Establishing
a wetland
management plan
2001
Association of State Wetland Managers,
Inc.
Berne, NY 12023
This summary was prepared for
the Institute for Wetland Science and Public Policy by Jon Kusler, Jennifer
Brady-Connor, and Nan Stolzenberg and was edited by Sharon Weaver. It is based
upon several more detailed reports available from ASWM including Wetlands and Watershed Management, A Guide for Local
Government and Wetlands and
Watershed Management: A Collection
of Papers, Association of State Wetland Managers, Inc.,
Funding for this summary was provided by the McKnight Foundation, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Park Service Rivers and
Trails Program. The opinions expressed in the document are the authors' and
do not necessarily reflect the view of the sponsoring organizations and groups.
Q. What is “wetland and watershed management”? What
is unique about it?
A. Wetland
and watershed management is an approach that integrates wetland ecosystem
management with traditional water and watershed management goals and techniques.
It manages water resources, taking into account the functions and values of
wetlands, and it manages wetlands in broader water regime and ecosystem contexts.
It can be called watershed management, river basin planning, greenway planning,
water planning, advanced identification of wetlands, wetland planning, multi-objective
floodplain management, or by another name.
Q. What are the benefits to local governments of
integrating wetlands into watershed management?
A. Local
government benefits include (a) improved achievement of traditional watershed
management goals, (b) improved protection and restoration of wetlands, (c)
improved ability to allocate lands throughout a local government to their
most appropriate uses and protect overall quality of life through greenways,
recreation areas, and open spaces, and (d) improved ability to meet landowner
needs through increased coordination, reduced duplication, and reduced costs
in complying with regulations. See more discussion below.
Q. How can integration of wetlands into watershed management
help meet landowner needs?
A. Inventory
and planning efforts of watershed management establish an overall framework
for more effective permitting and planning. Watershed management planning
efforts can also lead to coordination of regulations and reduction of duplication and conflicts,
reducing the regulatory burden on landowners. Efforts may also result in information
about where wetlands are, decreasing the likelihood of unintentional regulatory
violations by landowners.
Q. How can integration of wetlands into watershed
management help local governments allocate lands to their most suitable uses?
A. Identification
and assessment of wetlands as part of broader watershed information-gathering
and analysis can determine their functions and values, hazards (e.g., flooding),
and other features relevant to determining appropriate and suitable use.
This information also assists local governments in planning and establishing
greenways, trails, and corridors on a landscape basis to protect habitat and
overall quality of life.
Q. In what context is a wetlands and watershed management
approach particularly needed?
A. A wetland
and watershed management approach can be useful in all wetland and watershed
planning and management contexts. However, this approach is particularly needed
for urban, agricultural, and other areas with large numbers of headwater and
semi-isolated wetlands and also where significant changes in natural runoff
have taken place or may take place. This approach is also particularly needed
to locate and avoid development of wetlands and wetlands along smaller rivers
and streams where the quality and quantity water depend upon activities in
the immediate watershed.
Q. What size watershed is appropriate for wetland
and watershed management?
A. Any size.
Consideration of wetland and aquatic ecosystems can and should be integrated
into parcel-level watershed planning for small, sub-watersheds of only a few
acres (e.g., stormwater management, water supply planning, etc.). Consideration
of ecosystem functions should also be integrated into mid-size and large watershed
planning (e.g., the Mississippi watershed). A hierarchy of watershed sizes
is often appropriate for assessment, management, and data gathering purposes,
depending upon the circumstances, the water bodies, and geographical area
targeted by a watershed management effort.
Q. How does a local government initiate a wetland
and watershed planning and management effort?
A. A wetland and watershed planning and management
effort can be initiated by a single individual, a group (e.g., an environmental
nonprofit), an agency, an academic institution, or any other entity or individual
with the ability to draw other individuals, groups and organizations together
to form and implement a common vision for wetlands and water resources.
Local
governments often start from current water resource related issues and problems,
land use planning goals, etc. Many local governments have found it useful
to begin efforts by inventorying flooding, reduced water quality, loss of
habitat, and other water problems. Such a survey may provide the basis and
incentive for more detailed mapping of wetlands and more detailed watershed
assessment and planning to remedy problems and meet future needs.
Q. What are the critical steps or components of
wetland and watershed management?
