The Virginia Vol. 19, No. 1 Wetlands Reportccrm.vims.edu/publications/publications_topics/vwr/VWR... · 2004. 7. 21.  · Vol. 19, No. 1 T he VIMS Center for Coastal Re sources Management

VWR — 1

The VirginiaWetlands ReportThe VirginiaWetlands Report

Spring 2004Vol. 19, No. 1

T he VIMS Center for Coastal Resources Management has main-

tained a database since 1988 to trackcumulative impacts to Virginia’s marineresources through the Center’s advi-sory activities. Scientists conduct sitevisits to properties where a Joint PermitApplication (JPA) has been submittedfor projects that impact tidal wetlands,subaqueous bottom and coastal pri-mary sand dunes and beaches. Eachproject assessment includes estimatesof impact areas and recommendationsfor avoiding or minimizing these im-pacts. The database is intended to pro-vide information about the potentialenvironmental results of the regulatorypermit process. It does not track theactual impacts that occur as a result ofproject construction or completion.

This annual summary is limited totidal wetlands only. The projects in-cluded for this report all had a finalpermit decision made in 2003 by localwetlands boards and the Virginia Ma-rine Resources Commission (VMRC).The linear extent of shoreline hardeningfor erosion control will be reported. Anunusually large tidal wetland impactarea will be explained by comparingdifferent project activities. The extentof tidal wetlands permanently lost as aresult of “fill” will be compared to theamount of mitigation wetlands requiredto compensate for this loss.

The past year of tidal wetland re-views was particularly active, with sev-eral large public projects and theaftermath of Hurricane Isabel. A total of1069 Joint Permit Applications (JPAs)

Annual Summary ofPermitted Tidal Wetland Impacts - 2003

By Karen Duhring

were reviewed in 2003, which is a slightincrease from previous years. The fol-lowing information is based on 973 ofthese cases with final permit decisionsmade in the same year.

Shoreline MilesApproximately 17.7 miles of new

erosion control structures were approv-ed in 2003 using sloped revetments andvertical bulkheads. This is 3 additionalmiles compared to 2002 (14.4 miles),although a similar number of applica-tions were approved. The total milesfor 2003 is comparable to 18.5 miles,which is the annual total averaged overthe past ten years. The preference forsloped revetments continued to beapparent, with 72% of the new shore-line hardening attributable to thesestructures in 2003. Another 8.7 miles oferosion control structures were ap-proved to replace or reinforce existing,

failing structures. This does not in-clude authorized emergency repairs tostructures that were destroyed or dam-aged during Hurricane Isabel (Figure 1).

“Impacts” vs. “Fill”Some activities and associated im-

pacts do not permanently remove tidalwetland areas from the marine environ-ment. These “impact” areas are distin-guished from “fill” areas that result inthe permanent loss of tidal wetlandsthrough conversion into upland habi-tat. For example, beach nourishmentand the aquatic disposal of dredgedmaterial are the two activities with thelargest tidal wetland impact area for2003, but these “impacts” do not haveassociated “fill” areas under this defini-tion. These activities only result in atemporary alteration or conversionfrom one type of marine habitat to an-other.

Permitted Impact AreaSince 1993, the tidal wetland impact

area permitted each year has beenabout 42 acres. At first glance, thereported amount for 2003 seemed to beerroneous because, according to thedatabase, over 136 acres of tidal wet-land impacts were authorized in 2003.The permitted impacts include 24 acresof vegetated tidal wetlands and 112acres of non-vegetated tidal wetlands,the largest amounts reported in thepast eleven years (Figure 2, next page).Further scrutiny revealed whichprojects were responsible for such alarge permitted impact area.

Figure 1. Major erosion and damage toshoreline structures and piers as a result of

Hurricane Isabel.

2 — VWR

The Virginia Wetlands Report is aquarterly publication of the WetlandsProgram at the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science of the College ofWilliam and Mary. Subscriptions areavailable without charge upon writtenrequest to: Wetlands Program, VirginiaInstitute of Marine Science, P.O. Box1346, Gloucester Pt, VA 23062 USA.Address corrections requested.

