In New England, March marks the last weeks of winter and the
start of spring rains and snow melt. Paying attention to erosion control
during this time of year is always on the minds of municipal public works
staff, state agencies, construction companies, and even homeowners, especially
those fortunate enough (or perhaps not) to have water frontage.
A 2018 study
conducted by the USDA found that precipitation is increasing in the northeast
more than any other region in the United States. The frequency of consecutive
wet days is generally increasing in the northeast and precipitation extremes
have also become more frequent. Given these trends, it is no surprise that
peak flows in rivers and streams are also increasing and occurring earlier in
the year which can result in a greater risk of flooding.
While it is difficult to prevent major erosion of stream and
river banks due to extreme precipitation events, damage can be mitigated by
inspections of at-risk areas combined with prioritization of these areas for
repair. It is important to address slope failures quickly because bank
degradation can cause significant damage including loss of property and
infrastructure, sedimentation of the waterbody, water quality issues and damage
to critical riparian buffer areas. As civil engineers, we can provide
assistance with erosion control issues that range from preventative design
practices, culvert replacements and stabilization of failed embankments.
Below is a list of some stabilization practices along with before and after photos of our recent embankment stabilization projects.
One such embankment failure occurred in Lancaster, New Hampshire, when high flow conditions in the Connecticut River resulted in severe washouts along an 800 foot long embankment causing loss of land and unstable soil conditions. Hoyle Tanner designed and permitted solutions to repair and stabilize the slope using native riparian vegetation and rip rap armament. Live willow and dogwood stakes were planted in soil between the rip rap stones.
Terms to know:
Live willow & dogwood stakes: Living shrub
cuttings that take root quickly in bank environments – provides natural habitat
and additional erosion control
Rip rap: Large stones used for protection and
dissipation of energy from high water flows
Hoyle Tanner also designed and permitted repairs to a steep slope in Rochester, Vermont, when intense rainfall events undermined the toe of the bank, causing the slope and roadway above to fail and slide into Brandon Brook 90 feet below. The repair solutions included installation of a blast rock toe detail and stone facing with grubbing material along the hillside to restore the slope. The roadway was reconstructed and a mid-slope underdrain was installed to intercept groundwater seepage. Debris from the slope failure was removed from Brandon Brook and the streambed was restored.
Terms to know:
Stone facing with grubbings: Combination of stone and native material to promote vegetation growth
Blast rock toe: Large rocks placed at the toe of the re-stabilized slope to combat undermining
Improving safety and combatting damage from growing peak flows and extreme storm events is an important part of our job. Hoyle Tanner is excited to offer solutions to slope stability issues and challenging site conditions. For more information on how we can be of assistance, please contact me.
On February 2, 2022, we join the global community in celebrating World Wetlands Day (WWD) to raise awareness about the important role of wetlands for humanity and the planet on which we live. WWD festivities take place every February 2nd to mark the adoption date of the Convention on Wetlands in Ramsar, Iran on the shores of the Caspian Sea in 1971. This convention was the first time that the world joined to discuss wetlands and their important protection measures.
This year’s celebration of World Wetlands Day is especially significant because on August 30, 2021, the UN General Assembly established February 2 as World Wetlands Day – this designation means that the day will be celebrated as a United Nations International Day. The United Nations designates International Days as occasions to mark particular events or topics in order to promote, through awareness and action, the objectives of the organization. This year’s theme, “Wetlands Action for People and Nature,” has the goal of calling people to action now; thus, protecting the health of both human and natural systems and ensuring the long-term conservation and sustainable use of wetlands.
There are many events occurring across the world on this day, including a run, a children’s photo contest, clean-up and other service activities, self-guided walks, and opportunities for grant funding. More details can be found at the website: https://www.worldwetlandsday.org/
Why Should We Protect Wetlands?
