United
Environmental Prot»c8on
Oflte* 0< W«t»r
R*gulMont «nd Standard*
Wa^mion. DC 20460
-uly 1390
Water Quality Standards
for Wetlands
National Guidance
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR
WETLANDS
National Guidance
July 1990
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Office of Wetlands Protection
-------
This document is designated as Appendix B to Chapter 2 • General Program Gjidance of t-e .va:er C
Standards Handbook, December 1983.
Table of Contents
Page
Transmittal Memo v
Executive Summary v,i
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objectives 2
1.2 Organization 2
1.3 Legal Authority 3
2.0 INCLUSION OF WETLANDS IN THE DEFINITION OF STATE WATERS 5
3.0 USE CLASSIFICATION 7
3.1 Wetland Types 8
3.2 Wetland Functions and Values 10
3.3 Designating Wetland Uses 11
4.0 CRITERIA __ _ 15
4.1 Narrative Criteria 15
4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria 16
4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria 16
4': Numeric Criteria 17
4.2.1 Numeric Criteria - Human Health 17
4.2.2 Numeric Criteria - Aquatic Life 17
5.0 ANTIDEGRADATION 19
5.1 Protection of Existing Uses 19
-------
52 Protection of High-Quality Wetlands 20
53 Protection of Outstanding Wetlands 20
6.0 IMPLEMENTATION 23
6.1 Section 401 Certification 23
6.2 Discharges to Wetlands 24
6.2.1 Municipal Wastewatcr Treatment 24
6.2.2 Stormwater Treatment 24
6.2.3 Fills 25
6.2.4 Nonpoint Source Assessment and Control 25
6.3 Monitoring 25
64 Mixing Zones and Variances 26
7.0 FUTURE DIRECTIONS 29
71 Numeric Biological Criteria for Wetlands 29
7.2 Wildlife Criteria 30
73 Wetlands Monitoring 30
References 31
Appendices
A - Glossary A-1
B • Definition of "Waters of the U.S." B-1
C - information on the Assessment of Wetland Functions and Values C-i
D - Regional Wetlands Coordi. rs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agt ,y
U.S. Fish and Wildltfe Service O-i
E • Example of State Certification Action Involving WeUands under CWA Section 401 E-1
-------
••«•
•»,
\
. ?
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20440
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
3 0 1990
or net or
WATIM
Final Document: National Guidance on Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands
Martha G. Prothro, Director
Office of Water Regul§£*«Qs—and Standards
David G. Davis, Dir
Office of Wetlands
Regional Water Division Directors
Regional Environmental Services Division Directors
Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy
and Management, Region VII
OW Office Directors
State Water Quality Program Managers
State Wetland Program Managers
The following document entitled "National Guidance: Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands" provides guidance for meeting the
priority established in the FY 1991 Agency Operating Guidance to
develop water quality standards for wetlands during the FY 1991-
1993 triennium. This document was developed jointly by the
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office
of Wetlands Protection (OWP) , and reflects the comments we
received on the February 1990 draft from EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices, EPA laJjoratories , and the States.
By the end of FY 1993, the minimum requirements for States
are to include wetlands in the definition of "State waters",
statolish beneficial uses for wetlands, adopt existing narrative
.d numeric criteria for wetlands, adopt narrative biological
cTriteri., for wetlands, and apply ant i degradation policies to
wetlands. Information in this document related to the
development of biological criteria has been coordinated with
recent guidance issued by OWRS; "Biological Criteria: National
Program Guidance for Surface Waters", dated April 1990.
We are focusing on water quality standards for wetlands to
ensure that provisions of the Clean Water Act currently applied
to other surface waters are also being applied to wetlands. The
document focuses on those elements of water quality standards
-------
that can be developed now using the overall structure of the
water quality standards program and existing information and data
sources related to wetlands. Periodically, our offices win
provide additional information and support to the Regions and
States through workshops and additional documents. We encourage
you to let us Know your needs as you begin developing wetlands
standards. If you have any questions concerning this document,
please contact us or have your staff contact Bob Shippen in OWRS
(FTS-475-7329) or Doreen Robb in OWP (FTS-245-3906).
Attachment
cc: LaJuana Wilcher
Robert Wayland
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
This document provides program guidance to States on how to ensure effective application of water
quality standards (WQS) to wetlands. This guidance reflects the level of achievement EPA expects the States
to accomplish by the end-of-FY 1993, as defined in the Agency Operating Guidance, FY 1991, Office of Water
The basic requirements for applying State water quality staodaKte-to wetlands include the following:
Include wetlands In the definition of "State waters."
Designate uses for all wetlands.
Adept aesthetic narrative criteria (the free frorns") and appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands.
Adopt narrative biological criteria for wetlands.
Appjy the State's antkiegrsdation policy aod implementation methods to wetlands.
Water quality standards for wetlands are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) applied to other surface waters are also applied to wetlands. Although Federal regulations im-
plementing the CWA include wetlands in the definition of "waters of the U.S." and therefore require water
quality standards, a number of States have not developed WQS for wetlands and have not included wetlands
in their definitions of "State waters." Applying water quality standards to wetlands is part of an overall effort
to protect and enhance the Nation's wetland resources and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs to meet this goal. Standards provide the foundation for a broad range of water quality manage-
ment activities including, but not limited to, monitoring under Section 305(b), permitting under Sections 402
and 404. water quality certification under Section 401, and the control of NPS pollution under Section 319
With the issuance of this guidance, EPA proposes-a-two-phased-approacn-fo^t^e-development of-WQS
for wetlands. Phase 1 activities presented in this guidance include the development of WQS elements for
wetlands based upon existing Information and science to be implemented within the next triennium. Phase
2 involves the further refinement of these basic elements using new science and program developments The
development of WQS for all surface waters is an iterative process.
Definition
The first and most (important p in applying water quality standards to wetlands is ensuring that wetlands
are legally included In the scope of States' water quality standards programs. States may accomplish this by
adopting a regulatory definition of "State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal definition of waters of
the U.S." and by adopting an appropriate definition for "wetlands." States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of water quality standards over wetlands
Use Designation
At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses designated that meet the goals of Section 101 (a)(2) of the CWA
by providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the
water, unless the results of a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA Section 101 (a) (2) goals
cannot be achieved. When designating uses for wetlands, States may choose to use their existing general
-------
and water-specific classification systems, or they may set up an entirely different system for wetlands
-etiectmg their unique functions. Two basic pieces of information are useful m classifying -wetland uses: ;• •
the structural types of wetlands and (2) the functions and values associated with such types of wetlands
Generally, wetland functions directly relate to the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of wetlands
The protection o* these functions through water quality standards also may be needed to attain the uses of
waters adjacent to, or downstream of, wetlands.
Criteria
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR I3l.ii(a)(1)) requires States to adopt criteria sufficient
to protect designated uses that may include general statements (narrative) and specific numerical values
(i e.. concentrations of contaminants and water quality characteristics). Most State water quality standards
already contain many criteria for various water types and designated use classes that may be applicable to
wetlands.
Narrative criteria are particularly important in wetlands, since many wetland impacts cannot be fully
addressed by numeric criteria. Such impacts may result from the discharge of chemicals for which there are
no numeric criteria in State standards, nonpoint sources, and activities that may affect the physical and/or
biological, rather than the chemical, aspects of water quality (e.g., discharge of dredged and fill material)
Narratives should be written to protect the most sensitive designated use and to support existing uses under
State antidegradation policies. In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative biological criteria provide a
further basis for managing a broad range of activities that impact the biological integrity of wetlands and
other surface waters, particularly physical and hydroiogic modifications. Narrative biological criteria are
general statements of attainable or attained conditions of biological integrity and water quality for a given use
designation. EPA has published national guidance on developing biological criteria for all surface waters.
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for chemical constituents, physical parameters, or biological
conditions that are adopted in State standards. Human health water quality criteria are based on the toxicity
of a contaminant and the amount of the contaminant consumed through ingestlon of water and fish
regardless of the type of water. Therefore, EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are directly
applicable to wetlands. EPA also develops chemical-specific numeric criteria recommendations for the
protection of freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic life and are generally applicable to most
wetland types. An exception to this are pH-dependent criteria, such as ammonia and pentachlorophenol,
since wetland pH may be outside the normar range of 6.5-90: As in other waters, natural water quality
characteristics in some wetlands may be outside the range established for uses designated fn State stand-
ards. These water quality characteristics may require the development of criteria that reflect the natural
background conditions in a specific wetland or wetland type. Examples of some of the wetland charac-
teristics that may fall into this category are dissolved oxygen, pH. turbidity, color, and hydrogen suifide.
