The ACOE’s Nationwide Permits. Joseph Seebode, Chief Regulatory Branch, New York District, US Army Corps of Engineers. 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY US ACOE New York District, 10278-0090. (212) 264-9053. E-mail: Joseph.Seebode@usace.army.mil. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

Wetland Protection in the New York City Watershed. Jim Benson, PWS, Supervisor, Engineering Section, Bureau Water Supply, Quality and Protection, NYCDEP. 465 Columbus Avenue. Valhalla, NY 10595. (914) 742-2034 E-mail: jbenson@valgis.dep.nyc.ny.us. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

Setting the context – NYCDEP's Stream Management Program. Beth Reichheld, Program Manager, Stream Management Program, (SMP). 71 Smith Avenue, Kingston, NY 12401. (914) 340–7512 EMail: bethr@catgis.dep.nyc.ny.us. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

Introduction to the Geomorphic Approach to Stream Restoration. Sarah Miller, Fluvial Geomorphologist, NYCDEP SMP. 71 Smith Avenue, Kingston, NY 12401. (914) 340 – 7518. E-mail: sjm@catgis.dep.nyc.ny.us.

Problems associated with the traditional approach to stream management include infrastructure and property damage from flooding, unstable eroding stream banks, increased turbidity, degraded fish habitat and a loss of riparian vegetation. Historically, traditional engineered solutions to stream corridor management issues have not included a measure of natural channel stability, and overall ecosystem health and function. NYCDEP's Stream Management Program has adopted a geomorphic approach to stream management in order to assess and classify Catskill streams and implement restoration designs. This approach relates topography, geology, vegetative cover, hydrologic regime and hydraulics of each sub-basin to the naturally stable geometry for each reach of stream, and complements traditional engineering approaches to river restoration. The approach utilizes standardized protocols for collecting data, from initial assessment and classification through design, construction, and monitoring of a restoration project.

The Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan. David S. Zorn, Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council. 1427 Monroe Avenue, Rochester, New York 14618. (716) 443-3770x14. (716) 442-3786 (f). e-mail: dzorn@frontiernet.net.

The Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan process began in 1998 with several short-term goals. These goals included the following: 1) Develop a Preliminary Watershed Characterization to provide the basis for the understanding of the state of the watershed; 2) Develop an inter-municipal organization which can bring all municipal governments within the watershed together, to work together; 3) Foster greater awareness and understanding about the Cayuga lake Watershed; and 4) Involve the citizens of the watershed in the development of the Watershed Characterization and Watershed Management Plan. The draft Preliminary Watershed Characterization is now out for review until January 31, 2000, at which time it will be finalized. The purpose of this Preliminary Watershed Characterization is to both report on the progress of the Watershed Management Planning Process and the state of the understanding of the watershed. The process has included watershed information and data collection, synthesis, preliminary analysis, and findings including the identification of information and data gaps. The process has also included education, public participation, and the development of a structure for watershed-wide and inter-municipal cooperation. The technical portion of the Preliminary Watershed Characterization includes the following categories: General Watershed Description; Limnology; Potential Sources of Contamination; Programmatic and Regulatory Environment; and Technical Findings. The description of the process includes the following categories: Project Background (including the development and evolution of the Inter-municipal Organization); Public Perceptions in the Watershed; Watershed Education; and Interim Recommendations. The goal now is to use the Preliminary Watershed Characterization as the existing state of the watershed, use the partners and process to develop a desired state for the watershed, and use the existing structure to develop a watershed management plan that will have strategies to take the watershed from the existing state to the desired state.

Buffalo Creek Streambank Stabilization Partnership Program – An opportunity for Collaboration. LuAnn Freeman, Erie County Soil and Water Conservation District., 50 Commerce Way, East Aurora, NY, 14052, 716-652-8480, 716-652-8506, luann-freeman@ny.nacdnet.org

The purpose of the Buffalo Creek Streambank Stabilization Partnership Program is to assist municipalities and landowners in the Buffalo Creek Watershed in implementing streambank stabilization practices on properties where land, homes, public facilities and other structures are threatened by erosion. Through the cooperative efforts of the participating municipalities and agencies, the program provides a mechanism to fund streambank stabilization practices where the costs to address the problem is beyond the financial and technical capabilities of the individual landowner and/or municipality. Through an extensive education and outreach effort, the Erie County Soil and Water Conservation District engaged the cooperation of 9 of 12 municipalities in the watershed. Under the guidance of the District and USDA NRCS, the municipalities formed a coalition, pledged financial support to the project, secured county grant funds earmarked to promote the concept of regionalism and used the local and county funds as a match to apply for NYS Environmental Bond Act Funds. The partnership’s NYS grant application in the non-agricultural nonpoint source category was approved, effectively creating a local, county, state, and federal partnership. Areas of concern were identified, reviewed, ranked and selected for remedial activities by a nine-member committee representative of the participating municipalities and agencies. The District, in conjunction with USDA NRCS provides engineering and design, permit application assistance, contract bidding oversight and construction supervision. The District also provides project administration. Benefits of the project include:

