CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Randy Apfelbeck
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality
2209 Phoenix Avenue
Helena, MT 59620
(406) 444-2709; Fax: (406) 444-5275
rapfelbeck@state.mt.us
In Montana all state waters are classified in
accordance to their designated beneficial uses.
State waters that are determined to be impaired are placed on the 303(d)
list of water quality limited segments and require Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) plans to control pollutants. The
Montana legislature has directed our agency
to evaluate all available chemical, physical and biological water quality
information when making beneficial use-support determinations (BUDs). The information that we receive is often difficult
to assess because it often comes to us in diverse form and from many sources.
For this reason, we have developed guidelines that are used to screen
the information to determine if it provides sufficient credible data (SCD)
for making BUDs. We have also developed decision tables that
help the reviewer to consistently interpret and apply numeric and narrative
water quality standards when making BUDs.
The guidelines and decision tables incorporate the use of bioassessment
data for making aquatic life use-support (ALUS) determinations for all state
waters, including wetlands. All of
the data that we receive are categorized as chemical, physical or biological
data. The data within each data category are individually
assessed and scored. The cumulative
score of all three data categories are evaluated to determine if there are
SCD for making ALUS determinations. Over
400 streams and lakes, and eight wetlands were placed on Montana’s 2000 303(d) list using this decision
process. Biological data and information
were used to assess 94% of these waters.
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Michael Aurelia
Connecticut Conservation Association
72 Oak Ridge Street
Greenwich, CT 06830
maurelia@msn.com
Vernal
pools have been identified as significant inland wetland habitats for many
years in Connecticut. Because vernal pools
are usually small and intermittent features, they frequently were missed when
municipalities mapped inland wetlands and watercourses for regulatory purposes.
Connecticut municipalities have been authorized
to regulate inland wetlands and watercourses since the passage of CT Public
Act 155 in 1972.
As
municipalities in southwestern Connecticut developed geographic information systems in the mid to late 1990’s, another tool
was created to not only help in the delineation of vernal pools but also their
preservation.
In
1996 the Town of Greenwich started to develop a town-wide Geographic Information System.
As part of this GIS, information on the location of wetlands and watercourses
was obtained. Data was interpreted from 1997 color aerial
photos, the land records of the Town, and 2000 color infra-red aerial photos.
The James Sewall Company delineated and classified (by NWI standards)
both wetlands and watercourses in 2001. The
subsequent wetland and watercourse GIS themes have been extremely helpful
in not only improving regulatory actions but also identifying the location
of various wetland habitats.
Through
the use of the available GIS themes (wetlands, hydro, topo, and photo) it
is possible to identify those wetlands which most likely function as vernal
pools. Field investigations can then
be focused on the most likely wetlands to confirm whether or not they function
as vernal pool habitats. Since vernal pools are one of the Town’s most critical
and threatened wetland habitats, the GIS has been
an important new tool in protecting these wetland habitats.
With the combination of GIS
evaluations and field investigations, a data base on the location and nature
of the vernal pools in Greenwich, CT is being created. This database will be invaluable in the protection
of vernal pool habitats through the inland wetland regulatory process. Some data on the Town’s vernal pools is presently
displayed in the National Frog Watch Database sponsored by the National Wildlife
Federation and United States Geological Survey (see www.frogwatch.org).
REMOTE
DETECTION OF BASING VEGETATION BOUNDARIES IN NORTH DAKOTA
PRAIRIE POTHOLE WETLANDS
CONTACT1/PRESENTERS2/AUTHORS:
Ofer Beeri and Rebecca
Phillips1,2
University of North Dakota
Upper Midwest Aerospace Consortium
Box 9007
Grand Forks, ND 58202
(701) 777-6095;
(701) 777-6160
Beeri@umac.org; Rebecca@aero.und.edu
and
Edward Shawn DeKeyser
North Dakota State University
Department of Animal and Range Sciences
Small,
depressional wetlands extend from north central Iowa to central Alberta, commonly referred to as the prairie pothole
region (PPR). Assessment of this landscape
is problematic, as several hundred thousand water bodies comprise the PPR.
Remote sensing offers potential solutions to timely, large-scale wetland
assessment and monitoring requirements. Our
primary objective is to determine how variables salient to wetland quality
may be detected using satellite remote sensors.
To this end, we focus on detection and mapping of wetland basins and
the naturally-occurring vegetation that surround potholes, since wetland vegetation
is integral to wetland function and water quality.
The vegetation surrounding potholes mitigates ecosystem perturbation,
such as sedimentation and nutrient loading, and constitutes “buffer zones.”
