Abstracts of Presentations

The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop water quality standards for all "waters of the United States", including wetlands. At a minimum, states must develop narrative water quality standards (the "free forms") that will be used to protect the designated use(s) of wetlands. By definition, a "designated use" is referred to as the functions, or processes occurring in or because of the presence of the wetlands (i.e. biogeochemical cycling and water storage), whereas a value is an anthropomorphic evaluation that emphasizes the benefit of that wetland's function to society (i.e. water quality improvement, flood and stormwater control). With the promulgation of narrative wetland water quality standards, wetlands can be given the same level of water quality protection as afforded to surface and ground waters. Certain activities, particularly physical and hydrological modifications, can be better managed to ensure that the proposed activity will not degrade the designated use(s) of the wetland. Finally, these wetlands can also be applied in the review of 401 water quality certifications from the federal wetland regulatory programs, including the Nationwide 25, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and Section 404 permits.

Wetland Protection in the Great Lakes Basin
Kevin K. Luftus, Senior Regional Wildlife Specialist Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
Richard C. Smardon, Director, Randolph G. Pack Environmental Institute, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Prior to European settlement, wetland coverage in the Great Lakes basin was much more extensive than at present. Agricultural expansion as well as urban and shoreline development have reduced wetland acreage in the Great Lakes Basin drastically. An estimated 60-80% of the pre-settlement wetlands have been lost, with 80-100% lost along the intensely-urbanized Great Lakes coastline.

This presentation reviews wetlands protection programs for both the US and Canada. On the Canadian side, this review includes government regulatory programs as well as tax incentives, securement stewardship incentives and special programs/partnerships. On the US side this review includes federal and state regulatory programs plus acquisition and restoration/creation. Also included are binational and international government-led initiatives as well as non-government-led activity and partnerships. Each section is summarized in terms of current governmental trends and international, binational and non-governmental programs and activities.

Implementation of Best Management Practices in Upstate New York
Christopher J. Cable, Assistant Environmental Scientist, Terrestrial Environmental Specialists, Inc.

Best management practices (BMPs) are an important part of any construction project. BMPs are designed to reduce the impacts of construction-related activities on surrounding wetlands and waterbodies. However, BMPs are only as good as their implementation. Even the best plans can be ineffective if the construction contractor does not follow them.

BMPs are required in both the SPDES program and in wetland permits. The SPDES program requires that a stormwater pollution prevention plan be prepared for any construction activity over 5 acres and the conditions of wetland permits require that BMPs be used. Too often, the plans will show only some silt fences and hay bales scattered throughout the site with some miscellaneous references to the "blue book". The preparation of quality plans, usually by the engineer, is only the first step in the process of protecting our natural resources.

This presentation will concentrate on my experiences as a construction inspector on projects in upstate New York. Generally, I found that there are problems in the compliance and enforcement of these regulations. The implementation of some of the more common BMPs will be discussed and various examples from many different sites will be described. The importance of inspections during construction and the importance of empowering the inspector to be able to shut down the job site until these BMPs are in place, will be discussed.

Wetlands And Best Management Practices
Donald Ferlow, FASLA, Stearns & Wheler LLC

Construction and long-term land uses impact wetland systems. Stormwater runoff during construction moves silts and sediments. The immediate impact is considered short-term and dependent upon the land disturbance and weather conditions. After construction, stormwater runoff continues to move sediments and "urban" pollutants into sensitive ecosystems and, though the level of impact becomes less intense, it is long-term and cumulative. Implementation of several best management practices (BMPs) can effectively protect wetlands and watercourses. The BMPs should be integrated with site planning and function as part of stormwater runoff management. When designed correctly, BMPs work during construction, and they are also effective during the "life" of the land use.

BMPs such as silt fences, hay bale barriers, filter dikes, diversion pipes, etc. reduce the movement of waterborne sediments from disturbed sites. These temporary measures are removed when site work is complete and the site is stabilized. In addition to the installation of physical items, limiting and phasing land disturbance helps reduce the amount of erosion. Temporary seeding and mulching of earth stockpiles and disturbed areas is another construction BMP.

Maintenance of erosion controls during the construction period is often related to the attitude of the permitting authority and the local community's sensitivity toward the environment. When permits require use of erosion controls that include regular monitoring and reporting of their status to the permitting agency, the controls usually remain effective throughout the period of construction.

Erosion controls are removed when work is completed and the site is stabilized. Stormwater runoff continues to flow down-gradient into wetlands and watercourses. Sands and silts from roads, parking lots, and lawns plus pollutants (metals, hydrocarbons, household chemicals) are carried by the runoff. The levels of waterborne sediments and pollutants are usually low, but they occur during every storm.

