LATEST NEWS
2010 Photo Contest
AMWS is holding the fourth annual photography contest for members only. The winning photographs will be displayed at the 2010 AMWS Annual Meeting and at the 2011 MACC Environmental Conference, and prizes will be awarded at the Annual Meeting.
The general categories are: (1) Wildlife (includes vernal pool inhabitants); (2) Wetland Plants (includes scenic wetland vistas); and (3) Fieldwork (includes AMWS workshops). Please submit your photograph(s) (5" by 7" minimum print size) with your name, the category, and the subject matter printed on the back to AMWS, Attention Photography Contest, 109 Whitney Street, Northborough, MA 10532. The photographs must be received by AMWS on or before Friday, October 15, 2010 to be eligible. Winning photos become the property of AMWS; non-winning photos will be returned.
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)
Networking
New England Environmental's Mickey Marcus hosted AMWS & MACC for drinks & appetizers at his new LEED-certified office in Amherst, Mass., on Thurs., Aug. 5th. The evening included tours of the building and grounds.
Glenn Wood (Rubin & Rudman) plans an AMWS day hike in the Presidential Mountain Range at the end of September--where a limited number of participants may also spend the night at a mountain lodge for a small fee. See your July, 2010 AMWS newsletter for details. Additional information was sent in August by email.
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%20Notice%20-%20Initial%2010-20-09.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)
