Forested Wetlands Threatened by Red-tape and Bureaucracy
By James Holland, Riverkeeper

Almost from the first day the Altamaha Riverkeeper organization formed, we began recording and documenting what we believed to be wetland destruction by forestry, development and road building activities.

In many cases, we've been successful in getting enforcement action on development and road building sites from either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

But, of all the forestry activity in wetlands documented by ARK and reported to the Georgia Forestry Commission (GFC), to date none of the perpetrators have been cited for a wetland disturbing activity.

The destruction of Georgia's forested wetlands continues unabated. In fact, as the drought lingers, the destruction of forested wetlands has accelerated.

And now, we are beginning to understand why.

It seems that Georgia's priceless forested wetlands¸the nurseries for many animals, the home to rare plants, the system through which floods are buffered and nutrients are absorbed¸are caught in a maze of red-tape and bureaucracy.

A little clause, a sub paragraph, in the forestry industry's voluntary best management practices (BMPs) has, in the opinion of our lawyers from the Southern Environmental Law Center, been misapplied by the GFC, EPA, USACE and EPD. This little clause, supported by a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the EPA and USACE, is being interpreted in such a way that entire wetlands including creek bottoms are being torn up, mechanically prepared and planted in row crop pine.

The little clause reads like this: ûthe vegetative characteristics included in this definition refer to forested wetlands where hardwoods dominate the canopy. For the purposes of this guidance definition, riverine bottomland hardwoods do not include sites in which greater than 25% of the canopy is pine."

This guidance, written by various scientists who assisted in preparing the BMPs, addresses sites that are dominated by hardwood canopy, not sites that are already dominated by needle leaf pine canopy. What we learned during a disturbing field trip with our lawyers and representatives of the various enforcement agencies is that the EPA, USACE and GFC are interpreting this sub paragraph in such a way as to allow the harvesting of a row crop pine site and harvesting into adjoining sites even if the adjoining site is a wetland. Loggers are being allowed to harvest the wetland hardwoods down to a definable streambed so long as they leave a Stream Management Zone (SMZ) or buffer along the streambed.

When they return to prepare the plantation pine site for re-planting, the loggers are also allowed to mechanically prepare the wetland and plant row crop pines. When we asked if a land owner who had a stand of pines 10 or 12 years old with an adjoining wetland could return and harvest the hardwood wetland and convert the hardwood to a pine plantations, the answer was YES. Even if a riverine bottomland is 100 percent hardwood, if it sits next to a pine plantation, it can be converted to a pine plantation under the agencies' interpretation of the 25 percent rule.

This was a shock for ARK.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is designed to prevent the destruction of high quality wetlands such as creek bottoms. Section 404 requires a federal permit to destroy or damage high quality wetlands

To ARK, the mechanical preparation of wetlands for row crop pines where soil and trees stumps are pushed into rows by bulldozers is a violation of section 404. But apparently, that's not so under the little clause in the BMPs.

BMPs are supposed to protect forested wetlands in cases where the Clean Water Act does not apply; but they are voluntary. Generally speaking, this Riverkeeper thinks that voluntary BMPs in any industry do not work when the bottom line is involved. When you don't want something to work the simplest way of assuring the desired result is to make it voluntary and bury it in bureaucracy and red tape. ARK believes that is what's happening to our wetlands.

I do not know how our readers look on this, but to me this is insane. Surely, this could not have been the intent of the many scientists that assisted in preparing this voluntary BMPs manual for forestry practices.

Is it any wonder that I could not understand why they were destroying wetlands with impunity? This interpretation is a misapplication of the 25 percent rule and it has to stop. If this continues at this rate, we will lose the vast majority of the remaining wetlands we now have within the next 10 to 15 years

Early on, before we learned of that little clause, ARK found a 22-acre creek bottom and associated wetlands where the property owner harvested the trees and bulldozed the entire site including the creek channel. The USACE originally instructed the property owner to restore the wetland with either hardwood seedlings or plant hardwood seeds. The property owner did exactly the opposite and planted the entire area including the creek bottom with row crop pines.

Apparently, after discussions with the GFC, the USACE decision was reversed thanks to the little clause.

