1, 2011, it will now automatically expire on September 1, 2013."

However, a permit that had been revoked during the qualifying period is not extended, because the Act specifically preserves the issuing agency's authority to suspend or revoke a permit. However, the agency must have an independent reason authorized by the terms of the permit in order to revoke or suspend the permit. The agency cannot attempt to avoid the two year extension by revoking or suspending the permit.

The Act does not protect a permit holder from enforcement actions to address noncompliance. The issuing agency's enforcement authority is retained.

The Act does not extend mitigation that was required as a condition of the original permit. All conditions that applied to the permit continue to apply, so that the permit is subject to the same substantive terms as when it was originally issued. However, any interim deadlines established by the permit are extended for two years, according to the FAQ.

The FAQ indicates that a permit that was pending "adjudicatory appeal" during the qualifying period is not extended. In contrast, a permit pending "judicial appeal" would qualify for an extension if the court were to ultimately uphold the permit.

The complete text of the FAQ and the Act is available to evaluate the specific workings of the statute.

--Peter Feuerbach, Esq. (617-330-7136 or pfeuerbach@rubinrudman.com)

8/06/10

Legislature Passes "Permit Extension Act" for Economic Development

The Massachusetts House and Senate passed the "Permit Extension Act" over the weekend and the Act now goes to the Governor for his expected signature. This law is important for economic development because it will prevent (at least for two years) the expiration of real estate development permits that had already been granted for commercial, industrial and residential projects. This will provide relief for projects that have not been able to move forward due to difficult market conditions during the recession and therefore faced the expiration of hard earned permits.

In essence, any State or local permit "concerning the use or development of real property" in existence between August 15, 2008 and continuing through August 15, 2010 (the so-called "tolling period") shall be extended for two years in addition to the lawful term of the approval. Approvals that are extended include those issued under the Zoning Act, Subdivision Control Law, Wetlands Protection Act, MEPA, and Chapter 91. Also included are approvals issued under "any local bylaw or ordinance". (The extension of local approvals would appear to have interesting implications for "home rule" authority of cities and towns.)

Permits that are not extended by the Act include "comprehensive permits" issued by a local zoning board of appeals under Chapter 40B, Federal permits and certain other approvals. There are certain other limitations in the Act.

--Peter J. Feuerbach, Esq. (617-330-7136 or pfeuerbach@rubinrudman.com)

2/02/10

INTERIM NORTHCENTRAL AND NORTHEAST REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT to the CORPS 1987 WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL is Available
AMWS is holding three workshops on the supplement from April-Oct. For more information, click "Workshops" above.
Also see: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/10/spn020210-1987Manual.pdf

1/19/10

Changes to WPA Ongoing

AMWS has received word that EEA and DEP were surprised by the push-back from the wetland community about rumored changes to the WPA and DEP personnel levels. While DEP continues to consider enhanced buffer zone protection in an effort to minimize appeals, as well as possible fee alterations, the latest word is that no statutory changes are anticipated.

***

AMWS's response to the ongoing EEA/DEP controversy to reorganize DEP's Wetland Division and make wholesale changes to the WPA is presented below.

Association of Massachusetts Wetland Scientists
109 Whitney Street
Northborough, MA 01532-1429
508/523-2053 www.amws.org

December 4, 2009

Ian Bowles, Secretary
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge St., Suite 900
Boston MA, 02114

Laurie Burt, Commissioner
MA Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108

Re: Association of Massachusetts Wetland Scientists (AMWS)
Stakeholder Interest – DEP Regulatory and Environmental Staffing

Dear Secretary Bowles and Commissioner Burt:

As you are aware, the Association of Massachusetts Wetland Scientists (AMWS) is the
only organization serving wetlands professionals working in Massachusetts. On
December 1st, AMWS convened a special Board meeting to discuss DEP’s budget
situation and to form an internal advisory group. Based on this meeting, we are
requesting that AMWS be included as an active participant in any stakeholder groups
that are formed regarding changes to the Wetlands Protection Act.

As practicing professionals assisting in the implementation of the Act and other
environmental laws in the Commonwealth on a daily basis, we have a considerable
understanding and appreciation of regulatory environmental protection in
Massachusetts. Similarly, we are acutely aware of the current fiscal predicament faced
by our Commonwealth and the nation. In view of this, we understand that the
environmental review process in Massachusetts must face cost constraints on par with
other branches of government. We do, however, think that any reductions in staffing or
modifications to regulatory process be carefully considered.