• Expenses for specific practices are cost-shared by the landowner, the municipality, the county, and the state, distributing the associated financial burden;
• Local funds were leveraged collectively to provide the match for state funds, thus increasing the total available resources for remedial activities;
• Critical streambank erosion problems are addressed on a watershed basis, thus ensuring that limited resources were put to the highest and best use;
• Real tangible solutions are being offered at the local level in an efficient, cost-effective manner;
• Raised public awareness about the need to think and act on a watershed basis.

Westchester, New York is flanked by the Hudson River and Long Island Sound. All drainage in the county ends up in either the river or the sound. These two primary watersheds also are the focus of local, state and federal water quality improvement programs. The programs for Long Island Sound, however, are more advanced and are now being transformed from written ideas to tangible accomplishments. The Westchester County Committee on Nonpoint Source Pollution in Long Island Sound, formed in 1992, issued a series of recommendations to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the county in 1993. One of its key recommendations was to break up the county’s Long Island Sound watershed into six study areas encompassing two to three subwatersheds. The study areas incorporate all or parts of four to six municipalities. The committee further recommended the formation of six watershed advisory committees (WACs). Each WAC is charged with preparing a nonpoint source pollution control plan for its respective study area. Representatives appointed by the municipalities’ chief elected officials serve on the WACs, which are numbered 1 through 6. Administrative and technical assistance is provided by the Westchester County Department of Planning, which also assists in drafting the plans. The WACs assess municipal land use policies, guidelines and laws in the study areas as they prepare their nonpoint source pollution control plans. They also assess municipal comprehensive plans for development. The assessment process compares established and respected model ordinances and best management practices to appropriate municipal policies, guidelines and laws. For example, the county’s model wetland ordinance is compared to municipal wetland laws and state stormwater runoff guidelines are compared to local land use development regulations. Where the municipal policies, guidelines and laws fall short of the models, recommendations are made for improvement. The WACs also assess tidal and freshwater wetlands, streams and stream buffers, and stormwater management basins. All have the potential to provide water quality benefits, either naturally or by human influences. Wetlands, for example, are known filters for a number of pollutants, including excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus. During their assessment of these features, the WACs identified areas of degradation and potential restoration and retrofit opportunities. The WACs also assessed current and potential opportunities for public education. The WACs view education as a key component of their nonpoint source pollution control plans. Therefore, the development of an aggressive public education strategy for each study area is equally important as land use regulations and natural resources and stormwater management. The plans for WACs 3 and 5 were completed in April 1998 and June 1997, respectively. The WAC 4 plan is being prepared and is expected to be released in the summer 2000. The plans for WACs 1, 2 and 6 are expected to get underway over the next two years. The completed plans have affected land use in several municipalities due to changes in local land use policies, guidelines and laws. These changes were made to comply with recommendations made by the WACs. Several other recommendations made by WACs 3 and 5 have been implemented thanks to nearly $1.1 million in federal grants. In 1999, the Westchester County Department of Planning and Soil and Water Conservation District, working with municipalities, completed four stream and wetland restoration projects in the study areas of WACs 3 and 5. Four additional projects are expected to be completed this year. The projects include stabilizing stream banks using bioengineering techniques, replacing invasive or exotic plant species with beneficial native species, and establishing vegetative buffers alongside streams. Projects include the restoration of two salt marshes, a freshwater marsh, a stream, and a pond; the construction of a coastal dune and vernal pool; and the stabilization of three streams banks. Other grant monies have been sought to implement additional projects.

Skaneateles Lake is the drinking water supply for the City of Syracuse. In order to comply with the terms of their filtration avoidance waiver, the City contracts with CCE of Onondaga County to do a homeowner water quality education program called Home*A*Syst. As part of the Home*A*Syst program, CCE coordinated an erosion control demonstration project in the Skaneateles Lake Watershed. The goals of the project were to:

1. Use a "landscaping for water quality" approach to remediate property with accelerated erosion and increase the capacity of the property to filter out pollutants.
2. Use the project to stimulate homeowner interest in and use of plant based methods of erosion control (biotechnical erosion control).
3. Promote the Home*A*Syst program.