Program Director: Dr. Carl HershnerHead, Wetlands Advisory Program: Thomas A. Barnard, Jr.Produced by: VIMS Publication Center

In this Issue:Annual Summary of PermittedTidal Wetland Impacts - 2003 ............ 1Hooded Merganser ........................... 3Workshop for Coastal ManagersPlanned - May 19-20, 2004 ................ 4Alligators Abound!Alligator Farming in America ............ 5Tidal Wetland Mitigation BankingComing to Virginia Waters ................ 6Calendar of Upcoming Events .......... 8

This report was funded, in part,by the Virginia Institute ofMarine Science and by theVirginia Coastal ResourcesManagement Program of the Depart-ment of Environmental Quality throughGrant #NA03NOS4190104 - Task #11 ofthe National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration, Office of Ocean and CoastalResources Management, under the CoastalZone Management Act, as amended.

The views expressed herein are those of theauthors and do not necessarily reflect theviews of NOAA or any of its subagencies orDEQ.

Printed on recycled paper

Almost 90% of the permitted tidalwetland impact area in 2003 can beattributed to two activity types - beachnourishment projects (77 acres) andaquatic disposal of dredged material (43acres). Most of the beach nourishmentimpact area (60 acres) can be assignedto nine large public projects approvedin the Cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beachand Hampton, as well as MathewsCounty and York County (Figure 3).Another 16 acres of beach nourishmentimpacts are associated with erosioncontrol projects using sand in combina-

tion with gappedoffshore breakwa-ter structures.This shorelinestabilization ap-proach has becomemore popular inrecent years.

Normally, theaquatic disposal ofdredged materialimpacts subaque-ous bottom andnot tidal wetlands. The 43 acres of tidalwetland impact associated with aquaticdisposal are almost entirely because oftwo federal projects approved in 2003on Virginia’s Eastern Shore. The per-mitted impact area at the Burtons Bayproject includes 23 acres of mud flatwetland. The Bogues Bay project in-cludes spray dredging material over 20acres of vegetated marsh, which solelyaccounts for the elevated impact area tovegetated tidal wetlands in 2003.

Erosion control structures ac-counted for most of the remaining im-pact area, including revetments (7.4acres), bulkheads (1.4 acres), and bulk-head toe revetments to stabilize failingbulkheads (1.2 acres). This impact areais similar to previous years in spite ofHurricane Isabel because emergencyrepairs are not included. The permittedimpact area associated with new ero-sion control structures may increasedramatically in 2004 as a result of prop-erty owners deciding to protect theirshorelines from future catastrophicevents.

Permitted Fill AreaThe estimated “fill” area permitted

in 2003 is 7.8 acres, compared to an“impact” area of 136.2 acres. Whileerosion control structures accountedfor a relatively small percentage of thetotal impact area, they account for al-most all of the “fill” area permitted in2003. The largest fill amounts by activ-ity include revetments (4.2 acres), bulk-heads (2.0 acres), and general fill (0.9acres). The permitted fill area for 2003is less than the average annual amount,which has been about 11.8 acres.

Tidal Wetland MitigationTidal wetland mitigation was associ-

ated with seven projects in 2003, out ofthe 973 cases analyzed for this sum-mary. The total area of mitigated tidalwetlands captured by the database was2.2 acres. This amount is slightlyhigher than the annual average duringthe past decade of about 1.8 acres. Thetidal wetlands database only trackscompensatory mitigation wetlands au-thorized or required through the state

and local permitting pro-cess. There may be othertidal wetland creationand restoration projectsnot accounted for in thisreview.

For the past 11 years,a cumulative net loss oftidal wetland impacts hasbeen authorized in theCommonwealth (Figure 4,on page 4). If the area oftidal wetland mitigationduring this time frame iscompared to the cumula-tive impact area (558acres), then the overall

Figure 2. Tidal wetland impacts permitted annuallyin Virginia.

Continued on page 4

Figure 3. Large public beach nourishment projectsaccounted for most of the permitted tidal wetland

impact area in 2003.