We noted during our special Board meeting that the wetlands regulation and review
process in Massachusetts provides a reasonable level of predictability for applicants,
and in particular, those contemplating large projects that serve as economic engines.
Certain aspects of the process could be streamlined, and in so doing the process could
be made both more efficient and even more predictable for applicants and regulators

alike. In short, we fear, as do other stakeholders, that a radical change to the regulatory
review process at this time will decrease the certainty and predictability of process that
minimizes risk in site permitting and development.

As professionals in this field, we have a unique understanding of the process and can
identify several opportunities to reduce costs and expedite permitting and review while
maintaining environmental protection in Massachusetts. We strongly advocate that the
DEP Wetlands Program be made a cost neutral agency, and offer the following
preliminary suggestions toward that objective:

. Increase Notice of Intent fees (200 to 400%) for non-single-family-residence projects;
. Increase appeal fees for single-family-residence projects, with significant fee increases

     for larger projects;
. Revisit Simplified Review procedures;
. Simplify the WPA Regulations, with the assistance of a technical advisory group (of

     which AMWS would be a part);
. Maintain applicant and owner appeal rights for all projects by retaining the DEP

     appeal process.

We believe that considered application of the above suggestions, along with cost
constraints and other measures, can maintain the Wetlands Program’s functionality
without contributing to the fiscal problems being experienced by the Commonwealth.
We further believe that the maintenance of the DEP Wetlands Program, as a reliable
source of checks and balances to local wetlands review, is critical to inspiring confidence
on the part of project proponents considering development during the economic recovery.

AMWS is eager to take a leadership role in developing the above-mentioned strategies.
We have much to contribute and a genuine understanding of the positive and negative
aspects of the current regulatory process and how it can be made better and less costly,
while supporting economic growth and development in the future.

In addition, although we believe that the current peer review process practiced in
wetlands permitting affords the most effective technical and scientific quality to the
regulatory process, if the Commonwealth proceeds with professional certification for
wetlands scientists in Massachusetts, AMWS should be the responsible body for
maintaining practices and standards for the certification.

Thank you for your consideration of the above matter. Please feel free to contact AMWS
through our Administrator Deborah Garner at administrator@AMWS.org or by phone at
508-523-2053.

Sincerely,

Brian O. Butler, Vice President, AMWS
Glenn A. Wood, Esq. Former AMWS President, Gov. Affairs Committee, Chair

Cc: Kenneth Kimmel, Esq., EEA General Counsel
David Cash, EEA Deputy Secretary
Phillip Griffiths, EEA Undersecretary
Gary S. Moran, Dep. Commissioner of Operations & Environmental Compliance

12/02/09 AMWS MEMBER COMMENTS ABOUT POSSIBLE WPA CHANGES

(Note: The comment period has now ended.)

No one knows what the changes to the Wetlands Program may be, so EEA’s “listening sessions” and invitation to submit comments put respondents in the position of addressing rumors in three broad categories: REORGANIZATION, PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AND REGULATORY MODELS. (Your immediate comments are solicited. Decisions on the state level are being made NOW. Please write: EEA Budget Reform Teams, 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900, Boston, MA 02114 --or-- eea.partnerships@state.ma.us; eea.regulatorymodels@state.ma.us; eea.reorg@state.ma.us and copy AMWS. Your constructive, unattributed comments will be added below to those of your colleagues.)

REORGANIZATION

(The following are direct quotes from member comments.)

The wetlands regulatory process in Massachusetts is a complex one. Its complexity is compounded by the ability of the cities and towns to adopt their own wetlands bylaws/ordinances which may expand jurisdiction or add interest to be protected beyond those cited in MGL Ch 131, sec 40 and 310 CMR 10.

The temptation to reduce the State and EEA budget deficits by modifying the WPA is enormous. Doing so without properly considering all of the likely ramifications would be disastrous to both the environmental community and the development community, as well as to the Commonwealth.

Here are a few considerations to keep in mind:

1) You cannot erase DEP/Wetlands from administration of the Act without legislation. Even if you chose to call amendments to 310 CMR 10 to delete DEP from the picture "corrective" or "administrative" in order to try to avoid the need for public hearings – a dubious step which could be difficult to defend legally – you can't remove the Department from the Act without legislation, hearings, etc. Thus the modification process itself will be lengthy and expensive.