Criteria for picking the two demonstration properties included prior participation in the Home*A*Syst program and the presence of erosion that could be alleviated using plant-based techniques. Staff from CCE and a landscape architecture graduate student from SUNY ESF worked with the homeowners to come up with a landscape plan for the site. Technical assistance, materials and/or hard labor were provided by staff, students and volunteers from NRCS, Cornell Cooperative Extension, Cornell University Dept. of Natural Resources, Onondaga County SWCD, the City of Syracuse Department of Water and SUNY ESF Dept. of Landscape Architecture. The project was funded by CCE-Onondaga County and the City of Syracuse. After two droughty, growing seasons, one of the sites is thriving and one is struggling. Workshops about the project generated 27 Home*A*Syst risk assessments with homeowners to evaluate erosion and water quality risks on their property. Twelve homeowners have or will soon plant willow wattles or other woody vegetation on their property.

BIG BOX RETAILERS ARE HERE TO STAY. Donald Ferlow, FASLA, Senior Wetland Scientist

WalMart, Kmart, Target, and Home Depot are opening stores all over the country. Building sites are quite large (25+ acres) and located on key sites within a community. The stores are large and can cover 3 to 4+ acres of land. Te sites must also have parking lots for hundreds of cars. During the development of these stores, site design and construction costs are minimized and provisions for environmentally sensitive planning are often not provided. The store developers are willing to apply social and political pressure to gain approvals. So how can a site’s environmental features prevail or be part of the balance in the development equation? On sites containing wetlands, proposed impacts to wetlands require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and/or the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). Agency staff can request detailed information about the level and intensity of anticipated impacts and evaluate alternate schemes with less wetland impact. When the proper questions are asked, a developers environmental consultants can have a primary role in the site planning process. A recent Super Kmart in Queensbury, New York provides an excellent case study in which the goals of the Big Box developer were met within a framework that mitigated necessary impacts to wetlands and provided stormwater runoff management and water quality renovation. A 28-acre site, with approximately 3 acres of wetlands and a watercourse corridor, was selected for a 160,000+ square foot Super Kmart development. Access driveways, parking for 1040 cars, vehicle service area, and truck unloading bays were part of the site plan. Community regulations required that there be no peak increase in post-development runoff. The engineers development plan showed that more than 2.4 acres of wetlands would be filled to build the Super Kmart. The wetlands were regulated by the ACOE (DEC wetlands were not present). The proposed impacts required authorization under a Nationwide Permit subject to a Preconstruction Notification. Environmental site planning input evaluated alternate local sites and alternate site plans for the property. When the selected plan proved to be the feasible development scenario, the environmental input provided the means to integrate the stormwater management plan with 2.7 acres of created mitigation wetlands, protected a stand of mature cottonwood trees, provided vegetated stormwater runoff biofilters for water quality renovation at locations up gradient of the created wetlands, and created a conservation easement across the areas of the site that contained the created wetlands and cottonwood trees.

Target’s Northeast Distribution Center: A CASE STUDY IN WETLANDS PERMITTING. John Munsey, Managing Scientist and Principal. C.T. Male, Inc. 50 Century Hill Drive, P.O. Box 727, Latham, NY 12110. (518) 786-7400. (518) 786-7299 (f). e-mail: j.munsey@ctmale.com.

Big boxes don’t get much bigger than Target’s proposed 1.5 million-square foot Northeast Distribution Center (DC) in the Town of Wilton, Saratoga County, New York. This truly BIG project had unavoidable impacts to just under 5 acres of primarily forested wetlands and 2 associated ravines, and required a Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Section 404 permit application was made on May 19, 1998, and a little more than five months later, a permit was granted on October 30^th which allowed the initiation of construction activities to proceed in the Fall. Construction of the DC has been substantially completed and full-scale operations are planned to commence in mid-May 2000. In retrospect, the path to the permit doesn’t seem to be as daunting as it actually was during "the heat of battle". The stakes were high on this significant economic development project. Imposed stress was at peak levels on several fronts even before the permit application was made, and regulatory hurdles presented unique challenges that needed to be swiftly overcome to hit the "bulls-eye". Target’s site selection process had to be validated to demonstrate that there were no practical alternatives. Their prototypical L-shaped facility design had to be explained and defended in terms of achieving the basis project purpose. Stormwater basin designs were enhanced. The site plan was modified several times, and at great cost, to minimize impacts to aquatic resources, and a comprehensive wetlands mitigation package was expanded and modified to satisfy the federal agencies prior to permit issuance.

PANELIST. John Connell, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Albany Field Office. 1 Bond Street, Troy, New York 12813. (518) 270-0588. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

Integrating Current Stream Science into a New Management Paradigm. Mark Vian, Watershed Ecologist, NYCDEP SMP. 71 Smith Avenue, Kingston, NY 12401. (914) 340 – 7519

E-mail: mavian@catgis.dep.nyc.ny.us

Current stream science offers the possibility of developing management plans that optimize the range of water resource values. The NYCDEP Stream Management Plan model will be presented, with a discussion of the components and processes that attempt to integrate recent advances in stream science into a comprehensive management approach. Assessment, planning, restoration and monitoring activities will be related to specific management objectives. As yet undeveloped aspects of the model will offered for discussion.

