Get documents about "WETLANDS PPA SUMMARY AND WORKPLAN
Document Sample
WETLANDS PPA SUMMARY AND WORKPLAN
I. Regulation
Summary
Indicators:
# Wetlands Regulatory Filings Reviewed
# New regulations, policies, guidance issued
# Enforcement inspections, cases
% Staff time on permitting, compliance & enforcement
Why is this important?
MassDEP’s Wetlands Program protects wetlands to preserve the important
environmental functions that wetlands provide, which include:
the protection of ground and surface water quality,
the prevention of flooding and storm damage,
pollution prevention, and
the protection of aquatic, shellfish and wildlife habitat.
A strong regulatory program allows us to reduce wetland loss and preserve wetland
function in Massachusetts. MassDEP’s Wetlands Program ensures the protection of
inland and coastal wetlands, rivers and floodplains by implementation of the Wetlands
Protection Act (Chapter 131 Section 40), the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations, and
the 401 Water Quality Certification Program (Water Quality Regulations).
How are we doing?
Regulatory Filings
Calendar Year # NOI Filings SOC’s #401’s
reviewed issued issued
2005 8480 * *
2006 7952 * *
2007 7040 * *
2008 5755 * *
2009 5334 177 107
2010 (through 6/30) 2726 88 31
*Data not available
1
Through MassDEP’s strong permitting program, we review of thousands of permit
applications each year. The permit process results in the avoidance, minimization and
mitigation of wetlands alterations. Approximately 3-5% of the permits issued by
Conservation Commissions are appealed, and MassDEP experts decide on the
controversial issues presented in each appeal through the issuance of superseding
permit decisions.
Regulations, Policies, Guidance
The Wetlands Program is very active in developing improved regulations, policies and
guidance to keep current with emerging science and new technologies. Some of the
accomplishments during the past year include:
Accomplishment Detail
Ocean Planning Final Plan promulgated December 2010.
Sediment Management Workgroup Final Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan
Regulatory Workgroup Regulation development to implement the
Ocean Plan is uderway;
Regulatory changes planned winter 2010-
2011.
Coordination with Division of Marine
Fisheries and communities located on
Cape Cod to better implement Time of
Year (TOY) restrictions to protect fisheries
when conducting dredging projects.
Web-based tool to determine if a stream is Stream Stats now includes improved
perennial subject to the Rivers Protection capability to identify perennial rivers and
regulations stream
Asian Longhorn Beetle regulation Updated emergency regulations to
permanent. Additional area of infestation
identified and notification of applicability
of the beetle control regulation is being
disseminated to the stakeholders in the
new areas.
Mosquito Control BMP Manual MassDEP participated in the development
of a mosquito control BMP manual to
ensure consistency between mosquito
eradication efforts and wetlands
protection
2
Enforcement Inspections, Cases
Enforcement investigations are initiated through several means, including aerial
photography that accurately tracks areas of wetlands loss, (See Wetlands Loss Mapping
Summary), permit site inspections, phone calls, and other contacts with stakeholders. In
Federal FY 2010 the number of investigations has decreased, but the number of Higher
Level Enforcement Actions is approximately the same as 2009 and MassDEP can
attribute this decline to the following causes:
1) Aerial photogrammetry for wetlands loss mapping is obtained once every 3-5
years and investigations are conducted in the intervening years. Many sites with
the best enforcement potential have been acted on or are pending;
2) Publication of the aerial surveillance and enforcement actions have served as a
deterrent to potential violators and provided opportunities for enforcement by
Conservation Commissions;
3) The Wetland Information Resource (WIRe) project required time from many staff
in MassDEP’s regional and Boston offices to ensure that we have a successful
data management system that will accommodate and improve future wetland
protection efforts.
4) Resources have decreased due to budget cuts.
Enforcement Statistics
Year # # Higher Acres Linear # sites # sites where
Inspections Level ordered ft. bank with construction-
Enforcement restored* restored resource related
cases areas erosion/
restored sedimentation
prevented
SFY06 1101 130 8.7 1,880 @ 40 @ 20
SFY07 1155 122 24.2 7,543 82 33
1029 86 10.7 1790 57 10
SFY08
SFY09 1131 76 14.5 3,425 52 6
SFY10 961 74 19.5 727 42 13
*Restored resource areas includes Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW), Isolated Vegetated Wetland (IVW),
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF), Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (LSCSF), and Riverfront Area
(RA). Does not include Land Under Water (LUW).
3
Staff Time on Permitting, Compliance, Enforcement
Our regulatory program is influenced by MassDEP’s innovative wetlands loss mapping
program (See Wetlands Loss Mapping Summary). This program and one-time
Conservation Commission file review in 2002, shows there was a much higher
percentage of unpermitted than permitted wetland alterations representing a high
potential for significant illegal wetlands loss. As a result of this finding, MassDEP made a
conscious decision to increase time and effort on enforcement. Since the last aerial
imagery was obtained in 2005, most enforcement cases identified through the wetland
loss mapping have been investigated. We anticipate increased enforcement effort in the
upcoming year as the new wetland loss mapping becomes available. In order to be
successful, we also obtained grant funding to develop a new data management system
called the Wetland Information Resource (WIRe) to help us in future enforcement cases
by geospatially integrating our permitting, enforcement and wetland loss databases.
WIRe development is nearing completion (See WIRe Summary).
Task FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010
Permit Review- 44.5 46.1 41.0
46.1 43.7 42.8 42.8
% of staff time
Enforcement-% 13.3 14.3 10.7
14.0 16.6 14.7 14.3
of staff time
Compliance-% 6.4 5.4 5.1
7.0 8.4 6.8 5.8
of staff time
Grant Projects
(WIRe,
NA NA NA NA NA NA 9.1
Monitoring and
Assessment)
Maintaining Strong Performance
The Bureau continues to search for and evaluate innovative ways to achieve
environmental results and meet the challenges of reduced resources by increasing our
own efficiency and prioritizing work on the most important environmental problems.
MassDEP continues to support the needs of the town Conservation Commissions and
the regulated community by identifying issues that may need clarification or improving.
One need identified for improvement was the ability to tabulate and report on current
available data. To address that need, MassDEP has launched a system that integrates
permitting as well as compliance and enforcement databases (see WIRE). We are
currently working to improve performance so that we can increase electronic
submission of permit applications to improve our database. Our enforcement efforts
4
against violators of the Wetlands Protection Act are a high priority and a new state
wetland loss flyover is underway.
Improving results
Detailed work plan
In Federal Fiscal Year 2011, we hope to make progress on the following regulatory goals:
1. Development of a Coastal Wetlands Restoration Policy that focuses on tidal
restrictions in coordination with the Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs Wetlands Restoration Program has not advanced due to
resource constraints. MassDEP has facilitated restoration by appointment of a
point of contact who has worked closely with the restoration program to
expedite over 45 restoration projects this year (See Wetland Restoration
Summary).