2) Certainty of process will be decimated if the Wetlands Division is removed from the administration of the Act. Each individual city and town has its own understanding of the meaning of terms and application of the Act and Regulations. It is the Wetlands Division which provides uniformity and consistency in definition and application. Were each municipality to be allowed to fend for itself, every town would become a fiefdom, interpreting definitions and requirements as it felt best without regard to uniformity. With no single arbiter, the only recourse of an applicant would be to court.

3) The result would be a court system, which currently has budgetary problems of its own, clogged with appeals on scientific and technical issues well outside its normal realm of expertise. The logjam would result in years of extra process time costing the developer, the State, through the court system, and the municipalities, through their legal departments, inordinate amounts of money and time.

4) But it is not just the development community that will suffer. Highway and other transportation projects are frequently in need of wetland permits. Those projects are often the targets of environmental opposition, rightly or wrongly, and of neighborhood groups using wetlands related issues to keep those projects out of their backyards. Conservation Commissions sometimes play to the crowd in these projects. With no oversight by the Department, many more such vital projects will wind up in court, leaving the Commonwealth lagging in public infrastructure and transportation required to compete in attracting businesses and tourism which support the State's financial wellbeing.

5) The same will be true of green energy projects such as wind and solar generation; especially small scale projects servicing one or a handful of businesses or homes. Upgrades to existing utility infrastructure could also be impacted. Without DEP to declare and enforce emergency standards in the face of hurricanes, blizzards and other natural disasters, languishing permits for cleanup and repair efforts will make the State look like New Orleans after Katarina.

6) The hearing process will also become inordinately expensive by itself. Since court appeal in wetlands cases go "on the record", it will become that much more important for the applicant to employ consultants to address every item in the process, from resource delineation through impact analysis to administrative process requirements. Whereas currently there is reliance on DEP interpretation and policy, without DEP every case will have to be presented and argued as if it were the first of its kind. Commissions, mostly made up of non-technical people, will want to hire their own experts to bolster their positions. Under statutes now adopted by many communities, the costs of the Town's consultants must be born by the applicant, too. The process will become too expensive for the average applicant. Housing costs will rise. Development will stagnate. Tax revenues will be reduced. And Massachusetts will continue to lose jobs to other states.

7) An alternative to the current situation would be to provide more certainty, and less flexibility, to the program. A system of absolutes in terms of setbacks, erosion control and land alteration percentages, but with strict, well defined Variance provisions could reduce Agency workload by reducing the number and type of appeals. But this too would require legislative and regulatory amendments after developing draft documents with public hearings which will not be quickly accomplished. It would however, provide necessary long term relief.   Such improved certainty of process could have long term benefits to all.

Do not act in haste with regard to the Wetlands Program. The elimination of the Department's technical expertise and appeal function would only create jobs in the legal community, while unduly burdening scarce municipal finances, stymieing potential for real, environmentally sensitive growth, and reducing the ability of the Commonwealth to compete: a penny wise but pound foolish solution to a, hopefully, short- term economic problem.

***

Possible cuts to DEP staffing levels in the areas of technical staff, enforcement officers, those involved in the Appeal process, and circuit riders are a huge concern. If cuts must be made, then cuts to upper administrative levels would be the most cost effective and least damaging to the functioning of DEP.

In order for a system that relies on volunteers at the local level (Conservation Commission members) to function consistently, reasonably accurately, and rationally, some level of professional oversight is required. The DEP review and appeal process performs this function reasonably efficiently (more technical staff would improve the efficiency) and guarantees all parties to the process that regulations can be implemented in a consistent and scientifically based manner across the state. Should permit review be limited to local review, with Superior Court as the appeal authority, regulations would be applied inconsistently from town to town. Further, the Massachusetts court system would be burdened with an additional case load involving highly technical subject matter for which judges are not trained, in-the-field reviews of appealed cases would likely not happen (resulting in wrong decisions at times), and costs would go up for all involved. Conservation Commissions could be denied funds to participate in court cases, applicants would face costly legal fees, and the state of Massachusetts would face added court costs.

Circuit Riders are a highly cost efficient means of obtaining greater compliance with regulations, which then leads to a reduced enforcement load. Enforcement officers are necessary. Without the threat of enforcement, voluntary compliance will decline.

Costs could be reduced by simplifying the wetlands protection regulations, without changing the level of protection. Regulatory simplification of regulations should be crafted by a team of experienced wetland professionals. MACC, AMWS, Conservation Agents, and representatives of the regulated community are likely to be able to assist in this regard. This simplification could be done in combination with a necessary update of wetlands protection regulations that addresses our changing climate, per the work of the EEA Adaptation Advisory Committee.

