DOCSLIB.ORG

Wetlands and Wetland Restoration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wetlands and Wetland Restoration CBP/TRS – 314 – 16 Wetlands and Wetland Restoration Recommendations of the Wetland Expert Panel for the incorporation of non-tidal wetland best management practices (BMPs) and land uses in the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model December 2016 Prepared for Chesapeake Bay Program 410 Severn Avenue Annapolis, MD 21403 Prepared by Wetland Expert Panel Pam Mason (Co-Chair), Virginia Institute of Marine Science Ralph Spagnolo (Co-Chair), US EPA Region 3 Kathy Boomer, The Nature Conservancy Denise Clearwater, Maryland Department of Environment Dave Davis, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Judy Denver, US Geological Survey Jeff Hartranft, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Michelle Henicheck, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Erin McLaughlin, Maryland Department of Natural Resources Jarrod Miller, University of Maryland Extension Ken Staver, Wye Research and Education Center Steve Strano, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service – Maryland Quentin Stubbs, US Geological Survey Jeff Thompson, Maryland Department of Environment Tom Uybarreta, US EPA Region 3 With: Jeremy Hanson (Coordinator), Virginia Tech Brian Benham, Virginia Tech Aileen Molloy, Tetra Tech Kyle Runion, Chesapeake Research Consortium Jeff Sweeney, US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office Jennifer Greiner, US Fish and Wildlife Service Support Provided by EPA Grant No. CB96326201 Additional Contract Support Provided by EPA Contract No. EP-C-12-055 Task Order No. 003 Cover photos courtesy of: University of Maryland Extension Executive Summary The Wetlands Expert Panel convened in late 2014 to provide recommendations on how natural wetlands and implementation of wetland best management practices (BMPs) should be represented in the Phase 6 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (CBWM). Based on their cumulative understanding and best professional judgment of the wetland literature and wetland restoration, including past reports and recommendations presented to the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), the following overarching conclusions and recommendations are detailed in this report: Wetlands provide significant and unique water quality benefits compared to other land use/land cover classes, specifically by reducing excess nutrients and sediment, and therefore should be considered explicitly in the Phase 6 watershed model. Similar to unmanaged forests, undisturbed, natural wetlands are unlikely to generate excess nutrient and sediment loads. Few studies, however, report wetlands as sole contributions because these unique landscape features tend to occur as transition zones between upland and aquatic habitats. As such, the panel recommends that the Phase 6 model set wetland loading rates equal to forest loading rates. There is strong evidence that wetlands naturally filter ground- and surface waters but that effectiveness varies widely based on hydrologic connectivity to up-gradient ‘contaminant’ sources and to down-gradient regional waterways, and on wetland condition. Quantifying wetland water quality benefits, however, remains challenging based on available information. To address this need, the panel proposed a simple framework to predict the potential for different types of natural, undisturbed or restored wetlands to intercept, transform, and reduce excess nutrient and sediment loads, given physiographic setting and position of the wetland in the watershed. Key findings and considerations in the panel’s recommendations include the following: The hydrogeologic setting, including geology, topography, land use, and climate conditions, together with position in the watershed influence the hydroperiod (i.e., timing, duration, magnitude, and frequency of saturation as well as the rate of water table change) and the relative importance of ground- and surface-water sources. Resulting hydrologic fluxes control the potential for wetlands to intercept and treat contaminated waters. Connectivity to contaminant sources strongly influences water quality benefits. If up- gradient sources are lacking or contaminated waters by-pass a wetland (e.g., through concentrated flow channels or deep groundwater), limited retention and associated water quality benefits will occur. In addition to hydrologic fluxes, natural and anthropogenic influences on water quality affect nutrient fluxes and wetland retention capacities. In particular, effects on pH, redox, as well as carbon availability strongly influence N and P transformations in wetlands; human land and water management often artificially influences these environmental controls significantly. Wetland Expert Panel i The panel’s scientific review is described in Chapter 4 of this report in detail, followed by Chapter 5 that describes the panel’s land use and BMP recommendations. In late 2015 the WQGIT accepted the panel’s recommendations for including two nontidal wetland land uses in the Phase 6 CBWM: Floodplain and Other. In late 2016 