2. MassDEP has worked closely with the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management to draft a Coastal Resource Delineation Manual that will inform the
public on matters related to coastal resource areas (e.g. how to delineate, what
is allowed). The final manual has been delayed due to resource constraints and is
now scheduled to be published in the Fall of 2010.
3. An update to the recently published Stormwater Handbook is being developed
to include new research and to provide guidance on converting water quality
volume necessary for sizing BMP’s to an equivalent flow rate for water quality
separator sizing. The need for this update was identified by MassDEP staff,
Conservation Commissions, proprietary BMP manufacturers and the regulated
community and is currently scheduled to be published in March 2011.
4. MassDEP’s goal to post Important Wildlife Habitat Maps referenced in “Wildlife
Habitat Protection Guidance for Inland Wetlands” (March 2006) for inland
wetland resource areas in the remaining 239 towns in Massachusetts to website
www.masscaps.org in Spring 2010 was delayed due to resource constraints. If
resources permit we hope to accomplish this in the upcoming year.
5. Continue substantial outreach is underway to increase the number of towns and
applicants using new eDEP forms so that we can collect data electronically (See
WIRe Workplan). Wetlands Information Resource (WIRe) project for external
users was launched in November 2009 and we are currently working to improve
performance of the system. Resource constraints have delayed efforts on this.
5
6. Wetland Protection Act regulatory revisions regarding Intermittent Streams;
Oceans and other matters have been delayed due to resource constraints and
are now scheduled to be published in the winter 2010-2011.
7. MassDEP participated in a workgroup with the Division of Marine Fisheries to
develop time of year restrictions on Cape Cod to more efficiently protect
fisheries while managing dredging and other water related activities. DMF is
expected to finalize guidance by Fall 2010.
9. MassDEP is reviewing revisions to the Massachusetts Stream Crossing
Standardsundertaken by the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
6
II. Wetlands Loss Mapping
Summary
Indicators:
Percent of state with wetlands loss data from aerial photogrammetry;
Acres of wetlands loss per flight
# of Wetlands Loss Polygons
Acres of Wetlands Loss per year
# Wetlands loss enforcement cases
Causes of Wetlands Loss
Why is this important?
MassDEP’s Wetlands Loss Mapping Project has accurately located and mapped
wetlands using an innovative GIS-based computer program and a wetlands mapping
database compiled since 1990. By comparing changes over time, these maps can
identify those wetlands that have been filled. This effort has developed reliable and
verifiable data on location, acreage and causes of freshwater wetlands loss beyond
what MassDEP’s permitting records reveal. By using the wetlands loss maps, we
have focused on enforcement and outreach efforts to improve wetlands protection.
How are we doing?
Percent of State with Wetland Loss Data from Aerial Photogrammetry; Acres of
wetlands loss per flight; # of Wetlands Loss Polygons; Acres of Wetlands Loss per year
Analysis of 2001 imagery showed that over 850 acres of wetlands at 3,244 sites were
filled between 1990 and 2001. These data were collected from available aerial photos
7
for 70% of the state. While this loss is a relatively small portion of the total wetlands in
the state, it is far more wetlands loss than is acceptable. In 2005, a new flight covered
the remainder of the state and identified wetlands loss that occurred between 2001
and 2005. Analysis of this information identified a loss of 482 acres at 1,473 sites.
Depending on the region of the state, the rates of wetlands loss have remained the
same, or been slightly reduced over the two periods of 1990-2001 and 2001-2005.
Wetlands Loss by Flights
Years Compared % of State w/ # Wetlands Loss Acres Lost
Wetlands Loss Polygons
Data1
1990-2001 70 3244 840*
2001-2005 100 1473 482
2005-2009 100 (flown) Due to be Due to be
completed Fall completed Fall
2010 (See below) 2010 (See below)
*70% of the state (At same rate of loss, 100% would be 1200 acres)
Wetlands Loss Comparison by Region
Acres lost Acres Acres lost Acres
Region
1990-2001 lost/year 2001-2005 lost/year
NERO* 222 20-28 87 22
SERO* 545 49-68 264 66
CERO** 73 24 81 20
WERO no data no data 49 12
Total 840 93-120 432 108
*NERO and SERO were initially flown between 1990 and 1993 and so the analysis represents an 8-11 year period.
**CERO was initially flown in 1999 and so the analysis represents a 3-year period.
Wetland Loss Enforcement Cases
MassDEP pursues enforcement actions for confirmed violations found through
wetlands loss mapping. These efforts have resulted in substantial penalties for
1 Numbers include permitted loss which is likely to have been replicated under permitting criteria. MassDEP is
currently building the capability to identify projects with replication into our data management system, WIRe.
When finished, we will be able to better identify which wetland loss sites were permitted and include replication.
8
violators, and restoration of the wetlands that were destroyed. Because the
continuing mapping effort permits us to identify violations in a timely manner,
restoration efforts are likely to be more successful. MassDEP has publicized successful
enforcement cases to let people know that MassDEP has the ability to track wetlands
change through aerial photogrammetry in hopes of deterring future violations.
MassDEP also uses the photography and resource delineation to provide additional
evidence in cases that are identified by complaints rather than aerial photography
analysis. In FY 2010, enforcement of wetland loss cases decreased to the lowest
number since the program began. This is because the new wetland loss mapping has
been delayed due to resource shortage.
Enforcement cases identified through aerial imagery program
Date # Wetlands Loss Cases Penalties* Acres Restored
7/1/03- 6/30/04 10 $ 650,750 23.52
7/1/04 - 6/30/05 12 $1,104,100 21.41
7/1/05 - 6/30/06 8 $ 102,500 3.35
7/1/06- 6/30/07 11 $ 186,500 5.68
7/1/07 – 6/30/08 9 $ 104,225 1.87
7/1/08 – 6/30/09 12 $ 792,082 5.11
7/1/09 – 6/30/10 3 $130,500 1.23**
TOTALS 65 62.17 acres
$3,070,,657***
* includes $300,000 AG penalty
**Note that data in this column does not include Land Under Water, however, an additional 74 acres were
ordered restored by MassDEP’s Southeast Region.
***includes $711,442 in suspended penalties, $212,000 in SEPs, and SEPs with as-yet undetermined value.
Causes and Disposition of Wetland Loss
Using wetlands loss mapping, MassDEP has also identified what types of activities
account for the most change. In the 2001 imagery analysis, residential and commercial
activities accounted for approximately 41% of wetlands losses. In the 2005 imagery
analysis, these sectors continue to be a large cause of wetlands loss, representing in
combination 32% of identified losses, and loss from agricultural and cranberry bog
activities dropping from 32% to approximately 17%. By understanding the most
significant contributors to wetlands loss MassDEP is able to target compliance,
enforcement, outreach, and training to those sectors in order to prevent future losses.
