How is wetlands protected

Finally, some programs could less directly help protect wetlands, such as the Conservation Stewardship Program, which provides payments to maintain and improve existing conservation practices on agricultural lands and to adopt additional conservation activities. Building on programs expressly authorized in the farm bill, USDA administers several conservation programs that it established administratively. One is the Wetland Restoration, Non-Floodplain Initiative to allow enrollment of up to , acres of large wetland complexes and playa lakes located outside the year floodplain in the CRP.

CRP, the largest federal, private-land retirement program in the United States, allows producers to enter into to year contracts to install certain conservation practices. As of July , a total of , acres were enrolled. The CWA Section program applies to qualified wetlands in all locations, including agricultural lands.

But the Corps and EPA exempt "prior converted lands" wetlands modified for agricultural purposes before from Section permit requirements under a memorandum of agreement MOA by rule, and since the CWA has exempted "normal farming activities" from Section While these exemptions and the MOA displease some protection advocates, they probably dampened some of the criticism from farming interests over federal regulation of private lands, at least for a while.

On the other hand, the prospect that Congress might enact legislation to reverse the Court's and rulings, discussed above, particularly alarmed farm groups, who fear that changes in law or regulations could negatively affect their activities. Because of differences between the CWA and farm bill on the jurisdictional status of certain wetlands e.

Recently, agriculture industry groups have been among the most vocal critics of the EPA-Army Corps "waters of the United States" rule, discussed above, out of concern that the rule would bring agricultural lands and activities under Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Many federal agencies have been active in wetland improvement efforts in recent years. Through voluntary agreements, the Partners program provides technical assistance and cost-share incentives directly to landowners for wetland restoration projects on private lands.

Under this program, federal grants, matched by contributions from states and localities, as well as from private landowners and conservation groups, are used to acquire, restore, or enhance coastal wetlands and adjacent uplands to provide long-term conservation benefits to fish, wildlife, and their habitats.

Other programs also restore and protect domestic and international wetlands. This act, also administered by FWS, provides matching grants to organizations and individuals who have developed partnerships to carry out wetlands conservation projects in the United States, Canada, and Mexico for the benefit of wetlands-associated migratory birds and other wildlife.

Grants consist of standard grants, which support projects in all three countries, and small grants, which support similar activities but at a smaller scale and for fewer dollars. Both are competitive grants programs and require that grant requests be matched by partner contributions at no less than a 1-to-1 ratio.

Under the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, more commonly known as the Ramsar Convention, the United States is one of nations that have agreed to slow the rate of wetlands loss by designating wetland sites of international importance. These nations have designated 2, sites, totaling million acres, since the convention was adopted in The United States has designated 38 sites pursuant to the convention, encompassing 4.

Questions of federal regulation of private property stem from the argument that landowners should be compensated when a "taking" occurs and alternative uses are prohibited or restrictions on use are imposed to protect wetland values. Constitution provides that property owners shall be compensated if private property is "taken" by government action. The courts generally have found that compensation is not required unless all reasonable uses are precluded.

Many individuals or companies purchase land with the expectation that they can alter it. If that ability is denied, they contend, then the land is greatly reduced in value. Many argue that a taking should be recognized when a site is designated as a wetland. Congress has explored these wetlands property rights issues on several occasions.

In addition to federal programs and activities, wetlands in the United States are regulated and protected through a variety of state and local laws and regulations, as well as through initiatives and actions of nongovernmental organizations, schools and universities, and private citizens.

The role of states in wetland protection is especially important, as noted in a study by the Environmental Law Institute. States have long held the right and the responsibility to provide stewardship over their resources, and state agency staff typically have a well-versed understanding of the "lay of the land," in terms of both topography and state priorities, policies, and practices. Finally, in light of recent uncertainty over federal jurisdiction of wetlands and limited federal resources for wetland protection, the role of states in conserving wetlands may be more important now than ever before.

As a result, different programs may be administered by different state agencies. In addition, programs may change from year to year. Every state regulates, to some degree, activities that affect wetlands, but two-thirds of the states lack regulatory programs that comprehensively regulate wetlands. Many states rely solely or primarily on authority in CWA Section , under which states may review any activity that requires a federal permit or license to determine its effect on the state's water quality standards.

In areas where there is no Section permit requirement, and therefore no opportunity for review under Section , some states also require a state permit for activities that affect aquatic resources: 23 states have authority to issue permits for dredge and fill activities in wetlands and other waters of the state, such as geographically isolated wetlands although as described previously, only New Jersey and Michigan have been delegated permitting authority.

As is the case with the federal regulatory program under CWA Section , an important consideration is how a state determines which waters fall within its regulatory jurisdiction. States' definitions of their waters are typically much broader than the federal definition of "waters of the United States," meaning that states may exert jurisdiction over waters within their boundaries that are not covered by the CWA.