After we complained, ARK received a copy of the letter from the USACE stating to the property owner, " even though you planted pines instead of hardwood trees the wetland will restore its self", meaning of course, there is no violation. It still looked like wetland destruction and a violation of section 404 to ARK. Most of our grandchildren will never see this area restored back to its natural state. At best it will take at least 60 to 75 years for the few cypress, gums and oak seedlings left standing to achieve the maturity of the trees destroyed in this creek bottom.

Although exempt from some Clean Water Act section 404 permitting activities, we believe some of the sites should have required a permit before mechanical site preparation.

A few months later, ARK and our attorney's requested and got a meeting with the USACE and the GFC. At this meeting, we were advised that the GFC would address our concerns on a site-by-site basis. We recognized that we were in for tough times in the protection of wetlands, however, we did not realize exactly how tough it was going to be until months later. We hadn't met the little clause yet.

I left that meeting totally disheartened and confused about why we could not do a better job at protecting wetlands. But after much thought and consultation with our attorneys, I resumed documenting mechanical site preparation in wetlands for the purpose of planting row crop pines.

True to their word, the GFC continued to send a representative to each site ARK identified as a possible site of wetland destruction. Trouble was, ARK, according to the GFC, never could get one of these sites right. It was like the Riverkeeper didn't know what a swamp or wetland looked like in the woods.

That's when it was decided a fieldtrip with all agencies was in order.

It took a caravan of 11 cars, but we managed to visit four sites where ARK believes there is flagrant destruction of forested wetlands. (We won't specifically identify the sites on advise of our attorneys)

The first site was a riverine flood plain area that appeared to have been illegally prepared for planting by machine. On the site there was proof that a pine plantation had been in place many years ago. So it was determined that the pine harvest was legal. On the other hand, it appeared the pine plantation site had been expanded out into adjoining wetlands. This is where we started learning about what we believe to be the misapplication of the 25 percent rule.

The second site was a pine flat with cypress swamp areas¸surely, a wetland indicator if there ever was one-- as well as what the BMP manual calls a ûminorí drainage ditch. Again, the 25 percent rule was cited as the reason for the destruction of the most of the cypress areas as well as other wetlands on this site. From the road, you could see that cypress trees were simply bulldozed and piled in windrows. The area then was bedded and planted in pine seedlings.

Some of the seedlings had drowned because they were planted in areas that were too wet for pine. This despite the GFC's statement that property owners would not plant pines where they would not grow. In many of these wet areas, pines would not grow if the site had not have been prepared in bed approximately 10 inches high. As for this minor drainage ditch, the property owner asked for and received permission to install this ditch because the site was too wet to prepare it for pine seedlings.

At the third site, a swamp had been mostly destroyed by machinery in preparation for a pine plantation. The ARK documented this site and a complaint was filed with the GFC. The written response back to the ARK was, this is a low quality wetland and does not require a CWA section "404" permit. According to the MOA, non-riverine forest wetlands dominated by red maple, sweet gum, or loblolly pine alone or in combination are not considered to be of high quality and therefore do not require a permit. However, there is at least one stand of tupelo gum left on this site. Tupelos are an indicator of a high quality swamp. There was some disagreement among the officials that looked at this site; however, ARK has not seen any document reversing the GFC decision.

Site four is a huge clear-cut area, almost a square mile in size, already prepared and planted in pine seedlings. There are ditches on this site, again called ûminor'' by the BMPs. The property owner left the dirt from the ditch in piles on the field and this is classified as wetland fill. The officials looked at the area where the ditch came up to the county maintained road and the other side of the road leading away from the culvert. It was determined that since they could not find a definable stream bed leading away from the culvert, the property owner had violated no CWA laws by digging the ditch other than leaving the fill on site.

If they had found a stream bed then the property owner could have been responsible for altering a stream channel and that would have been a CWA section "404" violation.

It is my understanding that drainage ditches are state waters and the owner is going to have to come back and install a vegetative buffer for the ditch. The owner created some deep ruts with the heavy equipment and will have to return and smooth over the ruts. It was also determined that he would have to remove the dirt piles because they are classified as fill in a wetland.