Antidegradation
The antidegradation policies contained in all State standaro. provide -.powerful tool for the protection of
wetlands and can be used by States to regulate point and nonpoint source discharges to wetlands in the
same way as other surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative criteria, antidegradation
can be used to addresa Impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed by chemical criteria, such as
physical and hydroiogic modifications. With the Inclusion of wetlands aa "waters of the State,' State
antidegradation policies and tnelr implementation methods will apply to wetlands In the same way as other
surface waters. State antidegradation policies should provide for the protection of existing uses in wetlands
and the level of water quality necessary to protect those uses in the same manner as provided for other
surface waters; see Section I3l.l2(a){i) oftheWQS regulation. In the case of fills, EPA interprets protection
of existing uses to be met if there is no significant degradation as defined according to the Section 404(b)(D
guidelines. State antidegradation policies also provide special protection for outstanding natural resource
waters
-------
Implementation
Implementing water quality standards for wetlands will require a coordinated effort between related
Federal and State agencies and programs. Many States nave begun to make more use of CWA Section 401
certification to manage certain activities that impact their wetland resources on a physical and/or biological
basis rather than just chemical impacts. Section 401 gives the States the authority to grant, deny, or
condition certification of Federal permits or licenses that may result in a discharge to waters ot the U S
Such action is taken by the State to ensure compliance with various provisions of the CWA. including the
State's water quality standards. Violation of water quality standards is often the oasts for denials or
conditioning through Section 401 certification.
Natural wetlands are nearly always 'waters of the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protection as
other surface waters with regard to standards and minimum wastewater treatment requirements Water
quality standards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and overuse of natural wetlands for treatment through
adoption of proper uses and criteria and application of State antidegradation policies. The Water Quality
Standards Regulation (40 CFR 131 tO(a)) states that, in no case shall a State adopt waste transport or waste
assimilation as a designated use for any 'waters of the U.S.' ' Certain activities involving the discharge of
pollutants to wetlands may be permitted; however, as with other surface waters, the State must ensure.
through ambient monitoring, that permitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect wetland functions
and values as defined in State water quality standards. For municipal discharges to natural wetlands, a
minimum of secondary treatment is required, and applicable water quality standards for the wetland and
adjacent waters must be met. EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater discharges to wetlands will
have some similarities to the policies for municipal wastewater discharges to wetlands.
Many wetlands, through their assimilative capacity for nutrients and sediment, afso serve an important
water quality control function for nonpoint source pollution effects on waters adjacent to, or downstream of.
the wetlands. Section 319 of the CWA requires the States to complete assessments of nonpoint source
(NFS) impacts to State waters, including wetlands, and to prepare management programs to control NPS
impacts. Water quality standards for wetlands can form the basis for these assessments and management
programs for wetlands.
In addition, States can address physical and hydrological impacts on wetland quality through the applica-
tion of narrative criteria to protect existing uses and through application of their antidegradation policies
The States should provide a linkage^n thelrwater quality'Standards to"the~determination of 'significant
degradation" as required under EPA guidelines (40 CFR 230.10(c)j'and"other applicable Sratelaws affecting
the disposal of dredged or fill materials in wetlands.
Finally, water quality management activities, including the permitting of wastewater and stormwater
discharges, the assessment and control of NPS pollution, and waste disposal activities (sewage sludge,
CERCLA, RCRA) require sufficient monitoring to ensure that the designated and existing uses of waters of
the U.S." are maintained and pf^ cted. The inclusion of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
basis for conducting both well a//d-spec if i' ind status and trend monitoring of State wetland resources
Monitoring of activities impacting specific wetlands may include several approaches, including biological
measurements (i.e., plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish), that have shown promise for monitoring stream
quality. The States are encouraged to develop and test the use of biological indicators.
Future Directions
Development of narrative biological criteria are included in the first phase of the development of water
quality standards for wetlands. The second phase involves the implementation of numeric biological criteria
This effort requires the detailed evaluation of the components of wetland communities to determine :he
structure and function of unimpaired wetlands. Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife species it :s
therefore also important to consider wildlife in developing criteria that protect the functions and values of
ur
-------
wetlands During the next 3 years, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjustments m the criteria and^or alternative forms of criteria (eg ,
tissue concentration criteria) are needed to adequately protect wildlife species using wetland resources
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards is also developing guidance for EPA and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the end of FY 1990. Other technical guidance and support
for the development of State water quality standards will be forthcoming from EPA in the next triennium.
-------
Chapter 1.0
Introduction
Our understanding of the many benefits that
wetlands provide has evolved rapidly over
the last 20 to 30 years. Recently.
programs have been developed to restore and
protect wetland resources at the local. State, and
Federal levels of government. At the Federal level.
the President of the United States established the
goal of "no net loss" of wetlands, adapted from the
National Wetlands Policy Forum recommendations
(The Conservation Foundation 1988). Applying
water quality standards to wetlands is pa "f an
overall effort to protect the Nation's wetland .^sour-
ces and provides a regulatory basis for a variety of
programs for managing wetlands to meet this goal.
As the link between land and water, wetlands play
a vital role in water quality management programs.
Wetlands provide a wide array of functions including
shoreline stabilization, nonpomt source runoff filtra-
tion, and erosion control, which directly benefit ad-
jacent and downstream waters, in addition, wet-
lands provide important biological habitat, including
nursery areas for aquatic life and wildlife, and other
benefits such as groundwater recharge and recrea-
tion. Wetlands comprise a wide variety of aquatic
vegetated systems including, but not limited to.
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, bogs. fens.
vernal pools, and marshes. The basic elements of
water quality standards (WOS), including desig-
nated uses, criteria, and an antidegradation policy.
provide a sound legal basis for protecting wetland
resources through State water quality management
programs.
Water quality standards traditionally have been
applied to waters such as rivers, lakes, estuaries
and oceans, and have been applied tangentiaiiy, if at
all, to wetlands by applying the same uses and
criteria to wetlands as to adjacent perennial waters
Isolated wetlands not directly associated with peren-
nial waters generally have not been addressed m
State water quality standards. A recent review of
State water quality standards (USEPA i989d) shows
that only half of the States specifically refer to wet-
lands, or use similar terminology, m their Aater
quality standards. Even where wetlands are reier-
-------
e^ced. stanaaras may not oe tailored to reflect the
«mque characteristics of wetlands.
•Vater quality standards specifically tailored to
//etlands provide a consistent basis for the develop-
ment of policies and technical procedures for
managing activities that impact wetlands. Such
water quality standards provide the goals for
Federal and State programs that regulate dischar-
ges to wetlands, particularly those under CWA Sec-
tions 402 and 404 as well as other regulatory
programs {e.g.. Sections 307, 318, and 405) and
nonregulatory programs (e.g.. Sections 314, 319,
and 320). In addition, standards play a critical role
in the State 401 certification process by providing
the basis for approving, conditioning, or denying
Federal permits and licenses, as appropriate. Final-
ly, standards provide a benchmark against which to
assess the many activities that impact wetlands.
1.1 Objectives
The objective of this document is to assist States
in applying their water quality standards regulations
to wetlands in accordance with the Agency Operat-
ing Guidance (USEPA I990a). which states:
By September 30, 1993, States and qualified
Indian Tribes must adopt narrative water
quality standards that apply directly to wet-
lands. Those Standards shall be established
in accordance with either the National
Guidance. Water Quality Standards tor Wet-
lands... or some other scientiti&eHy>'vaHd'
method. In adopting water quality standards
lor wetlands, States and qualified Indian
Tribes, at a minimum, shall: (1) define wet-
lands as 'State waters"; (2) designate uses
that protect the structure and function of wet-
lands; (3) adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
(the "free froms") and appropriate numeric
criteria in the standards to protect the desig-
nated uses; (4) adopt narrative biological
criteria in the standards; and (5) extend the
antidegradation policy and implementation
methods to wetlands. Unless results of a use
attainability analysis show that the section
101 (a) goals cannot be achieved, States and
qualified Indian Tribes shall designate uses
for wetlands that provide tor the protection of
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreation. When
extending the antidegradation policy and im-
plementation methods :o •vefar»as. con-
s/aeration snould be given :o oes^gnatmg
critical wetlands as Oursrano'ing National
Resource Waters. As necessary, the an-
tidegradation policy should tie rev/sect :o
reflect the unique characteristics of wetlands.
This level of achievement is based upon existing
science and information, and therefore can be com-
pleted within the FY 91-93 triennial review cycle
Initial development of water quality standards for
wetlands over the next 3 years will provide the foun-
dation for the development of more detailed water
quality standards for wetlands in the future based on
further research and policy development (see Chap-
ter 70.). Activities defined in this guidance are
referred to as 'Phase i activities," while those to be
developed over the longer term are referred to as
Phase 2 activities." Developing water quality stand-
ards is an iterative process.