State definitions often include phrases such as "all surface waters. Groundwater is not included in the federal regulatory definition, but most states include groundwater in their regulatory programs. The inclusion of wetlands in a state's definition of state waters does not give automatic protection to these waters; the state must also have some form of complementary regulatory authority, such as to issue permits.

Changes to Louisiana's coastal area result from a combination of natural environmental processes erosion, saltwater intrusion into fresh systems, sea level rise and human-related activities, according to the U. Wetland loss has occurred naturally for centuries, but until recently, land losses have been counterbalanced by various natural wetland-building processes.

USGS estimates that, since , coastal Louisiana has experienced a net change in land area of approximately 1, square miles—an area the size of Delaware. Land loss rates on the Louisiana coast have slowed from an average of more than 30 square miles per year between and , to an estimated When the hurricanes of and are factored in, the trend increased the amount of land loss to According to USGS, if this loss were to occur at a constant rate, it would equal losing more than a football field every hour.

Saltwater has invaded the brackish estuaries, destroying vegetation and areas that are needed for fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

In response to these losses, Congress authorized a task force, led by the Corps, to prepare a list of coastal wetland restoration projects in the state, and also provided funding to plan and carry out restoration projects in this and other coastal states under the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act of , also known as the Breaux Act.

In a report, GAO reported that it is impossible to determine the collective success of restoring coastal wetlands in Louisiana, because of an inadequate approach to monitoring.

GAO had reviewed the Breaux Act program to identify the types of projects that have been designed and lessons that have been learned from 74 projects that have been completed so far. In the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita in , multiple legislative proposals were introduced to fund additional restoration projects already planned by the U.

Army Corps of Engineers and to explore other opportunities that would restore and stabilize wetlands in southern Louisiana. Concern for Louisiana's coastal wetlands was heightened by the oil spill following the April explosion of BP's drilling rig, the Deepwater Horizon, in the Gulf of Mexico.

Although efforts focused on preventing oil from reaching coastal shorelines, some oil escaped capture and was pushed by wind and tides toward land. The degrees of impacts of oil on wetland vegetation are variable and complex and can be both acute and chronic, ranging from short-term disruption of plant functioning to mortality.

The primary acute damage to the marshes is that plants, which hold the soil in place and stabilize shoreline, suffocate and die, especially if multiple coatings of oil occur. Once vegetation dies, the soil collapses. Then the soil becomes flooded, and plants cannot regrow. If plants cannot reestablish, soil erosion is accelerated, giving rise to even more flooding and further wetland loss. If oil penetrates into the sediments, roots are continuously exposed to oil, with chronic toxicity making production of new shoots problematic.

Consequently, plant recovery is diminished, and eventually land loss occurs. In addition to direct impacts on plants, oil that reaches wetlands also affects animals that use wetlands during their life cycle, especially benthic organisms that reside in the sediments and are a foundation of the food chain.

Public and private efforts were taken to protect the wetlands from oil that moved through Gulf waters towards coastal areas, but scientists remained concerned that high tides and wind could push oil into the marshes, and that the grasses and other vegetation that provide habitat for fish and wildlife would likely be destroyed.

Wetland plants can be affected both by oil that floats over the surface of the marsh and by oil that has been incorporated into sediment.

While oil was still flowing from the Deepwater Horizon site, cleanup of marshes was limited to triage of heavily oiled marshes and wetlands, because experts were concerned that greater harm than good could be done to the sensitive environmental ecosystems. The well was capped, and oil stopped flowing from the well site in mid-July Experts say that spill response efforts succeeded in keeping large amounts of oil from reaching coastal marshes. Nevertheless, oil remains in the Gulf environment, and potential for re-oiling of coastal areas, for example as a result of storms, will remain a concern for some time.

A recent federal report observes that Louisiana's Coast is a comprehensive plan to protect and restore the state's coastal wetlands, but that other Gulf of Mexico states are only beginning similar planning processes for restoration of the damage caused by the Deepwater Horizon spill. Mitigation has become an important cornerstone of the Section program in recent years.

A MOA signed by the agencies with principal regulatory responsibilities EPA and the Corps outlines a sequence of three steps leading to mitigation: first, activities in wetlands should be avoided when possible; second, when they cannot be avoided, impacts should be minimized; and third, where minimum impacts are still unacceptable, mitigation is appropriate.

Therefore, to compensate for such impacts, mitigation may be required as a condition of a Section permit. Compensatory mitigation is typically accomplished through one of three ways: a mitigation bank, in-lieu fee program, or permittee-responsible mitigation. Federal wetland policies during the past 30 years have increasingly emphasized restoration of wetland areas. Much of this restoration occurs as part of efforts to mitigate the loss of wetlands at other sites.