VWR — 3

Hooded Merganser(Lophodytes cucullatus)

By Julie G. Bradshaw

I f there were an award for “most handsome duck,” the male hoodedmerganser would probably be the win-ner. His most striking feature is a black-bordered white crest, which can beraised or lowered. The crest in the ac-companying illustration is partiallyraised. Perfectly complementing thecrest is the duck’s white chest, flankedby two vertical black bars and rich red-dish brown sides. The female hoodedmerganser is a more discreet grayishbrown color with reddish crestand no white. The hoodedmerganser is a commonvisitor to the coastalplain of Virginia,particularly inthe winter,but youmust lookcarefully tosee it, as it is asecretive visitorfound primarily inprotected, calm, clear ponds,creeks, and estuarine bays. Otherducks with white patches on the headinclude the ruddy duck, which has alarge white patch below the eye andbehind the bill. It also has an upturnedtail and blue bill in breeding plumage.In winter, the ruddy duck is usuallyseen in our area in large groups on largewater bodies. With the bufflehead, thewhite on the head is not bordered byblack, and the white on the undersideextends from the neck to the tail.

The hooded merganser dives fromthe water surface after its prey of smallfish and crustaceans such as crayfish.It also takes aquatic insects and someplant material. It prefers relatively clearwater through which it can see its prey.Land-disturbing activities that result in

muddy water are detrimental to thespecies. As with other mergansers, thehooded’s bill is long, horizontally flat-tened, and serrated for catching andholding fish, giving them one of theircommon names, sawbill.

Hooded mergansers are generallyseen in pairs or very small flocks. Theybegin pairing in November or Decemberwhile in wintering areas. Some breed-

ing occurs in Virginia, but itis very localized, and

the birds use our

waters primarily for wintering. Hoodedmergansers breed more commonly inCanada and south through the centralUnited States in the Mississippi flywaystates. They arrive in breeding areasearly, often before ice has left the waterbodies. Breeding is restricted to fresh-water areas surrounded by deciduousforest. Hooded mergansers nest in treecavities near water. They compete withother hooded mergansers and withother duck species (such as woodducks) for nesting cavities. Once acavity is claimed, the hooded mergan-ser begins laying eggs, usually 10-12per nest, in March to early-June. Itgenerally doesn’t add nest materialexcept for some of its own down feath-

ers once all the eggs are laid. The eggsare unusual in that they are almostspherical, are usually bright white, andhave a relatively hard shell. The maleabandons the female once she beginsincubating the eggs. Incubation takesapproximately one month. Oncehatched, the young spend only 24hours in the nest, and then follow theirmother into the pond or stream neartheir nest tree. They can fly at approxi-mately 2 ½ months of age.

Loss of forest due to logging andmanagement practicesthat remove snags, inwhich the ducks couldnest, has adverselyaffected the population

of these ducks in thepast. Hunting previ-

ously claimed alarger per-centage ofthis species,but the

hooded merganseris not currently a particu-

larly favored target, in part because ofits strong taste. Populations are nowthought to be stable or even increasing.

References:Dugger, B.D., K.M. Dugger, & L.H.

Fredrickson. 1994. Hooded Merganser(Lophodytes cucullatus). In The Birds ofNorth America, No.98 (A. Poole & F. Gill,Eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of NaturalSciences; Washington, D.C.: The AmericanOrnithologists’ Union.

Gough, G.A., J.R. Sauer, M. Iliff. PatuxentBird Identification Infocenter. 1998. Ver-sion 97.1. Patuxent Wildlife ResearchCenter, Laurel, MD. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/Infocenter/infocenter.html.

Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon SocietyEncyclopedia of North American Birds.Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. NY. 1109pp.

Beaks & Bills

4 — VWR

G i SGeographicInformationSystem

Figure 4. Net loss of tidal wetlands permitted annually in Virginia.

Permitted Tidal Wetland Impactscontinued from page2

T his May the ComprehensiveCoastal Inventory Program (CCI)

will host a two-day workshop to traincoastal managers to use the numerousonline tools developed by the program.Over the last several years, the programhas expanded its online data resourcesand generated tools, both static andinteractive, in support of coastal man-agement. These are largely decisionsupport products to enable managersto enhance their decision making ca-pacity by bringing data to their desk-top. Heavily based on GIS technology,these tools bring together the mostrecent digital data products available.Interfaces have been developed toenable easy access to data, maps, andquery systems for GIS and non-GISusers.