***

Changes to the WPA and its administration are of concern, especially since EEA is not giving any hint of the directions that they are thinking of going. Wetlands are EXTREMELY important to protect. Massachusetts can expect continued environmental challenges. We need wetlands to provide clean water for our citizens, and to soak up and slowly release flood waters from our erratic storm events due to climate changes (which are likely to become more frequent). Wetlands are critical to wildlife and to many rare and endangered plants as well. They are also an important carbon sink. Many people really enjoy wetlands--hunters as well as other recreational users.

It is important that wetlands be protected in a similar manner across the state. Currently, each DEP region and town has its own quirks. Note that Conservation Commission members are volunteers. Some have received some training through the programs that MACC offers, but in some towns there isn't the money to support this, and the primary reason that they were appointed was to represent the Selectboard's, city manager's or mayor's point of view--which may be at odds with the Wetlands Protection Act. DEP offers a review of wetland filings, and its analysts are helpful to Commissioners who don't have the necessary training. The DEP Circuit Riders offer important and needed training to Conservation Commissions. (Please do not cut their positions. If anything, Circuit Riders should be permanent positions in the DEP and not jerked around as "contractors".)

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for Conservation Commissions to take a biased view on a project, either pro or con. For applicants, a simple appeal process to the DEP, instead of going through the Court system, is an important safety net. These people have already paid filing fees, which sometimes feel excessive and do not guarantee a fair hearing.

On the other hand, when an applicant doesn't get the desired result (even when it will negatively impact everyone), towns often do not have the necessary capital to hire lawyers to represent them in court. Small towns have small budgets. For example, with $450 to cover dues to MACC and training, there is no money for staff to help the Commission. All work is done on a volunteer basis by members of the Commission. A sad truth is that cost is one reason a town may not have a local bylaw, because the only recourse for enforcement is to go to court.

Just because the state is having fiscal problems is no reason to burden towns, which are also suffering. We need to protect and maintain our wetlands. They support us living healthy lives, even though they may frustrate some developers who can't do what they want with "their" land. There is the issue of PUBLIC GOOD to be taken into consideration. And if we really need to develop, perhaps we need to put untouched land off-limits, and build upwards or more heavily on land that is already developed.

Removing DEP from Appeals Process:

If the rumors about changes to the Mass. DEP Wetland Program are true, this could be the wetlands protection equivalent of the effort to reform healthcare in Massachusetts. It has profound implications for anyone in our profession. It removes any authoritative arbiter of wetland laws and science from the process. The most fundamental element of this is that many local by-laws define BVW on one parameter only. Who would fill the authoritative gap if the DEP’s influence was gutted?

Should DEP cease to play an ad judicatory role in wetland appeals, the loss of that avenue of appeal would needlessly increase both the timeline and expense of permitting. The prospect of Superior Court being the sole recourse in appeal is troubling, as the issues surrounding appeal frequently are highly technical. The present process has its flaws, but these pale in comparison to the idea that a judge could (or should) become sufficiently familiar with the techniques and terminology of wetland science (not to mention the thousands of pages of regulations, guidelines, technical papers and case law associated with wetland review.)

***

WPA administration solely at the local level will result in uneven protection for Massachusetts’ wetland and water resources and an inconsistent and unpredictable regulatory environment for the regulated community. DEP plays a crucial role in wetlands enforcement. Without its help, communities without local bylaws have virtually no means to pursue violators who ignore notices of violation.

Without sufficient budgets for attorney services Conservation Commissions may not be able to defend their decisions against well-financed applicants willing to take a town to court over unfavorable decisions; the simple threat of a court appeal might affect the decisions made by ConComs.

Further, ConComs will be in a weaker position to resist political interference from municipal leaders. Simply denying them access to Town Counsel to defend decisions on appeal would be a significant source of political pressure. ConComs with a majority of political appointments may sacrifice mandated environmental protections for political or economic expediency. More zealous ones may over-apply the regulations, leaving applicants (including homeowners) with no recourse for appeal other than Superior Court. Inexperienced ConComs may make mistakes in the review of projects or application of regulatory performance standards, leaving applicants, abutters, and other concerned citizens with no recourse for appeal other than to Superior Court.

Finally, any opposition appeals in court could be filed without any basis in science or law--at least now they are tested by DEP. Court outcomes are unpredictable. It is unlikely there would be site visits by a disinterested, objective professional during any court appeal. Finally, shifting responsibility for wetlands permitting solely to the local level represents a significant unfunded mandate.