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT AND WETLANDS PROGRAM DOLLARS – THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF STATE AS A SOURCE. Greg Capobianco. NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources. 41 State Street, Albany, New York 12231. (518) 474-8811. e-mail: gcapobia@dos.state.ny.us. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

Clean Water Clean Air Bond Act Monies. Libby Smith, Division of Water, NYS DEC. (518) 485-8772. ehsmith@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

The Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act Title 3 - Section 56-0303, (Water Quality Improvement Projects to implement Management Programs, Plans and Projects), provides $420 million for nonpoint source abatement and control, aquatic habitat restoration and wastewater treatment improvements. Whenever an aquatic habitat restoration project is also considered a nonpoint source control project, it is eligible for Environmental Protection Fund nonpoint source funding through DEC. In addition to these state dollars, DEC is working with federal partners to fund natural resource enhancement activities.

FRENCH CREEK WATERSHED (NY): FARM CONSERVATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE EFFORTS BY THE NATURE CONSERVANCY IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER PARTNERS. David W. Gross, Ph.D., Natural Resource Department, Cornell University. Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853. (607) 255-2825. e-mail: dwg5@cornell.edu.

The French Creek watershed in New York and Pennsylvania is the most biologically diverse aquatic system in the northeast. It supports 111 species of fish and mussels, five times the regional average. Overall, the watershed harbors 12 globally rare species. The watershed also contains a diverse agricultural economy. In the creek's New York headwaters, dairy farming is the mainstay of the economy. Since 1993, the Nature Conservancy, in partnership with Cornell Cooperative Extension, USDA NRCS, USFWS, and the Soil and Water Conservation District, has worked with individual farmers to reduce threats to French Creek's biodiversity including siltation from eroded banks, nutrient runoff from fertilizers and manure, and alterations of natural hydrology. Collaboration between the Nature Conservancy and Cornell's Department of Natural Resources has resulted in, among other things, the development of baseline biological data (GIS-based). Recently, the Nature Conservancy received a multi-year grant from the Kellogg Foundation to stimulate additional implementation as well as to evaluate the economic and conservation effects of their efforts. As part of the grant, an assessment is underway of the water quality and macroinvertebrate diversity at specific sites prior to and following BMP implementation. In addition, an assessment was made of farmers' experiences with the nutrient management process. Finally, the broader context of the Nature Conservancy's intervention role in the watershed in relation to on-going technical and financial assistance from local agricultural organizations is being examined.

Status and Trends of Wetlands in New York State. Patricia Riexinger, NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-4757. (518) 457-0698. E-mail: pxriexin@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

The NYSDEC undertook a study of the status and trends of freshwater wetlands in New York via a contract with Huffman and Associates of California. A stratified random sample of quadrangles was drawn from five aggregated ecological zones of the state, and aerial photographs from the mid-1980s and mid-1990s were interpreted, wetland polygons identified, classified according to covertype, digitized, and compared to identify the nature and cause of the changes between the two time periods. Results indicate that New York has approximately 2.4 million acres of freshwater wetlands, of which approximately 70% are forested, 16% are shrub/scrub, 9% are emergent, and 5% wetland open water. The wettest ecological zones are the Lake Plains and Adirondacks, each of which supports approximately 37% of the state’s wetlands. During the study period, it is estimated that approximately 38,000 acres of wetland were gained, and 23,000 acres of wetlands lost, for a net gain of approximately 15,000 acres of wetlands, most of which occurred in the Lake Plains ecological zone. Most gains resulted from reverting agricultural lands and from increased runoff resulting from altered hydrology. Most losses resulted from agricultural conversion and urbanization. Over 140,000 acres of wetlands showed a change in covertype during this period, with greatest losses of covertype occurring in the shrub/scrub category, and greatest gains in wetlands open water.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s role in protecting migratory birds and the interstate commerce clause connection. Anne Secord, USFWS, 3817 Luker Road, Cortland, NY 13045. (607) 753-9334. E-mail: Anne_Secord@fws.gov.

Many migratory bird species are declining in North America. Habitat loss and fragmentation at the breeding and over-wintering grounds are believed to be some of the most important reasons for these declines. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the primary Federal agency with trust responsibility for migratory birds and is working with other Federal agencies, states, and non-government organizations to conserve both game and non-game bird species. Some of these bird conservation programs will be discussed, as well as the USFWS activities in New York to protect and enhance migratory birds. The presentation will also briefly discuss the migratory bird nexus within the Clean Water Act and how court decisions have affected the USEPA/USACOE determination of jurisdictional waters under this statute.