the panel provided its recommendations for the wetland restoration BMP documented in this report. A future expert panel is recommended for a more detailed review of the nutrient and sediment reduction benefits associated with three other wetland BMP categories: wetland creation (establishment), wetland enhancement, and wetland rehabilitation. All four BMP categories are now available for annual BMP progress reporting in the Phase 6 CBWM, but the reductions associated with creation, enhancement and rehabilitation are temporary values agreed to by the Wetland Workgroup. As a result of the panel’s work, the Phase 6 CBWM explicitly simulates acres of nontidal wetlands and includes four categories of wetland BMPs that provide a framework for improved tracking and reporting of diverse implementation efforts moving forward. The panel was formed in coordination with the Wetland Workgroup and Habitat Goal Implementation Team, and followed the procedures and expectations outlined in the Water Quality Goal Implementation Team’s (WQGIT’s) Protocol for the Development, Review, and Approval of Loading and Effectiveness Estimates for Nutrient and Sediment Controls in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model1 or “BMP Protocol.” 1 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/publications/title/bmp_review_protocol Wetland Expert Panel ii Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... i Chapter 1. Charge and membership of the expert panel ................................................................. 1 Additional context for the expert panel ...................................................................................... 3 Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2. Definitions of terms used in the report .......................................................................... 5 Defining wetland best management practices for the Phase 6 modeling tools ........................... 6 Chapter 3. Background on wetlands and wetland BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed ...... 10 Overview of wetland BMPs currently implemented in the watershed ..................................... 10 Background on the Phase 6 Watershed Model ......................................................................... 11 Chapter 4. Review of available science – Nontidal wetland effects on water quality: an updated landscape perspective.................................................................................................................... 13 Advancing a conceptual model to explain how wetland water quality and habitat benefits vary across space and time. ....................................................................................................... 13 The Importance of Physiographic Setting ............................................................................. 17 Advances in understanding how hydrogeologic setting influences wetlands nutrient dynamics ................................................................................................................................... 27 Nitrogen—transport and removal from groundwater and surface water .............................. 27 Phosphorus—fate, transport, and removal from groundwater and surface water ................. 29 Sediment—fate, transport, and removal from surface water ................................................ 31 Advanced understanding of human impacts, especially due to changes in timing, rate, and chemistry of sources waters ...................................................................................................... 31 Remote sensing capabilities and advances in spatial modeling provide enhanced understanding of near-surface processes in relation to physiographic setting .......................... 32 Summary ................................................................................................................................... 33 Literature Cited ......................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 5. Recommendations for Wetlands as land-use and BMPs in Phase 6 Watershed Model ............................................................................................................................................ 44 Overview ................................................................................................................................... 44 Wetland land uses in the Phase 6 CBWM
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wetland Conservation Strategies