***

The natural resources held in public trust belong to state residents. While the concept of replacing DEP overview with only a home rule system may seem proactively frugal in a budgetary sense, this same action could also be perceived as a potential violation of this same public trust. Coastal tidelands, for example, may benefit from local Conservation Commission decisions, but these are also natural resources held in trust for all state residents. Local Commission decisions regarding these resources are currently reviewed by DEP. DEP provides a critical link between local natural resource decisions and statewide stakeholders.

Septic systems (Title V) and ecosystems have similarities in name only. Complex natural resource systems with regional and state significance require a review process on the state level. Localizing the power of decision-making may be wise for Title V purposes but less wise for wetland resources held in public trust. The Governor's "Smart Growth" program clearly states that ground water is a critical resource in Massachusetts. Resource management decisions benefit from local decision makers, but they are restricted in their jurisdictions. A solely parochial approach, without appeal to or review by DEP, could contribute to resource quality fragmentation.

Enforcement:

It could be argued that there is now an excess of zeal in the pursuit of perceived scofflaws, who are really no more than reasonably law-abiding taxpayers frustrated with the seemingly endless process of regulatory review that they neither understand nor appreciate. Education, while a time-consuming process, works better than hearings and fines.

Simplification of Regulations:

Changing both the laws and regulations to streamline regulatory process seems like a good idea. However, as an example of how the best intentions go astray, consider the "abbreviated filing" guidelines for buffer zone projects. After everyone got a chance to offer comment, the eight standards that made it into the regulations proved virtually impossible to satisfy. Home rule provisions could negate the whole concept in many communities.

***

1) Simplify the Notice of Intent Form.
2) Make it possible to apply on-line and make the electronic forms even friendlier so that depending on your answers, you don't have to fill out every little part or scroll through the entire form. For example, if a property is located on a USGS map or aerial photograph, the application program should then know whether the area is in an ACEC or within Priority Habitat or Estimated Habitat of rare wetlands wildlife. If the site is located inland, questions about dunes shouldn't come up and vice versa. If a box is checked for the type of work, the filing fee should automatically come up.
3) Increase the filing fee structure again. It has been several years since this was revamped. Change both filing fees for the initial application and for appeals to cover the cost of DEP analyst reviews. More complicated reviews should be more expensive to file.
4) Use the filing fees as a revenue stream to support the regional DEPs. Use the enforcement fees also to support the regional DEPs, not as money going into the state general fund. However, DO NOT OFFER BONUSES to employees who go after enforcement situations, as this is a conflict of interest, and will likely make them biased in hearing the cases. Not all enforcement issues that Towns bring really are enforcement cases.
5) Require that people who are delineating wetlands and filing for wetland permits for other people have certifications and have signed a Code of Conduct. Either tie into the existing PWS certification through SWS, or work with AMWS, MACC, state universities and state wetland scientists to develop one specific to Massachusetts. Include a process to decertify someone if it is found that their work is sloppy or filings contain lies.

In summary, DO NOT gut the Wetlands Protection Act. Please do not gut DEP or cut the Circuit Rider Program. Look for other ways to support these important programs financially. The Massachusetts Environment needs the Wetlands Protection Act and the DEP and Conservation Commissions need the Circuit Riders.

DEP Staff Cuts to Save Operating Costs:

Do not cut the Circuit Riders; they are a valuable resource for all Conservation Commissions. Loss of their technical support would be a critical loss for under-supported Conservation Commissions.

Do not cut technical staff who work directly with municipalities and the public, as it is at the local level that critical decisions affecting natural resources are made.

Do not cut Enforcement Officers; without external enforcement support, many municipalities are unable to enforce wetland regulations.

Do not cut those involved with hearing appeals (see below).

Focus staff cuts on upper level administration where ever possible. Coordination between technical staff and municipalities/the public can continue within existing (or re-organized) management structures with “leaner” leadership.

PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

(The following are direct quotes from member comments.)

Implications:

Downsizing the DEP wetlands division would result in more employment for environmental lawyers and wetland consultants alike. The only way this would work would be if the WPA were revised and strengthened to provide for wetland setbacks with a 25 foot no-disturb zone and a 50 foot no-build zone (as just one example), and somehow insist that local by-laws define vegetated wetlands consistent with Federal standards. Not very likely, but consider the alternative: arbitrary, unscientific delineation standards and absolute control at the local level. To compensate for the lack of involvement of authoritative experts at the state level, we would have to certify wetland scientists.