Natural wetlands are being lost at a rate that is three times faster than forests, with 85% of the world’s wetlands either lost or degraded since the 1700s. This loss results in water scarcity, exposure to flooding and extreme weather events, loss of well-being and livelihood/jobs, and food insecurity. For the planet, wetland loss means a decline in biodiversity, increased carbon and methane emissions, and a loss of freshwater filtration. Globally, wetlands are critically important ecosystems that contribute to biodiversity, climate mitigation and adaptation, freshwater availability, world economies and more. For example, over 40% of the world’s population lives within 60 miles (100 Km) of the ocean and will ultimately be affected by changes to the health of the coastline and wetlands in those interfacing areas, and more than 3 billion people depend on the ocean for their income – those jobs include fishing and aquaculture but also tourism. Freshwater wetlands also provide jobs such as fishing, aquaculture (freshwater catfish), agriculture (cranberry bogs) and tourism (swamp buggies anyone?).
What is a Wetland?
Wetlands can vary in size, shape, vegetation, location, and include large, complex systems like beaches and coastlines, coral reefs, bogs and swamps. The Everglades in southern Florida is a good example of a large tropical wetland system. Here in New Hampshire, we have several large protected bog wetlands – poorly drained wetlands that are acidic and rich in organic and plant material, usually associated with a body of open water – including the Ponemah Bog in Amherst, and the Quincy Bog Natural Area in Rumney.
A wetland can also be small; New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) defines a wetland as having three components: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. When a project is in development, wetlands are identified, or delineated, on the site to determine the best ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts (or alteration of the wetland that results in a loss of its functions) to that wetland. There are federal rules protecting wetlands and every state has their own set of wetland protection requirements as well. Local wetland protection rules and requirements can also occur.
Below are some examples of wetlands we have delineated in our projects; these are forested wetlands, grassed or emergent wetlands, riparian wetlands that occur along the edges and floodplains of streams and rivers, and isolated wetlands that are a mixture of forested, grassed and scrub-shrub. Once the wetlands on a site have been delineated, we work with our clients to determine the best ways to develop the site that can meet their goals while also protecting these important resources.
What Can I Do?
The WWD convention has identified three global actions as a focus in 2022 to protect wetlands: 1) value wetlands, 2) stop draining or cultivating wetlands, and 3) renew, reforest and restore altered wetlands. These may sound like actions that are on a larger scale than you can assist with; you can follow #ActForWetlands to find more concrete ways in which you can act locally to protect wetlands. Join a local river or beach clean-up, start one on your own, or just spend some time picking up roadside trash or debris in your neighborhood. Plant trees or vegetation in your yard, especially if you have any wetland or stream within it, or assist when there is a community organization that is doing a similar project. Talk to your friends and family about the importance of clean, healthy wetlands and their ecosystems to spread the word. If everyone makes one small change, they add up!
The Hoyle Tanner Environmental Permitting team can assist you in any stage of your project that may affect wetlands, including: wetland delineation and assessment; local, state and federal permitting of wetland impacts; avoidance and minimization of impacts via design alternatives; and development of mitigation opportunities such as wetland creation, restoration, enhancement or preservation. Reach out with any questions you may have regarding wetlands!
If you have ever had a close encounter with wildlife while driving your car – glimpsed a deer, coyote or even a large turkey or raccoon at the side of the road – or worse, been involved in an accident caused by hitting wildlife – then you can understand how frightening and dangerous these situations are for a pilot flying a multi-million dollar airplane. Seeing a deer or coyote on the runway before take-off could cause a string of heart palpitations and sweaty palms!
Interactions between wildlife and aircraft can result in human injuries, even fatalities, along with injuries and fatalities to the animal, and costly repairs to damaged aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – the federal transportation agency with the authority to regulate all aspects of civil aviation, including safety – has deemed prevention of wildlife from accessing airports as one of their primary safety concerns.
The first step to resolving any issue is identifying the extent of the problem: how many and what types of wildlife have access to the airport, where they come from, what attracts them to the airport, and how many interactions have occurred at the airport between wildlife and aircraft.
FAA keeps a National Wildlife Strike Database that is available to the public and provides accounting at each airport in the US of the wildlife strikes – or moments where a wildlife physically interacted with an aircraft. These strikes are reported annually and include data such as what type of animal, what type of aircraft, time of day, and height of the aircraft at the strike. Airport operations staff keep track of wildlife strikes and provide the data to FAA so that this database can be available for review. It is one important tool to assessing the extent to which wildlife interactions are an issue at an airport.