    11/15/2010 Wally Akins TWRA/NRCS Private Lands Biologist 1 The “Farm Bill” Congressional legislation passed every 5 to 7 years that provides framework and guidance for USDA commodity support, conservation programs, emergency/disaster programs, and other agriculture/food-related programs. Includes intended budget, but actual appropriations decided annually (usually late in federal fiscal year) 2008 Farm Bill = “Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008” 2 Farm Service Agency (FSA) • Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) – 32 million acres nationwide; ~235,000 acres in TN • Also handles commodity programs, and emergency and disaster payments to farmers Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) • EEinvironmental QQliuality Incenti ves Program (EQIP) • Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) • Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) • Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) • Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) • Farm & Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) 3 1 11/15/2010 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Farm Wildlife Habitat Program Landowner Incentives Program U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Partners for Fish & Wildlife – T&E, at-risk species in all habitats Tennessee Division of Forestry Forest Stewardship Plan Development TWRA, NRCS and Ducks Unlimited Tennessee Partners Project - wetlands 4 Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) WRP provides an opportunity for lldandowners to receive financial incentives to restore, protect, and enhance wetlands in exchange for retiring marginal land from agriculture. 5 On average, only 5% of the lower 48 states is wetlands and other shallow aquatic habitats. Wetland abundance varies by region: <1% of CA, NV, AZ, NM, UT, KS, MT, and WV Approx. 30% of FL and LA 45% of AK 6 2 11/15/2010 Since the late 1700s, >50% of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress
    Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and Issues for Congress Updated August 3, 2018 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45278 SUMMARY R45278 Chesapeake Bay Restoration: Background and August 3, 2018 Issues for Congress Eva Lipiec The Chesapeake Bay (the Bay) is the largest estuary in the United States. It is Analyst in Natural recognized as a “Wetlands of International Importance” by the Ramsar Convention, a Resources Policy 1971 treaty about the increasing loss and degradation of wetland habitat for migratory waterbirds. The Chesapeake Bay estuary resides in a more than 64,000-square-mile watershed that extends across parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. The Bay’s watershed is home to more than 18 million people and thousands of species of plants and animals. A combination of factors has caused the ecosystem functions and natural habitat of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed to deteriorate over time. These factors include centuries of land-use changes, increased sediment loads and nutrient pollution, overfishing and overharvesting, the introduction of invasive species, and the spread of toxic contaminants. In response, the Bay has experienced reductions in economically important fisheries, such as oysters and crabs; the loss of habitat, such as underwater vegetation and sea grass; annual dead zones, as nutrient- driven algal blooms die and decompose; and potential impacts to tourism, recreation, and real estate values. Congress began to address ecosystem degradation in the Chesapeake Bay in 1965, when it authorized the first wide-scale study of water resources of the Bay. Since then, federal restoration activities, conducted by multiple agencies, have focused on reducing pollution entering the Chesapeake Bay, restoring habitat, managing fisheries, protecting sub-watersheds within the larger Bay watershed, and fostering public access and stewardship of the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quantity Management Goals
    CHAPTER TWO: NFCRWD WATER PLANNING ISSUES This chapter of the NFCRWD Overall Plan identifies the District’s key water planning issues and assesses what resources are available to properly address them. The chapter is broken down into sections corresponding with the District’s four main goal areas: surface and drainage water management (Section A); reducing priority pollutants (Section B); and improving stakeholder participation (Section C) and raising public awareness (also Section C). Section A: Drainage and Surface Water Management (Goal Area 1 in Chapter Three) Drainage Work Group In 2005, the Minnesota Legislature directed the BWSR to conduct an “implementation assessment of public drainage system buffers and their use, maintenance, and benefits”. As part of this assessment, the BWSR convened a Work Group of stakeholders, which met several times over the two-year period, to develop recommendations on how to improve drainage management. The following are the consensus recommendations of the group: o Clarify point of beginning for measuring required ditch buffer strips and width of required buffer strips. o Enhance authority to establish and maintain buffers. o Enhance ditch buffer strip compliance and enforcement. o Enhance establishment of public drainage ditch buffers. o The BWSR should develop and disseminate guidelines for drainage records preservation and modernization. o The Minnesota Public Drainage Manual should be updated, in consultation with the Drainage Work Group, to reflect revisions and clarifications of Minnesota drainage law since 1991. o The Drainage Work Group should continue to develop consensus recommendations to the Legislature, agencies, and other stakeholders for additional drainage issues and topics brought forward by its members.
