Association of State Wetland Managers - Protecting the Nation's Wetlands.

For Peats Sake LogoBy Marla J. Stelk, Policy Analyst, ASWM

I had the good fortune in late June to spend a week on Long Pond in Mt. Vernon, Maine. It is one of seven lakes that comprise the Belgrade Lakes Region in Maine. And it’s where the 1981 movie “On Golden Pond” was based. That has always been one of my favorite movies (which won 3 Academy Awards, by the way) I’ve had a desire to visit the area most of my life.

longpondMost folks up here have a second home that has been in the family for generations and that they affectionately call their “camp.” For many “real Mainahs”, that means it’s a rustic, off-the grid, cabin that is on one of the many, many inland lakes we have in our state. But for others, it can be a bit fancier, with running water, electricity and indoor plumbing. We don’t actually have one of our own, but we enjoy renting for a long-weekend or a week vacation at one through or every year. It’s a great way to affordably enjoy the Maine lake experience.

In Maine, they call it “going upta camp.” Not having grown up in Maine, I was taken back a bit the first time I heard that phrase. My experience with going to camp was as a child and it meant that I was dropped off at a Girl Scout camp for a couple of weeks in the middle of a smoldering summer with a bunch of other pre-teens while my parents enjoyed some solitude. So it struck me as odd that grown adults were telling me they were going up to camp. But I have grown to appreciate this rich Maine tradition.

largemouthbassThe Belgrade Lakes are truly beautiful. The water on Long Pond was crystal clear and from what I understand, all the Belgrade lakes have excellent fishing year-round. You can find Brook Trout, Brown Trout, Smallmouth Bass, Largemouth Bass, Salmon, Smelt, Pickerel, Northern Pike and White Perch. I can attest that our neighborhood Great Blue Heron thought the fishing on Long Pond was second to none.

Not surprisingly (and somewhat unfortunately) because it is such a beautiful area, there are a lot of camps in close proximity to each other around Long Pond. I assume the other 6 lakes in the region are struggling with the same amount of lakefront development. According to an article by Dr. Denise Bruesewitz at Colby College, Maine lakes “are facing increasing pressures from human activities, and recent studies show that water quality of many Maine lakes is in decline.” In Maine and across New England, a species of cyanobacteria called Gloeotrichia echinulata (and sadly, no, it’s not a new tasty enchilada dish) is increasingly common in low nutrient lakes. Historically, cyanobacteria, also called “blue-green algae,” have been associated with algal blooms in the nutrient rich (eutrophic) lakes. So the appearance of the sometimes toxic phylum of bacteria in nutrient poor (oligotrophic-mesotrophic) lakes is disturbing. And much to my dismay, the article mentions that it typically occurs in “low nutrient systems like Long Pond.” Sigh.

The good news is that the Maine Water Resources Research Institute is funding a research project by Colby College and Bigelow Laboratory to take a closer look at the bacterial blooms on Long Pond and Great Pond this summer. And many camp owners are doing their best to keep the lakes clean and healthy through the LakeSmart Program that was introduced by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in 2004 and is currently run by the Maine Lakes Society. While kayaking around Long Pond, my partner and I noticed several camps that had LakeSmart signs on their property so I did a little research into the program.

lakesmartawardThe LakeSmart Program relies on the fact that human behavior is strongly influenced by the behavior of their friends, families, and neighbors. It a form of recognition for lakefront property owners who maintain their shorefront sustainably, managing stormwater on site and prevent flows of septic effluent from entering the lakes. The Maine Lakes Society believes that the program will “exemplify what lake-friendly living looks like, arouse interest that initiates education, and motivate similar behavior by other members of the lakeside community.” As I wrote about in a blog last summer (The Benefits of “Show” vs “Tell”) this can be a very effective strategy and inexpensive because it leverages the power and influence of stakeholders in the community to influence others’ behavior. And it has been incredibly successful. Since the Maine Lakes Society assumed administration of the program in 2009, it has grown 300% and administration costs have been cut in half.

So when you are thinking about ways to improve your wetland management programs, don’t discount the power of peers. Finding one or two local champions for your cause can make a huge difference. We can’t always influence the behavior of those we don’t know, but we can often do so with those who are close to us. So For Peat’s Sake, start small and build relationships with a few key leaders in the community. The trust and momentum that you build with them can often be a very effective outreach effort.

