many records and documents generated during a series of public hearings, administrative appeals, 

 and court proceedings resulting from several major cases over the last 5 years. 



Effects on Wetland Functions 



Concerns were expressed about the effects of impoundment activities on basic wetland functions. 

 Specifically, opponents suggested that impoundments would reduce tidal exchange; the exchange 

 of tidal waters would be greatly reduced and would occur only when the impoundments were 

 drained and flooded (usually in the spring in South Carolina brackish water waterfowl 

 impoundments). This would greatly diminish the natural import and export of nutrients and 

 biomass. Also, arguments were raised that access to nursery habitats by aquatic organisms would 

 be limited (the value of fishery habitat being great in open wetlands). Impoundments would restrict 

 or prohibit use by estuarine-dependent fish and crustaceans of the wetland habitat contained within 

 the dikes. And finally, critics suggested that marsh productivity would be diminished and that tidal 

 wetlands are significantly more productive than impounded wetlands (using Spartina productivity 

 as a measure). Impoundments would prevent the export of Spartina detritus produced within their 

 dikes. 



Effects on Water Quality 



Questions were also raised by opponents regarding water quality. One concern expressed by 

 several groups was the potential for the formation and possible export of acidic waters due to 

 "cat clays" (oxidized soils) during periods when impoundment beds are dewatered. In South 

 Carolina, impoundment waters are usually drained in the spring and, depending on the management 

 strategy employed, the beds may be exposed to the atmosphere for 3 to 4 months. Oxygen from 

 the air may react with the highly sulfuric composition of the soils, producing acidic conditions. 

 Also, impoundments concentrate waterfowl (and other avifauna), which are known to release large 

 amounts of nutrient-laden feces. High nutrient levels could result, some suggested, in algal blooms 

 and the subsequent depletion of oxygen in impoundment waters. Complicating this problem would 

 be the high levels of fecal coliform bacteria that would result. Others pointed to the probable 

 reduction of the filtering capacity of open wetlands. 



Navigation 



Other issues raised by re-impoundment opponents included the impact of impoundments on 

 navigable waterways, which are subject to the navigational servitude of the United States and the 

 State of South Carolina. Several agencies contended that tidal creeks cut off by impoundments 

 violate this servitude. In fact, in a recent decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court (Opinion 

 No. 22602, filed July 28, 1986), the Court ruled that the "South Carolina Coastal Council does 

 not have the authority to authorize the complete blockage of navigable streams and waterways" in 

 this case, for the purpose of constructing impoundment dikes. 



Public Access 



Impoundments would limit public access to a "public resource" according to public interest 

 groups. The public would be cut off from all wetlands targeted for re-impoundment. 



The "Precedent" 



A major argument of involved regulatory agencies was that "if we allow one, we'll have to allow 

 them all." This might indeed have been the case because there were no established criteria 

 available for use in evaluating applications for re-impoundment or repair activities. 



100 