    [Show full text]
  • New York Buffer Action Plan
    Chesapeake Bay Buffer Action Strategy for New York Current Effort Based on the targets set in New York’s Phase III Watershed Implementation Plan, New York plans to implement 2,606 acres of forest buffer and 1,020 acres of grass buffers in the agriculture sector by 2025. In the urban sector, New York plans to implement 3,095 acres of forest buffer and 1,853 acres of tree planting by 2025. Table 1 shows the current progress in 2020 towards achieving riparian forest buffer targets, the percent achieved, and acres remaining. Table 1 Amount of riparian forest buffer and tree plantings to achieve NY’s WIP III. Best Management Practice 2020 WIP III Percent Acres Acres Progress (acres) Achieved Remaining Needed (acres) per Year Pasture Forest Buffers 2,058 3,543 58% 1,485 297 Pasture Grass Buffers 1,166 1,815 64% 649 130 Cropland Forest Buffers 1,003 2,124 47% 1,121 224 Cropland Grass Buffers 405 776 52% 371 74 Urban Forest Buffers 37 3,132 1% 3,095 619 Opportunities for Implementation Participating Partners New York’s key partners in buffer implementation are the Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Markets, Upper Susquehanna Coalition, and Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Partners to be further engaged include Farm Service Agency, National Resources Conservation Service, local communities, nongovernment organizations, land trusts and members of the Climate Action Council. Strategy for Implementation As outlined in the Phase III WIP, New York proposes the following strategies to improve its riparian buffer delivery including increase voluntary implementation, explore new funding strategies, sustaining motivation and continuing to support technical capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Module 1 Overview
    Module 1 Educator’s Guide Overview What’s up with Geography Standards World in Spatial Terms Earth’s water • Standard 1: How to use maps and other geographic representations, tools, and technologies to acquire, resources? process, and report information from a spatial perspective Places and Regions Module Overview • Standard 4: The physical and This module addresses issues that are of human characteristics of places fundamental importance to life. Four case Physical Systems studies of a coastal bay, an inland sea, a river, and mountain snow pack • Standard 7: The physical pro- investigate water resources important to millions of people in North cesses that shape the patterns of America, Asia, and Africa. Each investigation focuses on the physical Earth’s surface nature of the resource, how humans depend upon the resource, and how • Standard 8: Characteristics and human use affects the resource creating both problems and opportunities. distribution of ecosystems Environment and Society Investigation 1: Chesapeake Bay: Resource use or abuse? • Standard 14: How humans modify Students play roles of concerned citizens, public officials, and scientists the physical environment • while learning about the Chesapeake Bay and its environs. They use data Standard 15: How physical and satellite images to examine how human actions can degrade, im- systems affect human systems prove, or maintain the quality of the bay in order to make policy recom- The Uses of Geography • Standard 18: How to apply mendations for improving this resource for future use. geography to interpret the present and plan for the future Investigation 2: What is happening to the Aral Sea? Students work as teams of NASA geographers using satellite images to measure the diminishing size of the Aral Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Distribution and Conversion in Southern Ontario
    WETLAND DISTRIBUTION AND CONVERSION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO WORKING PAPER No. 48 Environment Environnement Canada Canada WETLAND DISTRIBUTION AND CONVERSION IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO Elizabeth A. Snell CANADA LAND USE MONITORING PROGRAM December 1987 Inland Waters and Lands Directorate Working Paper No. 48 Environment Canada Disponible en français sous le titre: Répartition et conversion des milieux humides dans le sud de l'Ontario ABSTRACT Concern over the ongoing conversion of wetlands is growing. Information on the location, extent, and quality of remaining wetlands is needed to assist in developing future policy and management actions aimed at retaining wetland values. In addition, knowledge of wetland conversion rates and trends is important in assessing the current status of wetlands. To date, the availability of such information has been fragmentary and inconsistent. This study used available soil and land use data, supplemented by other information, to map southern Ontario wetlands and wetland conversion on 125 map sheets at a scale of 1:50 000. Analysis has revealed that before 1800, 2.38 million hectares (ha) of wetland were widely distributed throughout southern Ontario. By 1982, 0.93 million ha remained and were more prevalent in the northern parts of the study area. The original wetland area had been reduced by 61% overall, and by 68% south of the Precambrian Shield. Wetland decline since settlement has been most severe in southwestern Ontario where over 90% of the original wetlands have been converted to other uses. Areas in the Niagara Peninsula, along western Lake Ontario and in eastern Ontario have less than 20% of the original wetland area.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Literacy in Delaware