Posted in algal bloom, Maine, nutrient pollution, outreach, resource management, stewardship, water quality, wetland management | Tagged | Leave a comment

View from the blog-o-sphereWith One-Third of Largest Aquifers Highly Stressed, It’s Time to Explore and Assess the Planet’s Groundwater

By Sandra Postel – National Geographic – July 9, 2015
“[I]n most cases, we do not know how much groundwater exists in storage,” write the authors of a study published last month in Water Resources Research (WRR), a journal of the American Geophysical Union. As a result, we’re clueless about how long we can keep drawing down these water reserves before they run out. And we are indeed drawing many of them down. For full article, click here.


Posted in groundwater | Leave a comment

Wetlander's Pick of the Posts Forecasting dead zones and toxic algae in US waterways: a bad year for Lake Erie

By Donald Scavia – The Conversation – July 14, 2015
Over the past two decades, scientists have developed ways to predict how ecosystems will react to changing environmental conditions. Called ecological forecasts, these emerging tools, if used effectively, can help reduce pollution to our waterways. For full story, click here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

by Brenda Zollitsch

Can municipalities really still be dumping untreated sewage directly from a pipe into local bays, rivers, streams and wetlands?  Shouldn’t that be impossible in today’s regulatory environment?  Unfortunately, it is not.  Combined sewer systems that dump sewage-containing wastewater along with stormwater into local water bodies are found in 32 states, located in nine EPA regions.  Most are found in Northeast, Great Lakes Region and Pacific Northwest states.   While these combined systems are regulated under the Clean Water Act, the nearly 900 billion gallons of often-polluted overflow released from them have a documented adverse impact on the nation’s waters, including wetlands.


A Combined Sewer System (CSS) is a wastewater collection system owned by a state or municipality that is specifically designed to collect and convey both sanitary wastewater (including residential, industrial and commercial wastewater that may include sewage) and stormwater through a single piped system.  These pipes discharge directly to surface nydep715161waters (streams, rivers, wetlands, lakes, ponds) when collection capacity is exceeded during high level precipitation events (EPA, 2002).  These overflows, when they occur, are called Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs).   Combined systems are an artifact of 19th Century planning, which focused on getting rain water and sewage out of population centers as quickly and cost effectively as possible, with little consideration for downstream impacts.

There are significant public health and environmental impacts for CSO receiving waters.  Common pollutants transported when sewer systems overflow include:

  • Bacteria, viruses and protozoa
  • Organic compounds, metals, oil and grease and toxic pollutants
  • Biochemical oxygen demands (BOD)
  • Sediment
  • Trash and floating debris, and
  • Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus, for example)

Compared to surface water runoffs in separated sewer systems, CSOs are highly polluted with carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.  These pollutants can lead to a variety of adverse public health effects, as well as beach and shellfish bed closures, contamination of drinking water sources, devaluation of property, aquatic habitat impairment, fishing restrictions, reduced oxygen levels and fish kills, unpleasant odors, aesthetic impairment, and algal blooms.

Although wetlands alone cannot solve the CSO problem (See a list of actions to address combined sewer overflows in EPA Region 2’s publication Keeping Raw Sewage & Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public’s Water, page. 7), there are important roles that wetlands can play in addressing it.

First, CSO communities need to stop the filling of natural wetlands.  Filling in wetlands reduces opportunities for rainfall and snowmelt infiltration, adding to the volume of water entering the storm sewer system and leading to more overflow.  Working to protect and restore natural wetlands in critical CSO  watersheds will reduce the amount of surface flow entering the CSO system, especially when wetland protection is combined with green infrastructure efforts that reduce impervious cover simultaneously.

wetlandrestoration71615Second, practitioners in the U.S. and internationally have successfully used the restoration of filled wetlands to contain and treat CSO effluent.  These restored natural biofilters are used to treat pollutants like heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are often contributed by high traffic street surfaces present in most CSO communities.