US Environmental Protection Agency developments. Dan Montella, USEPA. Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866. 212 637-3801 e-mail: Montella.Daniel@epamail.epa.gov. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

(315) 426-7403/7406(t) (315) 426-7402 (f). NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

A Case Study, The Use of Natural Channel Design Concepts in the Batavia Kill Watershed at the Maeir Farm. Rene Van Schaack, Executive Director, Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District. County Office Building, HCR3, Box 907, Cairo, NY 12413-9502. (518) 622-3620(t). E-mail: gcswcd@francomm.com.

Since 1996, the Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District has been under contract with New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) to pilot the use of fluvial geomorphology principles in stream restoration projects. The 4 year project is located in the Batavia Kill Watershed, in the Northeast corner of the Catskills. The project scope includes classification of the Batavia kill, conducting stream stability assessments and demonstration of natural channel design concepts at multiple sites. In 1999, two demonstration sites with a total length of 4850 feet were completed just prior to Hurricane Floyd. The GCSWCD will discuss the projects design, construction and response to the flood event.

Permitting the Maeir Farm and other Stream Restoration Projects. Christine Delorier. ACOE, Albany Field Office. US Army Corps of Engineers New York District. One Bond Street, Troy, New York 12180. (518) 270–0588. E-mail: Christine.Delorier@usace.army.mil

Permit requirements: The Corps of Engineers actually reviewed the Maier Farm project on the Batavia Kill along with another similar project the GCSWCD proposed adjacent to it (Brandywine). Both of these stream stabilization projects (using the geomorphic approach) required an individual Department of the Army permit. This would probably be true for most stream stabilization projects, as they are typically not proposed in headwaters and involve significant earth movement to achieve the desired meander geometry, grade control and habitat improvements. With regard to the Maier Farm project, approximately 16,000 cubic yards of existing stream bed and bank material was moved to reconfigure 1,750 linear feet of stream channel. An additional 440 cubic yards of large rock was discharged into the channel to install grade control/habitat improvement structures.

Information needed to process permit application: Significant effort is required to design this type of project, including site and reference reach surveys and quantitative assessments. Basically, the Corps wants copies of all the data that was collected and analyzed to design the proposed project and drawings which accurately depict the existing and proposed stream channel in detail. The following information was required for the Maier Farm project:

Review: The Corps reviews all of the above to determine whether the work is necessary, if all the data is accurate and would result in minimal temporary and permanent adverse effects on the aquatic resource. If the geomorphic approach is implemented correctly, the project should produce a stable stream reach and in the Maier Farm case, fulfill the goals of reducing turbidity, improving habitat and protect the private bridge which is at the project site.

Permit Process: On the Maier Farm project there was very little agency comment. This stretch of the Batavia Kill is listed in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory as a Wild and Scenic River for its scenic and recreational values. The National Park Service had no objection to the proposal and commended Greene County and the Corps for supporting this innovative project. Because the project could serve as a model for other stream restoration work in the northeast, the NPS requested copies of the monitoring reports that they knew would be required by the Corps of Engineers. The permit was issued subject to special conditions geared towards the timely and successful establishment of the riparian buffer, the required submittal of monitoring reports to determine if the desired stream type was obtained, if the channel is stable, if there are habitat improvements, and if the project is affecting reaches up or downstream. Special conditions are provided the Corps an opportunity to review, approve, and order any corrective measures that may necessary. These conditions will probably become standards in future stream stabilization permits - but may be slightly modified over time as experience is gained in the geomorphic approach.

Future of Corps permitting: The proposed revisions to Nationwide Permit Number 27 should include stream restoration activities. Our District believes there will be a need for an RGP because the number of these types of projects are growing, and because, if developed correctly, the goal of these projects is to improve the condition of the waterway (flood, habitat, etc.). We have a draft RGP proposal ready and plan to have a meeting with potential applicants and resource agencies in May.

THE VIEW OF THE COUNTY ON SARATOGA REMAPPING. John Lawler, Saratoga County Board of Supervisors. E-Mail: jlawler@capital.net.

Wetland remapping in Saratoga County is a crude attempt by the Department of Environmental Conservation to stifle growth by taking away the rights of individual property owners. Saratoga County has been singled out for remapping simply because we are growing and attracting new jobs and industry. By denying property owners the use of their lands, NYSDEC will reduce property values throughout the county and thereby increase property tax rates. There is no scientific or rational reason to single Saratoga County out for this treatment. The Saratoga County Board of Supervisors will strongly oppose any remapping that does not provide a complete review of every County in the State and provide appropriate reimbursement for all affected home owners."