According to the National Wildlife Strike Database, deer and coyote are the most frequently struck terrestrial mammals (37 and 34 percent, respectively). Deer are responsible for 92 percent of the mammal strikes that resulted in damage. From 1990 to 2015, over 1,107 deer-aircraft collisions and 487 coyote-aircraft collisions were reported to FAA. Of these reports, 932 of the deer strikes (84 percent) and 43 of the coyote strikes (9 percent) indicated the aircraft was damaged as a result of the collision (FAA CertAlert No. 16-03, 8/3/2016).
Airports are also encouraged (or, if the airport is large enough, required), to complete a review of the airport for potential wildlife use and develop a plan for prevention of strikes per the FAA Advisory Circular 150/ 5200- 38–Protocol for the Conduct and Review of Wildlife Hazard Site Visits, Wildlife Hazard Assessments and Wildlife Hazard Management Plans. An airport is also required to complete these steps if there has been multiple wildlife strikes over a certain time-period, or there is a single strike that either affects an engine or results in substantial damage that would result in major repair or replacement of the aircraft.
These site reviews, performed by professionals trained in providing this type of review, coupled with the strike data over time, offer a good view of the potential risk at each airport for wildlife strikes.
The next step for an airport is to develop a Wildlife Hazard Management Plan, which identifies the specific actions the airport will take to mitigate the risk of wildlife strikes on or near the airport. Possible steps include:
reduction of habitat on the airport, including areas of water or vegetation (grasses and trees);
monitoring of the airport, runways, and taxiways, to quickly identify when wildlife access the airport and address the situation; and
steps that should be taken if wildlife are identified to prevent a strike from occurring.
Airports have a list of wildlife “harassment” techniques to scare wildlife away from the airport to prevent strikes that includes, some of which are similar to those you may use in your backyard garden- shiny or flashy pinwheels or reflective tape, or “googly-eyed” owl or hawk statues to scare away smaller birds. Loud noises, flares or even air cannons can be shot from a gun or cannon to scare wildlife and birds from the area.
One of the most effective ways to prevent wildlife strikes of medium- to large-sized mammals such as deer, coyotes and raccoons is to install a fence that surrounds the airport and prevents wildlife from physically entering the airport. This fence, sometimes referred to as a wildlife deterrent fence or wildlife exclusion fence, can be of varying heights and materials, but the FAA recommended design is an 8-foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire running along the top positioned so that the barbed wire sections are angled away from the fence to deter animals from climbing over the top. Often, the fence will have a horizontal bottom section called a “wildlife skirt” that is anchors the bottom edge of the chainlink fabric to the ground and is buried several feet deep to prevent animals from digging under the fence.
Hoyle, Tanner has assisted several of our aviation clients with installing, repair, and maintaining wildlife fences. One key project was initiated in 2012 after a wildlife strike between a plane and a deer at the Tweed New Haven Airport (HVN) in New Haven, Connecticut. This dangerous incident prompted FAA and Tweed New Haven Airport Authority to work together to plan for, fund, design, and install fencing to surround the airport to prevent future such interactions completely. This project had several challenges, including the fact that this airport is situated at the southern edge of Connecticut and has several areas of coastal marsh on the airport and freshwater wetlands that could not be avoided to achieve the goal of complete fencing. The success of this project was due to obtaining the required permits to allow for installation of the fence through wetlands from US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CT Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CTDEEP) while keeping the project on schedule and within the proposed budget. The fence was completed in 2014 to the cost of approximately $1.5 million.
Similarly, we assisted the Groton-New London Airport (GON) in Groton, Connecticut with the installation of wildlife fencing along several airport sections. However, because the southern side of the airport faces Long Island Sound, fencing could not be installed around all areas; fences must be offset from runways and taxiways by set distances so that they do not become hazards to aircraft as they take-off and land. In essence, the FAA design criteria for fencing ensures no trade-off between one problem (wildlife) to another (fences becoming hazards). The required offsets at this airport would have placed the fence into deep water within the tidal channel on the southern side, not a permittable action. As a compromise, we worked with airport staff, wildlife biologists, and state and federal permitting agencies to determine the best fencing locations to reduce the spots where wildlife could access the airport to the greatest extent feasible. This solution allowed airport staff to focus observation and deterrence measures in the unfenced areas, which resulted in better vigilance. This airport also installed a varying mesh fence, instead of a chain link, in areas that faced a public park so that the visual impact of the fence would be reduced while still providing an effective deterrent.