A. Essential steps vary somewhat but generally
include:
· Identification of wetland and watershed problems, issues,
and goals,
· Identification and involvement of key actors,
· Definition of the planning/management area,
· Mapping and assessment of wetland and other water resources
on a watershed basis,
· Evaluation of hydrologic and ecological interrelationships,
· Creation of a future “vision” (or alternative visions) and
plans for such wetland/water resources,
· Review of this vision or visions and plans by key actors,
and
· Implementation.
Q. Who are the critical actors in wetland and watershed
management?
A. Critical actors are the individuals and groups
with significant decision-making power over the future of wetlands and waters
within the geographical area being considered. For a small watershed owned
by a single public or private landowner, a single landowner might undertake
wetland and watershed management. For larger areas, critical actors will often
include (a) local (and sometimes state and federal) land and water management
agencies l; (b) private landowners and developers; (c) nonprofits, and (d)
the general public.
Q. What
should the goals of wetland and watershed management be?
A. Typical
goals for wetland and watershed management include both traditional watershed
management goals--water quality protection, flood loss reduction, stormwater
management, water supply maintenance and other goals—and sustainable protection
and restoration of wetlands. Other common goals include predictable, flexible,
and low costs for development projects, and reduced duplication and increased
consistency in wetland and water policies. Some state, federal, and local planning and management efforts to
date have incorporated a more specific “no net loss” of wetland function and/or
acreage goals as well.
Q. Are wetlands the only ecosystems considered in wetland
and watershed management?
A. No. Wetland and watershed management efforts consider wetlands
in broader ecosystem and hydrologic system contexts. Aquatic ecosystems (lakes,
streams, estuaries), floodplains, and riparian areas are also considered.
Q. Why is integration
of wetlands into watershed management important to protection and restoration
of wetlands?
A. All wetland functions and values depend in part upon water
regimes including water depth, water quantity, sedimentation, high and low
flows, and water quality. Watershed management can help protect and restore
natural water regimes and the wetlands that depend upon them. It can also
help to predict and maintain future water regimes -- essential to evaluation
of wetland functions and values and wetland restoration potential.
Q. Why is integration
of wetlands into watershed management important to the achievement of traditional
watershed management goals?
A. Integration of wetlands into watershed management may help
cost-effectively achieve goals such as water supply protection, floodplain
management, stormwater management, pollution control, and recreation by:
(1) Protecting and restoring the
natural “services” provided by some wetlands such as:
(2) Facilitating overall planning,
environmental impact analysis, and regulatory permitting to avoid permitting
problems and to develop appropriate compensation for wetland and related ecosystem
losses.
Q. What ecosystem protection goals and standards
should be applied in wetland and watershed management?
A. Federal, state, and local governments have
broadly applied the sorts of general goals and standards previously described
such as no net loss of wetland ecosystem function. More specific standards
for activities that may damage wetlands include:
· Avoidance – locating development, fills, structures, etc.
outside of wetlands to the extent practical,
· Minimization – reducing the impact of activities upon wetlands
where avoidance is not possible,
· Mitigation – compensating for residual losses to wetland
ecosystems through wetland restoration, creation, and other techniques when
it is not possible to avoid all impacts.
To protect the ecological integrity of wetlands, efforts
should be made to maintain the natural hydrologic regime including natural
flood cycles. Fragmentation should be avoided and hydrologic connectivity
between wetlands, other waters and upland ecosystems should be maintained.
Q. Does wetland and watershed management require
detailed, upfront analysis of functions and values of all wetlands?
A. No.
Local government-wide wetland and watershed protection efforts to date have
been based upon overall, general assessment of wetland functions and values,
natural hazards, soil suitability for development, costs of public services,
and other factors. More detailed analysis of the functions and values of specific
wetlands is typically undertaken by local governments only if fills or drainage
are proposed for specific wetlands and such activities are conditionally permitted
under regulations.
Q. Can Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) and hydrologic models facilitate wetland and watershed management?
A.
Possibly. More government agencies, consultants, and others are using GIS
and computer-based hydrologic models to assist the analysis of water regimes,
the mapping of wetlands (where digital data is available), the assessment
of the functions and values of
wetlands, and the design of projects including
assessment of alternative designs. Such systems are proving useful as more
digital data becomes available and the costs of data storage and analysis
are reduced. However, there are financial and other limits to accuracy and
types of ecosystem and hydrologic data typically available for GIS analysis.