This guidance is not regulatory, nor is it designed
to dictate specific approaches needed in State water
quality standards. The document addresses the
minimum requirements set out in the Operating
Guidance, and should be used as a guide to the
modifications that may be needed in State stand-
ards. EPA recognizes that State water quality stand-
ards regulations vary greatly from State to State, as
do wetland resources. This guidance suggests ap-
proaches that States may wish to use and allows for
State flexibility and innovation.
1.2 Organization
Each chapter of this document provides guidance
on a particular element of Phase 1 wetland water
quality standards that EPA expects States to under-
take during the next triennial review period (i.e., by
September 30, 1993). For h chapter, a discus-
sion of what EPA considers iu be minr ^-;iy accept-
able is followed by subsections providing informa-
tion that may be used to meet, and go beyond, the
minimum requirements during Phase 1. Documents
referenced in this guidance provide further mforma-
tion on specific topics and may be obtained from the
sources listed in the 'References" section. The fol-
lowing paragraphs introduce each of the chapters of
this guidance.
Most wetlands fall within the definition of 'waters
of the U.S.' and thus require water quality stand-
-------
ards. EPA expects States by the end of FY 1993 to
include wetlands in their definition of State waters
consistent with the Federal definition ot waters of
the U.S." Guidance on the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of 'State waters' is contained in Chap-
ter 2.0.
The application of water quality standards to wet-
lands requires that States designate appropriate
uses consistent with Sections I0i(a)(2) and
303(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). EPA ex-
pects States by the end of FY 1993 to establish
designated uses for all wetlands. Discussion of
designated uses is contained in Chapter 3.0.
The WQS regulalion (40 CFR 131) requires States
to adopt water quality criteria sufficient to protect
designated uses. EPA expects the States, by the
end of FY 1993, to adopt aesthetic narrative criteria
(the "free froms"), appropriate numeric criteria, and
narrative biological criteria for wetlands. Narrative
criteria are particularly important for wetlands, since
many activities may impact upon the physical and
biological, as well as chemical, components of
water quality. Chapter 4.0 discusses the application
of narrative and numeric criteria to wetlands.
EPA also expects States to fully apply an-
tidegradation policies and implementation methods
to wetlands by the end of FY 1993. Antidegradation
can provide a powerful tool for the protection of
wetlands, especially through the requirement for full
protection of existing uses as well as the States'
option of designating wetlands 'as'outstanding* nap
tional resource waters. Guidance on the application
of State antidegradation policies to wetlands is con-
tained in Chapter 5.0.
Many State water quality standards contain
policies affecting the application and implementa-
tion of water quality standards (e.g.. variances,
mixing zones). Unless otherwise specified, such
policies are presumed to apply to wetlands in the
same manner as to other waters of the State. States
should consider whether such policies should be
modified to reflect the characteristics of wetlands
Guidance on the implementation of water quality
standards for wetlands is contained in Chapter 6.0.
Application of standards to wetlands will be an
iterative process; both EPA and the States will refine
their approach based on new scientific information
as well as experience developed tnrcogn State
programs. Chapter 79 outlines Phase 2 /.et'a-d
standards activities 'or which EPA is planning addi-
tional research and program development
1.3 Legal Authority
The Clean Water Act requires States to develop
water quality standards, which include designated
uses and criteria to support those uses, for
navigable waters." CWA Section 502(7) defines
'navigable waters" as "waters of the U.S." Waters of
the U.S." are, in turn, defined in Federal regulations
developed for the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (40 CFR 122.2) and permits for
the dtsctwrfge-of dredged or fill material (40 CFR
230.3 and 232.2). "Waters of the U.S.' include
waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; inter-
state waters (including interstate wetlands) and in-
trastate waters (including wetlands), the use.
destruction, or degradation of which could affect
interstate commerce; tributaries of the above: and
wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other than
waters which are themselves waters). See Appendix
B for a complete definition.
The term 'wetlands' is defined in 40 CFR
232.2(r)as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a
prevaleaca-oLvegatationjypicaUy adapted for
life, in saturated .soil conditions.. Wetlands
generalty include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas.
This definition of "waters of the U S.. which in-
cludes most wetlands, has been debated in Con-
r ss and upheld by the courts. In 1977. a proposal
tu delete C\*JA jurisdiction over most wetlands for
the purpose of the Section 404 permit program was
defeated in the Senate. The debate on the amend-
ment shows a strong congressional awareness c<
the value of wetlands and the importance of retain-
ing them under the statutory scheme Various
courts have also upheld the application of the CWA
to wetlands. See. e.g.. United States v Riverside
Bayview Homes. 474 US. 121 (1985); United States
v. Byrd, 609 F 2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1979); Avoyenes
Sportsmen's League v Marsn, 715 F 2d 897 ;sm
-------
C.r 1983); United Slates v Les//e Salt (1990
Decision]. The practical effect is to make nearly all
wetlands waters of trie U.S.'
Created wastewater treatment wetlands
designed, built, and operated solely as wastewater
treatment systems are generally not considered to
be waters of the U.S. Water quality standards that
apply to natural wetlands generally do not apply to
such created wastewater treatment wetlands. Many
created wetlands, however, are designed, buiit. and
operated to provide, in addition to wastewater treat-
ment, functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances.
such created multiple use wetlands may be con-
sidered waters of the U.S. and as such would require
water quality standards. This determination must be
made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetlands and other appropriate factors.
Different offices within EPA use different terminology (e.g.. "create" or 'constructed") to describe
wastewater treatment wetlands. This terminology is evolving; for purposes of this guidance
document, the terms are interchangeable in meaning.
-------
Chapter 2.0
Inclusion of Wetlands in
the Definition of State
Waters
The first, and most important, step in apply-
ing water quality standards to wetlands is
ensuring that wetlands are legally included
m the scope of States' water quality standards
programs. EPA expects States' water quality stand-
ards to include wetlands in the definition of State
waters" by the end of FY 1993. States may ac-
complish this by adopting a regulatory definition of
State waters" at least as inclusive as the Federal
definition of 'waters of the U.S." and by adopting an
appropriate definition for "wetlands." For example.
one State includes the following definitions in their
water quality standards:
Surface waters of the State"... means all
streams,... lakes..., ponds, marshes, wet-
lands or other waterways...
Wetlands' means areas of land where tne
water ta -s at, near or above the land sur-
face long enough r~cft /ear to result ;n me
formation of cnaracteristicatly wet
soil types, and support the growth of
dependent (hydrophytic) vegetation Wet-
lands include, but are not limited to, marshes,
swamps, bogs, and other such /ow-iymg
areas.
States may also need to remove or modify
regulatory language that explicitly or implicitly limits
the authority of water quality standards over wet-
lands. lr\ certain instances, such as
-------
quality standards are statutory or where a statute
defines or limits regulatory authority over wetlands,
statutory changes may be needed.
The CWA does not preclude States from adopt-
ing, under State !aw, a more expansive definition ot
waters of the State" to meet the goals ot the act.
Additional areas that could be covered include
•ipanan areas, floodplams, vegetated buffer areas,
or any other critical areas identified by the State
Riparian areas and floodplalns are important and
severely threatened ecosystems, particularly in the
and and semiahd West. Often it is technically dif-
ficult to separate, jurtsdictionally, wetlands subject
to the provisions of the CWA from other areas within
the riparian or floodplain complex.
States may choose to include riparian or
floodplam ecosystems as a whole in the definition of
waters of the State" or designate these areas for
special protection in their water quality standards
through several mechanisms, including definitions.
use classifications, and antidegradation. For ex-
ample, the regulatory definition of "waters of the
State m one State includes'
...The flood plain of free flowing wafers defer-
mined by the Department...on the oasis of the
100-year flood frequency.
in another State, the definition of a use classifica-
tion states:
This beneficial use is a combination ot the
characteristics of the watershed expressed in
the water quality and the riparian area.
And in a third State, the antidegradation protec-
tion for high-quality waters provides that:
These waters shall not be lowered m
quality., unless it is determined by the com-
mission that such lowering will not do any of
the following:
(bjecome injurious to the value or
utility of riparian lands...
-------
Chapter 3.0
Use Classification
At a minimum, EPA expects States by the
end of FY 1993 to designate uses for all
wetlands, and to meet the same minimum
requirements of the WQS regulation (40 CFR
131.10) that are-applied.to other, waters. -UsesJotr
wetlands must meet the goals of Section I0i(a)(2)
of the CWA by providing for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreation in and on the water, unless the results of
a use attainability analysis (UAA) show that the CWA
Section 101 (a)(2) goals cannot be achieved. The
Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(C)) allows for the designation of sub-
categories of a use, an activity that may be ap-
propriate for wetlands. Pursuant to the WQS
Regulation (40 CFR I3l.t0(i)), States must desig-
nate any uses that are presently being attained in
the wetland. A technical-support document is cur-
rently being developed by the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards for conducting use at-
tainability analyses for wetlands.