WETLAND MAPPING IN NEW YORK STATE. Patricia Riexinger, NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources. 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-4757. (518) 457-0698. E-mail: pxriexin@gw.dec.state.ny.us.

In 1984, DEC began finalizing regulatory wetlands maps pursuant to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law. These maps serve as important tools in helping landowners, local government officials, and other interested parties understand where state-regulated wetlands exist so that better decisions about the resource can be made. In addition, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps serve as companion maps, identifying the location of wetlands as identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for resource management purposes. This presentation will review: past, current, and anticipated updates statewide to the regulatory maps; the current status of maps at the local government clerks’s offices and the resulting implications; efforts by the DEC to make the regulatory maps available over the website, through the GIS clearinghouse, and via CDs; cooperative efforts for updating NWI maps; and work with the NWI to include modified hydrogeomorphic codes on the NWI maps to improve their utility for planning and assessment purposes.

Role of US Environmental Protection Agency IN SARATOGA COUNTY WETLANDS INITIATIVE. Dan Montella, USEPA. Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866. 212 637-3801 e-mail: Montella.Daniel@epamail.epa.gov. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH EFFORTS IN SARATOGA COUNTY. Jennifer Brady-Connor, Past Wetlands Outreach Coordinator for Saratoga County. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. 130 Homestead Road, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-5809. (518) 581-8375 E-mail: jennifer@aswm.org

The Land Trust of the Saratoga Region embarked upon a two-year wetland outreach and education effort in Saratoga County, NY, from the fall of 1996 to the fall of 1998. Aside from generating positive public relations for wetlands, the Land Trust effort included outreach to local governments. This outreach involved the coordination of multiple local workshops, one statewide conference with a focus on local issues, and also the development of a publication for local landowners. Local participation at each event was respectable with many town supervisors attending or presenting at each. One intended result of the outreach effort was to develop awareness of the existence, purpose, and value of NYS DEC freshwater wetland maps for communities within Saratoga County. Did we accomplish our goal? Probably, although there is no way to measure. Were the letters notifying landowners of newly mapped wetlands on their property welcomed with relief that these wetlands were finally "protected?" Would we be discussing this again if they were? Some challenges to the program paving the way for the acceptance of revised wetland maps included: turnover of local officials (newly elected [and some re-elected] officials had not participated in the workshops and conference and were unaware of the re-mapping; conclusion of the outreach program before the wetland remapping was completed (the issue had thus been relegated to the back-burner until landowner notification occurred); not addressing the issue of remapping and its implications often enough during the workshops, conference, and landowner outreach effort. However, all of those obstacles probably would have been overcome if it weren’t for a vocal minority property rights group.

THE IDENTIFICATION OF WETLAND HERBACEOUS PLANTS IN WINTER. Joseph M. McMullen, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc. 23 County Route 6, Suite A, Phoenix, New York 13135. (315) 695-7228 (t) (315) 695-3277(f). E-mail: TES@dreamscape.com.

Many herbaceous plants are identifiable during the winter months. These plants frequently have aboveground parts that persist throughout the winter months and are even recognizable with measurable snow cover. Such parts can include seed heads (cattails), fruit structures (docks), spore cases (ferns), stems (smartweeds), and leaves (certain grasses). The shape of the plant parts, their arrangement, and their position are key to plant species identification. A general review of the structures that can be used to identify herbaceous plants will be presented. Slides of common herbaceous plants in winter will be shown and their identifying features discussed. Wetland plants will be emphasized, as well as upland plants that frequently grow around the edges of wetlands.

E-mail: dendro@mailbox.syr.edu

Woody plant species can be reliably and readily identified during their long dormant period. In fact, some winter characteristics are more valuable as diagnostic features that separate similar woody plant species, than foliage characteristics. One can learn key winter traits for woody plant species without an extraordinary background in botany. The following winter identification characteristics will be examined in this presentation (through slides and fresh plant samples) and applied to woody plant species that are commonly found in northeastern wetlands: leaf scar arrangement and shape, buds (flower and leaf; terminal vs. pseudoterminal; scaled vs. naked), twigs (texture, lenticels, color, smell, pith), bark, growth form, and fruit remnants. The use of winter taxonomic keys will also be covered in this presentation.

Scajaquada Creek Restoration Project. Rostyslaw Caryk, Beak Consultants. 140 Rotech Drive, Lancaster, NY 14086-9755. (716) 759-1200(t) (716) 759-1489(f). E-mail: rcaryk@beak.com.