Certification of Wetland Scientists:

Registration or certification of wetland scientists would eliminate the need for ANRAD provisions of 310 CMR and, in fact, regulatory review of delineation altogether. This loops back to ad judicatory review, removing a very technical and specialized discipline from the judicial role. By far, the preferable model for professional certification is that of Land Surveyors, who are governed by members their own profession. AMWS recently voted a Code of Ethics--a precursor to professional registration.

REGULATORY MODELS

(The following are direct quotes from member comments.)

Regulatory Changes to Simplify DEP’s Review Requirements:

Do not attempt to do this in short order or in haste. The long-term ramifications are significant.

Do not eliminate the opportunity for appeals through DEP. It provides much needed support to local Conservation Commissions and consistency to implementation.

Work to streamline the language of the Wetlands Protection Regulations. The level of protection provided is appropriate, but the language is complex and inconsistent. Call on a new, small team of professionals who can bring clarity and brevity to the regulations. MACC, AMWS, a cadre of Conservation Agents, and representatives of the regulated community are available and eager to assist in this process.

Limit application requirements for projects over 50’ from a wetland.

Do not implement “blanket permits” that rely on self-policing for efficacy.

Trim and update the state application forms, requiring only critical information be submitted in the forms, and allowing ancillary information to be submitted in accompanying narratives or addenda.

11/17/09 MAJOR CHANGES TO WPA IN THE WORKS

Rumors have been swirling about potential changes to Massachusetts environmental agencies and specifically about DEP’s Wetlands Program. On 11/10/09 EEA announced the creation of three teams to investigate options in regard to: (1) Public-Private Partnerships; (2) New Regulatory Models; and (3) Reorganization/Consolidation of State Agencies. The announcement also included notice of a series of six “listening sessions” – all scheduled Monday - Friday, 11/16 - 11/20 – to receive input on these three topics. With little time to prepare and nothing proposed by EEA to which to react, it is difficult to know what EEA expects from the public or AMWS.

The most extreme options are projected to include the elimination of DEP’s Wetlands Program, radical downsizing of staff, regulatory revisions and statutory changes (potentially via the budget process). The time line is unknown, but things are moving fast. A key determinant of timing is likely to be the administration's budget process. Decisions will likely be made in time to be incorporated into the Governor's FY11 budget.

There are indications that the administration is already talking to legislators about statutory changes. There are rumors that agency staff are already re-writing regulations. A worst-case scenario is one that involves complete de-centralization of wetland permitting (perhaps similar to Title V permitting) whereby DEP creates basic regulations but then Conservation Commissions completely administer WPA filings. The end result could be no appeals to DEP, no policy development, no oversight and no support for Conservation Commissions.

For more info, please see the following link:

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eoeeapressrelease&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Eoeea&b=pressrelease&f=091110_pr_budget_reform&csid=Eoeea

The schedule for the "listening sessions" are:

Mon., 11/16, 4-6 p.m., DAR Amherst Office, 101 University Dr., Main Conference Room

Tues., 11/17/09, 4-6 p.m., 100 Cambridge St., Boston, 2nd floor Conference Room A-B-C

Tues., 11/17/09 4-6 p.m., DEP Office, 617 Main St., Worcester

Weds., 11/18/09 4-6 p.m., Governor's Western Mass. Office, 436 Dwight St., Springfield, Hearing Room

Thurs., 11/19/09, 4-6 p.m., 100 Cambridge St., Boston, 2nd floor, Conference Room B

Fri., 11/20/09, 12 noon - 2 p.m., DEP Office, 1 Winter St., Boston, Washington St. Conference Room, 2nd floor

In addition, written comments may be submitted:

EEA Budget Reform Teams, 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900, Boston, MA 02114

--or--

eea.partnerships@state.ma.us

eea.regulatorymodels@state.ma.us

eea.reorg@state.ma.us

CORPS NOTICE FOR PGP REISSUANCE

On October 20, 2009, the New England District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued the Public Notice for the Reissuance of the Department of the Army Massachusetts Programmatic General Permit (“MAPGP”). The reissued MAPGP will become effective on January 20, 2010. The Public Notice is available at the following link: http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/reg/Public Notice - Initial 10-20-09.pdf.

Please refer any questions and send your comments to Greg Penta at gregory.r.penta@usace.army.mil. The comment period ends on November 19, 2009.