Here,
we present large-scale assessment methods developed with remote sensing and
geographic information systems (GIS) technologies.
Individual basins in Max, ND were classified and mapped according to
the presence/absence of natural vegetation buffers around the water bodies. Further, we estimated the area of each basin
buffer according to 2 dominant vegetation types that comprise these buffer
zones: 1) upland grasses and shrubs, and 2) hydrophytic
wetland vegetation. We combined georeferenced hyperspectral
plant community data (measured with a handheld spectroradiometer)
with satellite sensor data. This resulted
in a multispectral model useful for delineation
of hydrophytic vegetation from upland vegetative
cover inside wetland basins. The data
were acquired during the summer of 2003. We estimated buffer zone presence/absence and
delineated hydrophytic versus upland vegetative
cover for several basins. Further development
of this spectral model will provide land managers with a method for determining
the areal extent of vegetation surrounding prairie
potholes on a landscape scale.
FLORIDA'S UNIFORM MITIGATION ASSESSMENT METHOD
RULE 62-345,FAC
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHORS:
Constance Bersok
Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Beaches and Wetland
Resource
2600 Blair Stone Road, MS # 2500
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
(850) 245-8479
Connie.Bersok@dep.state.fl.us
The
2000 state legislature required the development of a state-wide uniform wetland
mitigation assessment method to determine the amount of mitigation needed to
offset adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters and to determine
the number of mitigation bank credits awarded and debited.
Once the method is adopted by rule,
it will be binding on the department, the water management districts, local
government and other governmental entities, in the form of an “exclusive and
consistent process” for the evaluation of wetlands and determination of mitigation
amount.
Given
the variability in type and functions of the wetlands and surface waters in
Florida, we developed a method that
could both capture and reflect that range of wetland functions. First, the
impact or mitigation site (termed assessment area) is characterized by describing
the type of community in the context of the landscape setting, and identifying
the functions and fish and wildlife habitat provided by that area. Secondly, the landscape position, water environment,
and community structure of the assessment area is evaluated, using a numerical
scoring scale and based on the characterizations of that particular system.
This ensures that, for example, a riverine floodplain is assessed relative
to the expected functions of that type of system and not compared to a different
type of ecological system. In addition, the method incorporates time lag and
risk assessment when evaluating a proposed mitigation plan.
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Thomas R. Biebighauser
Wildlife Biologist
USDA Forest Service
2375 KY Highway 801 South
Morehead, KY 40351
(606) 784-6428; Fax: (606) 784-6435
tombiebighauser@fs.fed.us
Land
managers work hard to find funding, identify suitable locations, and wait forever
for permits to complete wetland projects. Unfortunately,
close to one-half of all wetland restoration projects fail because they don’t
hold water long enough for hydric plants, soils and animals to become established.
A restoration project cannot look and function as a natural wetland if
it does not contain water for a desired length of time.
Examining
dams, water control structures and soil under dams can identify factors responsible
for wetland failure. Wetlands can be
repaired in spite of burrowing crayfish, drainage tiles, high muskrat populations
and a permeable substrate.
A
muskrat hole in the dam or a leaky water control structure is often the cause
of failure if the wetland has a history of holding water. Most new wetlands fail because water leaks under
the dam. Water flows under a dam thru
missed drain tiles, topsoil layers and veins of sand or gravel. The popular flashboard riser water control structure
is often responsible for many wetland failures. Case histories of how wetlands have been repaired
on the Daniel Boone National Forest illustrate how failed wetland restoration sites can be made to look and function like natural
ecosystems in other areas.
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Thomas R. Biebighauser
Wildlife Biologist
USDA Forest Service
2375 KY Highway 801 South
USDA Forest Service
Morehead, KY 40351
(606) 784-6428; Fax: (606) 784-6435
tombiebighauser@fs.fed.us
Ephemeral
wetlands (vernal ponds) provide critical habitat to species such as the marbled
salamander, wood frog and fairy shrimp.
Much has been written about the importance of vernal ponds, yet little
about their construction. It is now
possible to construct an ephemeral wetland that looks and functions like a
natural wetland. Techniques developed
and tested on the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky have produced ephemeral wetlands
with desired hydro-periods, aquatic vegetation and animal life. Examples of how vernal ponds have been
established on ridge top and bottomland sites, using heavy equipment and
explosives will be given. Factors to
consider when selecting vernal pond establishment sites and in choosing
construction techniques will be shown for areas of drained and saturated
soils. Participants will see how vernal
pond construction projects can now be considered in forested or open areas, on
vast expanses of public land or even adjacent to school grounds for
environmental education purposes.