Ways to Improve Construction-Phase Erosion and Sediment Control
Paula Smith, Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District

This presentation will follow two discussions on how to design effective construction-phase erosion and sediment control (ESC) plans and the problems with getting contractors to implement those plans. What are some ways to improve the implementation process? Monroe County has a population of 700,000 with less than two thirds of that population in the city of Rochester. Urban sprawl, as elsewhere in the northeast, has created land use pressures resulting in degradation of water resources.

To address water quality, Monroe County has established a number of successful initiatives. Specific to ESC, the Monroe County Soil and Water Conservation District wrote and received grants to hire a specialist to educate, review development plans and check construction sites for proper implementation. The Stormwater Management Specialist (SMS) position has been filled on and off for 8 years, subject to available funding. I have had this position for the past 3 years which is now permanently funded by the county.

An early initiative of the SMS was to coordinate efforts with the Monroe County Health Department (MCDOH) that requires ESC as part of their review and approval process of all realty subdivisions. After making a construction site inspection where ESC problems are identified, the SMS notifies the developer in writing of needed corrections and includes a date of expected completion. This notice is copied to MCDOH who has the ability to levy fines for non-compliance to approved plans.

A second tool which enables the SMS to improve ESC performance is through the requirements set forth in the SPDES General Permit for Construction Activities (the Permit). The Permit requires that an ESC plan be designed and implemented according to a set of guidelines for projects disturbing 5 or more acres. The SPDES Permit Program is run by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). A NYSDEC Conservation Officer has assisted the SMS on several occasions where voluntary corrections to ESC problems have not been made.

Another tool that has greatly improved the ability of the SMS to incorporate ESCs into the preliminary land planning process is the "Development Review Committee" of the Monroe County Planning Department. Preliminary subdivision plans are sent in to the Committee by municipalities, and are then distributed by the Committee to six county and state agencies for review and comment. The SMS reviews these plans and submits comments on ESC and permanent water quality concerns, which are then assembled in a report given to the municipality and the project engineer.

Other programs have been set up through the County's Water Quality Coordinating Committee. One such program is the Highway Project Task Group which incorporates water quality concerns into county highway projects.

Through a variety of initiatives, ESC planning and implementation has improved in Monroe County.

How to Establish a Wetlands Mitigation Bank:
The summary of this session was prepared by Barbara B. Beall.

A Discussion Presented at the NYSWF Annual Meeting With Terresa Bakner, Esq., Whiteman Osterman and Hanna; Mark Chertok, Esq., Sive Paget and Riesel; Robert Sokolove, U.S. Wetland Services, L.P.

The benefits of mitigation banking are numerous. From an ecological perspective, mitigation banking results in larger constructed wetlands rather than small single wetlands scattered at different sites. Financially, mitigation banking saves time, not only for the applicant but for regulators as well, who does not have to concern themselves with reviewing many smaller mitigation plans for a number of different projects. Mitigation banking results in a more predictable regulatory outcome for project applicants since they can propose mitigation at a known site. It also reduces the potential for opposing comments on the mitigation plan during public notice. Mitigation banks have a higher probability of success, and a higher overall rate of success than individual wetland mitigation projects. The success and benefits of the bank are already established before the majority of credits are sold. Finally, the questions of financial assurances, monitoring, and enforcement are focused on one party, the bank sponsor, who is much more likely to be accountable than applicants proposing individual mitigation sites.

The Federal government is moving forward on mitigation banking with "all deliberate speed;" that is, they are not pushing the issue but allowing it to develop on its own accord. One of the questions frequently asked about mitigation banks is how they affect sequencing under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which require that an applicant demonstrate no presumed upland alternative, and that all practicable and feasible steps have been taken to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands prior to proposing compensatory mitigation. According to the presenters, mitigation banking does not pose a serious threat to a sequential review under Section 404, since this review is in the federal agency's control, and since each project is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Additionally, market forces will cause an applicant to look for a non-wetland alternative, and avoid and minimize wetland impacts to avoid or reduce the cost of wetland mitigation. In addition, mitigation banking holds the promise of avoiding the need for on-site mitigation, which, depending on the on-site conditions and their suitability for construction of real wetlands, can mean an overall positive impact to the regional wetland ecosystems.