The mitigation concept has broad appeal, but implementation has left a conflicting record. Examination of this record, presented in a report from the National Research Council, found it to be wanting. The NRC report said that mitigation projects called for in permits affecting wetlands were not meeting the federal government's "no net loss" policy goal for wetlands function.

Results so far seem to vary, depending on the type of wetland and the level of commitment to monitoring and maintenance. Some wetland protection advocates are critical of mitigation, which they view as justifying destruction of wetlands. They believe that the Section permit program should be an inducement to avoid damaging wetland areas. These critics also contend that adverse impacts on wetland values are often not fully mitigated and that mitigation measures, even if well-designed, are not adequately monitored or maintained.

Supporters of current efforts counter that they generally work as envisioned, but little data exist to support this view. Questions about implementation of the MOA and controversies over the feasibility of compensating for wetland losses further complicate the wetland protection debate. In response to criticism in the NRC and GAO reports on mitigation, in , the Corps issued new guidance to strengthen the standards on compensating for wetlands lost to development.

But the guidance was criticized by environmental groups and some Members of Congress for weakening rather than strengthening mitigation requirements and for the Corps' failure to consult with other federal agencies. In , the Corps and EPA released an action plan including 17 items that both agencies believed would improve the effectiveness of wetlands restoration efforts.

In , in response to the NRC and GAO reports and the NDAA directive, the Corps and EPA promulgated a mitigation rule to replace the MOA with clearer requirements on what will be considered a successful project to compensate for wetlands lost to activities like construction, mining, and agriculture.

It sets standards to mitigate the loss of wetlands and associated aquatic resources and is intended to improve the planning, implementation, and management of compensatory mitigation projects designed to restore aquatic resources that are affected by activities that disturb a half-acre or more of wetlands.

It also is designed to help ensure no net loss of wetlands by addressing key recommendations raised in the NRC report.

Under the rule, all compensation projects must have mitigation plans that include 12 fundamental components, such as objectives, site selection criteria, a mitigation work plan, and a maintenance plan. In , the Corps and EPA completed a retrospective review of the rule. It also found that there has been an increased focus on stream mitigation since the rule's release and that the use of mitigation banking and ILF programs to meet compensatory mitigation requirements has reduced permitting times, while permit processing times for projects that utilize permittee-responsible mitigation have been increasing.

Numerous public and private banks have been established. In a study of mitigation, the Environmental Law Institute determined that as of , there were active banks. According to the Army Corps, as of September , there are 1, approved and active mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs.

For permit applicants, obtaining compensatory mitigation credits for a planned project can be a challenge, and concerns about a mitigation bank program with available credits not being located sufficiently close to a project site are not unknown, as are concerns about the established price of credits.

Mitigation banks are economics-driven, that is, if bankers do not see a potential market or potential development that will need credits and do not see a potential profit opportunity, banks will not be established.

The market for mitigation bank credits depends upon the demand for credits, which, in turn, depends upon mandates for compensatory mitigation for unavoidable losses to aquatic resources.

Potential bankers face market and regulatory risks. A sponsor's decision to establish a bank is likely influenced by many factors, including cost and demand. Under the rule, the Corps does not determine the price of compensatory mitigation credits, which is solely determined by the sponsor of the mitigation bank or ILF program. Congress has repeatedly endorsed mitigation through legislation.

Provisions in several laws, such as the farm bill and the Transportation Equity Act TEA , endorse the mitigation banking concept. Section of that act directed DOD to make payments to wetland mitigation banking programs in instances where military construction projects would result or could result in destruction of or impacts to wetlands.

Thomas E. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, , p. Matthew L. Kirwan, Glenn R. Guntenspergen, and Andrea D'Alpaos et al. L December While tidal wetlands do effectively sequester carbon, some wetlands especially those with low salinity levels also are a source of GHGs by emitting methane, which is approximately 21 times more powerful as a GHG than CO 2.

The definition of "waters of the United States" is found at 33 C. The term is similarly defined in other EPA regulations, as is the term "navigable waters.

The judicial review section of the CWA, Section , vests exclusive, original review jurisdiction over enumerated EPA actions under the act in the federal courts of appeals. Indeed, in the preamble to the final rule, EPA and the Corps acknowledge that "[t]he Supreme Court and lower courts have reached different conclusions on the types of actions that fall within section ," and offers no opinion of its own as to review of the Clean Water Rule.

If a court finds that the rule is not covered by Section , review jurisdiction presumably will lie in the district courts pursuant to the federal question statute. That statute, applicable where no more specific statute provides otherwise, gives the district courts original jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Hearing , th Cong. Twenty-two states rely on Section as the sole form of state-level regulation, and 15 additional states rely on Section as the primary form of state-level regulation but also have adopted laws that provide additional protection to certain wetland categories, such as coastal wetlands.