Beak Consultants Incorporated implemented a 1,600-foot stream bank restoration project along Scajaquada Creek in the City of Buffalo, New York for National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation in association with a sediment remediation project. The project was located within an urban and industrialized area and had a very high profile. Beach was retained in February, 1999 and required to complete the project before spring flooding. The stream section was de-watered, and sediment and soil from the bed and banks entirely removed and rebuilt with clean material. The project included major bank stabilization using a combination of rock armor and bio-engineering. The design called for a combination of 16-inch coir logs and jut matting to hold topsoil placed over a layer of rock riprap. Four planting zones were planned: shrub, emergent, wet meadow, and submergent. Unusually low water levels necessitated a change in the original design elevations for placement. Beak installed 520 linear feet of 16-inch coconut coir logs, and 1,400 linear feet of jut matting. Concern over anchoring the coir logs, due to a relatively loose subsoil zone and steep slope, necessitated the use of more and longer stakes. Jute matting was anchored with staples, and overlaid and further anchored with rock. During Spring 1999, Beak planted 640 linear feet of shrubs along the banks and 1,390 linear feet of plant beds. Coir logs and matting held up to spring floods. Field inspections at the end of the first growing season documented the successful establishment of visible planting zones.

Importance of Riparian Buffers IN STREAM CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT. Diane Kozlowski. Buffalo District US Army Corps of Engineers. 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207-3199. (716) 879-4433(t). (716) 879-4310(f). E-mail: diane.c.kozlowski@usace.army.mil.

On March 9, 2000 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published the final rule of the new and reissued Nationwide Permits. The new rules require that an applicant maintain or establish vegetated buffers adjacent to all open waters. Although the primary purpose of the vegetated buffer is to protect water quality, additional ecological benefits will result. The requirements for implementing vegetated buffers on Corps Nationwide Permits will be presented. Factors to consider in establishing buffer widths will be introduced.

PANELIST. Chris Cirmo, SUNY Cortland Department of Geology. E-Mail: cirmoc@syncorva.cortland.edu. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

Wetland Science, Policy and Academic Preparation. Richard C. Smardon, Ph.D. Professor and Chair, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Director Graduate Program in Environmental Science. SUNY College

The Graduate Program in Environmental Science (GPES) has been in place at SUNY/ESF for over 26 years. In that program, there has always been a "Water Resources" option area. For the last five years there has been growth in areas called "Water and Wetland Resource Studies." This is due, in part, to the demand for trained professionals at the graduate level who can address wetland assessment tasks. We attempt to prepare students by addressing both environmental science and environmental policy within their programs. The curriculum within the "Water and Wetland Resourses" GPES option has a series of courses addressing wetland ecology, hydology, wetland policy and a field practicum. Issues of student preparation and professional expectations will be presented and discussed. This is definitely a growth area as we look across the country at similar programs.

PANELIST. Barbara Reuter, The Environmental Collaborative. 309 Palmer Drive, Fayetteville, NY 13066. (315) 637-3701. E-mail: breiter@twcny.rr.com. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

PANELIST. Jennifer Brady-Connor. Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc. 130 Homestead Road, Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-5809. (518) 581-8375 E-mail: jennifer@aswm.org. NO ABSTRACT RECEIVED.

PANELIST. Terresa Bakner, Whiteman Osterman and Hanna. One Commerce Plaza, Albany, New York 12260. (518) 487-7615. E-mail: TMB@WOH.COM.

PANELIST. Scott Shupe, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. 300 Erie Blvd. West, Environmental Affairs C-1

Syracuse, NY 13202. (315) 428-6616. E-mail: sshupe@nimo.com.

Ecosystem Monitoring of Development Impacts on a Fen Wetland. John H. Roebig, Ph.D. EcoLogic. 5891 Ridge Road, Cazenovia, NY 13035. (315) 687-6397(t) (315)687-3713 (f) e-mail: EcoLogicLLC@att.net

Traditional wetland monitoring often relies on one or two indicator species or simple measures of diversity, yielding information unrelated to wetland ecology or unsuitable for making corrective actions. This paper presents an ecosystem monitoring plan that characterizes the ecology of a fen wetland and allows the assessment of impacts resulting from an industrial and residential development. The 5.5 acre groundwater fed wetland in northeastern Germantown, Maryland has been designated as a Nontidal Wetland of Special Concern due to the presence of ten state high-interest plant species.

The assessment of project impacts requires separating anthropogenic stressors from natural influences. These natural influences include seasonal fluctuations in the hydrologic regime, unpredictable disturbances, such as invasion by nuisance species and catastrophic natural events, such as drought years or floods. The monitoring plan adapted an integrative strategy of monitoring the wetland through a system of early indicators of anthropogenic stress. Water quality, water flow, and the plant community formed a complex of early warning signs and thresholds. Statistical tests were used to compare the five years of pre-development data to the five years of post-development data. Additionally, changes to the plant community would be correlated to changes in the ground water hydrology, surface water hydrology and water quality.