We also modified the fence to include a 6-inch opening in the fence bottom at set intervals to allow for the state-listed species of special concern northern diamondback terrapin to enter and exit fenced areas so that their nesting and feeding would not be interrupted.
Hoyle, Tanner has successfully worked with airport owners to assess wildlife hazards and install deterrent fences across New England. We have worked collaboratively with FAA and state permitting agencies in order to avoid or minimize natural resource impacts while meeting the goals of improving safety for the public, pilots and staff who utilize these airports. Contact us if you have any questions regarding wildlife at your airport and we would be happy to help!
Whether it’s a brewery, paper mill, food or chemical plant in your community, these businesses almost always produce industrial wastewater. As such, there is a need for wastewater management generated from these, and many other, industrial activities discharging to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). Managing industrial wastewater can be accomplished through a well-run Industrial Pretreatment Program (IPP). In addition, with the emergence of new contaminants that might not be compatible with POTWs, an IPP facilitates the regulatory framework to determine the origins of such contaminants.
National IPP: Setting the Standards
In 1972, US Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to restore and maintain the nation’s water quality. The Act’s goals were to eliminate the introduction of pollutants into the nation’s navigable waters to achieve “fishable and swimmable” water quality levels. The CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Program is one key component established to accomplish these goals. The NPDES Permit Program generally requires that direct dischargers to a waterbody obtain an NPDES Permit.
In addition to addressing direct discharges to the nation’s waterways, the National Pretreatment Program is a regulatory program for pollutants that are discharged into a POTW, otherwise known as indirect discharges. This program requires industrial and commercial facilities to obtain permits (or use other control measures) to discharge their wastewater to a POTW. Certain discharges by these users may pass through or interfere with the operations of a POTW, leading to a direct discharge of untreated wastewater into rivers, lakes, and other water bodies.
The goals of the National Pretreatment Program as stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 403.2 are as follows:
To prevent the introduction of pollutants into a POTW that will interfere with the operation of the POTW, including interference with its use or disposal of sludge
To prevent the introduction of pollutants into a POTW that will pass through the treatment works otherwise be incompatible with such works
To improve opportunities to recycle municipal and industrial wastewater and sludges
To accomplish these goals, the National Pretreatment Program requires all large POTWs (those with design flows greater than 5 million gallons per day) and small POTWs that accept wastewater from industrial users that could affect POTWs to establish a local pretreatment program. Local pretreatment programs must enforce national pretreatment standards and requirements, as well as more stringent local requirements necessary to protect the site-specific conditions of the POTW. For example, industrial discharges from a large brewery with organic loadings much greater than typical domestic loadings may not negatively impact a large POTW but might cause major interference or pass-through at a very small POTW not designed to properly treat such organic loads.
Identifying and understanding a POTW’s Significant Industrial User’s (SIU’s) wastewater discharges is an important component of an IPP since SIUs have the ability to adversely affect the POTW.
Implementing IPP on the Local Level
Once the determination has been made that a POTW needs a local pretreatment program, six minimum elements must be included in a pretreatment program submission for review and approval by the USEPA, the state or both, depending on state statute.
Legal Authority – A POTW must have the legal authority which authorizes the POTW to apply and enforce any pretreatment requirement. This authority is derived from state law.
Procedures – A POTW must develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with pretreatment requirements which include:
Identifying all Industrial Users (IUs) subject to the pretreatment program
Identify the characteristic of pollutants contributed by IUs
Notify users of applicable pretreatment standards and requirements
Receive and analyze reports from IUs
Sample and analyze IU discharges
Evaluate the need for an IU slug control plan
Investigate instances of IU non-compliance
Comply with public participation requirements
Funding – A POTW must have sufficient resources and qualified personnel to carry out the procedures included in the approved pretreatment program.
Local Limits – A POTW must develop local limits developed for pollutants that could cause interference, pass through or sludge contamination or worker health and safety problems.
Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) – A POTW must develop and implement an ERP containing detailed procedures indicating how the POTW will investigate and respond to IU non-compliance instances.
List of SIUs – A POTW must prepare, update and submit to the approval authority a list of all SIUs.