AMWS ANNUAL PHOTO CONTEST
Winning photographs for the third Annual AMWS Photography Contest were displayed at the 11/13/09 Annual Meeting and can be seen the 2/27/2010 MACC Annual Environmental Conference. Categories include: (1) Wildlife; (2) Wetland Plants; and (3) Fieldwork, including field activities at AMWS workshops. Winners were: Sergio Bonilla, Jennifer Carlino and John Sklenak.

FUN NETWORKING AT ROWES WHARF

Environmental professionals were treated to an evening of social networking, free drinks and appetizers on Thurs., 8/27/09, courtesy of Glenn Wood, with Rubin & Rudman. Even Ernie and the Automatics, a rousing R&B group, showed up after performing on the The BluesBarge, anchored below. Twenty lucky attendees won CDs by the group, also courtesy of Glenn Wood.

MILE-A-MINUTE ALERT

Mile-A-Minute vine (Persicara perfoliata) also known as Devil’s Tear-thumb, is an invasive weed that has appeared in Massachusetts. Native to Asia, this species was accidentally imported and became established in Pennsylvania by the 1930s. Closer to home, it appeared in New England in the past decade, with populations in southwestern Connecticut and on Block Island. Here in Massachusetts, Falmouth and Milton are the only towns with known Mile-A-Minute infestations; control efforts are underway in both locations.

Mile-A-Minute is a rapidly spreading spiny annual vine that grows at a rate of 6 inches per day and smothers native vegetation on its way to attaining a final length of 20 feet. It tolerates various soil types and produces abundant bird-dispersed blue fruits with seeds that can grow after being buried for up to seven years.

“Mile-A-Minute vine is an easily identifiable plant,” says The Division of Fisheries & Wildlife’s (MassWildlife) State Botanist Bryan Connolly. He noted that the most obvious features are the almost perfectly triangular leaves and the circular leaf-like bract that surrounds the stem at the base of every leaf. The vine is slender and covered in small, curved spines. It also produces very distinct metallic-blue fruits. Images of this highly invasive plant can be found at www.hort.uconn.edu/cipwg/mam.

If you believe you have seen Mile-A-Minute, please make detailed notes on the location and take close-up photos. Knowing where any new populations Mile-A-Minute infestations are located is the first step to controlling its spread. Report your find to Bryan Connolly, State Botanist, at bryan.a.connolly@state.ma.us or call him at (508) 389-6344. Hard copy notes and photos can be mailed by postal service to: Mile-A-Minute Report, MassWildlife Field Headquarters, 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA, 01581.

Laura Mattei

Director of Stewardship

Sudbury Valley Trustees

18 Wolbach Road Sudbury, MA 01776

Calling All Wetland Specialists - Seeking Information on 2009 Growing Season
Wetland ecologist Ralph Tiner (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) is still compiling observations on start and finish of the growing season from across the country and your participation is invited. Growing season is used in wetland delineation to indicate the time of year when inundation and soil saturation have a critical effect on plants.

Visible signs of the beginning of the growing season include bud break, greening up of vegetation (e.g., leaf or shoot emergence, leaf-out, and greening of evergreen leaves that were reddish in winter like cranberry, leatherleaf, and dewberries), first bloom and opening of catkins. Signs of the end of the growing season include leaf drop in the fall and herbaceous plant die-back due to killing frost. Some plants flower (e.g., witch hazel asters, and goldenrods) or produce spores (e.g., clubmosses) in late fall and thes observations are also requested. Observations for both wetland and upland plants are wanted.

This is planned as a multi-year investigation, so for regions where the growing season is year-round or has already commenced, fall observations would be welcomed this year and observations of both spring and fall reported for future years. A summary of the observations reported to date will be prepared later this year.

DOWNLOAD GROWING SEASON OBSERVATIONS FORM HERE
To participate please send your observations to: Ralph_Tiner@fws.gov
Printable form for field observations. Download Here (PDF)

DEP Announces latest WPA Forms

DEP announces that the latest WPA forms are available on the Wetlands Program website. The NOI form is dated 4/08/09, and the ANRAD form is current as of November, 2008. A brief summary of the changes follow:

NOI Form:

·         Under Section B. Buffer Zone & Resource Area Impacts (temporary & permanent), specifically there are check boxes for questions #4 restoration / enhancement in wetland resource areas (inland and coastal), and #5 projects involving stream crossings.