Collectively referred to as TheCoastal Manager’s Tool Box, it is an

Workshop for Coastal Managers Plannedfor May 19-20, 2004

Marcia Berman

assemblage of products developed byCCI and accessible through theinternet. Tools for evaluating shorelinecondition, riparian land use, and sensi-tive environmental resources are avail-able. Throughout the workshop,participants will be trained in usingthese tools through a series of hands-on exercises. Brief presentations willprovide background information oneach tool. Participants will then pro-ceed through a series of exercises at aworkstation. The exercises will simulateproblem solving issues coastal manag-ers must address in their everydayroles. The types of tools included inthis toolbox will assist with shorelinemanagement, permit evaluation, deci-sions regarding wetlands mitigation orrestoration, and shoreline develop-ment. For a preview of the types oftools to be demonstrated at the work-

shop you can visit these websites:http://ccrm.vims.edu/gis/gisdata.html,http://ccrm.vims.edu/output/virginia/introduction.htm, http://ccrm.vims.edu/marinasiting.htm, http://ccrm.vims.edu/cci/wet_target/.

Who should attend? This work-shop is primarily aimed at coastal man-agers at the local and regional levels.State resource managers are also en-couraged to attend. Participation willbe by invitation. However, severalslots will be reserved for those outsideour mailing list. If you are interested inattending please contact MarciaBerman at (804) 684-7188 [email protected]. Details regardingregistration will be provided later. Theworkshop will be held at the College ofWilliam and Mary in Williamsburg,Virginia.

net loss of tidal wetlands appears to besignificant. If only the cumulative fillarea is considered, then this deficit isreduced. During the period 1993-2003,the cumulative fill or loss of tidal wet-lands was approximately 125.7 acres.During the same time period, 20.0 acresof compensatory mitigation was re-quired resulting in a net permitted lossof 105.7 acres of tidal wetlands.

To run your own queries using thetidal wetlands database on a locality orwatershed basis, visit the Virginia TidalWetlands Impacts web site: http://www.vims.edu/rmap/wetlands/cgi-bin/index.htm

Maintenance of the this databasewould not be possible without fundingfrom the Virginia Coastal ResourcesManagement Program (NOAA) and the

efforts of VIMS personnel from boththe Wetlands Program and the Compre-hensive Coastal Inventory at the Centerfor Coastal Resources Management.

VWR — 5

aried & ersatile Wetlands

Alligators Abound!Alligator Farming in America

Pam Mason

How would you like to trade yourcommon backyard oyster growing

for something a bit more exciting? Alli-gator farming is now a modern dayaquaculture practice. Not at all whatyou would expect from aquaculture,lacking expansive openponds, floats or cages;raising the wetlandsdenizens appears at firstblush more like chickenfarming. In fact, severalalligator operations havebeen born of a necessityto dispose of poultrywaste while producing amarketable product. Themeat is served in restau-rants and sold in south-ern and specialtymarkets and the skinsare popular in Europeand Asia for wallets,handbags and otheraccessories.

The native range ofthe American alligator (Alligatormississippiensis) is freshwater andbrackish wetlands of the coastal plainfrom North Carolina to Mexico. Adultalligators are the top predators in thesemarshes, while the eggs and hatchlingsare forage for small rodents, raptors,other reptiles, and notably, larger alliga-tors. The alligators play an importantecological role in the Everglades bycreating depressions that serve asponds during the dry season providinghabitat for aquatic species and drinkingwater for mammals and birds. Thisservice does come at a cost, however,as the alligators are guaranteed a frontrow at the buffet. The mystique andcache of the alligator also plays animportant role in the preservation ofwetlands through the tourism industry.

In Louisiana, swamp tours which areorchestrated around alligator sitingsgenerated almost 2 million dollars in1998 (Roberts, 2001)

Alligators, along with the othermembers of the order Crocodilia, have

been hunted for their hides to the pointof near extinction. Over-harvest of thealligator, along with habitat loss, de-pleted the population to extreme lowsby the 1950’s. Alligators were listed asendangered or threatened under the1973 Endangered Species Act. Addi-tional protection came from the USparticipation in the Convention on In-ternational Trade in Endangered Spe-cies of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITIES)which listed all members of the orderCrocodilia as in need of protection(Masser, 1993).