Causes of Wetland Loss
9
Wetlands Loss Type 2004 %(1) 2006 %(2)
Agriculture 32.3 7.2
Commercial Development 18.7 12.5
Cranberry Bog Activity See agriculture 9.6
Other 21.0 22.4
Gravel Operation 5.5 5.6
New Road 2.9
Dock or Pier .08
Residential Development 22.5 19.3
Transportation Infrastructure 2.3
Clearing - Unknown reason 16.4
Filling - Unknown reason 1.6
Total Acres 637 482
(1) 75% of total Wetlands Loss in SERO, NERO and CERO from 2001 imagery (637 acres of loss between 1990-2001in
the 92 towns where permitting files were reviewed)
(2) 100% of Massachusetts from 2005 imagery (482 acres of loss between 2001-2005)
The analysis of the 2001 data had the benefit of a labor-intensive 92-town file review
to gain data on causes of wetlands loss and whether these losses were permitted or
illegal. The most significant finding from the 2001 analysis is that a very large portion
of the identified fill was unpermitted or likely unpermitted.
While that effort gave MassDEP invaluable data, the method was too inefficient and
labor intensive to repeat. As a result, MassDEP has developed the Wetlands
10
Information Resource (WIRe) Project that will substantially improve our ability to
determine the permitting status of wetlands loss on an ongoing basis (See WIRe
Workplan). This data will be updated once the new wetland loss mapping is available
and investigated.
Maintaining Strong Performance
The Bureau continues to search for and evaluate innovative ways to achieve
environmental results and meet the challenges of reduced resources by increasing our
own efficiency and prioritizing work on the most important environmental problems.
New aerial imagery was flown in April of 2009. Wetlands baseline mapping is currently
being updated and a “cross-walk” has been developed between our wetlands mapping
classification and the Cowardin wetland classification system used widely across the
country. Updated wetland loss maps are also under development and are a major
component in MassDEP’s effort to protect the state’s wetlands. MassDEP is also
continuing eelgrass mapping and has updated approximately 20% of the coastline.
http://www.mass.gov/portal/index.jsp?pageID=mg2searchlanding&sid=massgov2&colle
ctorName=EOEAxMGISx&searchMassGov=2006+eelgrass
Wetland loss investigation is underway from the April 2009 imagery and results
presented below are preliminary as they only represent a portion of the southeast and
northeast regions (See below).
11
Wetland loss investigations to date have yielded the following data.
Wetlands Loss Identified by Aerial Photography
Years/Region # Wetlands Loss Acres Lost
Compared Polygons
2005- 137 26.01
2009:NERO(Partial)
2005-2009: 548 192.05
SERO(Partial)
Causes of Wetland Loss
Wetland Loss Acres Wetland Loss Acres
Wetlands Loss Type 2005 -2009 2005-2009
NERO(Partial) SERO(Partial)
Agriculture 3.11 18.54
Commercial Development 4.69 20.42
Cranberry Bog Activity 0 64.14
Other 2.12 20.59
Gravel Operation .08 1.62
New Road 1.45 8.64
Dock or Pier
Residential Development 14.32 47.73
Transportation
0 2.48
Infrastructure
Clearing - Unknown reason .25 7.06
Filling - Unknown reason 0 .83
Total Acres 26.01 192.05
12
Wetland Loss NERO Acres SERO Acres
Type Lost 2005-2009 Lost 2005-2009
(Partial) (Partial)
Bog 0 0.446
Coastal Beach 0 0.732
Coastal Bank 0.231 0
Bluff or Sea
Cliff
Salt Marsh 0.112 0
Cranberry Bog 0 0.228
Deep Marsh 0 13.555
Open Water 1.337 9.986
Shallow Marsh 6.363 11.171
Meadow or Fen
Shrub Swamp 1.337 23.729
Wooded 0.146 1.034
Swamp
Coniferous
Wooded 16.960 82.850
Swamp
Deciduous
Wooded 1.107 48.610
Swamp Mixed
Trees
TOTAL 27.593 192.341
The following schedule is anticipated for the completion of the baseline, wetland loss
and eelgrass mapping
Location Date Mapping Scheduled to be
Complete
Baseline September 30, 2010
Mapping:
Eastern
Massachusetts
Baseline July 31, 2011
Mapping:
Western
Massachusetts
Wetland Loss Late Summer 2010
Mapping:
Eastern
Massachusetts
13
Wetland Loss Late Fall, 2010
Mapping:
Entire State
Eelgrass 20% of state’s coastline to be updated
Mapping this summer; Final Mapping complete
January 2011
Improving Results
MassDEP has developed the Wetlands Information Resource (WIRe) Project that will
substantially improve our ability to determine the permitting status of wetlands loss
on an ongoing basis (See WIRe Workplan). This data will be updated once the new
wetland loss mapping is available and investigated.
Detailed Work Plan
1. MassDEP is currently updating the wetlands baseline mapping and updated
maps are expected to be available for the entire state by the end of 2010.
2. Investigation of wetland loss polygons will begin once the wetland loss mapping
is completed. The timeframe for investigations will depend on the number of
wetland loss polygons that need to be investigated but may take several years.
3. New wetlands loss data will be made available to Conservation Commissions and
the general public via the internet.
4. DEP is currently acquiring new digital eelgrass mapping imagery that will cover
over 20 embayments in the southeast region of the state, including: entire south
coast of Cape Cod, entire north coast of Nantucket and Nantucket Harbor, the
eastern Buzzard’s Bay area, Monomoy and the Pleasant Bay area and Billingsgate
Shoal. The resultant analysis and final mapping data from this project should be
completed and available by January 2011.
14
III. Wetlands Information Resource (WIRe) project
Summary
The WIRe project, a data management system that gives MassDEP the ability to collect,
store and analyze data was initiated to accomplish the integration of MassDEP’s
permitting, enforcement and wetland loss databases. Using eDEP, which is an
electronic permit application and electronic permit issuance system, the WIRe
database is easily populated with information that allows staff to more easily
determine the extent of wetland alteration/loss, the history of enforcement actions on
the site, and systematically record and calculate data received through permitting and
enforcement actions. The new information system has also improved MassDEP's ability
to determine whether wetland losses identified through aerial photogrammetry are
permitted or illegal, to prioritize enforcement actions, and to quickly take corrective
action to address the loss. Prompt action is more likely to result in successful wetland
restoration where wetlands were illegally filled, or successful wetland replication when
constructed areas fail or are never built. In the long-term, this new wetland data
management system will allow MassDEP to reduce wetland loss by deterring illegal
filling.
Indicators:
Indicator Result Comment
Whether current, Yes Internal WIRe module
comprehensive, and launch completed June
accessible tracking 2009; eDEP Component
database exists launched November 2009;
Enhancement project under
development.