The propagation of aquatic life and wildlife is an
attainable use in virtually all wetlands. Aquatic life
protection need not refer only to year-round fish and
aquatic life. Wetlands often provide valuable
seasonal habitat for fish and other aquatic life, am-
phibians, and migratory bird reproduction and
migratioo... States,-should_ensure that aquatic life
and-wildlife uses ace-dssignated Joe wetlands, euen if
a limited habitat is available or trie use is attained
only seasonally.
Recreation in and on the water, on the other hand.
may not be attainable in certain wetlands that do not
have sufficient water, at least seasonally. However.
States are also encoi aged to recognize and
protect recreational uses that do not directly involve
contact with water, e.g.. hiking, camping, bird
watching.
The WQS regulation requires a UAA wherever a
State designates a use that does not include the
uses specified in Section I0i(a)(2) of the CWA. see
40 CFR Part 131 10(J). This need not be an onerous
task for States when deciding whether certain
recreational uses are attainable. States may con-
duct generic UAAs ror entire classes or types of
-------
/.etianas based on the demonstrations in 40 CFR
Part 131 iO(g)(2). States must, however, designate
CWA goal uses wherever these are attainable, even
where attainment may be seasonal.
When designating uses for wetlands, States may
choose to use their existing general and water-
specific classification systems, or they may set up
an entirely different system for wetlands. Each of
these approaches has advantages and disad-
vantages, as discussed below.
Some States stipulate that wetlands are desig-
nated for the same uses as the adjacent waters.
States may also apply their existing general clas-
sification system to designate uses for specific wet-
lands or groups of wetlands. The advantage of
these approaches is that they do not require States
to expend additional effort to develop specific wet-
land uses, or determine specific functions and
values, and can be generally used to designate the
CWA goal uses for wetlands. However, since wet-
land attributes may b« significantly different than
those of other waters. States with general wetland
use designations will need to review the uses for
individual wetlands In more detail when assessing
activities that may impair the specific "existing uses"
(eg., functions and values), in addition, the 'ad-
jacent" approach does not produce uses for 'iso-
lated" wetlands.
Owing to these differences in attributes, States
should strongly consider adopting a separate use
classification system for wetlands based on •wetland-
type and/or beneficial use (function and value). This
approach initially requires more effort in developing
use categories (and specific criteria that may be
needed for them), as well as in determining what
uses to assign to specific wetlands or groups of
wetlands. The greater the specificity in designating
uses, however, the easier It is for States to justify
regulatory controls to protect those uses. States
may wish to designate beneficial uses for individual-
ly named wetlands, including outstanding wetlands
(see Section 6.3), although this approach may be
practical only for a limited number of wetlands. For
the majority of their wetlands. States may wish to
designate generalized uses for groups of wetlands
based on region or wetland type.
Two basic pieces of information are useful in
classifying wetland uses: (1) the structural types of
wetlands: and (2) the functions and values as-
sociated with such types of wetlands The 'unions
and values of wetlands are often defined based
upon structural type and location within the
landscape or watershed. The understanding of the
various wetland types within the State and their
functions and values provides the basis for a com-
prehensive classification system applicable to all
wetlands and ail wetland uses. As with other waters.
both general and waterbody-specific classifications
may be needed to ensure that uses are appropriate-
ly assigned to all wetlands in the State Appropriate
and definitive use designations allow water quality
standards to more accurately reflect both the exist-
ing" uses-and tbe States' goals for their wetland
resources, and to allow standards to be a more
powerful tool in protecting State wetlands. Sections
3.1 through 33 provide further information on wet-
land types, functions, and values, and how these
can be used to designate uses for wetlands.
3.1 Wetland Types
A detailed understanding of the various wetland
types within the State provides the basis for a com-
prehensive classification system. The classification
system most often cited and used by Federal and
State wetland permit programs was developed by
Cowardin et al. (1979) for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS); see Figure 1. This system provides
the basis for wetland-related activities within the
FWS. The Cowardin system is hierarchical and thus
can provide several levels of detail in classifying
wetlandsr T her "System* and "Subsystem" levels of
detail appear to be trre most promising for water
quality standards. The "Class" level may be useful
for designating uses for specific wetlands or wetland
types. Section 3.3 gives an example of how one
State uses the Cowardin system to generate desig-
nated uses for wetlands.
Under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986. the FWS is required to complete the mapping
of wetlands within the lower 48 States by 1998
through the National Wetlands Inventory (NWi) and
to assess the status of the nation's wetland resour-
ces every 10 years. The maps and status and trend
reports may help States understand the extent of
their wetlands and wetland types and ensure that ail
wetlands are assigned appropriate uses. To date.
over 30.000 detailed 1:24.000 scale maps have been
completed, covering approximately 60 percent of
-------
Subtytti
CUu
-SubtuUi-
I—Rock Bottom
I— 'Jocoatolidatad Bottom
t
AquatK Bed
— Manat-
-Int«rudaJ
i—
J-IUrf
- Rocky Shor»
•Subudal-
-lourudal
l«d Shor*
pRock Bottom
j— U ncoiuoiid*t«d Bottom
t— Aquatic B*d
L-Rw*
— Aquatic 3«d
•RM<
-StnuntMd
- Rocky Shora
- Uacoocoiidaud Short
P
H
a
<
- Scrub-ShrabWtOaad
• Forttud Wtdand
— Rock Bottom
^ T
I U
- Tidal.
• Aquatic EUd
-Rocky Short
- Uncouoiidaud Short
• Eowfnt Wttiaad
-Rock Bottom
• UacouoikUud Bottom
-AquaucBtd
-Rocky Short
• Uncoiuoiidaud Short
-Rock Bottom
— Uocooaolidaud Bottom
— Aquauc Bad
-Rocky Short
—UnmnanlMiaud Short
-Intermittent •
-StrtuntMd
PRock Bottom
L'ncoa*olid*ttd Bottom
- Littoral -
*— AquaucBtd
— Rock Bottom
— t'ocentoiidtted Bottom
— Aquauc Btd
- Rocky Short
— Uacoatoiidaud Short
— PihutruM-
Rock Bottom
ltncoa*olid*ttd Bottom
UncauoiidMd Short
MoM-LiclMa Wttland
EmwfMtWtUutd
Serob- Shrub Wttlud
Forwud Wttlaad
Figure 1. Classification hierarchy of wetlands and
deepwater habitats, showing Systems, Subsystems, and Classes. The Palustrine System does not include deep^aicr
habitats (from Cowardin et aJ., 1979).
-------
:ne coterminous United States and 16 percent of
Alaska2
in some States, wetland maps developed under
the NWI program have been digitized and are avail-
able for use with geographic information systems
(GIS). To date, more than 5,700 wetland maps rep-
resenting 10.5 percent of the coterminous United
States have been digitized. Statewide digital
databases have been developed for New Jersey,
Delaware. Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, and
are in progress in Indiana and Virginia. NWI digital
data files also are available for portions of 20 other
States. NWI data files are sold at cost in 7,5-minute
quadrangle units. The data are provided on mag-
netic tape in MOSS export. DLG3 optional, ELAS,
and IGES formats3. Digital wetlands data may ex-
pedite assigning uses to wetlands for both general
and wetland-specific FIC classifications.
The classification of wetlands may benefit from
the use of salinity concentrations. The Co ward in
classification system uses a salinity criterion of 0.5
ppt ocean-derived salinity to differentiate between
estuarine and freshwater wetlands. Differences in
salinity are reflected in the species composition of
plants and animals. The use of salinity in the clas-
sification of wetlands may be useful in restricting
activities that would alter the salinity of a wetland to
such a degree that the wetland type would change.
These activities include, for example, the construc-
tion of dikes to convert a saltwater marsh to a fresh-
water marsh or the dredging of channels .that .would*
deliver saltwater to freshwater wetlands.-
3.2 Wetland Functions and
Values
Many approaches have been developed for iden-
tifying wetland functions and values. Wetland
evaluation techniques developed prior to 1983 have
been summarized by Lonard and Clairam (1985),
and EPA has summarized assessment
methodologies developed since 1983 (see Appendix
C). EPA has also developed guidance on the selec-
tion of a methodotogy for activities under the Sec-
tion 404 program entitled Draft Guidance to EPA
Regional Offices on the Use of Advance identifica-
tion-Authorities-Under Section 4Q4 of the dean
Water Act (USEPA 19893). States may develop their
own techniques for assessing the functions and
values of their wetlands.