A hunting ban promoted the recov-ery of the wild alligator population. Therebounding wild populations prompteda change in the CITIES listing to“threatened for reasons of similarity ofappearance.” This classification means

the alligator is not endangered in itsnative range, but products must beclosely regulated to protect other en-dangered crocodilians from risk of be-ing taken and marketed as Americanalligator. The new classification allows

for the farming and saleof alligator products.

Interest in alligatorfarming took hold duringthe 1980’s when ad-vances in environmen-tally controlledproduction improvedsurvival and allowed forthe growth of a four footalligator in under twoyears. Current produc-tion is concentrated inLouisiana, Georgia andFlorida. There are some-where around 60 farms inLouisiana and another60 in Florida. The marketvalue of farmed Floridaalligator for 2002 was

around 3 million dollars (Florida Fishand Wildlife Conservation Commission,2002), while Louisiana was over 24 mil-lion dollars. (Louisiana Fur and Alliga-tor Advisory Council, 2002)

The alligator industry is touted as asustainable use industry. Some of theproceeds from the industry go towardpreserving habitat, promoting captivebreeding and population management.Additional gains in the wild popula-tions come from the release of the farmraised animals where the natural sur-vival rate is only 10-20%. In Louisiana,14 percent of the farm reared animalsmust be returned to the wild (TheLafayette Daily Advertiser, 2004). Itwould appear that these captive re-leases and other efforts are critical

Louisiana farm hatchling.

Continued on page 8

6 — VWR

W etland mitigation banking in-volves the provision of “offsite”

wetland compensation through therestoration or creation, usually by athird party (not the applicant or theregulator), of a pre-approved wetlandarea which serves as compensation forpermitted wetland losses. Many smallpermitted losses are thus offsetthrough the purchase of wetland cred-its that have been “banked” by thethird party. Theoretically, the compen-sation wetlands are established prior totheir being debited from the bank andthe “banker” has a financial incentiveto see that the compensation wetlandsare successfully established and main-tained. Additionally, the potential in-come to be generated through the saleof credits precipitates developmentcapital that would not be available forthe establishment of small compensa-tion areas, were they to be developedsingly. Wetland banks usually involvethe restoration or creation of wetlands,although on rare occasions the preser-vation or enhancement of existing wet-lands may be added into thecredit mix. The latter two activi-ties are generally seen lessfrequently since they do notcontribute to the “no net lossof wetlands” goal thatundergirds and has stimulatedthe banking effort to date(Hershner 1997).

Nationally, wetlands mitiga-tion banking probably beganaround 1980 and has increasedsignificantly both in terms ofthe number of banks and thetotal acreage involved. TheEnvironmental Law Institute(ELI) has documented thisgrowth in two separate studies(ELI 1993 and ELI 2002). Ac-cording to the reports, therewere 46 approved, active banksin1992 and this number hadincreased 376% to 219 by 2001.

Of the 219 banks, 22 are reported to besold out. The wetlands acreage in-volved with the approved banks was17,664 and 139,000 in 1992 and 2001,respectively. Wetland banks are nowfound in 40 states with the majoritybeing located in the southeast (104,000acres) and the fewest in the northeast(20 acres). Florida alone boasts 34banks with a total of just over 50,000bank acres approved. The ELI studiespoint out another highly significantchange that has taken place with wet-land banking over the last ten years. In1992 there was only one private com-mercial bank in the U.S. Virtually all ofthe approved banks at that time wereowned by state highway departments,port authorities and local governments.Ten years later, there were 131 commer-cial or entrepreneurial banks (62%).

The ELI studies attempted to docu-ment to what degree banks were miti-gating for coastal and tidal marshes butdue to limited bank descriptions werenot able to identify all banked wetlandvegetation types. They did conclude

that tidal wetlands are under-repre-sented given the 5.3 million acres foundin the U.S. ELI identified 14 out of thetotal 139 banks (10%) as having saltwa-ter marshes or tidal wetlands.

According to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and the Corps ofEngineers, there are presently 59 pro-posed or operational banks in Virginia.Three banks have sold out and nonehave defaulted. Costs per credit aredetermined by each bank and are basedprimarily on supply and demand. Costsper acre vary from 16-20 thousand dol-lars in the Chowan Basin to 100-140thousand dollars in Northern Virginia.These prices are for non-tidal banksonly (Steve Martin, Pers. Comm).