·         Under Section C. Other Applicable Standards and Requirements: Streamlined Massachusetts Endangered Species Act/Wetlands Protection Act Review you will notice a footnote at the bottom of page 5 informing the applicant that even though the project is not in Estimated Habitat, it may be located within Priority Habitat, and would require NHESP review. In addition, there is a statement noting that MESA projects cannot be segmented. The applicant must disclose full development plans even if such plans are not required as part of the NOI process.

ANRAD & ORAD Forms:

·         The Simplified Buffer Zone Review process, discussed in 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)2 and reviewed under an ANRAD form is not longer a filing option. Due to the lack of Simplified Buffer Zone Review applications, MassDEP has decided to remove this option all together.

·         All Simplified Buffer Zone language has been omitted from both forms.

·         The notary acknowledgement and recording information sections have also been omitted from the ORAD form. An ORAD that is issued for the purpose of a resource area delineation should not be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.

(From Mass. Wildlife News, 4/01/09, #4)

VERNAL POOL GUIDELINES REVISED

In March, the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Mass. Div. of Fisheries & Wildlife released a revision to the Guidelines for the Certification of Vernal Pool Habitat (“Guidelines”). The NHESP accepts certain biological and physical documentation submitted by outside scientists, resource managers, and other interested parties as the basis for the certification of Vernal Pool Habitat. The recent revision is designed to ensure consistency between the NHESP’s “vernal pool certification criteria” and the biological and physical characteristics of “Vernal Pool Habitat” in the Mass. WPA regulations.

The revised Guidelines reduce the number of facultative (indirect indicator) species acceptable for certification to four amphibians (i.e., Spring Peeper, Gray Treefrog, American Toad, and Fowler’s Toad) and eliminates the “Dry Pool” method for vernal pool certification. In addition, requirements for documentingthe physical and biological characteristics of a vernal pool have been enhanced. For example, a greater number of photographs are required of the basin and any inlets or outlets, and the number of egg masses of obligate amphibian (direct indicator) species (e.g., Wood Frogs or salamanders) has been increased from two for each species to a total of five for all species combined.

The revised Guidelines document is available at www.nhesp.org at the ‘Vernal Pool’ tab. The NHESP has administered the state’s official vernal pool certification program for over 20 years. Visit the MassWildlife website at www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/vernal_pools/vernal_pools.htm for information about how to certify and protect vernal pools.

AMWS is on Facebook! Please join us on Facebook, the free social networking tool that allows anyone to join and all to communicate in an easy, open format. Need to find a car pool buddy for a workshop or networking event? Do that and more! All you need to register is an e-mail account.

"Must Have" Books in Your Wetland Library

Check out the books AMWS members recommend for a properly appointed wetland library. See "Library" section of this website.

OF CONTINUING INTEREST

MESA REGULATIONS

Regulations governing the Mass. Endangered Species Act are effective 7/01/05. Basically, proposed project plans must be filed with NHESP for work within Priority Habitats of Rare Species, as mapped by NHESP.
See Our Library for more information.

BUFFER ZONE REGULATIONS

DEP has released new Buffer Zone regulations, effective 3/01/05. These are available on the DEP website. These allow an applicant who has filed an ANRAD post-3/01/05 to conduct work more than 50 feet from a BVW without having to file a Notice of Intent. As with most DEP regulations, there are caveats and conditions.

PGP STREAM CROSSING REGULATIONS

DEP, in conjunction with the USCOE, released new stream crossing performance standards, effective 1/21/05. The new standards prohibit, in many cases, the use of conventional culverts for stream crossings. The new criteria requires either pipe arch devices or bridges. There are exemptions to these new standards. The Category I standards are available from the USCOE or from DEP.
See Our Library for more information.

PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE BEETLE CONTROL: AMWS PARTICIPATION
Since 2003, AMWS has neither funded nor actively participated in any purple loosestrife prevention program. For current information, contact the Mass. Coastal Zone Management's Wetlands Restoration Program, 251 Causeway St., Suite 800, Boston, MA 02114-2136 or Tele: 617/626-1200, FAX 617/626-1240.

NEWSLETTER

Just one of the many benefits of membership, the AMWS Newsletter provides insightful, thought-provoking information relevant to wetland specialists in Massachusetts and beyond.

This 16-page newsletter is published quarterly (4 issues/year) and includes in-depth articles, reviews of websites and books, calendar announcements and more. Wetland professionals are encouraged to submit articles or commentary on relevant topics.

Learn more and preview an issue here. (5mb PDF)

[Home] [The Organization] [News] [Interact] [Workshops] [Join]

© AMWS 2012