Staff time expended in FY10 28 MassDEP staff spent Significant effort required
5238 hours (2.91 Full Time for development, testing
Equivalents) and outreach for eDEP
components and
enhancements for internal
Acres of impacted wetlands *97.78 acres of BVW loss in Note: some alterations
(wetlands loss) FY10 reported as loss are not
complete loss (i.e.
vegetation management)
Linear ft. of impacted 123,761 linear feet Bank in Note that linear feet are
15
stream (each side of Bank) FY10 per bank, so total miles of
stream loss/alteration =
11.7 miles
Acres of wetlands replaced 85.16 acres of BVW Replacement may not be
proposed to be replaced in required for projects
FY10 involving alteration but not
loss such as vegetation
management
Acres of wetlands restored Not yet available The ability to report
restoration will be
complete by December
2010
Linear ft. of stream 116,761 linear feet in FY10 Note that linear feet are
replaced per bank, so total miles of
stream replaced/restored =
11.05
Whether MassDEP can Yes Resource data entered into
report no net loss/net gain WIRE represents a fraction
of actual number
# entities using database 398 See Breakdown of entities
for wetlands management using database below in
purposes this section
Acres of avoided wetlands Numbers not yet available
impacts
Net change in total Numbers not yet available.
wetlands acres
*Resource data in the Indicator table above represents a percentage of the total (i.e. data that has been submitted
electronically). MassDEP will be phasing in additional data entry in FY11.
Why is this Important?
For years, Wetinfo was MassDEP’s main system to track basic permitting information
under the Wetland Protection Act. It was determined that Wetinfo was outdated and
had too many limitations, which necessitated the development of an enhanced data
system. Some of those limitations include:
1) With 5,000-9,000 filings under the Wetland Protection Act per year and limited
resources, MassDEP's ability to maintain complete and accurate data on
permitted projects was limited. DEP offered electronic filing forms (eDEP)
however, use of the forms was very low due to limitations in the system. Also,
the system was not developed to tabulate the data obtained electronically.
16
2) The four MassDEP regional offices maintained inspection and enforcement
database(s) using different tracking systems and metrics, making preparation of
a statewide report very time consuming.
3) Aerial wetland loss data was only integrated with permit and enforcement data
through intensive staff effort and investigation. The new WIRe system has been
designed to allow for easier reporting on wetland loss polygons.
4) The three databases were not integrated and thus, the system was inefficient.
How are we doing?
Whether current, comprehensive, and accessible tracking database exists; Staff Time
Expended in FY 2010
The new WIRe system now has six major components completed:
1. New internal system for MassDEP staff to track permit information and more
efficiently interact with applicants (“Internal Permitting Module.”)
2. New internal system for MassDEP to comprehensively track the status of
wetland loss polygons identified from aerial photography (“Internal Wetland
Loss Module.”)
3. New internal system for MassDEP to track enforcement information and more
efficiently monitor enforcement actions (“Internal C&E Module.”)
4. A new Map Viewer that allows applicants and Conservation Commissions to
easily locate the geographic locations of projects on the landscape. WIRe’s Map
Viewer also allows MassDEP to view projects and enforcement actions
geographically for more efficient follow-up action and strategic planning. Also,
the Map Viewer allows MassDEP to look at wetland loss polygons and other GIS
overlays (such as rare species mapping) in context with specific project and
enforcement data. Note that the new map viewer is integrated into the four
components described above.
17
5. New internal system for reporting on wetland permits, enforcement actions,
wetland loss polygons information and wetland loss and gain information.
6. New web-based forms for use by applicants and Conservation Commissions.
Note that Conservation Commissions are the issuing authority for the majority
of wetland permits in Massachusetts, while MassDEP plays a role in reviewing
and commenting on all applications and deciding on appeals. The benefits of
filing permits and permit applications electronically for applicants include
paper, time and postage savings; payment can be made electronically, ability to
view wetland and rare species map overlays on new map viewers, and quicker
communication with MassDEP. Benefits for Conservation Commissions include
pre-populated permit forms with data from WIRe resulting in less data entry, a
special conditions “pick list” that makes preparing permits easier, availability of
GIS maps with wetlands, wetland loss, rare species and other layers, and
postage savings since permits no longer need to be mailed if filed electronically.
Improvements in these forms and a major outreach campaign conducted
through the Wetlands Circuit Rider program to increase the numbers of
electronic filings will ultimately result in improved data collection on permitted
18
wetland loss and gain, and provide the ability to perform other strategic
planning analyses.
New eDEP NOI form
Substantial progress has been made in the past year. In June of 2009 MassDEP
completed the launch of the internal WIRE system including the permitting, wetland
loss, compliance and enforcement, and reporting modules. In November of 2009, we
launched the external eDEP component of WIRE with the goal of obtaining a high
percentage of electronic filers to off-set the amount of data entry required of
MassDEP’s wetland specialists. This will not only allow staff to focus on other important
tasks, but will also result in a more complete data management system. The eDEP
component of WIRE includes an electronic Notice of Intent (NOI), Order of Conditions
(OOC), Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD), and Order of
Resource Area Delineation (ORAD). Performance improvements for the internal system
are ongoing and require staff effort to report performance problems and test the
changes that are made to the system in response.
19
Acres of Impacted Wetlands; Linear Feet of Impacted Stream; Acres of Wetlands
Replaced and Restored; Linear Feet of Stream Restored;
The WIRe system now allows us to report on the indicators for this metric (See table
above). However, the numbers reported represent only a fraction of the total because
we are continuing to build the database capability with limited resources.
MassDEP actively worked to develop and implement a significant outreach program to
increase the percentage of applications filed electronically (See below, and Coordination
with Other Water Programs Section). Outreach has been successful but is still in early
stages and thus, we currently have approximately 6.2% of NOIs and 16% of OOCs filed
electronically. MassDEP staff have been entering basic information on all applications
including applicant name and project location however, resource impact data has not
been a required data entry requirement yet as we have been trying to accomplish a
greater percentage of electronic submission of NOIs and OOCs before requiring
additional data entry from staff. In the upcoming year, MassDEP staff will begin to enter
key resource data into WIRe for all permits applications that are not filed electronically
and we expect the data to be more robust in FY11.
Whether MassDEP Can Report No Net Loss/Net Gain
As described above, we plan to improve the WIRe database so that it is more robust in
FY11 but we can use the numbers in WIRe to inform us as to the overall success of our
program. The wetland impact numbers entered into MassDEP’s database (See Indicator
Table above) include both wetland alteration and wetland loss. They also include
impacts from beneficial/public projects referred to as “limited projects.” Many projects
that do not involve complete loss, such as vegetation management, can represent large
acreage in the impact numbers. Conservation Commissions and MassDEP may not
require full replacement since the wetland still remains, albeit with reduced function.
Limited projects may be approved by Conservation Commissions or MassDEP without
full replacement, although we recommend that wetland loss be fully replaced. Also,
restoration projects increase the acreage and functional loss experienced by projects,
closing the gap between loss and gain. We would like to make improvements to our
database to better depict the data but do not currently have the resources to do so and
hope to scope this in the near future.
20
Entities Using Database for Wetland Management Purposes
Entities using the database are as follows:
Entity # WIRe Users
MassDEP Offices (Boston 5 100%
and Regions)
Municipalities (Registered) 260 72%
Municipalities (Using 69 19%
WIRe)
Applicants/Representatives 64 N/A
(Using WIRe)
Other Agencies (MNHESP, ACOE, MASSDOT, DMF trained
– use unknown to date)
The following graphics depicts the increase in entities using WIRe this year.