It was the presenters belief that the Guidelines for Compensatory Mitigation under Article 24 of NYS's Freshwater Wetlands Act do present some challenges to establishing wetland mitigation banks in New York, including the requirement that mitigation should be located on the same site or in the immediate vicinity of the wetlands being impacted, and that compensation should be in-kind. While the federal guidelines also have the same type of review, recent federal guidance on mitigation banking has helped move this option forward by emphasizing the need for greater flexibility in reviewing mitigation proposals. The presenters felt that there may be the need to rework the state guidelines, or to add to them in order to provide guidance for the different types of situations resulting from mitigation banks.

According to Robert Sokolove, mitigation banks are driven by economic forces more than by regulatory forces. All wetland mitigation banks want to maximize the credits developed per acre of land. There are significant economic incentives to establish a good wetland banks and a high number of credits. Even before choosing a mitigation site, the bank sponsor must seriously consider who the end users will be, what type of wetland mitigation they require, how many end users there are, what those end users would be willing to pay, the cost of constructing the bank, how feasible the site is for the bank construction, and the environmental and wetland benefits of the bank.

A mitigation bank review team, made up of the various regulatory personnel, is assembled to develop a consensus about issues regarding the mitigation bank. This includes discussing the habitat requirements, the type of vegetative cover to be established, and team members' views on maintained areas and preservation areas. The service area of the bank must also be established; that is, where credits from the bank can be sold. This is often based upon ecological determinations such as watersheds. The service area often must follow existing federal guidance regarding compensatory mitigation.

A site may then be selected and plans developed for its construction. Typically based upon the aggregate site benefits of function and habitat, the number of credit acres for sale is discussed and negotiated pre-, during and post-construction. In addition, the final landowner who will hold the land in perpetuity must be established. The bank sponsor needs concurrence from the agencies on these issues so that the sponsor is comfortable financing and constructing the mitigation bank. This concurrence is generally documented in a Memorandum of Agreement between the members of the mitigation bank review team and the bank sponsor. After consensus is reached on these issues, a public notice of the bank's prospectus and operation is issued. Construction is completed and then an assessment of the bank's level of functionality is made. Once the site is functioning properly, the site is transferred to the final landholder with a perpetual deed restriction or conservation easement.

Pre-sales of bank credits can be a sticky issue. Robert Sokolove argued strongly and convincingly in favor of pre-sale of bank credits, typically 15 to 25 percent of the credit acres to be constructed, in order to raise capital for mitigation bank construction. According to Sokolove, pre-sale of credits should be allowed because mitigation bank sites have a much higher probability of success than individual mitigation sites for the following reasons: (1) this is the only business the mitigation bank developer is in, (2) the bank is bonded, (3) the site, design, and construction are all part of an MOA with the review group, (4) no mitigation banker wants to take away mitigation credits on the back end by being cheap on the front end, (5) the last credits to be sold have typically been established for a significant period of time before they are used, resulting in a net gain of wetland benefits over the time of the bank, and (6) there is better buffering from surrounding land uses at any mitigation bank than there is at any on-site wetland mitigation.

Beavers for Wetlands and Wildlife: Our First Wetland Manager: The Beaver
Joseph Brown, Beavers, Wetlands and Wildlife

We have come a long way in recognizing the economic and environmental importance of wetlands. Only recently, however, are we beginning to understand the role of the beaver and learn effective ways of living with these builders and keepers of wetlands.

As recent referendums in other states indicate, a growing number of voters wish state wildlife agencies to represent all citizens, not just their tradition, shrinking constituency of sportsmen. Handling most beaver/human conflicts via education and greater use water control devices, as suggested by the BoW's 1992 report, may still be the best options. After all, involving the public in conservation efforts is a worthwhile endeavor, and our wetlands, including beaver-made ones, are the cradles of life in North America.

Wetland Values to Wildlife
Dr. Guy A. Baldassarre, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

Wetland habitat in the continental United States covered about 225 million acres at the time of European settlement. Today, slightly less than half (47%) of these wetlands remain; they cover about 5% of the lower 48 states, or an area the size of California. New York has lost an estimated 60% of its original wetlands. Further, because much of this loss was powered by agriculture and coastal development, many wetlands that provided prime wildlife habitat were drained decades ago.

The value of the remaining wetlands to wildlife is undeniable. For example, some 95% of the commercial fish and shellfish harvested in the United States use wetland habitats to meet their life-history requirements. As well, approximately 70% of the threatened and endangered wildlife, bird, and reptile species use wetland habitats. Many of these species are wetland obligates (e.g. amphibians, waterbirds), whereas others use wetlands only periodically.