These elements are important for managing a well-run local pretreatment program and developing good working relationships with IUs. As new contaminants continue to emerge that are not compatible with POTWs, pretreatment programs will be useful to identify sources of new contaminants that may potentially cause issues with POTW effluent water quality or sludge disposal practices. A pretreatment program must be adaptable, and any necessary modifications to local pretreatment programs to address new contaminants must be conducted expeditiously.
Our Experience with IPP & Water Treatment
Hoyle, Tanner’s Northeast Municipal Engineering Services Group employs 20 engineers whose primary focus is water quality engineering – wastewater, stormwater and drinking water. industrial inspections, writing annual reports or providing technical expertise relative to enforcement actions. Our team has the experience to provide pretreatment program resources and immediate expertise.
Our depth and breadth of pretreatment program experience includes: identifying IUs to be included in an IPP, writing industrial user permits, evaluating the need for updating technically-based local limits, and updating Sewer User Ordinances and ERPs.
What is the Great Bay Total Nitrogen General Permit & why does it matter?
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the final Great Bay Total Nitrogen General Permit (GBTNGP) on November 24, 2020. The GBTNGP is aimed at reducing the overall nitrogen loading into Great Bay, a unique coastal marine estuary. The GBTNGP covers discharges of nitrogen from the 13 communities that own/operate wastewater treatment facilities in the watershed: Dover, Durham, Epping, Exeter, Milton, Newfields, Newington, Newmarket, Pease Tradeport, Portsmouth, Rochester, Rollinsford and Somersworth. The permit allows for an adaptive management approach to monitoring and reducing nitrogen discharges. Each community has the option of being included for coverage under the GBTNGP or not (opt in or opt out). If a community decides to be included for coverage under the permit it must file a Notice of Intent with the EPA, Region 1, by April 2, 2021. The alternative to opting in to the GBTNGP will be that the community will receive a new/revised individual NPDES permit to govern its WWTF discharge. Key dates for actions to be taken pursuant to the GBTNGP are as follows:
February 1, 2021 – Effective date of the Great Bay Total Nitrogen General Permit.
March 31, 2021 – Deadline for finalizing an Intermunicipal Agreement to develop the Adaptive Management Plan.
April 2, 2021 – Deadline for sending EPA the Notice of Intent to Opt-In to the TN General Permit.
July 31, 2021 – Deadline for submittal to EPA of the Part 3 Adaptive Management Plan.
How can an Adaptive Management Approach help?
The GBTNGP allows for an adaptive management approach to be taken for monitoring and controlling nitrogen discharges and allows for the communities to develop the Adaptive Management Plan. Adaptive management is a key aspect of watershed management and restoration. Elements of adaptive management included in GBTNGP involve ambient monitoring, pollution tracking, reduction planning, and review. Adaptive Management is, by definition, a structured iterative process of robust decision making in the face of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via ongoing system monitoring. In this way, decision making simultaneously meets one or more resource management objectives and, either passively or actively, accrues information needed to improve future management and decision-making. Adaptive management is a tool which can be used not only to change a system, but also to learn about the system (Holling 1978). Because adaptive management is based on a learning process, it improves long-term management outcomes. The challenge in using the adaptive management approach lies in finding the correct balance between gaining knowledge to improve management in the future and achieving the best short-term outcomes based on current knowledge (Allan & Stankey 2009).
A holistic & cost-effective approach.
The objective of an adaptive management approach is to take a broad holistic and more cost-effective approach to implementing water quality restoration and management measures that will achieve better overall results in improving water quality goals in less time and at less cost than the traditional regulate-react approach by applying limited resources where they will have the greatest effect. In fact, the GBTNGP encourages sharing of resources and costs among the participating communities. The adaptive management approach allows for planning, implementation, monitoring and refinement in order to maximize the results with limited resources (resource optimization). The idea behind an adaptive management approach is for communities to become proactive rather than reactive in restoring water quality within the watershed. A successful adaptive management approach will require extensive collaboration and cooperation between municipalities, regulators, agencies, volunteer groups and other watershed stakeholders.