21
Maintaining Strong Performance
The Bureau continues to search for and evaluate innovative ways to achieve
environmental results and meet the challenges of reduced resources by increasing our
own efficiency and prioritizing work on the most important environmental problems.
MassDEP’s Wetlands Program Staff from Boston and all four regions, and staff from the
Bureau of Resource Protection, Information Technology, and GIS have worked together
to design a system that will accurately track wetlands data for the purpose of better
protecting wetlands. A full-time Data Manager was assigned on July 1, 2009, and has
been extended for another year to continue system development. The role of the data
manager is to improve our ability to report data from WIRe and respond to what the
data is telling us, and resolve problems encountered by Program staff, applicants and
conservation commissions while using the new system.
Improving Results
MassDEP is continuing to develop and implement a significant outreach program to
increase the percentage of applications filed electronically (See ‘Coordination With
Other Water Programs’ Section). Deadlines will be established for the entry of key data
by MassDEP wetlands staff into WIRe for all permits applications that are not filed
electronically. While outreach efforts have been very successful to date, the entire
MassDEP data management system has been experiencing performance problems
which are affecting usage. Additionally, MassDEP’s information technology unit has
22
been merged into a centrally run state entity resulting in competing priorities for IT staff
and affecting timeframes for problem resolution.
Additionally, MassDEP is developing a package of system enhancements that will be
implemented by the end of 2010. Enhancement needs have been prioritized to include:
Design of ‘Determination of Applicability’ module;
enhancement of ‘Personal Responsibility List’;
Extended GIS functionality including geospatial depiction of wetland replication,
wetland restoration and stream crossing projects; and
Development of fields that will capture data on wetland restoration.
Detailed Workplan FY11
1. Completion of WIRe enhancement project by December 2010;
2. Ongoing improvements to performance and correction of system bugs;
3. Continued major effort of outreach and training;
4. Phased in resource data entry by MassDEP Staff as electronic submissions
increase.
5. Identification of additional enhancements needed.
23
IV. Wetlands Restoration
Summary
Indicators:
# policies, regulations, reports or task forces issued or participated in
# projects participated in
# Acres Restoration permitted
Why is this important?
We protect wetlands to preserve the important functions they provide:
recharge and protection of public and private water supply & groundwater;
storm damage prevention and flood control;
prevention of pollution; and
providing food, shelter, overwintering and nesting/spawning habitat for
fisheries, shellfish, and wildlife habitat.
In addition to these statutorily recognized functions wetlands are very important
“carbon banks” or “sinks” that sequester or absorb carbon, and are therefore important
to preserve for a variety of reasons in responding to climate change. Destroying
wetlands also destroys the functions those wetlands serve, but wetlands can also be
harmed in other ways. For example, fragmentation of wetlands can interfere with the
wildlife habitat functions of those wetlands far more than the few square feet of fill
involved. Restoration of destroyed or degraded wetlands can successfully provide the
important ecological functions and services described above, and can be accomplished
with a commitment among agencies to work together to streamline permitting, provide
technical assistance, and obtain funding.
How are we doing?
MassDEP has demonstrated its commitment to wetlands restoration by participating in
a number of efforts designed to facilitate and improve wetlands restoration projects.
Effort Detail
Aquatic Habitat The Final Report of the Task Force: Charting the Course: A
Restoration Task Blueprint for the Future of Aquatic Habitat Restoration in
Force Massachusetts, January 2008.
Wetlands Ongoing - Provides expertise and helps to streamline
Restoration review of restoration projects
24
Workgroup
Coordination with Facilitation of Dam Removal and wetland restoration
MA Division of projects to restore aquatic habitats
Ecological
Restoration
Through these workgroups, MassDEP has been extremely active in promoting wetland
restoration by providing expertise and assistance to advance approximately 25 projects
that are in pre-application stages, as well as an additional 21 projects that are detailed
below.
Restoration Projects Participated In FY09
Stage of Project #Projects
Pre-application 13
Permit Under review or issued 12
TOTAL 25
Project Name City/Town Project Type Status Restoration
Potential
Hall Brook Adams Dam Permit ½ mile
Dam Removal Removal issued and stream
- Hoxie Brook project habitat
Restoration completed restored
Herring River Wellfleet Removal of Pre- 1,100 acre
Restoration Tidal application salt marsh
Restriction restoration
Stewarts Barnstable Removal of Pre- 14 acre salt
Creek Tidal application marsh
Restoration Restriction restoration
Nonquitt Salt Dartmouth Removal of Pre- 80 acres salt
Marsh tidal application marsh
Restoration Restriction restoration
Bird Island Mattapoisett Seawall Pre- 1.5 acres
Restoration construction application endangered
Project roseate tern
habitat
potential
Ram Island II Mattapoisett Tern Habitat Pre- Tern Habitat
Restoration application
West Island Fairhaven Removal of SOC issued 20+ acres
Beach Tidal salt marsh
Restoration Restriction restoration
Marsh Island Fairhaven Fill Removal Permit 14 acres salt
25
Restoration review marsh
restoration
Eel River Plymouth Dam Permit 60 acres
Restoration Removal, (401)issued, restoration
Stream project of cranberry
restoration under bog to
construction Atlantic
White Cedar
Swamp &
other
habitat
Town Brook Plymouth Dam Pre- Fish passage
Restoration Removal application restoration
Straits Pond Hull Removal of Permit 90 acre salt
Restoration Tidal issued (401) pond
Restriction restoration
Sippewissett Falmouth Removal of 3 permits 20-30 acre
Marsh Tidal issued (401) salt marsh
Restoration Restriction restoration
Malden River Malden Riverine Pre- 15 acres
Ecosystem Restoration application restoration
Restoration riverine
habitat
Thissell Marsh Beverly Removal of Permit 2 acres salt
Restoration Tidal issued (401) marsh &
Restriction tidal creek
restoration,
invasives
removal
Ballard Street Saugus Fill removal, Pre- 25 acres salt
Restoration removal of application marsh
tidal restoration
restriction, & flood
flood control control
Little River Gloucester Culvert Permit Anadromous
Restoration Replacement issued Fish Run
(401) restoration
Ox Pasture Rowley Dam Permit Anadromous
Brook Removal issued (401) Fish Run
– project restoration
complete
Town Creek Salisbury Removal of Permit Salt marsh
Tidal review restoration
26
Restriction
Wingaersheek Gloucester Fill Removal Pre- 2 acre
Beach application restoration
Restoration of salt
marsh
Green River Greenfield 2 Dam Pre- ¾ mile river
Restoration Removal application restoration
Mill River Taunton Dam Pre- Restoration
Restoration Removal application of fish
passage
Wapping Kingston Dam Permit Stream
Road Dam Removal review restoration
Parker River Newbury/Rowley Salt Marsh Pre- 5 acre salt
National remediation application marsh
Wildlife restoration
Refuge project
Weir River Hingham In river Pre-permit 2 acres
anadromous habitat
fish restoration
spawning
habitat
restoration
Stony Brook Brewster Tidal Permit Restore 22
restriction issued and acres of
removal under tidally
construction restricted
marsh
When the new WIRe database is fully functional, a new feature will allow us to track
bordering vegetated wetlands and salt marsh restoration acreage beyond mitigation
projects.