Success of these efforts is generally dictated by the proximity/location of the restored wetland to the nonpoint source pollution, the wetland basin and its hydrology.  When restored properly, restored wetlands can provide a favorable chemical, biological, and physical environment for pollutant removal, including the bio-transformation of agricultural nonpoint source (surface runoff) nitrogen pollutants into Nitrogen gasses.  To address specific CSO needs, the restored wetland needs to be designed to retain “the contaminant of greatest local concern that requires the longest retention time for degradation and the percentage reduction of the contaminant required by law and/or regulation” (Environmental Finance Center, 2006).  For these projects, many types of wetlands are eliminated — those that are natural and undisturbed, those with a watershed to wetland water surface area of 10:1 or greater, those with retention times less than a day and many others. EPA’s Urban and Rural Treatment Wetlands Manual provides basic guidance on sizing and siting restored wetlands for water quality treatment, while a range of agency and industry documents provide extensive design guidance and case studies. 

harborbrook071615Third, constructed wetlands can be developed to mimic the water pollution filtration functions of a natural wetland.  Constructed wetlands are “planned systems designed and constructed to employ wetland vegetation to assist in treating wastewater in a more controlled environment than occurs in natural wetlands.”  These can be engineered to have surface flow or to only have subsurface flow.  Unlike natural wetland restoration efforts, constructed wetlands provide flexibility in site location, can be optimized to accommodate the specific amount of planned wastewater, and (due to their function-focused design) can often treat more wastewater in a smaller area than natural wetlands.  Perhaps more importantly, the use of constructed wetlands enable avoidance of impacts to natural wetlands.

In the stormwater world, constructed wetlands are referred to as “structural best practices” and have been tested extensively by researchers and industry experts.  For example, the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center has tested various treatment options and found gravel wetlands to perform at a much higher level than other alternatives (such as bioretention ponds and manufactured structural treatment devices).  While much of the work of wetland managers is disconnected from efforts related to constructed wetlands, clearly wetland experts can provide guidance on wetland structure and functions that have potential to improve treatment success.

statenisland71615Fourth, while it may seem that this is an either-or decision, the reality is that an increasing number of communities are selecting to marry their gray and green infrastructure and design creative (and highly effective) CSO and stormwater management plans that include all three wetland elements — wetlands protection, wetland restoration, AND constructed wetlands in one integrated system.  Examples of this work can be found in the Staten Island Bluebelt, Philadelphia’s Green City Clean Waters Initiative, Chicago’s Stormwater Green Infrastucture Strategy and smaller CSO communities like Washington, Indiana.

juni71615Finally, it is important to remember that CSOs are intensely weather-dependent, with increased releases of polluted waters from CSOs accompanying larger rain events.  Recent trends in rainfall often attributed to climate change, create an additional challenge for the management of CSOs.  With the frequency of high volume precipitation events growing in many regions of the United States, the need to find solutions that reduce the impacts of CSOs is increasing as well.  Investments in CSO control are already long-term and capital intensive.  Evidence is mounting that the integration of creative wetland-related elements may provide one of many cost-effective approaches to addressing the CSO issue. 

For more information about Combined Sewer Overflows, go here.

To review the findings of the University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, go here.

For one set of guidance on decision making for urban and rural treatment wetlands go to the Environmental Finance Center’s document here.

For information on the impacts of climate change on CSOs download the following report here.

Posted in constructed wetlands, green infrastructure, stormwater, wetland restoration | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Wetlander's Pick of the Posts Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad EPA?

By Katherine Bagley – Inside Climate News – February 26, 2015
The Environmental Protection Agency has been accused of everything from running this country to waging an economy-destroying war on coal. But it turns out the GOP’s prime target isn’t that big after all. The agency’s budget represents an almost invisible slice of the federal pie—less than a quarter of a percent of Obama’s proposed $4 trillion budget for the 2016 fiscal year. If approved, the EPA’s budget next year would be 16.5 percent smaller than it was in 2010. In a budget hearing Wednesday grilling Gina McCarthy, EPA’s administrator, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) said the Obama EPA “has embarked on an expansive and expensive global warming regulatory agenda” that is bad for the country.
For full story, click here.

Posted in global warming | Leave a comment

View from the blog-o-sphereCourt upholds EPA in putting Chesapeake Bay on ‘pollution diet’

By Timothy B. Wheeler – The Baltimore Sun – B’More Green – July 6, 2015
A federal appeals court upheld Monday the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to order pollution reductions by Maryland and all the other states that drain into the Chesapeake Bay. In a 60-page ruling, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia brushed aside challenges from agricultural and home building groups to the “pollution diet” that EPA imposed for the bay in 2010. For full blog post, click here.