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Ken Brazil
Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
Commission
101 East Capitol, Suite 350
Little Rock, AR 72201
(501) 682-3980; Fax: (501) 682-3991
ken.brazil@mail.state.ar.us
Arkansas, like most states in the Lower Mississippi River Valley, converted millions of acres of wetlands
during western expansion and agricultural economic development. With restoration dollars limited today, landscape
assessment and prioritization methodologies are becoming important planning
tools for maximizing restored wetland function, and ensuring the establishment
of self-sustaining wetland habitat. Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) analyses can identify priority areas for wetland
restoration and protection at the landscape level. Priority areas correspond to structural characteristics
(soils, hydrology, and vegetation) and landscape position (proximity to water
or forested wetlands) that encourage wetland development. Higher priority for restoration is given to
land that still has sufficient hydrologic regime to maintain wetland soils
and vegetation, and perhaps is in close proximity to existing forested wetlands
or riparian corridors. Lower priority
land no longer has sufficient hydrologic regime necessary to maintain hydric
soils or plants. With the addition
of GIS data on regulatory and conservation programs, status and trends are
possible at the watershed level and can provide guidance to program managers
involved in regulatory or conservation efforts.
RESTORING
ESTUARINE LANDSCAPES
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Cheryl Brodnax
Marine Habitat Resource Specialist
NOAA Restoration Center
Louisiana Business and Technology Center
South Stadium Drive
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
(225) 578-7923
cheryl.brodnax@noaa.gov
Coastal
land loss in Louisiana is reaching catastrophic levels.
Approximately 25-35 square miles of coastal wetland habitat is lost
every year, thus threatening communities, wildlife, and infrastructure that
provide a substantial economic base for the state and nation.
In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,
and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) as a means of combining federal and local resources
to reduce coastal erosion. This act
provides approximately $40 million a year to plan and construct large-scale
restoration projects. To date, 64 projects directly benefiting over
66,000 acres of coastal wetland habitat have been completed, with another
77 projects in planning and design.
Although
CWPPRA has provided a foundation for implementing large-scale projects, developing
restoration science, and building consensus between government and private
citizens, the current rate of land loss still exceeds the level of restoration
within the state. To address this disparity,
the state and CWPPRA agencies have begun a new endeavor to increase the resources
available for restoration and broaden project scale to an ecosystem level.
This effort, known as the Louisiana Coast-wide Comprehensive Ecosystem
Restoration Study, is developing the plan for restoration of the coastal landscape
as it applies to both the ecologic and economic needs of the state. If implemented, this plan may cost up to $10
billion dollars; however, the estimated cost of inaction may be over $100
billion.
Implementing a program
of this magnitude presents many obstacles that wetland managers must overcome,
including: stakeholder conflicts, technical feasibility issues, data needs,
and resource limitations. The purpose
of this discussion is to utilize the Louisiana experience of landscape estuarine
restoration to identify potential obstacles, data needs, and lessons learned
for developing similar programs.
DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION
OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY INDICES FOR
SALT MARSHES IN MASSACHUSETTS, USA
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Bruce Carlisle
MA Coastal Zone Management
251 Causeway Street
Boston MA 02114
(617) 626-1205; Fax: (617) 626-1240
Bruce.Carlisle@state.ma.us
Coastal
resource managers need ecological criteria in order to evaluate the condition
and biotic integrity of wetlands for protection and restoration. Through a
series of iterative projects, the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
has developed a framework to assess the condition of salt marshes. Data from
3 studies were analyzed by examining community structure and function attributes
to generate quantitative indices. Two applications of this framework are demonstrated:
assessing salt marshes along a gradient of human disturbance, and evaluating
the response of salt marshes to tide restoration. In the first application,
surveys of plant and macro-invertebrate communities at 13 salt marshes in
Massachusetts were examined within the context of
human disturbance indicators, including nitrogen concentrations, impervious
area and land use. Plant Community Index and Invertebrate Community Index
scores are used to propose thresholds for determination of aquatic life use
support, in accordance with Federal Clean Water Act requirements. The framework
was also employed to examine the role of tidal hydrological restrictions on
the condition of salt marsh plants, macro-invertebrates, avifauna, and nekton
at 6 paired sites in Cape Cod, MA. Differences in the biological index scores were detected
between tide-restricted and control salt marsh sites. Restoration evaluation
criteria are derived from the metrics and indices.