General wetland functions that directly relate to
the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
wetlands are listed below. The protection of these
functions through water quality standards also may
be needed to attain the uses of waters adjacent to.
or downstream of. wetlands.
Groundwater Recharge/Discharge
Rood Row Alteration
Sediment Stabilization
Sediment/Toxic Retention
Nutrient Removal/Transformation
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance
AquatiaDK/ewty/Abundance
Recreation—
Methodologies that are flexible with regard to
data requirements and include several levels of
detail have the greatest potential for application to
standards. One such methodology is the Wetland
Evaluation Technique developed by Adamus. et ai
(1987) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
information on the availability of draft and final maps may be obtained for the coterminous United
States by calling i -800-U-SA-MAPS or 703-860-6045 in Virginia. In Alaska, the number is
907-271-4159. and in Hawaii the number is 808-548-2861. Further information on the FWS National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) may be obtained from the FWS Regional Coordinators listed in Appendix 0
For additional information on digital wetland data contact: USFWS; National Wetlands inventory
Program, 9720 Executive Center Drive, Monroe Building. Suite 101, St. Petersburg, Ft 33702;
813-893-3624, FTS 826-3624.
10
-------
Department of Transportation. The Wetland Evalua-
tion Technique was designed for conducting an ini-
tial rapid assessment of wetland functions and
values in terms of social significance, effectiveness,
and opportunity. Social significance assesses the
value of a wetland to society in terms of its special
designation, potential economic value, and strategic
location. Effectiveness assesses the capability of a
wetland to perform a function because of its physi-
cal, chemical, or biological characteristics. Oppor-
tunity assesses the [opportunity] of a wetland to
perfocm a function to its level of capability. This
assessment results in 'high,' "moderate," or 'low
ratings for 11 wetland functions in the context of
social significance, effectiveness, and opportunity
This technique also may be useful in identifying out-
standing wetlands for protection under State an-
tidegradation policies; see Section 5.3.
The FWS maintains a Wetlands Values Database
that also may be useful in identifying wetland func-
tions and in designating wetland uses. The data are
keyed to the Cowardin-based wetland codes iden-
tified on the National Wetland Inventory maps. The
database contains scientific literature on wetland
functions and values. It is computerized and con-
tains over 18,000 citations, of which 8,000 are an-
notated. For further information, contact the NWI
Program (see Section 3.1) or the FWS National Ecol-
ogy Research Center4. In addition, State wetland
programs, EPA Regional wetland coordinators, and
FWS Regional wetland coordinators can provide in-
formation on wetland functions and values on a
State or regional basis; see Appendix 0.
3.3 Designating Wetiand Uses
The functions and values of specifically identified
and named wetlands, including those identified
within the State's water-specific classification sys-
tem and outstanding national resource water
(ONflW) category, may be defined using the Wet-
land Evaluation Technique or similar methodology.
For the general classification of wetlands, however.
States may choose to evaluate wetland function and
values for all the wetlands within the State based on
wetland type (using Cowardin (1979); see Figure D
One State applies its general use classifications to
different wetland types based on Cowardin's system
levet of detail as illustrated in Figure 2 Note thar the
State's uses are based on function, and the designa-
tion approach links specific wetland functions to a
given wetland type. The State evaluates wetlands
on a case-by-case basis as individual permit
decisions arise to ensure that designated uses are
being protected and have reflected existing uses.
USFWS; Wetlands Values Database, National Ecology Research Center. 4512 McMurray, Ft. Collins.
CO 80522; 303-226-9407
-------
WBTLAKD TYPE (Cowardin)
BENEHCIAL USE MARINE
Municipal and Domestic Supply
Agricultural Supply
Industrial Process Supply
Groundwater Recharge x
Freshwater Replenishment
Navigation x
v>ater Contact Recreation x
Non-Contact Water Recreation x
Ocean Commercial and Sport Fishing x
Warm Fresh Water Habitat
Cold Fresh Water Habitat
Preservation of Areas of Special
Biological Significance
Wildlife Habitat x
Preservation of Rare and Endangered x
Species
Marine Habitat x
Fish Migration x
Shellfish Harvesting x
Estu .ie Habitat
ESTUAJUNI RIVERINE
x
X X
X 0
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
-
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
LACUSTRINE
X
X
o
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
-
-
PALUSTRINE
x
\
-
X
x
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
X
X
-
-
-
-
x « existing beneficial use
o • potential beneficial use
Figure 2. Example Existing and Potential Uses of Wetlands
12
-------
Alternatively, a third method may use the location
of wetlands within the landscape as the basis for
establishing general functions and values applicable
to all the wetlands within a defined region EPA has
developed a guidance entitled Regionalization as a
Tool for Managing Environmental Resources
(USEPA 1989C). The guidance illustrates how
various regionalization techniques have been used
in water quality management, including the use of
the ecoregions developed by EPA's Office of Re-
search and Development, to direct State water
quality standards and monitoring programs. These
approaches also may be useful in the classification
of wetlands.
EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
rently refining a draft document that will provide
useful information to States related to use classifica-
tion methodologies (Adamus and Brandt • Draft).
There are likely many other approaches for desig-
nating uses for wetlands, and the States are en-
couraged to develop comprehensive classification
systems tailored to their wetland resources. As with
other surface waters, many wetlands are currently
degraded by natural and anthropogenic activities
The classification of wetlands should reflect the
potential uses attainable for a particular wetland.
wetland type, or class of wetland.
13
-------
Chapter 4.0
Criteria
»"'/'"•////, / '/'/ '.' ./'.• '/v ,////'///'////;,';';,'////M;/Mo-
•<
-------
''ve cr:tena m tneir standards where numeric criteria
cannot be established or to supplement numeric
criteria.'
4.1.1 General Narrative Criteria
Narrative criteria within the water quality stand-
ards program date back to at least 1968 when five
'ree froms' were included in Water Quality Criteria
(the Green Book). (FWPCA 1968). These Ire*
froms' have been included as 'aesthetic criteria" in
EPA's most recent Section 304(a) criteria summary
document,-Qua//ry Criteria for Water - 7986 (USEPA
1987a). The narrative criteria from these documents
state:
Alt waters [shall be] free from substances at-
tributable to wastewater or other discharge
that:
(1) settle to form objectionable deposits;
(2) float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter to
form nuisances;
(3) produce objectionable color, odor, taste, or
turbidity;
(4) injure or are toxic or produce adverse
physiological responses in humans,
animals or plants; and
(5) produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic
fife.
The Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA
I983b) recommends that States apply narrative
criteria to all waters ot the United States. If these or
similar criteria are already applied to all State waters
in a State's standards, the inclusion of wetlands in
the definition of.? "aters of the State" wtti apply these
criteria to wetlai ,«.
4.1.2 Narrative Biological Criteria
Narrative biological criteria are general state-
ments of attainable or attained conditions of biologi-
cal integrity and water quality for a given use desig-
nation. Narrative biological criteria can take a num-
ber of forms. As a sixth "free from," the criteria
could read "free from activities that would substan-
tially impair the biological community as it naturally
occurs due to physical, chemical, and hydroJogic
changes," or the criteria may contain positive state-
ments about the biological community existing cr
attainable in wetlands.
Narrative biological criteria should contain at-
tributes that support the goals of the Clean Water
Act, which provide for the protection and propaga-
tion of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Therefore, narra-
tive criteria should include specific language about
community characteristics that (1) must exist in a
wetland to meet a particular designated aquatic
life/wildlife use, and (2) are quantifiable. Supporting
statements lor the criteria should promote water
quality to protect the most natural community as-
sociated with the designated use. Mechanisms
should be established in the standard to address
potentially conflicting multiple uses. Narratives
should be written to protect the most sensitive
designated use and to support existing uses under
State antidegradation policies.
In addition to other narrative criteria, narrative
biological criteria provide a further basis for manag-
ing a broad range of activities that impact the
biological integrity of wetlands and other surface
waters, particularly physical and hydrologic
modifications. For instance, hydrologic criteria are
one particularly important but often overlooked
component to include in water quality standards to
help maintain wetlands quality. Hydrology is the
primary factor influencing the type and location of
wetlands. Maintaining appropriate hydrologic con-
ditions in wetlands is critical to the maintenance of
wetland functions and values. Hydrologic manipula-
tions to wetlands-have occurred nationwide in the
form of flow alterations and diversions, dispoiaf of
dredged or fill material, dredging of canals through
wetlands, and construction of levees or dikes
Changes in base flow or flow regime can severely
alter the plant and animal species composition of a
wetland, and destroy the entire wetland system if the
change is great enough. States should consider the
establishment of criteria to regulate hydrologic al-
terations to wetlands. One State has adopted the
following language and criteria to maintain and
protect the natural hydrologic conditions and values
of wetlands:
Natural hydroiogical conditions necessary ro
support the biological and physical charac-
teristics naturally present in wetlands shall be
protected to prevent significant adverse im-
pacts on:
16
-------
(1) Wafer currents, erosion or sedimentation
patterns;
(2) Natural water temperature variations;
(3) The chemical, nutrient and dissolved
oxygen regime of the wetland;
(4) The normal movement of aquatic fauna;
(5) The pH of the wetland; and
(6) Normtl wtfer fev»l$ or elevations.