Posted in pollution | Leave a comment

By Jeanne Christie

This week I went to adult surf camp. Summer surfing camps for minors have sprung up all over the country in recent years; and with them, opportunities for adults as well.  My class package was all inclusive.  It came with a wetsuit, surf board, beach chairs, snacks, beverages, a celebration dinner and instructors.

Day 1 was great. By the end of the first lesson I was managing to catch a wave and ride in lying flat on the board exhilarated with this modest success.  What I didn’t realize was how much my achievement had to do with the conditions: Intervals of a few good waves coming in at 8 seconds apart and periods of quiet in between to get back out beyond the surf for another wave.

waves1Day 2 was a different story.  Waves were 5 seconds apart and they never let up.  Getting myself and the board through the surf was an ordeal every time.  I would eventually emerge breathless, battered and on the far side of the surf, but feeling exhausted every time I made it back out beyond the waves to try again.  I made little progress with improving my surfing skills, but I did gather an interesting set of bruises.

It seems a little obvious in retrospect, but at the time I couldn’t believe how much difference a change in wave interval made.  Then I started thinking about wetlands.  I knew that wetlands attenuate storm surges and prevent erosion.  I had read it and even added it to my own work listing wetland benefits for years.  I realize suddenly that I had never thought very deeply, until I was standing there like a rootless wetland plant getting pounded, about how wave attenuation actually worked.


So I did a little research.

The strength of the wave hitting the coast (wave energy) is what determines its erosive potential.  Bigger waves, mean more erosion potential.

The second big variable is what the wave runs into as it advances towards shore: a slowly sloping beach? a quick, steep sloping beach? a rock cliff?  a flat vegetated wetland?  a concrete bulkhead?  A combination of one or more of these? Wave refraction concentrates or disperses the energy of a wave in response to the surfaces it encounters as it advances toward the shore.

marsh3Wetlands disperse wave energy.  They are flat, often extensive areas, reaching inland from the shore.  During storms, the flat contour of the wetland disperses energy. In addition wetland vegetation provides a rough surface that further breaks apart wave energy.  Large, continuous wetlands do a superior job of providing this service.

In contrast hardened, vertical surfaces such as cliffs and manmade bulkheads and seawalls actually increase the energy of waves and thereby increase coastal erosion.  To understand this I often think about standing on a sandy beach as the waves wash over my feet very quickly.  My feet and legs are a hard surface compared to the sand. After a few waves wash over my feet, they start to sink slightly as the sand around it washes away faster than the sand that is not lying against my feet.

But don’t take my word for it. To test out these ideas, a trip to the coast, preferably a beach, is definitely in order.  Go swimming. Play in the surf. Maybe sign up for your own adult surfing lessons. Don’t forget, this is a work assignment. Study the action of the lighthouse2waves.  Plow through the surf under different conditions.  Check the beach and surrounding area for signs of erosion.

My week of learning to surf was a fabulous and humbling experience.  I’ve still got a long way to go, but so much to look forward to.  Surfing is a great metaphor for life.  It’s all about the journey, not the destination.

Posted in wetlands | Tagged | Leave a comment

Wetlander's Pick of the Posts What’s Really Warming the World?

By Eric Roston and Blacki Migliozzi – Bloomberg – June 24, 2015
Skeptics of manmade climate change offer various natural causes to explain why the earth has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. But can these account for the planet’s rising temperature? For full story, click here.

Posted in climate change, global warming | Leave a comment

View from the blog-o-sphereWaters of the U.S. Revisions – What you Need to Know

Great Ecology – June 23, 2015
The final rule of the Clean Water Act’s definition of the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) was issued on May 27, 2015. Initially proposed last year, the changes will go into effect shortly. Project managers and landowners need to understand how the revised ruling will affect their projects. For full blog post, click here.