Hoyle, Tanner’s Northeast Municipal Engineering services Group (NEME) employs 20 engineers whose primary focus is water quality engineering – wastewater, stormwater and drinking water. Our depth and breadth of experience includes working with communities to assist them with compliance with permits such as NPDES (wastewater and stormwater), MS4 (stormwater and non-point) and a host of other regulatory and environmental permits. We have been working with communities under regulatory constraints to monitor and reduce the amount of total nitrogen discharged to local water bodies and helping them to achieve water quality goals. Jennie Auster, one of our wastewater process engineers, has been working with communities affected by the Long Island Sound Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Nitrogen for over six years including completing biological nutrient removal analysis for several facilities. Jennie completed nitrogen removal optimization plans for six communities and has presented at the Green Mountain Water Environment Association Technical Sessions on her experience with low-cost nitrogen optimization plans (presentation available upon request). We are assisting several communities on compliance with the 2017 MS4 permit which includes nutrient reduction in stormwater and non-point sources. We are also working with many communities on asset management for their wastewater, stormwater and drinking water systems, the goal of which is resource optimization to improve decision-making and maximize the life of the infrastructure.
Let us help!
Our team has a history of developing creative and innovative solutions to help clients achieve their goals in cost-effective ways while optimizing the use of limited resources. For more information please visit our website at: www.hoyletanner.com or contact Michael Trainque or Joseph Ducharme.
I am a Senior Environmental Engineer and Vice President at Hoyle, Tanner, and chairman of the Board of Directors of the Southeast Watershed Alliance(SWA). The SWA is a non-profit watershed organization for which enabling legislation was enacted by the NH State Legislature in 2009 encompassing the 42 communities in the NH coastal watershed. I have been following the development of this permit on behalf of clients.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created in 1973 to protect at-risk species and the habitat those species use to complete their life cycles. This important piece of legislation came out of a growing recognition that the impacts from growth and development were having negative effects on the environment. It was issued shortly after the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, and together these two Acts provide the legal foundation for much of the environmental protection regulations that work to ensure that the many varied ecosystems within the United States remain, or strive to become, healthy, sustainable and well-balanced.
Together these two Acts provide the legal foundation for much of the environmental protection regulations that work to ensure that the many varied ecosystems within the United States remain, or strive to become, healthy, sustainable and well-balanced.
Species that are protected under the ESA are either
classified as endangered or threatened. Endangered means a species is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened
means a species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible for
listing as endangered or threatened.
The ESA is administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for terrestrial and freshwater species, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine species. More information on the ESA, including the list of species currently being protected, as well as “candidate” species, which are those proposed for protection, can be found at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/us-species.html.
Our work on a wide variety of projects across six states and
a range of habitats requires us to consult with USFWS and NMFS during project planning
to ensure that we adhere to the requirements for species protection where
To determine potential impacts to environmental resources (including several parameters such as water, air quality, and noise) when we begin planning for a project, we review the project site using USFWS and NMFS online mapping. Online mapping helps to determine if there is habitat for a listed species. Each species that is listed under the ESA has a defined land range that is developed from data regarding current habitat needs for that species and species surveys; the result is that not only are locations where the species currently exist protected, but there is also protection offered in areas where the species could survive if their population numbers were to increase.
The result is that not only are locations where the species currently exist protected, but there is also protection offered in areas where the species could survive if their population numbers were to increase.
Projects in northern Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine have the potential to be located within the range of the federally-threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis). Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat with long legs, large, well-furred paws, long tufts on the ears, and a short, black-tipped tail. Their long legs and large feet are highly adapted for hunting snowshoe hares (Lepus americana) – their primary prey species – in deep snow conditions. The distribution of lynx in New England is associated with northern forests that are a mix of spruce and balsam fir, among other pine species, some hardwoods such as birch and aspen, and hardwood and softwood trees, such as pine. Lynx are more likely to inhabit landscapes that provide suitable habitat for snowshoe hare populations in regenerating forest environments rather than landscapes with very recent clearcut or partial tree harvests. There are a number of scenarios that may unfold when a project is located within Canada lynx habitat – depending on the size and amount of the project, and how much habitat alteration may occur.
