Wetland Final

U.S. Wetland Policy Before 1970s

Encouraged draining, filling, conversion

Cuyahoga River on fire

Focus Shifted

1972: Clean Water Act

Section 404: Regulates dredging & filling in ‘Waters of the United States’

CWA

Federal law protecting water quality

Regulates point & non-point source pollution

Administered by the EPA

Main method for wetland protection

USACE published Wetlands Delineation Manual

Protocol for

• Determine if a wetland exists

• ID wetland’s boundaries

What are ‘waters of the US’?

waters used for:

• Commerce

• Recreation

• Fishing and industry

• Tributaries to regulated waters

• Wetlands adjacent to regulated lakes & stream

1985: United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes

Challenge to ‘Waters of the US’ and which habitats are protected by CWA

2001: Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. USACE

Changes to ‘Waters of the US’ & whether isolated waters/wetlands are covered by CWA

2001 findings

• Supreme Court ruled in favor of SWANCC

• Importance for migratory birds in itself does not mean a wetland is covered by CWA

• Court said language in CWA did not mean isolated wetlands & waters with no obvious connection to ‘Waters of the US’ are covered

• 1st time clear limits were set on CWA

2006: Rapanos v. United States

Further questioned CWA’s jurisdiction over isolated wetlands

2006 findings

Did not reach a majority decision about isolated wetlands being covered by CWA

• Gave opinion that wetlands are ‘Waters of the US’ if they have a meaningful connection (i.e., ‘significant nexus’) to navigable waters

• Created ideas: 1) Connectivity is important, 2) wetland & waterbody should be relatively permanent

Significant nexus

Wetland is close enough to a ‘Water of the US’ to affect its physical, chemical, biological conditions

2023: Sackett v. EPA

Even further questioned CWA’s jurisdiction over isolated wetlands

2023 findings

1. ‘Waters of the US’ are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing waterbodies

2. Wetlands are covered under CWA when they have a continuous surface water connection to a ‘Water of the US’

Swampbuster

Goal: Encourage wetland conservation by withholding Farm Bill benefits to farmers who:

• Plant agricultural crops on a converted wetland

• Convert a wetland for agricultural production

‘No Net Loss’ Policy

Protect existing wetlands If possible, at the development site

Create new wetlands nearby with similar function

State / Local Wetland Conservation Programs

Much variability among states in wetland regulation / management

The Ramsar Convention

Countries were concerned about wetland loss for internationally migrating waterfowl

An international treaty signed at a meeting in Ramsar, Iran in 1971

Goals

• Protect wetlands for internationally migrating fauna

• Benefit human populations dependent on these wetlands

North American Waterfowl Management Plan

International plan to conserve waterfowl & migratory birds in N. America

Members: federal, state/provincial, private, ag producers, non-profits

Management Goals

Prepare a written management plan & update it through time

•A timeline of events: construction (contractors) & monitoring

•Performance measures (measure of success)

Deciding among multiple potential sites

Multiple wetlands available to purchase/manage

Step 1: Off-site evaluation

• Topography

• Proximity to existing wetlands

• Quantitative

Managing Hydrology

• Best if site has natural hydrology not needing manipulation

Example: groundwater, stream inflow

• If a wetland is altered for hydrology, the general design consists of:

Levees created around a basin

An excavated depression without adding levees

Water control structures

are usually part of construction

•Move water into/out of wetland

Pumping stations

Electrical water pumps used to pump water into & out of wetland

Drop pipes

Vertical pipe that removes extra water

Drop pipe benefits

•Simple design

•Little maintenance

•Easy long-term control

Drop pipes drawbacks

•Cannot vary water levels

•Maximum height at top of drop pipe

•Minimum = dry

•Actual levels somewhere in between

Pumping stations benefits

•Fast

•Achieve any water level desired

Pumping stations drawbacks

• Expensive

•Needs fuel/electricity

•People constantly/occasionally present

•Will always need to be maintained

Flashboard risers

Removeable boards allow for specific water levels

Like a drop pipe but a series of boards on front lets you control water levels

Flashboard risers benefits

• Control specific water levels

Flashboard risers drawbacks

• Easily vandalized (by people & animals)

• Debris needs cleaned occasionally

• Can only remove water from wetland

Full-round risers

• Combination of drop pipe and flashboard risers

Full-round risers benefits

• Control specific water levels

• Inhibits vandalism

Full-round risers drawbacks

• More expensive

• Can become damaged by beavers

• Debris needs cleaned occasionally

• Can only remove water from wetland

Two main vegetation issues

1. Source of plants

2. Weed control

Measuring management success

• Refer to management plan → Performance Measures

• Measure these through time

• Give system enough time to function: may take years

• Best to compare Performance Measures to a nearby reference wetland

Why bother measuring management success?

• Criticism: $ could be better spent managing more wetlands

• Adaptive management → helps you better manage future wetlands

• ID what worked, what did not work & why

• Prevents wasting time, $

• Continued public & political support

Wetland Mitigation: Site Selection

Create/restore one wetland site for each wetland destroyed

Create/restore a large tract of wetland that represents many individual wetlands that were destroyed

Create/restore one wetland site for each wetland destroyed

Advantages

• Easy to enact

• Straightforward process

Problems

• An isolated habitat

• Ecological function might not be the same

• Group required to do mitigation (permittee) is usually responsible for mitigation success

Create/restore a large tract of wetland that represents many individual wetlands that were destroyed

Advantages

• Should have better ecological function

• A 3rd party could be responsible for new site

Problems

• More complicated than restoring individual sites

• Acquiring large tracts of land

• Someone needs to manage this large wetland

Wetland Mitigation Banks Process

• Organization establishes mitigation bank; manages wetland

• Later, wetlands are permitted to be destroyed

• Permittee must purchase ‘credits’ from the mitigation bank

• Each credit ‘uses up’ part of the bank, until the entire bank has been accounted for