Posted in Clean Water Act | Leave a comment

For Peats Sake LogoBy Marla J. Stelk, Policy Analyst, ASWM

The Association of State Wetland Managers (ASWM) started looking at efforts to develop ecosystem service valuation tools in 2013 by hosting a webinar on Informing Flood Mitigation with Ecosystem Service Valuation: An Introduction to the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit for the Natural Floodplain Functions Alliance. Then the Association looked in to this trending area of research and practice to find out how these methods might be applied in the context of wetland restoration and protection. After months of research, ASWM released a peer reviewed report on Ecosystem Service Valuation for Wetland Restoration: What It Is, How To Do It and Best Practice ecosystem070215Recommendations. We created a webpage about ecosystem services with links to other resources on our website. And we developed a webinar on our findings from the report that we presented as part of our Members Webinar Series as well as at our 2013 State/Tribal/ Federal Coordination Workshop, the 2014 Conference on Ecological & Ecosystem Restoration and the 2015 Society of Wetland Scientists annual conference.

It is a complicated field of study and practice – one that requires not only an understanding of science but economics as well. For many scientists and economists, it’s an uncomfortable relationship. It requires learning new ways of looking at the world and in many ways, learning a new language. Although both fields require the use of statistics and mathematics, one comes primarily from the human world perspective (economics is a social science) and the other comes primarily from the natural world perspective. Ironically, humans do come from and are intrinsically part of the natural world, however, in many ways we have lost our understanding of our connection to nature. This separation sets the stage for very divergent viewpoints on the role of nature and humanity. At the extreme, there are those who perceive humankind as wholly separate from nature and deny our dependence on the natural world. Conversely, there are those who think humankind is nothing but a virus to the natural world and that the earth would be far better off without them – or at least with a much smaller population. Both of these extreme perspectives, in my opinion, continue a negative feedback system in which we shortchange the needs of both humanity and the natural world.

eco070215I’ve had some exhilarating conversations with others who are also intrigued and excited by the potential of ecosystem service valuation as a communication tool that can illustrate how integrated the needs of society and the functions of nature really are in order to better inform policy and project selection. For better or worse, most of our nation’s activities are measured by economic output with the Gross Domestic Product. This indicator does not, however, account for the value of public goods such as clean air, clean water, storm surge protection, carbon sequestration and floodwater attenuation. Public goods are defined as being non-excludable (anyone can benefit from them) and non-rivalrous (the use by one individual does not reduce the availability of it for another). Public goods, such as ecosystem services, are not monetarily accounted for in our market system (essentially they are free) and so we have no incentive to protect the resources that provide them. Think of Garrett Hardin’s book the Tragedy of the Commons. Ecosystem service valuation is one way to begin accounting for services provided by our natural resources so we can start managing them more responsibly.

But when you start trying to identify all of the ecosystem services provided by natural resources, it can lead to a bit of a “rabbit hole.” The myriad of ecosystem services provided by resources such as wetlands can be exhaustive. And not all of them are easily transferable into monetary units – nor is it desirable at times to place a dollar value on things such as intrinsic value. And each wetland is unique due to various types of wetlands, diverse levels of ecosystem07215function and their placement on the landscape. So a “cookbook” approach certainly won’t work. As I mentioned at the beginning of this blog – it’s a very complicated field of study and practice and at times it makes my head hurt just trying to comprehend it all. So I can only imagine how overwhelming it must be for wetland program managers who have no economic background at all to understand how to utilize these tools. And there are a lot of them available which makes it even more overwhelming.

The good news is that ASWM has committed to hiring an intern for the summer to help us test a select list of available ecosystem service valuation tools, develop a synopsis of each, a comparative matrix and a final report to help wetland program managers figure out which tool(s) best fits their needs and capacity. We are excited to be working with Mark Healy, a student at Southern Illinois University, and his supervisor, Dr. Sylvia Secchi. We are also collaborating with the US EPA Office of Research and Development in Narragansett, Rhode Island, which is working on a similar effort for green infrastructure and a new conceptual mapping tool.

Our goal is to have our project completed by the end of 2015, but it’s certainly a field of study that can and will continue to develop for many years. If you have suggestions for the types of ecosystem services that are of particular interest for your wetland program, please let us know. And if anyone has useable data specific for their wetland/watershed that you would like to share with us for our testing purposes, please let us know about that as well. So for Peat’s Sake, stay tuned – we hope the final product will be used extensively by our members, states and tribes!

Posted in Communication, ecosystem services, green economy, natural resources, wetland management | Leave a comment
Web Analytics