Most people think they know a wetland when they see one, but the delineation of wetlands for the purpose of granting permits has proven enormously controversial. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an area is defined as a wetland when a combination of three technical criteria are met: Wetland hydrology (land that is saturated within 18 inches of the surface for more than seven days per year), Hydrophytic vegetation (a list of plants that will thrive in wet areas), and Hydric soil (mucky and peat-based soil). The continual destruction of these valuable lands is due mainly to farmers, oil and mining interests, and development groups (Russel, p.36). It is estimated that 30-40% of the original wetlands in the United States have been lost, and about 300-400,000 acres are destroyed each year (Hollis, p. 36). Recent concern has led to an increase in wetland restoration and creation to reduce the impacts of activities in or near wetlands, compensate for additional losses, and to restore or replace wetlands already degraded or destroyed (Nicholas, p. 39).

Wetlands serve many purposes and are considered one of the most productive natural systems in the world. They serve as crucial "pit-stops" for migratory bird, house several species of plants and animals, cleanse and purify water, as well as providing utilitarian needs such as flood control (Allen, p.13). If fifteen percent of the wetlands destroyed in Ohio and Iowa would have been saved (over the history of wetland destruction), then two-thirds of the destructive flooding that happened throughout 1993 in the Midwest could have been prevented saving the U.S. a great deal of money. Maintaining the protection and restoration of the nation’s wetlands is more economical than just losing them to development. Seventy-five percent of the nation’s $4-billion annual harvest of fish and seafood come form fish varieties that are dependent on wetlands for breeding and feeding (Cone, A23).

Wetland restoration is more complex that it may appear on the surface. Random transplantation of plants will not qualify as restoration. Wetland restoration and creation proposals must be viewed with great care, particularly where promises are made to restore or recreate a natural system in exchange for a permit to destroy or degrade an existing more or less natural system (Abalone, p.15). Expertise in planning and careful project supervision at all project phases is essential. Careful attention to wetland hydrology is needed in design because different sites will require specific alterations, that is to say, there is no "cook-book" approach to wetland restoration. Wetlands should be designed to be self-sustaining systems. There should be no need for continued water level manipulation after establishment. Restoration should be favored over creation, as it is extremely difficult to create a natural habitat, and there is a much greater success rate in restoring wetlands (MacDonald, p. 29). This factor is extremely important because creating and restoring wetlands can be costly. The combination of these factors is crucial for the long term success of a restoration project (Kusler, pp. 5-12).

In coastal Louisiana, backfilling canals is used as a technique for wetland restoration. Thousands of canals have been dredged in Louisiana wetlands for oil and gas exploration since 1938. These canals have a number of harmful effects on the wetland environment including alterations in salinity, flooding and drainage patterns, direct loss of marsh by conversion to open water, and increases in erosion rate (Turner, p. 10). The "backfilling" method involves returning spoil material from the spoil banks to the canal with the hope that vegetation will be reestablished in the canal. This particular restoration varies from $1200-$3400 per hectare in cost.

One of the statutes leading to the protection of wetlands today is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Congress adopted the NEPA and initiated a comprehensive program for reviewing the environmental impacts of all activities that fall within the jurisdiction of any federal government agency. The Act requires that all federal agencies review their statutory and administrative regulations and polices to determine the consistency of those regulations, laws, and policies with the purposes of NEPA. In adopting the NEPA, Congress stated hat its policy and goal is "the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources" (Russel, p. 37). The most important procedural requirements are NEPA’s action-forcing provisions which are designed to ensure consideration of environmental factors and public participation in major federal agency decision making. It Wasn’t until the passage of the NEPA that it began to be recognized that the Army Corps of Engineers had authority, in its process of providing development permits, to examine potential environmental impacts of the activities it was authorizing.

To satisfy the Act’s procedural requirements, NEPA requires agencies to provide and environmental impact statement (EIS) that is to be prepared and included "in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment" (Russel, p. 39). The environmental analysis in the EIS must take a hard look at the environmental consequences of the proposed action. In 1990, the case of Marble Mountain Audubon Society vs. Rice, the Forest Service’s EIS on a proposed activity. This case reveals the fact that the policies of NEPA have been enforced and are preventing agencies from doing something that would negatively impact our environment, including our wetlands.

It is not enough to acknowledge the fact that our wetlands need to be conserved and many existing ones need restoration. We need to follow the example of Jason Spanel, a 14 year old teenager who single handily restored a wetland. He turned a 3.6 acre temporary water-retention basin adjoining a Wal-Mart parking lot into a flourishing wetland where 100 different types of plants grow and dozens of bird species make their home (Selbert, p. 64). Wetland restoration not only takes money but countless hours of labor, and restoring them should be a community project. It does no good to complain about the environment while you sit on the sofa watching television. Many volunteers are needed to restore these valuable lands, and Jason Spanel serves as an inspirational example.

Abolone, Steve. Constructed Wetlands and Aquatic Plant Systems for Municipal Wastewater Treatment" Design Manual. September 1988: 1-36.

Allen, Edward R. "Delta Disappearing Act" Science World. 20 March 1992: 10-16.

Cone, Maria. "Protection of Wetlands Is Crucial to State’s Economy, Report Contends"Los Angeles Times. 1 Oct. 1993: A3-A27.

Hollis, Ted and James Bedding. "Can We Stop the Wetlands From Drying Up?" New Scientist. 2 July, 1994: 30-35.

Kusler, Jon A. and Mary E. Kentula. Wetland Creation and Restoration. Island Press: Washington, D.C., 1990.

MacDonald, Lynn. "Water Pollution Solution: Build a Marsh." American Forests.July/August 1994: 26-29.

Nicholas, Sara. "The War Over Wetlands" Issues in Science and Technology. Summer1992: 35-41.

Russel, James S. "Wetlands Dilemma" Architectural Record. January 1993: 36-39.

Selbert, Pamela. "Wetlands & Wal-Mart" American Forests. August 1994: 60-64.

Turner, Eugene and J.M. Lee. "Backfilling Canals as Wetland Restoration Technique in Coastal Louisiana" University Research Initiative. U.S. Department of the Interior: Louisiana, 1994.

Back to Senior Seminar