The Virginia Institute of MarineScience has been reporting the annualtidal wetland losses in Virginia since1988 and it has become of increasingconcern that no attempt is being madeto mitigate many of these impacts.These historic tidal wetlands losses aresummarized and the losses for 2003 aredocumented in this newsletter’s com-

Tidal Wetland Mitigation Banking Coming toVirginia Waters

By Tom BarnardGraphics by Walter Priest and Tamia Rudnicky

Figure 1.

VWR — 7

panion article, written by KarenDuhring. Depending on the economicsand other factors, tidal wetlands banks,if available, may be one way to offsetsome of the losses occurring in Virginia.At present however, the only tidal wet-land bank in existence in Virginia is theGoose Creek Bank which is a singleentity bank belonging to the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDOT)(Barnard et al. 1997). Since it is a singleentity bank, it is only available as miti-gation for certain types of wetlandlosses within VDOT projects.

Things could be changing how-ever, with regard to how and where tidalwetland losses are mitigated as well ashow the goal of “no net loss” is ad-dressed. With the pending appearanceof two commercial tidal banks in Vir-ginia, one that has already been ap-proved and one close to approval,some wetlands boards and the VirginiaMarine Resources Commission (VMRC)will have an option available to themwhich heretofore was only available indealing with non-tidal wetlands.

The first of these two banks, theHeartquake Wetland Bank, is located inthe Mattaponi watershed onHeartquake Creek in King and QueenCounty. The bank site is a portion of a725 acre farm owned by the sponsor.The bank has been approved by itsMitigation Banking Review Team

(MBRT) and will create 21 acres of tidalwetlands on site. The bank site is pres-ently composed of agricultural fieldsand recently timbered woodlands. Inaddition to the 21 acre bank site, thelarger property consists of approxi-mately 215 acres of tidal marsh, 40 acresof non-tidal wetlands and the remainderin cultivation or forest management.The wetland will be developed as atidal, freshwater mixed marsh (Type 11)and the available credits will be basedon established performance criteria andthe Function Specific Credit CalculationMethod set out in the Guidelines forthe Establishment, Use and Operationof Tidal Wetlands Banks in Virginia.The Service Area for the bank is com-prised of the watersheds within whichbank credits can be used to mitigateunavoidable wetland losses, and isshown in Figure 1.

The second of the proposed tidalbanks is under review by its reviewteam (MBRT) but appears close to ap-proval. The Chesapeake Land Develop-ment Tidal Wetlands Mitigation Bank(aka Libertyville) is located on MainsCreek in the Southern Branch of theElizabeth River watershed in the City ofChesapeake. The entire site is approxi-mately 7.5 acres and the owner plansthe restoration or creation of at least4.88 acres of salt marsh cordgrass,Spartina alterniflora (Type 1) marsh.

At present the parcel is 1.73acres of non-tidal Phragmitesmarsh and 5.8 acres of upland,of which 3.15 acres was previ-ously used for the disposal ofold tires and auto parts. Thisarea and the Phragmites will begraded down and planted withsalt marsh cordgrass. The re-mainder of the parcel will serveas a wooded buffer. Availablecredits within the bank will bebased on meeting establishedperformance criteria and a com-bination of functional assess-ment and minimum areal ratios.The location and proposedservice area of the bank areshown in Figure 2.

With the successful estab-lishment of these first two com-mercial banks, a number ofquestions will still remain to beanswered. Will tidal commercial

banks become as numerous and suc-cessful as their non-tidal counterpartshave? Will the economics be such thatcommercial banks can play a role incompensating for the small cumulativewetland losses along residential water-front, which account for the vast major-ity of tidal wetland losses in Virginia?Even if it turns out that commercial tidalbanks can only be used to offset theunavoidable impacts of other commer-cial waterfront development, it wouldappear to be a significant step forwardin addressing the continuing wetlandlosses within Virginia’s bays and estu-aries.

References:Barnard, Jr. Thomas A., C.H. Hershner and

M. Greiner. 1997. The Oldest Operatingwetland Mitigation Bank in the U.S. Wet-lands Program Technical Report No.97-7.Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Collegeof William and Mary.