GIS analysis must, therefore, be combined with some measure of continued on-site
data gathering and analysis.
Q. Is local government wetland and watershed management
a new concept?
A.
No. Partial integration of wetlands into watershed management has been undertaken
by thousands of local governments throughout the Nation in the last two decades.
These local governments have mapped wetlands and adopted protection and restoration
policies for wetlands and other waters as part of broader land use planning
and watershed management efforts. Their efforts take into account natural
functions and values, flood hazards, suitability of soils for onsite waste
disposal, costs of public services, and other factors. These efforts have
not involved detailed analysis of hydrologic regimes or the functions and
values of individual wetlands.
More recently, hundreds of local governments have undertaken
even more detailed wetland and watershed management programs with wetlands
as one component (e.g., King County, Washington; Portland, Oregon). West Eugene,
Oregon and others have undertaken more detailed wetland inventories and planning
efforts. Hundreds of local governments have also undertaken detailed, multi-objective
floodplain management and greenway efforts with wetlands as one component.
Wetland and watershed management has not been confined to
local governments. Many state and federal land management agencies have adopted
land and water use plans with wetland and related ecosystem protection and
assessment as one component.
Q. What
are the major barriers to wetland and watershed management?
A. The major
impediments to wetland and watershed management are institutional rather than
scientific. Wetland, stormwater, floodplain management, water supply, pollution
control, and other programs have typically been authorized by separate enabling
legislation. Programs have separate budgets, are often located at separate
locations, have different client groups, and have separate bureaucracies.
These barriers can best be overcome by bringing people and programs with common
interests together.
Integrating wetland into watershed management is not easy.
However, there are strong economic, social, scientific and institutional reasons
to make it work. Wetland and watershed management is the only practical way
to achieve multi-objective, water resources management goals and reduce conflicts
between traditional water resources management and aquatic ecosystem protection
and management.
We suggest a group of priority readings.
·
Association of State Floodplain Managers.
1997. Using Multi-Objective Management to Reduce Flood Losses In Your Watershed.
Association of State Floodplain Managers, Madison, WI.
·
Crane, S. (ed.) 1995. Wetland Conservation:
Tools for State and Local Action. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C.
·
Carter, J.G. 1989. A Citizen’s Guide
to Protecting Wetlands. National Wildlife Federation, Washington,
D.C.
·
Environmental Protection Agency, 1997.
Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
·
Environmental Protection Agency, 1994,
Section 319 Success Stories. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.
·
International City/County Management Association.
1999. Protecting Wetlands and Managing Watersheds: Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County
Management Association, Washington, D.C.
·
Kusler, J.A. 1982. Innovation in Local
Floodplain Management: A Summary of Community Experience. University of
Colorado, Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center, Special
Publication 4. Boulder, Colorado.
·
Labaree, J.M. 1992. How Greenways Work:
A Handbook on Ecology. National Park Service and Atlantic Center for the Environment,
Ipswich, Massachusetts
·
Little, C.E. 1990. Greenways for America.
Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland
·
National Park Service. 1996. Floods,
Floodplains, and Folks. National Park Service, Rivers, Trails and Conservation
Assistance Program. Washington, D.C.
·
National Park Service. 1991. A Casebook
In Managing Rivers for Multiple Uses. National Park Service, Rivers and
Trails Program. Washington, D.C.
·
International City/County Management Association.
1999. Protecting Wetlands and Managing
Watersheds: Local Government Case Studies. Washington, D.C.
·
National Wildlife Federation. 1999. Higher
Ground. Washington, D.C.
·
Schueler, T. 1995. Site Planning for
Urban Stream Protection, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
·
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1993. Proceedings, Watershed '93, A National Conference on Watershed Management.
March 21-24, 1993, Alexandria, Virginia.
·
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1996. Proceedings, Watershed '96: Moving Ahead Together, Technical Conference
and Exposition, June 8-12, 1996, Baltimore, Maryland. 1165 pp.
·
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management
Practices. Washington, D.C.
·
World Wildlife Fund. 1992. Statewide
Wetlands Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing the Resource.
Published by Island Press, Covelo, California