So much for that little clause, a few words that when misinterpreted, as they now are cause big destruction. At some point -- hopefully soon¸the BMPs now used by the forestry industry will come back for review and up grading. In the meantime, all of us who care about wetlands must push the regulatory agencies to straighten out their current interpretation of the 25 percent clause so that it will better reflect the goal of protecting, not destroying forested wetlands.

Forestry Practices are Sending Our Wetlands Down the Ditches
By James Holland, Riverkeeper

Wetlands are so diverse; they hold the key to many life forms including humans.

As our forested wetlands are ditched and drained to make way for row crop pines, we are losing habitat, flood control and the nursery grounds for many valuable marine and freshwater species. We may be losing recharge areas for underground aquifers upon which millions depend for their drinking water.

Yet as far as ARK knows, despite decades of ditch and drain programs in Georgia, no one has taken a scientific look at the cumulative impacts we are experiencing from the original ditching and draining of our swamps and wetland. And the abuse continues through the misinterpretation of forestry best management practices (See our story ûForested Wetlands Threatened by Red-tape and Bureaucracy'') and through still more ditching and draining.

The Georgia Forestry Commission water quality specialists are trained in fluvial geomorphology (roughly meaning; stream characteristics and sediment transport to and in the stream). Fluvial geomorphology can also relate to hydroperiod. Hydroperiod, again roughly translated, simply means how long it takes water to get from point A to point B on the surface of the earth.

Hydroperiod plays an extremely important role in how fast our creeks rise and fall during rainfall events. Under natural conditions, the earth's surface is designed to move water at a very slow pace. A heavily ditched earth's surface¸like ditches that crisscross coastal Georgia in pine plantations changes the hydroperiod. A ditch can have the same effect as concrete and pavement when it comes to hydroperiod.

Natural wetlands help retain floodwaters. A ditched or filled wetland can no longer perform this function. Old timers like myself can remember when their swamps never went completely dry, even in drought periods. That's because the forested wetlands acted like buffers, smoothing out the hydroperiod.

Also, the fast rise and fall of streams and rivers is part of the reason why we have fewer fish, freshwater mussels and other wildlife than we once had.

Most fishermen know and understand that you have more fish when the river stays flooded for four to six weeks at least once each year. An altered hydroperiod plays a vital role in how high the floodwaters will be and how long the flooded area stays flooded. Ditching and draining wetlands causes the surface water from rainfall to arrive at the rivers and creeks more rapidly than the creek or river can hold. The faster the water gets to the stream, the sooner the stream loads up and thereby increases the flood height.

The quicker the water gets to the stream, the quicker it will leave the area on its way to the ocean. This does not give the fish and other aquatic species ample time to expand their feeding habits out into the woods and swamps where there is an abundant food supply. Healthy, well-fed fish have much better spawn than poorly fed, undernourished fish. The rapid fall of the floodwaters also causes a disruption in the breeding and spawning grounds creating conditions that leave us with fewer fish to catch.

On Georgia's coast,an altered hydroperiod is raising havoc in the saltwater estuaries. Most of Georgia's in shore fish, shrimp and crabs are wetland dependent and need water conditions with low or mid level salinities at some point in their life. This holds particularly true in their larval and post larval stage of the life cycle.

Ditched and filled wetlands tend to exacerbate drought and drought-related problems. If these swamps did not have ditches and canals in them, the fresh water would be released slowly to the saltwater estuaries. This natural hydroperiod would be especially beneficial during droughts, not only for saltwater rivers but, our fresh water creeks and rivers as well. We all complain about our rivers having lower flows in the summer months than they used to be. There are a couple of good reasons for this, silt and hydroperiods are probably the main culprits causing this unless you are in a drought and then silt and hydroperiod still play a role in low flow conditions.

Drainage ditching causes the surface waters to run off too quickly creating a flushing effect that causes areas to fill in with silt and sediment. Then the receiving streams do not have the carrying capacity they once had. Just take a look at how many boat landings in our rivers where a boat can no longer be launched during low flow periods or other areas that once had deep holes that are no longer deep.

Why we continue to allow even minor drainage with the knowledge that even minor drainage alters hydroperiod is amazing to me.

I do not know where EPD stands on this subject; however, it's about time for EPD to take a public stand because it is the lead agency responsible for water quality. EPD is not only responsible for the quality of the water we drink, but also the water quality and quantity for the wildlife of this state.