Findings suggest a number of significant post-development trends in the plant community. While the bog appears relatively resilient to perturbations, a host of invasions by nuisance species requires the implementation of a nuisance management system.

The Beaver’s Role in Wetland Development. Sharon T. Brown, Beavers: Wetlands and Wildlife. 146 Van Dyke Road, Dolgeville, NY 13329. (518) 568-2077 (t) (518) 568-6046(f) e-mail: beavers@telenet.net

"Why is there so much beaver myopia?" I recently asked a West Coast hydrologist. "Beaver myopia?" he replied. "That’s putting it mildly. The beaver is probably the single biggest missing piece in "ecosystem" management or restoration today..." In past years, an understanding of the beaver's role in maintaining and restoring wetlands fell through the interdisciplinary cracks between the sciences of biology, geology and hydrology. That may be changing now as new studies reveal the significance of this keystone species to stream restoration and the restoration of fish habitat. Since beaver prefer to dam streams in shallow valleys, much of the flooded area becomes wetlands with all the usual wetland benefits, plus a few extras. Each colony typically build several dams that often collect a foot or more of sediment just upstream, and slow the water's flow during times of high water. This means less flood damage, less erosion and cleaner water downstream. A variety of methods are available to prevent conflicts with people and enhance the natural benefits of beaver. Objectionable flooding can often be ended by using a water control device, or a combination of them, depending upon the geomorphology and hydraulics of the site. For example, three different beaver flow devices were installed during our nonprofit's conference last year. When controlling water levels, dam boards and other techniques can be used to save much, or all, of the beaver wetland. By working with the beaver, rather than against them, we can enjoy the natural services their wetlands provide.

Comparative Values of Phragmites australis dominated wetland systems, and implications for decision-making. Mary Anne Thiesing, Wetland Protection Section, USEPA Region II. 290 Broadway 24th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. (212) 637-3818 (t) (212) 637-3889 (f) Email: thiesing.mary@epamail.epa.gov.

Phragmites australis, or common reed, has experienced rapid population expansions in marsh plant communities throughout the northeastern United States. Its ability to rapidly and aggressively colonize areas, displace other plant communities, and form monocultures has led to its being viewed and managed increasingly as a pest species. The manner in which P. australis communities are assessed has a direct bearing on the likelihood of these wetlands being subject to fill activity under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Moreover, Phragmites-dominated marshes are increasingly used as restoration or enhancement areas for compensatory mitigation for Section 404 permits. In light of this, it is essential that appropriate valuation of these areas in terms of their function, landscape position, and sustainability be performed prior to decision making, in order to ensure that impacts to the aquatic ecosystem are adequately assessed and minimized in the event that an activity is authorized.

Recent work on the physiology and ecology of Phragmites, in both freshwater and brackish systems, provide important insights into how Phragmites invades an area, why it is likely to be successful at colonizing an area, as well as the effects of Phragmites establishment on existing biotic communities and the wetlands systems as a whole. These data, as well as several case studies of Phragmites eradication and enhancement projects, are evaluated. In addition, factors to be weighed in assessing these systems and in planning for successful enhancement are identified for consideration in decision making.

• David Zorn – Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council. Cayuga Lake Watershed Management Plan. See Abstract Above.

• Beth Gelber. New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s Stream Management Program.

• New York State Department of State Division of Coastal Resources.

• Jennifer Brady-Connor. Association of State Wetland Managers.

• Franco Mantalto. Doctoral Studies Student at Cornell University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. E-mail: tss1@cornell.edu. Research in the monitoring, visualization, and modeling of tidal saltmarsh hydrology (both surface and subsurface) in Piermont Marsh along the Hudson River.

• Sharon Brown. Beavers and Wetlands. Beavers: Wetlands and Wildlife. The Beaver’s role in Wetland Development. E-mail: beavers@telenet.netemail."

• David Kitchie. MPS degree student from SUNY-ESF. General recommendations for those considering growing wild rice for improving wildlife habitat in Central New York. E-Mail: dpkitchi@syr.edu.

• Dr. Bruce Gilman, College of the Finger Lakes. A Display to Challenge Your Skills in the Winter Identification of Vegetation.

• INFLUENCE OF HYDROLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY UPON BIODIVERSITY IN A COASTAL WETLAND OF LAKE ONTARIO. John C. Hunter¹, James A. Zollweg² and Mark R. Noll², 1 - Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York, Brockport, NY 14420, (716)-395-5753, fax (716)-395-2741, jhunter@brockport.edu, 2 – Department of Earth Sciences, State University of New York, Brockport, NY 14420.