Prior to project inception, we coordinate with USFWS to
describe the project and provide details regarding any potential change that
may occur to the existing habitat (including tree removal or land clearing and
soil excavation). Depending on the amount of potential habitat alteration, we
may develop a Biological Assessment to provide to the USFWS. This assessment
includes an in-depth analysis of the potential use and value of the habitat
within the project area, and helps make a determination of the effect on Canada
lynx, both as individuals and as a regional population. Sometimes surveying for
lynx within the project area may need to be completed by a wildlife biologist
in order to determine if lynx are actively using the land.
If potential habitat exists in the project area but there is a low likelihood of lynx using that habitat, the project may be required to modify the design such that tree removal is limited to the smallest area possible. There may be requirements to complete this clearing at a time when the impact to any potential lynx using the habitat would be the least harmful, such as during seasons when females will not be giving birth. If it is identified that lynx are actively using the project area, then additional coordination with USFWS is necessary to ensure the project will not directly affect those individuals.
We recently completed a Biological Assessment for Canada lynx at the Sugarloaf Regional Airport in Carrabassett Valley, Maine where tree removal within potential lynx habitat was proposed.
We recently completed a Biological Assessment for Canada lynx at the Sugarloaf Regional Airport in Carrabassett Valley, Maine where tree removal within potential lynx habitat was proposed. We worked with USFWS biologists to reduce the potential impacts to this habitat, and any lynx that may be using the area, by strictly limiting the area of tree removal to only that which is necessary to complete this important safety project, to ensure the result will increase the safety of the public using this airport, while also minimizing the risk to Canada lynx.
If you would like to learn more about Canada lynx, or the other species listed under the Endangered Species Act and the steps you can do celebrate Endangered Species Day, check out the USFWS website. Our environmental experts are here to answer your questions and help guide you through the project process while avoiding or minimizing impacts to listed species. Reach out to me and our environmental team will be happy to help.
Who would you say was one of the most significant environmental Presidents? Would it surprise you if I told you I think it is Richard Nixon? Yes, the only US President to resign from office, and who commonly made such un-eco-friendly statements as comparing environmentalists to a bunch of animals, was also the President who signed into creation the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. This was one of the first laws that established the legislative framework for protecting the environment, outlined national environmental policies and goals, and developed the Presidential Council on Environment (now known as the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)) within the executive office. NEPA requires federal agencies to integrate our national environmental values into their decision making processes by considering the environmental, human and social impacts of their proposed actions as well as the reasonable alternatives to those actions.
In 1970, President Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Before the agency was created, our nation had no central authority overseeing the protection of the environment. Shortly afterwards, he signed into effect the Clean Air Act Extension. This is one of the most significant air pollution control bills in American history. It required the newly formed EPA to create and enforce regulations to protect people from airborne pollution known to be hazardous to human health, specifically targeting sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, ozone and lead.
President Nixon also signed into effect the Endangered Species Act (1973) creating the concept of preserving species and their habitats listed as threatened and endangered; this act has been called “the Magna Carta of the environmental movement.”
Finally, in the midst of his impeachment concerns, Nixon also proposed and lobbied through Congress the Safe Drinking Water Act that was ultimately signed by President Gerald Ford in 1974. This act initiated national efforts to protect the nation’s lakes, streams, rivers, wetlands and other bodies of water. It is fundamental in protecting aquatic resources including public drinking water supplies.
It comes as no surprise that during such an important environmental awareness period the first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970. Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, proposed the idea of a “national teach-in on the environment” to the national media and ultimately gathered a national staff of 85 to promote events across the country. On that first Earth Day over 20 million Americans took to the streets, parks, and auditoriums to demonstrate for a healthy, sustainable environment in many wonderfully creative ways.
In the 45 years since the origin of NEPA and these other ground-breaking legislations, environmental protection and regulation has become extensive and complex. In my role as Environmental Coordinator, I work hard to ensure our clients and projects comply with the applicable laws and regulations that govern our projects. I work to guide projects from preliminary design through construction and operation while successfully acquiring the relevant federal and state environmental permits, including NEPA compliance for impacts to streams, rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and state- and federally-listed species, among others.
Earth Day 2015 will celebrate the 45th anniversary of the event that raised environmental issues awareness to unprecedented heights and brought the concept of working towards a cleaner and safer nation from a wild “hippie” idea to mainstream citizens. For more information on how you can participate in Earth Day celebrations and events visit Earth Day Network.