    DELAWARE CHESAPEAKE BAY WATERSHED PORTION Environmental Literacy in Delaware Why environmental literacy? How does Delaware compare to the The well-being of the Chesapeake Bay watershed Chesapeake Bay watershed? will soon rest in the hands of its youngest citizens: 2.7 Environmental Literacy Planning: School districts’ self-identified preparedness million students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. to put environmental literacy programs in place Establishing strong environmental education programs Delaware now provides a vital foundation for these future stew- 63% 25% 13% ards. Chesapeake Bay watershed Along with Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 9% 24% 8% 59% Washington, D.C., Delaware has committed to helping Well-prepared Somewhat prepared its students graduate with the knowledge and skills Not prepared Non-reporting needed to act responsibly to protect and restore their local watersheds. They will do this through: Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs): School districts that reported providing MWEEs to their students • Environmental Literacy Planning: Developing a MWEE Availability in Elementary Schools comprehensive and systemic approach to environ- Delaware mental literacy for students that includes policies, 13% 25% 50% 13% practices and voluntary metrics. Chesapeake Bay watershed • Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences 16% 13% 11% 59% (MWEEs): Continually increasing students’ under- MWEE Availability in Middle Schools standing of the watershed through participation in Delaware teacher-supported Meaningful Watershed Edu- 50% 13% 25% 13% cational Experiences and rigorous, inquiry-based Chesapeake Bay watershed instruction. 18% 14% 9% 59% MWEE Availability in High Schools • Sustainable Schools: Continually increasing the number of schools that reduce the impact of their Delaware buildings and grounds on the environment and 25% 25% 38% 13% human health.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategies for Financing Chesapeake Bay Restoration in New York State
    StrategiesPrepared by the for University Financing of Maryland Chesapeake Environmental Bay Finance Center and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance RestorationCenter for the Chesapeake in New YorkBay Program State Office and the State of New York February 2019 efc.umd.edu efc.syr.edu Prepared by the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center for the Chesapeake Bay Program Office and the State of New York March 2019 efc.umd.edu efc.syr.edu - 1 - This report was prepared by the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland (UMD-EFC) and the Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center (SU-EFC), with funding from the US EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office. The EFC project team included Kristel Sheesley, Jen Cotting, Khris Dodson, and Bill Whipps. EFC would like to thank the following individuals for their input and feedback: Greg Albrecht, New York Department of Agriculture and Markets; Ruth Izraeli, Chesapeake Bay Program Office; Ben Sears, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Lauren Townley, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, and Wendy Walsh, Upper Susquehanna Coalition. Cover photos courtesy of Syracuse University Environmental Finance Center. About the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland The Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland is part of a network of university-based centers across the country that works to advance finance solutions to environmental challenges. Our focus is protecting natural resources by strengthening the capacity of decision-makers to analyze challenges, develop effective financing methods, and build consensus to catalyze action. Through research, policy analysis, and direct technical assistance, we work to equip communities with the knowledge and tools they need to create more sustainable environments, more resilient societies, and more robust economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Use Resource Guide
    Land Use Resource Guide The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP), through its Maintain Healthy Watersheds Goal Implementation Team, has a goal of maintaining the long-term health of watersheds identified as healthy by its partner jurisdictions. In addition, under the leadership of the Land Use Workgroup, CBP is working to continually improve our knowledge of land conversion and the associated impacts throughout the watershed. This is a compilation of ongoing initiatives, databases, tools, other resources developed to support local governments and land use managers in designing sustainable landscapes. Land Use Planning Chesapeake Land Use Policy Toolkit: This toolkit provides information about land use policy tools local governments can use to slow the conversion of farmland, forestland, and wetlands from The National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education (NCSG) at the University of Maryland. Accounting for Growth: Factsheet on CBP Land Change Model (CBPLCM) Chesapeake Bay High-Resolution Land Cover: 2013 1-m and 10-m land cover and land use data Chesapeake Phase 6 Land Use Viewer: This data viewer allows you to explore the high-resolution land cover dataset. Chesapeake Bay Watershed Data Dashboard: The Data Dashboard provides information on the economic and community health benefits of pollution reduction and mapped opportunities for land policy, growth management, restoration and conservation practices to help guide watershed planning efforts. EnviroAtlas: Interactive tool from EPA that provides geospatial data, tools, and resources related to ecosystem services, their stressors, and human health to help inform policy and planning decisions. Holistically Analyzing the Benefits of Green Infrastructure: Guidance document for local governments on how to understand and evaluate the benefits of implementing green infrastructure from the Environmental Finance Center at the University of Maryland.