One source of information for developing more
quantifiable hydrologic criteria is the Instream Flow
Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which
can provide technical guidance on the minimum
flows necessary to attain various water uses.
Narrative criteria, in conjunction with antidegrada-
tion policies, can provide the basis for determining
the impacts of activities (such as hydrologic
modifications) on designated and existing uses.
EPA has published national guidance on developing
biological criteria for all surface waters (USEPA
I990b). EPA's Office of Research and Development
also has produced a literature synthesis of wetland
biomonitoring data on a State-by-State basis, which
is intended to support the development of narrative
biological criteria (Adamus and Brandt • Draft).
4.2 Numeric Criteria
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for
chemical constituents, physical parameters, or
biological conditions that are adopted in State
standards. These may be values not to be exceeded
(e.g.. toxics), values that must be exceeded (e.g.,
dissolved oxygen), or a combination of the two
(e.g., pH). As with all criteria, numeric criteria are
adopted to protect one or more designated uses.
Under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, EPA
publishes numeric national criteria recommenda-
tions designed to protect aquatic organisms and
human health. These criteria are summarized in
Quality Criteria for Water - 1986 (USEPA I987a)
These criteria serve as guidelines from which States
can develop their own numeric criteria, taking into
account the particular uses designated by the State
4.2.1 Numeric Criteria
Health
Human
Human health water quality criteria are based on
the toxicity of a contaminant and the amount of the
contaminant consumed through ingestion of water
and fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore,
EPA's chemical-specific human health criteria are
directly applicable to wetlands. A summary of EPA
human health criteria recommendations is con-
tained in Quality Criteria for Water - 7986.
Few wetlands are used directly for drinking water
supplies. Where drinking water is a designated or
extsttng-use-for a wetland or for adjacent waters
affected by the wetland, however, States must pro-
vide criteria sufficient to protect human health based
on water consumption (as well as aquatic life con-
sumption if appropriate). When assessing the
potential for water consumption. States should also
evaluate (he wetland's groundwater recharge func-
tion to assure protection of drinking water supplies
from that source as well.
The application of human health criteria, based on
consumption of aquatic life, to wetlands is a function
of the level of detail in the States' designated uses.
If all wetlands are designated under the State's
general "aquatic life/wildlife" designation, consump-
tion of that aquatic life is assumed to be an included
use and the State's human health criteria based on
consumption of aquatic life will apply throughout.
Howevw^-Statas,.that, adopt, a more detailed use
classification.system for wetlands-(or wjsruo dative
site-specific human health criteria for wetlands) may
wish to selectively apply human health criteria to
those wetlands where consumption of aquatic life is
designated or likely to occur (note that a UAA will be
required where CWA goal uses are not designated)
States may also wish to adjust the exposure as-
sumptions used in deriving human health criteria.
Where it is known that exposure to individuals at a
certain site, or within a certain category of wetland.
is likely to be different from the assumed exposure
underlying the States' criteria. States may wish to
consider a reasonable estimate of the actual ex-
posure and take this estimate into account when
calculating the criteria lor the site.
4.2.2 Numeric Criteria • Aquatic Lite
EPA develops chemical-specific numeric enter a
recommendations for the protection of freshwater
17
-------
and saltwater aquatic life. These criteria may be
divided into two basic categories: (1) chemicals
that cause toxicity to aquatic life such as metals.
ammonia, chlorine, and organics; and (2) other
water quality characteristics such as dissolved
oxygen, alkalinity, salinity, pH, and temperature.
These criteria are currently applied directly to a
broad range of surface waters in State standards.
including lakes, impoundments, ephemera! and
perennial rivers and streams, estuaries, the oceans,
and in some instances, wetlands. A summary of
EPA's aquatic life criteria recommendations is pub-
lished in Quality Criteria for Water • 1986 The
numeric aquatic life criteria, although not designed
specifically for wetlands, were designed to be-
protective of aquatic life and are generally ap-
plicable to most wetland types.
EPA's aquatic life criteria are most often based
upon toxicological testing under controlled condi-
tions in the laboratory. The EPA guidelines for the
development of such criteria (Stephen et a!. 1985)
require the testing of plant, invertebrate, and fish
species. Generally, these criteria are supported by
toxicity tests on invertebrate and early life stage fish
commonly found in many wetlands. Adjustments
based on natural conditions, water chemistry, and
biological community conditions may be ap-
propriate for certain criteria as discussed below.
EPA's Office of Research and Development is cur-
rently finalizing a draft document that provides addi-
tional technical guidance on this topic, including
site-specific adjustments of criteria (Hagley. and.
Taylor - Draft).
As in other waters, natural water quality charac-
teristics in some wetlands may be outside the range
established for uses designated in State standards.
These water quality charactr -tics may require the
development of criteria that xt the n.-vr.al back-
ground conditions in a specific wetian or wetland
type. States routinely sat criteria for specific waters
based on natural conditions. Examples of some of
the wetland characteristics that may fall into this
category are dissolved oxygen. pH. turbidity, color.
and hydrogen sulflde.
Many of EPA's aquatic life criteria are based on
equations that take into account salinity, pH,
temperature and/or hardness. These may be directly
applied to wetlands in the same way as other water
types with adjustments in the criteria to reflect these
water quanty characteristics However :*o "at.crat
criteria that are pH dependent, ammonia and pen-
tachlorophenol, present a different situation The
pH in some wetlands may be outside the pH range
of 6.5-3.0 units for which these criteria were derived
it is recommended that States conduct addiiionat
toxicity testing if they wish to derive criteria 'or am-
monia and pentachlorophenol outside the 65-90
pH range, unless data are already available
States may also develop scientifically defensible
site-specific criteria for parameters whose State-
wide values may be inappropriate. Site-specific ad-
justments may be made based on the water quanty
andbiologicaLconditions in a specific water, or m
waters within a particular region or ecoregion EPA
has developed guidance on the site-specific adjust-
ment of the national criteria (USEPA I983b). These
methods are applicable to wetlands and should be
used in the same manner as States use them for
other waters. As defined m the Handbook, three
procedures may be used to develop site-specific
criteria: (1) the recalculation procedures. (2) the
Indicator species procedures, and (3) the resident
species procedures. These procedures may be
used to develop site-specific numeric criteria for
specific wetlands or wetland types. The recalcula-
tion procedure is used to make adjustments based
upon differences between the toxicity to resident
organisms and those used to derive national criteria
The indicator species procedure is used to account
for differences in the bioavailability and/or toxicity of
a.contaminant based upon the physical and chemi-
cal characteristics_ot sue.atalet- . The.resident.
species procedure accounts for differences in botn
species sensitivity and water quality characteristics
18
-------
Chapter 5.0
An tidegrada tio n
The ant (degradation policies contained in all
State standards provide a powerful tool for
the protection of wetlands and can be used
by States to regulate point and nonpoint source
discharges to wetlands in the same_way as other
surface waters. In conjunction with beneficial uses
and narrative criteria, antidegradation can be used
to address impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully
addressed by chemical criteria, such as physical
and hydrologic modifications. The implications of
antidegradation to the disposal of dredged and fill
nerial are discussed in Section 5.1 below. At a
M.mimum, F. A expects States to fuJly apply their
antidegradation policies and implementation
methods to wetland* by the end of FY 1993. No
changes to State policies are required if they are
fully consistent with the Federal policy. With the
inclusion of wetlands as -'waters of the State. State
antidegradation policies and their implementation
methods will apply to wetlands in the same way as
other surface waters. The WQS regulation
describes the requirements for State antidegrada-
tion policies, which include full protection of existing
uses (functions and values), maintenance of water
quality in high-quality waters, and a prohibit.cn
against lowering water quality in outstanding nation-
al resource waters. EPA guidance on the implemen-
tation of antidegradation policies is contained in the
Water Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA i983b>
and Questions and Answers on: Anttdegradation
(USEPA 1985a)
5.1 Protection of Existing Uses
State antidegradation policies should provide for
the protection of existing uses in wetlands and the
level of water quality necessary to protect those
uses in the same manner as for other surface
waters; see Section 131 i2(a)(i) of the WQS regula-
tion. The existing use can be determined by
demonstrating that the use or uses have actually
occurred since November 28. 1975, or that the water
quality is suitable to allow the use to be attained
This is the basis of EPA's antidegradation policy and
is important in the wetland protection effort. States.
especially those that adopt less detailed use clas-
sifications for wetlands, will need to use the existing
use protection in their antidegradation policies to
ensure protection of wetland values and functions
19
-------
Determination of an existing aquatic iile and
wildlife use may require physical, chemical, and
biological evaluations through a waterbody survey
and assessment. Waterbody survey and assess-
ment guidance may be found in three volumes en-
titled Technical Support Manual for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses (USEPA I983b, i984a.