Maintaining Strong Performance
The Bureau continues to search for and evaluate innovative ways to achieve
environmental results and meet the challenges of reduced resources by increasing our
own efficiency and prioritizing work on the most important environmental problems.
MassDEP is continuing to look for opportunities to improve wetlands restoration efforts
in Massachusetts by providing expertise on specific projects and providing regulatory
changes and policies to streamline permitting.
MassDEP is also working closely with the Massachusetts Wetland Restoration Program
to develop a new wetlands restoration policy that promotes efforts to remove tidal
27
restrictions that are adversely affecting coastal wetlands. A draft policy was developed
and is under review by the EOEEA Wetlands Restoration Program.
Improving Results
Through strong advocacy and interagency coordination, MassDEP will continue to
encourage wetlands restoration to the maximum extent possible.
Detailed Workplan
1. Continued involvement in the Wetlands Restoration Work Groups to provide
technical support and permit streamlining for restoration projects.
2. Use CAPS (See Monitoring and Assessment) and WIRe to depict environmental
improvement from restoration projects in Massachusetts – June 2012
(dependent on resources)
28
V. Wetlands Monitoring & Assessment
Summary
MassDEP has been working on assessing and monitoring the “health”, resiliency, or level
of ecological functionality of wetlands in Massachusetts. Degraded wetlands do not
provide all of the potentially beneficial ecological services of these resources, described
as interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. In collaboration with UMass, we are
developing methodologies to assess and monitor the ecological health of our wetlands.
Indicators:
Metric Detail FY09 Detail FY10 Detail FY10 Salt
Forested Forested Marsh
# Sites Investigated 110 230 Approx. 75
# Sites Fully 68 149 (75 sites in 45
Sampled Concord, 74 sites in
Millers); 30 upland
# Watersheds 1 (Chicopee) 2 (Millers, Concord) 7 (Merrimac,
Assessed Parker, Ipswich,
FY 08 Research: North Coastal,
Deerfield (Forested Boston Harbor,
Uplands), Westfield Charles, Cape Cod)
(Wetlands)
# Types of Data 9 (Algae, 10 (Algae, 4 (Vegetation,
Collected invertebrates, invertebrates, Habitat Complexity,
lichens, bryophytes, lichens, bryophytes, Invertebrates,
(See Table below earthworms, earthworms, Human
for further details) plants, plants, Disturbance;
microtopography, microtopography, salinity)
water chemistry, water chemistry,
human human
disturbance) disturbance; adding
soils Fall 09)
# Condition Data 1 ‐ preliminary – Invasive plants, Not applicable yet
types that earthworms and other species of
correlates with terrestrial CAPS plants, diatoms;
CAPS data data earthworms;
earthworm
middens
#Coastal CAPS NA NA 1 - Tidal Ditching
Metrics Completed
29
# programmatic 1 (Important 1 - UMass was Not applicable yet
decisions using Wildlife Habitat contracted to use
CAPS Maps – 112 towns CAPS for scenario
posted to web; 365 analysis on South
maps done – Coast Rail
change to 310 CMR Transportation
10.00 needed Project by MBTA
before statewide
posting)
# programmatic Not applicable yet Not applicable yet Not applicable yet
decisions using
verified/calibrated
CAPS maps
Why is this Important?
MassDEP has identified the need to monitor and assess wetlands condition as part of a
comprehensive wetlands program as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). Loss from dredge, fill and removal activities in wetlands identified through
permitting or enforcement action has been the primary focus of the MassDEP Wetlands
Program for years. Wetlands degradation, however, can also extend beyond the
footprint of a project, or be caused by activities beyond wetlands jurisdiction, having
significant effects on wetlands health that are much more difficult to regulate. For
example, increased development and stormwater runoff originating beyond wetlands
jurisdiction can result in significant water quality and hydrological alteration, affecting
wetlands health. Also, as buffer zones shrink due to land development, wetlands health
may continue to degrade since buffer zones play an important role in preservation of
the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of adjacent wetlands.
The Massachusetts wetlands monitoring and assessment strategy was developed to
validate and/or better direct the program to protect the physical, chemical and
biological integrity of Massachusetts’ wetlands. Implementation of this monitoring and
assessment strategy will increase understanding of wetlands health through the
development of criteria that assesses wetlands condition, and collection of monitoring
data that validates our findings. Our strategy will allow us to report on the status and
trends of wetlands across the state, while developing more intense assessment of
wetlands condition in specific watersheds, chosen for rapid assessment and monitoring.
It is our goal to better protect wetlands through regulation, policy & additional outreach
using the tools developed through these efforts.
30
How are we doing?
Sites and Watersheds Investigated and Fully Sampled
MassDEP’s goal of implementing a comprehensive wetlands monitoring and assessment
program led to collaboration with the University of Massachusetts in Amherst in late
2006 to develop a monitoring and assessment strategy. The central feature of this
strategy is the Conservation Assessment and Prioritization System (CAPS), a landscape-
level assessment model that has been under development by UMass for several years,
and was adopted by MassDEP in 2006 to identify potentially important wildlife habitat.
CAPS was also used in 2009 by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Agency (MBTA) to
evaluate alternatives for the South Coast Rail Transportation Project in Southeastern
Massachusetts.
Key components of CAPS are land cover mapping derived from GIS mapping and satellite
imagery and 21 integrity metrics developed by expert teams, combined in a model that
calculates a value between 0 and 1 for every 30m2 point in the landscape. The CAPS
value represents the index of ecological integrity or prediction about the ability of the
wetlands to sustain its ecological condition in the long term and to recover from stress.
CAPS does not assess ecological conditions on the ground, nor does it use field-based
information in the CAPS models. Site-Level Assessments (SLAMs) and the subsequent
development of Rapid Assessment Methods (RAMs) provide information about the
ecological condition for a large number and wide range of wetlands. This is essential for
testing and validating the CAPS predictions and modifying (as needed) the CAPS models.
31
Toward this goal, MassDEP, UMass-Amherst and Coastal Zone Management have
sampled 218 forested wetland sites and 45 salt marsh sites since the summer of 2008
(preliminary research was done during the summer of 2007). Watersheds sampled are
depicted below.
Types of Data Collected
The overarching goal of the data analysis is to determine whether CAPS IEI and the
component ecological integrity metrics (e.g., habitat loss, connectedness, etc.) are
related to observed ecological conditions, and to further quantify the magnitude and
nature of those relationships. To accomplish this goal, a comprehensive relational
database was developed that includes over 40 tables containing the CAPS metrics and
ecological settings variables and the field ecological data representing four major
ecological communities and 565 sites distributed throughout Massachusetts (See Table
Below).
32
Field ecological data compiled to date.