Our understanding of wetlands as habitat for wildlife exists at three spatial scales: individual, complex and landscape. At all levels however, the key to assessing value is to determine the function of a wetland or a complex of wetlands to a given species or group of species.

This assessment must also be made in the context of the annual cycle, which is the array of behavioral and physiological adaptations exhibited by each species in its biological quest to survive and reproduce. These annual cycle events are fixed and unchangeable - species breed at certain times of the year, require specific foods at particular times, lay a certain clutch size of eggs, travel certain distances.

We know most about wetlands at an individual level. Our knowledge can include lists of species present, numbers of individuals, and even information about the function of individual wetlands. For example, a given wetland may provide habitat for a large number of mallards that use the site to feed, or as a rookery or roost for herons, while another wetland may provide habitat for an array of species including reptiles, birds and amphibians.

However, such information, when viewed from an individual wetland perspective can be very misleading. The herons likely forage for food over a wetland complex spanning many square miles. The mallards may use five other wetlands to satisfy requirements other than feeding (e.g. resting, preening feathers, or mating), while the presence of the heron rookery is influenced by the number of wetlands in the surrounding area; in other words, no wetland complex, no heron rookery.

When assessing wetland functions for wildlife, both large and small wetland complexes must be considered. For instance, a simulation experiment involving 354 wetlands ranging in size from 1-250 acres found that removal of the smaller wetlands (less than 8 acres) reduced the total wetland area by 19%, but the total number of wetlands was reduced by 62%. This loss increased the inter-wetland disturbance by 70%, which would predictably cause local extinctions of turtles, small birds, and small mammals. Thus, loss of a small, isolated wetland can mean the extinction of a local population of any number of species. Conversely, larger wetlands are essential for certain area-dependent species which cannot exist on smaller sites.

Protection of wetland complexes and consideration of individual wetlands from the perspective of a complex is thus essential. Wetland complexes increase the probability that a given species will satisfy annual cycle events at a given time and place. Protection of representative complexes is the best approach to preserving the complete array of regional fauna and flora.

Pheasants Forever and Wetlands
Robert Hazelton, Jr., Founding President of the Finger Lakes Chapter of Pheasants Forever

Pheasants Forever is a national organization with chapters organized and distributed throughout the states where pheasants are know to occur. Currently there are five chapters in New York State

The basic philosophy of Pheasants Forever is to provide habitat through the distribution of free seed to landowners, and the provision of technical and financial assistance in meeting the habitat needs of pheasants and other upland species. Because of the positive influence that wetlands have on most species, Pheasants Forever chapters have joined wetland improvement efforts in conjunction with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Ducks Unlimited and Central New York Wildfowlers. These joint efforts have resulted in switch grass plantings in NYSDEC Region 8, food plots at the 3 Rivers WMA, Baldwinsville, and Howland Island WMA, and habitat work on the North Montezuma Project.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan -- Status of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture
Joseph F. McCauley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts

The Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACTV) was among the first joint ventures established under the auspices of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). Wintering black duck habitat was the primary focus of habitat protection efforts. Since its establishment in 1988, both the mission and the physical boundaries of the ACTV have been expanded considerably. With the additions of West Virginia and Georgia, and the assimilation of parts of the former Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Basin Joint Venture, the ACTV now includes 16 states. While black ducks remain an important species of emphasis, the overall habitat protection, enhancement, and restoration efforts under the ACTV now encompass a much wider diversity of waterfowl and other migratory birds.

Since September 1995, there have been formal discussions among ACTV Management Board members to restructure the administrative boundaries of the ACTV. The most recent proposal recommends establishment of two working groups, organized as follows: Northeast (ME NH VT MA CT RI NY PA NJ) and Southeast (DE MD VA WV NC SC GA).

In addition, a new position would be created to coordinate NAWMP activities in the southeast with other migratory bird initiatives, primarily Partners in Flight and the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Federal, state and private funding is currently being sought for this position.

Short-term goals for the ACTV include guiding the restructuring to a successful completion, reinvigorating existing partnerships, encouraging new partnerships, and revising the ACTV Implementation Plan.

Volunteers for Wetlands Projects
June Summers, Genesee Valley Audubon Society

This presentation examines the role of Genesee Valley Audubon Society members as advocates for the Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge and its associated wetlands.

National Audubon Society's new Wetlands Campaign is a volunteer-based campaign designed to protect and restore 1,000,000 wetland acres within 3 years. In implementing this campaign, volunteers will play the roles of advocates and educators. They will also participate in citizen science programs.