I984b). A technical support manual tor conducting
use attainability analyses for wetlands is currently
under development by the Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards.
in the case of wetland fills, EPA allows a slightly
different interpretation of existing uses under the
antidegradatlon policy. This interpretation has been
addressed in the answer to question no. 13 in Ques-
tions and Answers on: Antidegradation (USEPA
I985a), and is presented below:
Since a literal interpretation of the an-
t/degradation policy could result in prevent-
ing the issuance of any wetland fill permit
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and
it is logical to assume that Congress intended
some such permits to be granted within the
framework of the Act, EPA interprets 40 CFR
I3i.i2(a){l) of the antidegradation policy to
be satisfied with regard to fills in wetlands it
the discharge did not result in "significant
degradation" to the aquatic ecosystem as
defined under Section 230. W(c) of the Sec-
tion 404(b)(l) guidelines. If any wetlands
were found to have better water, quality than,
'tishablelswimmable," the State would-be. air
lowed to lower water quality to the no sig-
nificant degradation level as long as the re-
quirements of Section I3i.i2(a)(2) were fol-
lowed. As for the ONRW provision of an-
tidegradation (I3l.i2(a)(3)). there if no dif-
ference in the way it applies to wet *s and
other waterbodies.
The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines state that the
Following effects contribute to significant degrada-
tion, either individually or collectively:
...significant adverse effects on (i) human
health or welfare, including effects on
municipal water supplies, plankton, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and special aquatic sites
(e.g., wetlands); (2) on the life stages of
aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on
aquatic ecosystems, including :^e transfer
concentration or spread ot pot/utants or :reif
byproducts beyond the sue through biologi-
cal, physical, or chemical process; (3) on
ecosystem diversity, productivity and
stability, including loss ot fish and wildlife
habitat or loss of the capacity of a wetland ro
assimilate nutrients, purify water or reduce
wave energy; or (4) on recreational, aes-
thetic, and economic values.
These Guidelines may be used by States to deter-
mine 'significant degradation' for wetland fills. Of
course, the States are free to adopt stricter require-
ments for-wetland fills in their own antidegradation
policies, just as they may adopt any other require-
ments more stringent than Federal law requires. For
additional information on the linkage between water
quality standards and the Section 404 program, see
Section 6.2 of this guidance.
5.2 Protection of High-Quality
Wetlands
State antidegradation policies should provide for
water quality in "high quality wetlands" to be main-
tained and protected, as prescribed in Section
I31.12(a)(2) of the WQS regulation. State -m-
plementatlon methods requiring alternatives
analyses, social and economic justifications, point
and nonpoint source control, and public participa-
tion are to be applied to wetlands in the same man-
ner they-are applied to other surface waters.
5.3 Protection of Outstanding
Wetlands
Outstanding national resource waters (ONRW)
designations offer special protection (i.e.. no
degradation) for designated waters, including wet-
lands. These are areas of exceptional water quality
or recreational/ecological significance. State an-
tidegradation policies should provide special
protection to wetlands designated as outstanding
national resource waters in the same manner as
other surface waters; see Section 131 t2(a)(3) of the
WQS regulation and EPA guidance Water Quality
Standards Handbook (USEPA I983b), and Oues-
tions and Answers on: Antidegradation {USEPA
i985a). Activities that might trigger a State analysis
of a wetland for possible designation as an ONRW
are no different for wetlands than for other waters
20
-------
The following list provides general information on
wetlands that are likely candidates for protection as
ONRWs. It also may be used to identify specific
wetlands for use designation under the State s wet-
land classification system; see Chapter 40. Some
of these information sources are discussed in
greater detail in EPA's guidance entitled Wetlands
and Section 401 Certification: Opportunities and
Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes
(USEPA 19890; see Section 6.1.
• Parks, wildlife management areas, refuges, wild
and scenic rivers, and estuarine sanctuaries,
• Wetlands adjacent to ONRWs or other high-quality
waters (e.g., lakes, estuaries shellfish beds);
• Priority wetlands identified under the Emergency
Wetlands Resources Act of 1986 through
Statewide Outdoor Recreation Plans (SORP) and
Wetland Priority Conservation Plans;
• Sites within joint venture project areas under the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan;
• Sites under the °amsar ;!rani Treaty cr Ae: a"~s
of International importance.
• Biosphere reserve sites identified as part c? :~e
Man and the Biosphere' Program sponsored Dy
the United Nations;
• Natural heritage areas and other similar designa-
tions established by the State or private organiza-
tions (e.g., Nature Conservancy), and
• Priority wetlands identified as part of comprehen-
sive planning efforts conducted at the local. State.
Regional, or Federal levels of government: eg .
Advance Identification (ADID) program unaer Sec •
tioo 404- and Special Area Management Plans
(SAMPs) under the 1980 Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act.
The Wetland Evaluation Technique; Volume ii:
Methodology (Adamus et al., 1987) provides addi-
tional guidance on the identification of wetlands w.tn
high ecological and social value; see Section 3 2
21
-------
22
-------
Chapter 6.0
Implementation
Implementing water quality standards for wet-
lands will require a coordinated effort between
related Federal and State agencies and
programs. In addition to the Section 401 certifica-
tion for Federal permits and licenses, standards
have other potential appNcatlons for State
programs, including landfill siting, fish and wildlife
management and aquisition decisions, and best
management practices to control nonpoint source
pollution. Many coastal States have wetland permit
programs, coastal zone management programs.
and National Estuary ? ">grams; and the develop-
ment of water quality Sv idards should utilize data.
information and expertise from these programs. For
all States, information and expertise is available
nationwide from EPA and the Corps of Engineers as
part of the Federal 404 permit program. State
wildlife and fisheries departments can also provide
data, advice, and expertise related to wetlands.
Finally, the FWS can provide information on wet-
lands as part of the National Wetlands Inventory
program, the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Pro-
gram, the Endangered Species and Habitat Conser-
vation Program, the North American Waterfowl
Management Program and the National Wildlife
Refuge program. EPA and FWS wetland program
contacts are included in Appendix D
This section provides information on certain eie-
ments'of*-standards' (e.g\ mixing zones) and the
relationship between -wetland~standards~and tjmer
water-related activities and programs (e.g.. monitor-
ing and CWA Sections 401. 402. 404. and 319) AS
information is developed by EPA and the States
EPA will periodically transfer it nationwide through
workshops and program summaries. EPA s Office
of Water Regulations and Standards has developed
an outreach program for providing this information
6.1 Section 401 Certification
Many States have begun to make more use of
CWA Section 401 certification to manage cena.n
activities that impact their wetland resources Sec-
tion 401 gives the States the authority to grant
deny, or condition certification of Federal permits or
licenses (e.g.. CWA Section 404 permits issued ty
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy
-------
qegulatory Commission licenses, some Rivers and
^arbors Act Sections 9 and 10 permits, and CWA
Section 402 permits where issued by EPA) that may
result in a discharge to "waters of the U.S. Such
acnon is taken by the State to ensure compliance
with various provisions of the CWA. Violation of
water quality standards is often the basis for denials
or conditioning through Section 401 certification. In
the absence of wetland-specific standards. States
have based decisions on their general narrative
criteria and antidegradation policies. The Office of
Wetlands Protection has developed a handbook for
States entitled Wetlands and 401 Certification: Op-
portunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes (USEPA I989g) on the use of Section
401 certification to protect wetlands. This docu-
ment provides several examples wherein States
have applied their water quality standards to wet-
lands: one example is included in Appendix E.
The development of explicit water quality stand-
ards for wetlands, including wetlands In the defini-
tion ot "State waters," uses, criteria, and an-
tidegradation policies, can provide a strong and
consistent basis for State 401 certifications.
6.2 Discharges to Wetlands
The Water Quality Standards Regulation (40 CFR
131.10(3)) states that, 'in no case shall a State adopt
waste transport or waste assimilation as a desig-
nated use for any waters of the U.S.'." This prohibi-
tion extends to wetlands, since they are Included in
the definition of "waters of 4he.AJ.S.v Certain .ao*
tivities Involving the discharge of pollutants to wet-
lands may be permitted, as with other water types,
providing a determination Is made that the desig-
nated and existing uses of the wetlands and
downstream waters will be maintained and
protected. As with other surface waters, the State
must ensure, through ambient monitoring, that per-
mitted discharges to wetlands preserve and protect
wetland functions and values as defined in State
water quality standards; see Section 6.4.