    [Show full text]
  • W E Tla N D R Eso U Rce E V a Lu a Tio N a N D Th E N R a 'S R O Le in Its C
    Wetland resource evaluation and the NRA's role in its conservation. Classification of British wetlands Item Type monograph Authors Wheeler, B.D.; Shaw, S.C. Publisher National Rivers Authority Download date 29/09/2021 00:46:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/1834/27297 W etland Resource Evaluation and the NRA's Role in its Conservation 2. Classification of British Wetlands Environmental Consultancy University of Sheffield R&D Note 378 Further copies of this report are available from: EZS Foundation for Water Research, Allen House, The Listons, Liston Rd, Marlow, Bucks SL7 1FD. Tel: 01628-891589, Fax: 01628-472711 Wetland Resource Evaluation and the NRA's Role in its Conservation 2. Classification of British Wetlands B. D. Wheeler and S. C. Shaw Research Contractor: Environmental Consultancy University of Sheffield Edited by: P. Bradley & C. J. S. Routh National Rivers Authority Manley House Kestrel Way Exeter EX2 7LQ R&D Note 378 Commissioning Organisation: National Rivers Authority Rivers House Waterside Drive Aztec West Tel: (01454) 624400 Bristol BS12 4UD Fax: (01454) 624409 © National Rivers Authority 1995 All rights reserved. No part of this document may be produced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the National Rivers Authority. The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the NRA. Its officers, servants or agents accept no liability whatsoever for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance on views contained herein. Dissemination Status: Internal: Released to Regions External: Public Domain Statement of Use: This document recommends a 'hydrotopographical' classification of British wetlands which should be adopted by the NRA and hopefully other organisations and individuals concerned with wetland resource assessment, management and conservation.
    [Show full text]
  • The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl
    The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl Final Report September 2001 The SWANCC Decision: Implications for Wetlands and Waterfowl Ducks Unlimited, Inc. National Headquarters Mark Petrie, Ph.D. Jean-Paul Rochon, B.Sc. Great Lakes Atlantic Regional Office Gildo Tori, M.Sc. Great Plains Regional Office Roger Pederson, Ph.D. Southern Regional Office Tom Moorman, Ph.D. Copyright 2001 – No part of this document may be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the expressed written permission of Ducks Unlimited, Inc. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 9, 2001 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers. The decision reduces the protection of isolated wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which assigns the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) authority to issue permits for the discharge of dredge or fill material into “waters of the United States.” Prior to the SWANCC decision, the Corps had adopted a regulatory definition of “waters of the U.S.” that afforded federal protection for almost all of the nation’s wetlands. The Supreme Court also concluded that the use of migratory birds to assert jurisdiction over the site exceeded the authority that Congress had granted the Corps under the CWA. The Court interpreted that Corps jurisdiction is restricted to navigable waters, their tributaries, and wetlands that are adjacent to these navigable waterways and tributaries. The decision leaves “isolated” wetlands unprotected by the CWA. These wetlands are very significant to many wildlife populations, especially migratory waterfowl.
    [Show full text]
  • Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (Bmps)
    1 Prepared by Jeremy Hanson, Virginia Tech/Chesapeake Bay Program CBP/TRS-323-18 Support provided by Virginia Tech, EPA Grant No. CB96326201 Suggested citation: Chesapeake Bay Program. 2018. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters. CBP DOC ID. <link> For individual BMP reference sheets: Chesapeake Bay Program. Title of specific BMP reference sheet. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, version date of the specific BMP reference sheet. Example: Chesapeake Bay Program. A-3: Conservation Tillage. Chesapeake Bay Program Quick Reference Guide for Best Management Practices (BMPs): Nonpoint Source BMPs to Reduce Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Sediment Loads to the Chesapeake Bay and its Local Waters, MONTH DD, YYYY. 2 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 About the Chesapeake Bay Program ........................................................................................................ 5 About this Guide ....................................................................................................................................... 5 Understanding Best Management Practices and the Phase
    [Show full text]