Ecological Taxonomic group Number of sites Number of taxa
community
Forested uplands vascular plants 98 404
lichens 98 51
earthworms 98 Tbd
Forested wetlands vascular plants 218 457
lichens 218 Tbd
bryophytes 218 Tbd
algae 221 217*
earthworms 218 Tbd
insects 220 283**
Hydrology; Water 149 (HOBO and NA
Chemistry and Soils ibutton temp
recorders; Surface
water depth and
transects recorded;
groundwater wells
installed & depth to
gw recorded)
Soils 149 NA
Riverine invertebrates 385 (previously 606
obtained by
MassDEP Division of
Watershed
33
Management)
Salt marsh vascular plants 45 Tbd
invertebrates 45 Tbd
Habitat complexity 45 NA
Human Disturbance 45 NA
Salinity 45 NA
*Taxa identified for 70 sites sampled in 2008; identification for 150 sites sampled in
2009 is incomplete.
**Taxa identified so far; specimens from 2008 still being identified; does not include
150 sites sampled in 2009
Correlating Condition Data with CAPS data
Based on the database compiled to date, an analysis is being conducted by UMass-
Amherst that includes three different strategies:
1. Pseudo-validation—The first strategy is to “pseudo-validate” CAPS IEI by regressing
the existing IEI against several published biotic integrity metrics/indices. A significant
relationship between CAPS IEI and one or more published metrics will confirm that
CAPS IEI is at least consistent with other integrity metrics, although this does not
confirm that either represents true ecological integrity. Currently, a suite of biotic
integrity metrics has been compiled for riverine systems and metrics for the other
ecological communities are currently being compiled in preparation for the analysis.
2. Verification.—The second strategy is to “verify” that CAPS IEI (and each component
metric) does in fact reflect a real gradient in the biotic community by constructing an
index of ecological integrity from the field biotic data (predicted IEI) that is
maximally related to our GIS-based IEI and confirming a strong relationship.
Specifically, UMass is using likelihood-based statistical models to predict CAPS IEI
from the field biotic data. Briefly, this procedure involves first fitting non-linear
statistical models to predict each species’ abundance based on CAPS IEI, and
subsequently using these fitted models to predict CAPS IEI for each site based on
each species recorded abundance at each site (a procedure known as statistical
“calibration”). The final predictions are based on a suite of species selected to
optimize the relationship. Currently, UMass has developed the software for
conducting the statistical analysis and has applied it to the upland forest data and
the riverine invertebrate data with moderate success. The figure below depicts the
relationship between CAPS IEI (x-axis) and the predicted IEI (y-axis) based on the
field data for vascular plants in upland forests. The statistical method to optimize
performance is being refined and will shortly be applied to each of the field data sets
described in the table above.
34
Linear regression of CAPS IEI against predicted IEI derived from field data
on vacular plants from 98 forested uplands in the Deerfield watershed.
Calibration.—The third strategy is to “calibrate” CAPS IEI by adjusting the
parameterization of each component metric to optimize the relationship between CAPS
IEI and the predicted IEI (from the verification method above). Briefly, this computer
intensive procedure will involve adjusting the parameters of a component metric to
improve the “verification” fit of that metric, and adjusting the weights of each
component metric in the composite IEI to improve the “verification” fit for IEI. In this
manner, we aim to optimize CAPS IEI to the predicted IEI
CAPS can be used to assess the ecological integrity of wetlands for purposes of:
Assessing wetland condition and better understanding the causes;
Reporting to EPA under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act;
Developing tiered aquatic life use models to better monitor resource
improvement; and
Developing policy guidance and regulation.
35
It is hoped that at the conclusion of this effort, the CAPS model will be an important
scientifically based decision-making tool that can withstand challenges. See Improving
results and detailed workplan sections below.
Development of Coastal CAPS Metrics
Concurrently with the sampling and analysis work, the development of CAPS metrics to
characterize coastal resource areas has been ongoing. The following metrics were
identified and are currently under development for inclusion in the CAPS model:
Metric Description
Tidal Restrictions Measures the magnitude of hydrologic
alteration due to tidal restrictions
Tidal Ditching Measures the magnitude of open water
habitat loss during mid to low tides based
on density of drainage ditches
Human Disturbance Measures intensity of boat traffic; ORV
traffic and pedestrian traffic on coastal
wetlands
Beach Hardening Measures proximity of cell to manmade
jetty/groin
In FY10, tidal ditches were digitized to serve as one indicator affecting ecological
integrity of salt marshes (i.e. low density ditching indicates high ecological integrity and
high density ditching indicates low ecological integrity).
36
Work in FY 10 also focused on development of the beach hardening metric by digitizing
all beach structures at a very course scale, sufficient to characterize structure density
and compare beach areas. Hardened structures will serve as another indicator affecting
ecological integrity of coastal resource areas (i.e. low density of structures indicates
higher ecological integrity and higher density of structures indicates lower ecological
integrity). This metric is near completion.
The tidal restriction metric will show restriction severity affecting salt marshes in
Massachusetts. Effort in FY10 included obtaining field measurements of 50 tidal
restrictions during spring high tide to inform a more comprehensive effort to assign
severity values to tidal restrictions using aerial photography and modeling. Tidal
restrictions are being modeled using the following steps. First, the tidal regime is
estimated based on interpolated data from NOAA tide stations and 5m DEM to inform
logistic regression (this step is to estimate the probability that a site is intertidal and
thus salt marsh). Next, potential tidal restrictions are identified using existing data. The
severity of those restrictions is then estimated by calculating the ratio of the area of salt
marshes (from MassDEP wetland maps) above a potential restriction to the area of tidal
regime estimated above the restriction. This ratio is the proportion of salt marsh that
has not been lost. Assuming that tidal restrictions are driving much of the loss, a linear
regression is used to predict the restriction height and assign a severity value.
37
In the upcoming year work will focus on a human disturbance metric which includes
pedestrian, boat and ORV traffic.
Maintaining Strong Performance
The Bureau continues to search for and evaluate innovative ways to achieve
environmental results and meet the challenges of reduced resources by increasing our
own efficiency and prioritizing work on the most important environmental problems.
In the Spring of 2010, additional efforts were made to prepare for the 2010 field season
where we will sample 45 salt marsh border sites and 70 inner salt marsh sites. QAPP
preparation was completed, including and a new SOP for salt marsh border sites.
In the Summer of 2011, forested wetland sampling will be conducted at 30-40 sites in
the Taunton River Watershed basin and salt marsh sampling will be conducted at 25
sites.
In FY11 Coastal metric development will be completed and species identification and
analysis will continue.
MassDEP continues to participate in the New England Biological Assessment Wetland
Workgroup hosted by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
as well as the National Wetland Condition Assessment coordinated by EPA
Headquarters.