Environmental Law Institute. 1993. WetlandMitigation Banking. Study Report. 159 pp.and 3 Appendices. Washington D.C. 20036.

Environmental Law Institute. 2002. Banksand Fees: The Status of Off-Site WetlandMitigation in the United States. 125 pp.and 9 appendices. Washington D.C. 20036.

Hershner, Carl H. 1997. Wetlands MitigationBanks: Creating Big Wetlands to Compen-sate for Many Small Losses. The VirginiaWetlands Report. Vol. 12, No. 2. Pp. 1-2.Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Collegeof William and Mary.

Figure 2.

8 — VWR

Calendar of Upcoming Events

March 25-27, 2004 Atlantic Estuarine Research Society. Salisbury University. MD.Contact: Frank Parker, [email protected]

May 3-7, 2004 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) Symposium. Newport, R.I.Contact: Brian Melzian [email protected]

May 15-19, 2004 Spring Specialty Conference. GIS and Water Resources III. Nashville, TN.Contact: http://www.awra.org

May 25-26, 2004 Advanced Soils Class. VIMS’ Center for Coastal Resources Education, Gloucester Pt., VAFor additional information, contact: Dawn Fleming at (804) 684-7380 or [email protected]

June 28-30, 2004 Riparian Ecosystems and Buffers: Multi-scale Structure, Function and Management.Olympic Valley, CA. Contact: http://www.awra.org/meetings/olympic2004/summer2004.doc

July 21, 2004 VIMS Tidal Wetlands Seminar. VIMS’ Center for Coastal Resources Education, Gloucester Pt., VAFor additional information, contact: Dawn Fleming at (804) 684-7380 or [email protected]

July 25-30, 2004 INTECOL International Wetlands Conference. Utrecht, The Netherlands.Contact: www.bio.uu.nl/intecol

July 28-30, 2004 Wetland Plant ID/Collection Class. VIMS’ Center for Coastal Resources Education,Gloucester Pt., VA. Contact: Dawn Fleming at (804) 684-7380 or [email protected]

August 3-6, 2004 Hydric Soils Workshop. Norfolk, VA. Contact: Ralph Spagnolo, [email protected]

August 10-12, 2004 Wetland Plant ID/Collection Class. VIMS’ Center for Coastal Resources Education,Gloucester Pt., VA. Contact: Dawn Fleming at (804) 684-7380 or [email protected]

August 24-26, 2004 Wetland Plant ID/Collection Class. VIMS’ Center for Coastal Resources Education,Gloucester Pt., VA. Contact: Dawn Fleming at (804) 684-7380 or [email protected]

September 12-15, 2004 2nd National Conference on Coastal and Estuarine Habitat Restoration. Seattle, Washington.Call: (703) 524-0248.

Alligators Abound!continued from page 5

given that without a successful captivebreeding program, producers must relyon the wild harvest of eggs. The needto ensure a supply of wild eggs mayactually create an incentive to preservethe wetland habitats of the alligator.

The on-going debate as to whetherfarming an otherwise illegal productpromotes or discourages illegal wildharvest has yet to be answered for thelong term, but for now, alligator farmingand population recovery has virtuallyeliminated the market for illegal hides.Indeed, the burgeoning populations

have been re-opened for limited con-trolled hunting and wild harvest prod-ucts are available to the market. Therecovery of the wild populations andde-listing from the Endangered SpeciesAct has been attributed, in part, to alli-gator farming.

Citations:Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com-

mission. 2002. http://wld.fwc.state.fl.us/gators/data.htm

Louisiana Fur and Alligator Advisory Council.2002. http://www.alligatorfur.com/annualreport/allind.html

Masser, M. 1993. Alligator production.Southern Regional Aquaculture Center Pub-lication no. 230. http://www.msstate.edu/dept/srac/fslist.htm

Roberts, K. 2001. Alligator use in the Louisi-ana Economy: marsh to market. http://www.alligatorfur.com/annualreport/economic.html

The Lafayette Daily Advertiser, 2004. Aquac-ulture thrives in north Louisiana.

http://www.theadvertiser.com/news/html/FE0A38B9-2CFA-4719-B4CF-E9D54EFEDBF5.shtml