Couvillion, J. Barras, and G. Steyer, et al. Geological Survey, Pamphlet to accompany U. Dennis F. Whigham, Stephen W. Broome, and Curtis J. Richardson et al. Environmental Protection Agency and U. For more information on mitigation generally, and mitigation banks specifically, see Environmental Law Institute, Status Report on Compensatory Mitigation in the United States , April Topic Areas About Donate.

Download PDF. Download EPUB. What Is Their Condition? Summary Recent Congresses have considered numerous policy topics that involve wetlands.

Introduction Wetlands, with a variety of physical characteristics, are found throughout the country. Broadly speaking, the conflicts are between: Environmental interests and wetland protection advocates who have been pressing for greater wetlands protection as multiple values have been more widely recognized, by improving coordination and consistency among agencies and levels of governments, and strengthened programs; and Others, including landowners, farmers, and small businessmen, who counter that protection efforts have gone too far, by aggressively regulating privately owned wet areas that provide few wetland values.

They have been especially critical of the U. Army Corps of Engineers Corps and the U. Environmental Protection Agency EPA , asserting that they administer the Section program in an overzealous and inflexible manner. What Is a Wetland? Wetland values can include habitat for aquatic birds and other animals and plants, including numerous threatened and endangered species; production of fish and shellfish; water storage, including mitigating the effects of floods and droughts; water purification; recreation; timber production; food production; education and research; and open space and aesthetic values.

Wetlands and Climate Change As described above, coastal wetlands provide critical services such as absorbing energy from coastal storms, preserving shorelines, protecting human populations and infrastructure, absorbing pollutants, and serving as critical habitat for migratory species. The Permitting Process The Corps' regulatory process involves both general permits for actions by private landowners that are similar in nature and will likely have a minor effect on wetlands, and individual permits for more significant actions.

The new rule narrows the definition of WOTUS, excluding ephemeral features that contain water only during or in response to heavy rains or snow, groundwater, and most roadside or farm ditches. It also leaves out waters and wetlands that cross state boarders. This limited rule will do the most damage in Delaware, West Virginia and the District of Columbia, which are governed by federal law and rely on the federal definition of WOTUS to protect wetlands and streams in their jurisdiction.

This loss of these safeguards will have impacts to the watershed as a whole. Maintaining the health of these waterways and wetlands is crucial to protecting downstream waters. Gutting federal protections for wetlands undermines that commitment and risks derailing our decades long restoration effort at a critical time.

Stay up to date about the Bay! Sign Up. The State of the Bay Report makes it clear that the Bay needs our support now more than ever. Your donation helps the Chesapeake Bay Foundation maintain our momentum toward a restored Bay, rivers, and streams for today and generations to come.

OEH also invests in the Living Murray program, which has bought gigalitres of water and is improving infrastructure to benefit wetland sites along the Murray River. This provides inland wetlands with enough water to support their plants and animals, and it improves habitat for native fish. This has helped overcome the long-lasting impacts of drought, made the most of rainfall and restored many plants and animals.

The following policies, Acts and guidelines help to protect and conserve wetlands in New South Wales:. The NSW Government has acquired wetlands to add to protected areas under its conservation reserve system.

This ensures they are managed and protected over the long term. Since , governments have added more than , hectares of wetlands in the Murray, Darling, Murrumbidgee, Macquarie and Gwydir catchments to the NSW reserve system. In , river red gum wetlands in the Millewa Forests on the Murray River and along the Murrumbidgee and Lachlan rivers were protected as a NSW national park, in recognition of their status as internationally significant wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention.

Many NSW wetlands are on private land. They include upland swamps, lagoons, billabongs and riverine wetlands. Landowners can protect wetlands on their property through a Conservation Agreement or Wildlife Refuge. These agreements and refuges provide long-term legal protection for wetlands and the plants and animals that live in them.

Monitoring and evaluation are important tools for determining the health of NSW wetlands and how effective site management strategies are. For example, the three-yearly State of the Environment reports published by the Environment Protection Authority cover the status of wetlands. This research has shown that many wetlands have been degraded due to the various threats they face. It does this by providing estuary management grants under the Coastal and Estuary Grants Program.

Twenty councils and one other organisation received grants under the —16 Estuary Management Program. If you are happy for us to follow up on your feedback, please provide your name and email. The information you provide in this form will only be used for the purpose for which it was collected.

By submitting, you consent to storage, use, and disclosure of your personal information in accordance with our privacy policy. Saltwater wetlands are important features of the NSW coastal zone.