Improving Results
In 2006, MassDEP issued a guidance document for wildlife habitat protection entitled
“Massachusetts Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance for Inland Wetlands”
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/wldhab.pdf. As part of that guidance, MassDEP
adopted use of CAPS maps to identify habitat of potential regional or statewide
importance for use in Wetlands Protection Act permitting. These important habitat
maps utilize the CAPS assessment to depict polygons representing 40% of the
undeveloped landscape with the highest potential wildlife habitat value. The polygons
depicted on the maps identify areas where a detailed wildlife habitat evaluation should
always be conducted. MassDEP and UMass have posted important habitat maps for 112
cities and towns to a website for public use www.masscaps.org. The remaining cities
and towns have been mapped but not yet posted to the web. MassDEP is considering
formalizing use of the maps through a regulatory change prior to posting the complete
statewide series. Resource constraints have resulted in substantial delay of this task.
Additionally, efforts are underway to assess wetlands for purposes of reporting to EPA
under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Consideration is focused on strengthening
buffer zone protection and assessing wetland gain through restoration efforts. MassDEP
is also evaluating CAPS for use in developing a tiered aquatic life use model and will
38
produce a preliminary report in January 2011. The CAPS model is being evaluated to
help identify and validate reference sites for future river and stream data collection. A
river and stream expert team may be formed to help refine the CAPS model to better
reflect the effect of rivers and streams on ecological integrity.
Detailed Workplan
1. Summer 2010: Sample 50 Border Salt Marsh and 70 Inner Salt Marsh sites.
2. FY 11: Complete Forested Wetland and Salt Marsh SLAMs.
3. FY11: Complete coastal metric development and incorporate into CAPS model;
4. FY11: Continue specimen ID and statistical analysis to calibrate CAPS;
5. January 2011: Preliminary report on Tiered Aquatic Life Use or other assessment
methods;
6. FY11: Continued analysis of river and stream data;
7. FY11: Development and testing of CAPS software for scenario analysis;
8. Spring 2011: Revised QAPP for summer 2011 sampling;
9. Summer 2011: Sample Forested Wetlands in Taunton River Watershed;
10. Summer 2011: Sample additional Salt Marsh sites
11. Implement policy, guidance or regulatory revisions (no timeframe)
39
VI. Coordination with other Water Programs
Summary
Indicators:
# phone calls/emails;
# ConCom coordination meetings and site visits;
# network meetings /workshops/trainings;
# task force meetings & conferences;
#Organizations/Agencies coordinated with
Why is this important?
MassDEP has a substantial outreach program that targets:
Local Conservation Commissions,
applicants and representatives,
local non-profit environmental groups,
other state and federal regulatory and resource agencies,
and the general public.
MassDEP’s outreach effort is critical in providing accurate and updated information to
all stakeholders on issues related to wetlands and water quality protection. MassDEP’s
Wetlands Circuit Rider Program is an integral part of the larger outreach effort that
provides technical, administrative, and regulatory assistance to municipal officials,
consultants, and the volunteer Conservation Commissions charged with the
administration and enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). Routine
interactions between Circuit Riders and stakeholders over the years have established
solid working relationships and fostered communication and cooperation in reaching
MassDEP’s goals for wetlands and water quality protection.
How are we doing?
The Wetlands Circuit Riders have contacted every Conservation Commission in the state
and are invaluable resources for Conservation Commissions. Circuit Riders are praised
by the Conservation Commissions and regulated community for their outreach efforts,
their informal hands-on approach, and their ability to tailor training to the needs of the
commissions. MassDEP also undertakes a substantial training and outreach effort each
year for the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions’ Annual
Environmental Conference. Unfortunately, MassDEP lost 3 Circuit Riders in the past
year and currently has only 3 of 7 positions filled. However, the success of this program
40
has continued despite the reduced resources. The following table details MassDEP’s
FY10 effort.
FY10 – Circuit Rider Program Outreach Activities
Outreach Task Detail
#Phone call/emails 5440
# ConCom Coordination 230
Meetings/Site Visits
#Trainings/# Network 36/20/27 (Total 83)
meetings/ workshops (not
WIRe related)
#Trainings WIRe 142
# Task Forces or Conferences 6 - MACC Annual and Fall (2), AMWS Annual Meeting;
Participated in (partial list) Northeast Chapter of the International Erosion Control
Association Annual Conference on Stormwater
Management in Massachusetts in October 2009; MACC
Erosion & Sediment Control Technical Advisory Committee
# Organizations/Agencies Mass. Assn. of Conservation Commissions;Mass. Assn of
Coordinated with (partial list) Municipal Conservation Professionals; Association of Mass.
Wetland Scientists; Mass. Assn of Land Surveyors and Civil
Engineers; Boston Society of Civil Engineers; Mass.
Department of Transportation; Mass. Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program; U.S. Army Corp of
Engineers; Mass. Marine Fisheries; Mass. Department of
Conservation Resource’s Area of Critical Environmental
Concern Program; Mass. Office of Coastal Zone
Management; Northeast Chapter of the International
Erosion Control Association Annual Conference on
Stormwater Management in Massachusetts
The FY10 Circuit Rider Program outreach effort continued to focus extensively on
MassDEP’s planned transition from paper to electronic wetland permitting. The goal
has been to inform communities and wetland professionals throughout the State of the
proposed changes to the wetland permitting process and to facilitate registration and
ultimate use. The new electronic wetland forms went live in November of 2009 and the
following figures depict successes in registration and electronic filing.
Accomplishment Number
#Towns Filed OOC Using 69
eDEP
# Consultants Trained >70
#Towns Registered 260
41
#Towns Trained to Use 136 + 6(Boston)=142
eDEP
#Filings made electronically 151
(NOIs, ANRADS)
#Permits issued 274
electronically (OOCs,
ORADs) 11/18/09-6/15/10
Maintaining Strong Performance
The Bureau continues to search for and evaluate innovative ways to achieve
environmental results and meet the challenges of reduced resources by increasing our
own efficiency and prioritizing work on the most important environmental problems.
MassDEP actively maintains a web site that includes the most up to date regulations,
policies, forms, guidance documents, reports, maps and other relevant information
(http://www.mass.gov/dep/). In addition to the web sites updates, the Circuit Riders
actively bring the regulation changes, policies, guidance documents, etc, to all
stakeholders through informational seminars and training sessions on each topic.
A major outreach effort is continuing to educate Conservation Commissions, applicants
and representatives on the use of MassDEP’s electronic filing system in the new WIRe
data system (See WIRe Summary & Workplan).
Improving Results
The goals for eDEP WIRe outreach are to establish electronic wetland permitting as the
State Standard and to reach 100% participation among conservation commissions and
applicants. The result is expected to be less data entry by staff, improved data accuracy
and reporting capabilities, and improved resource planning.
Detailed Timetable for WIRe Outreach
1. Ongoing outreach efforts – Small Group/Individual Commission and Consultant
Training Meetings including a renewed effort in the Fall of 2010.
2. Additional training on regulatory subjects.
3. Workplan is limited due to resource constraints.
42
Related docs
Other docs by 46N1BT9
How does drinking sports drinks such as Gatorade help to keep people from getting dehydrated while
Views: 11 | Downloads: 0