CONTACT1/PRESENTER1/AUTHOR:
Tim Christian1
KAWS state coordinator
P.O. Box 236
McPherson, KS 67460-0236
(620) 241-6921; Fax: (620) 245-9618
tdchristian@cox.net
www.kswetlands.org
and
John Bond
KAWS chapter coordinator
johnloribond@yahoo.com
The Kansas Water Office (KWO) is working with the Kansas
Alliance for Wetlands and Streams (KAWS)
through a Memorandum of Understanding to carry out the requirements of
an EPA Wetlands Protection Program Grant. Two KAWS staff serve as part-time KWO
watershed project specialists to coordinate the grant activities. The grant
targets 8 of the 12 river basins in Kansas to identify critical wetland and
riparian area needs and develop an implementation plan to address those needs.
A project management team (PMT) assists the KWO in overseeing
and guiding the direction of the grant activities and providing final approval
on the priority planning areas and the educational demonstration projects.
About $175,000 was allocated for developing wetland and
riparian area demonstration sites within each of the eight river basins. Project
proposals for potential demonstration sites are submitted to one of the nine
existing KAWS Chapters or to KWO watershed specialists. The priority projects
are then submitted to the PMT for review, further ranking, and ultimately,
final approval.
The implementation plan for the grant was completed by September
2003 after a public input conference held in August.
A priority map, concurred in by all state and federal agencies,
identifies where the highest areas of need exist within the 12 basins by overlaying
state TMDL data and high aquatic habitat needs data. The map is included in the State’s Water Plan
for FY-2004 to help target technical and financial resources.
With the completed implementation plan, the strategy for
Kansas to impact its wetland, stream, and riaprian area resources is laid
out. A high level of buy-in has occurred
with agencies and organizations resulting in the targeted efforts to attck
these critical need areas. The types
of treatment demonstrated provide the basis for working on private lands to
solve these resource problems.
Additionally, the KWO was recently awarded a second Wetlands
Protection Program Grant for FY-02 to continue the demonstration projects
with about $180,000 and to provide additional educational opportunities, plus
complete the KDWP data collection for the balance of the river basins in the
state. KAWS is helping KWO implement
this grant, too as a sole source contract provider.
CONTACT/PRESENTER/AUTHOR:
Thomas P. Cody, Esq.
Robinson & Cole LLP
280 Trumbull Street
Hartford, CT 06103
(860) 275-8264; Fax: (860) 275-8299
tcody@rc.com
This presentation
will address the legal aspects of wetland assessment. The presentation will include a brief overview
of the legal basis for wetland delineation, including an update on important
cases such as Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC), the status of Army Corps rulemaking
initiatives and current agency guidance on the status of isolated
wetlands. The presentation will also
review current legal issues relating to wetland functional value assessments
in the regulatory process. Select differences
between state and federal programs will be highlighted. References will be provided for relevant statutory
authority, constitutional provisions, regulations, caselaw
and guidance documents.
USING BENCHMARKS TO
MONITOR TREATMENT WETLANDS
CONTACT1/PRESENTER2/AUTHORS:
Jerry A. Cole1 Ronald G. Duckworth2, and Heather A. Herrick
Duckworth-Cole, Inc.
3131D E 29th, Suite D400
Bryan, TX 77802
(979) 776-8001
jerrydci@tca.net
rondci@tca.net
and
Benny J. Gallaway, Ph.D.
LGL Ecological Research Associates,
Inc.
1410 Cavitt Street
Bryan, TX 77801
Treatment
wetlands provide a low cost, natural method of reducing levels of numerous
constituents in storm water and wastewater. Thus, wetlands are often used
to protect receiving waters. But what about the health and
condition of treatment wetlands themselves?
Certain
constituents in storm waters and wastewaters, such as total nitrogen, are
reduced by sustainable wetland processes. Other constituents, such as trace
metals, are merely sequestered and destined to accumulate in the wetland over
time. Since most constituents entering treatment wetlands can be pollutants
if present in sufficient concentrations, it is important to carefully monitor
treatment wetlands to ensure the health of tenant biota.
One
method of protecting the condition of treatment wetlands involves using benchmarks
to compare treatment wetlands to aquatic systems where health effects are,
at least to some degree, quantified. Practical benchmarks include project
specific baseline data, reference or background sites, published information,
and health-based screening levels.
This
paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of using benchmarks to monitor
treatment wetlands. Sources and potential application of screening levels
and published information are presented. Suggestions are offered regarding
the selection and use of background and reference sites. Recommendations for
developing a baseline monitoring plan are also provided.