Created wastewater treatrnent wetlands that are
not impounded from waters of the United States and
are designed, built, and operated solely as was-
tewater treatment systems, are a special case, and
are not generally considered 'waters of the US'
Some such created wetlands, however, also provide
other functions and values similar to those provided
by natural wetlands. Under certain circumstances.
such created, multiple use wetlands may Ce con-
sidered waters of the U.S.. and as sucn. wouia ce
subject to the same protection and restncnons en
use as natural wetlands (see Report on the Use of
Wetlands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment ana
Disposal (USEPA I987b)). This determination must
be made on a case-by-case basis, and may consider
factors such as the size and degree of isolation of
the created wetland.
6.2.1 Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment
State standards should be consistent with the
document developed by the Office of Municipal Pol-
lution Control-entitled Report on the Use of Wet-
lands for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal (USEPA I987b), on the use of wetlands for
municipal wastewater treatment. This document
outlines minimum treatment and other requirements
under the CWA for discharges to natural wetlands
and those specifically created and used for the pur-
pose of wastewater treatment.
The following is a brief summary of the above-ref-
erenced document. For municipal discharges to
natural wetlands, a minimum of secondary treat-
ment is required, and applicable water quality stand-
ards for the wetland and adjacent waters must be
met. Natural wetlands are nearly always 'waters of
the U.S." and are afforded the same level of protec-
tion as other surface waters with regard to stand-
ards and minimum treatment requirements. There
ara no minimum treatment requirements for wet-
treatment that do not qualify as "waters of the US "
The discharge from the created wetlands that do not
qualify as "waters of the U.S." must meet applicable
standards for the receiving water. EPA encourages
the exp- nsion of wetland resources through the
creatic . engineered wetlands while allowing the
use of natural w ~nds for wastewater treatment
only under limited conditions. Water quality stand-
ards for wetlands can prevent the misuse and over-
use of natural wetlands for treatment through adop-
tion of proper uses and criteria and application ot
State antidegradation policies.
6.2.2 Stormwater Treatment
Stormwater discharges to wetlands can provide
an important component of the freshwater supply to
wetlands. However, Stormwater discharges from
24
-------
Carious land use activities can also contain a sig-
nificant amount of pollutants. Section 402(p)(2) of
the Clean Water Act requires that EPA. or States
with authorized National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) programs, issue
NPDES permits for certain types of stormwater dis-
charges. EPA is in the process of developing
regulations defining the scope of this program as
well as developing permits for these discharges.
Stormwater permits can be used to require controls
that reduce the pollutants discharged to wetlands as
well as other waters of the United States. In addi-
tion, some of the stormwater management controls
anticipated in permits will require creation of wet-
lands or structures with some of the attributes of
wetlands for the single purpose of water treatment.
EPA anticipates that the policy for stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands will have some similarities to
the policies for municipal wastewater discharges.to
wetlands. Natural wetlands are "waters of the
United States" and are afforded a level of protection
with regard to water quality standards and technol-
ogy-based treatment requirements. The discharge
from created wetlands must meet applicable water
quality standards for the receiving waters. EPA will
issue technical guidance on permitting stormwater
discharges, including permitting stormwater dis-
charges to wetlands, over the next few years.
6.2.3 Fills
Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of
dredged and fill material into 'waters of the U.S.'
The Corps of Engineers' regulations for the 404*pr&
gram are contained in 33 CFR Parts 320-330, while
EPA's regulations for the 404 program are contained
in 40 CFR Part 230-33.
One State uses the following guidelines for fills in
their internal Section 401 review gur 'ines:
(a) if the project is not water dependent, Cer-
tification is denied;
(b) if the project is water dependent, certifica-
tion is denied if there is a viable alternative
(e.g., available upland nearby is a viable
alternative);
(c) if no viable alternatives exist and impacts to
wetland cannot be made acceptable
through conditions on certification (e g ,
fish movement criteria, creation of ''oca-
ways to bypass oxsows. '10* !r-:^~~
criteria), certification is denieo
Some modification of this may be incorporated
into States' water quality standards. The States are
encouraged to provide a linkage in their water
quality standards to the determination of significant
degradation' as required under EPA guidelines (40
CFR 230.10(C)) and other applicable State
-------
States to report on the overall status of their waters
n attaining water quality standards. The inclusion
of wetlands in water quality standards provides the
oasis for conducting both wetland-specific and
status and trend monitoring of State wetland resour-
ces Information gathered from the 305(b) reports
may also be used to update and refine the desig-
nated wetland uses. The monitoring of wetlands is
Tiade difficult by limitations in State resources.
Where regulated activities impact wetlands or other
surface waters. States should provide regulatory in-
centives and negotiate monitoring responsibilities of
the party conducting the regulated activity.
Monitoring of activities impacting specific- wet-
lands may include several approaches. Monitoring
methods involving biological measurements, such
as plant, macroinvertebrate, and fish (e.g., biomass
and diversity indices), have shown promise for
monitoring stream quality (Plafkin et al., 1989).
These types of indicators have not been widely
tested for wetlands; see Section 7.1. However, the
State of Florida has developed biological criteria as
part of their regulations governing the discharge of
municipal wastewater to wetlands . The States are
encouraged to develop and test the use of biological
indicators. Other more traditional methods current-
ly applied to other surface waters, including but not
limited to the use of water quality criteria, sediment
quality criteria, and whole effluent toxicity, are also
available for conducting monitoring of specific wet-
lands.
Discharges involving persistent -or bioaccumula*.
tive contaminants may necessitate the monitoring of
the fate of such contaminants through wetlands and
their impacts on aquatic life and wildlife. The ex-
posure of birds and mammals to these contaminants
is accentuated by the frequent use of wetlands by
wildlife and the concentration of contaminants in
wetlands through sedimentation and other proces-
ses States should conduct monitoring of these
contaminants in wetlands, and may require such
monitoring as part of regulatory activities involving
these contaminants.
Status and trend monitoring of the
resources overall may require additional ap-
proaches; see Section 3.1. Given current gaps .n
scientific knowledge concerning indicators of wet-
land quality, monitoring of wetlands over the next
few years may focus on the spatial extent (i.e.. quan-
tity) and physical structure (eg., plant types, diver-
sity, and distribution) of wetland resources. The
tracking of wetland acreage and plant communities
using aerial photography can provide information
that can augment the data collected on specific ac-
tivities impacting wetlands, as discussed above.
EPA has developed guidance on the reporting of
wetland conditions for the Section 305(b) program
entitled Guidelines for r/ie Preparation of the T990
State Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report
(USEPA !989b). When assessing individual specific
wetlands, assessment information should be
managed in an automated data system compatible
with the Section 305(b) Water body System. In addi-
tion, the NWI program provides technical proce-
dures and protocols for tracking the spatial extent of
wetlands for the United States and subregions of the
United States. These sources provide the
framework for reporting on the status and trends o(
State wetland resources.
6.4 Mixing Zones and Variances
The guidance on mixing zones in the Wafe'
Quality Standards Handbook (USEPA I983b) and
the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-
Based Toxics Control (TSD) (USEPA I985b) apply
to.alL surface .waters,, .including wetlands. This in-
cludes the point of application of acute and chronic
criteria. As with other surface waters, mixing zones
may be granted only when water is present, and
may be developed specifically for different water
types. Just as mixing zone procedures are often
different for differer ater types and flow regimes
(e.g.. free flowing „.,earns v sus lakes and es-
tuaries), separate procedures also may be
developed specifically for wetlands. Such proce-
dures should meet the requirements contained m
the TSD.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations, State Regulations Part I. 'Domestic Wastewater
Facilities,1 Subpart C, "Design/Performance Considerations." 17-6.055, 'Wetlands Applications.
26
-------
As ,n other State Caters, variances may be
granted to discharges to wetlands. Variances must
meet one or more of the six requirements for the
removal of a designated use (40 CFR Part 131 iO(g|)
and must fully protect any existing uses of the wet-
land.
27
-------
-------
Chapter 7.0
Future Directions
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and
Standards' planning document Water
Quality Standards Framework {USEPA -
Draft I989e), identifies the major objectives for the
program and the activities necessary to meet these
objectives. Activities related no the dfcvelopmenfof •
water quality standards for wetlands are separated
into two phases: (1) Phase 1 activities to be
developed by the States by the end of FY 1993,
discussed above; and (2) Phase 2 activities that will
require additional research and program develop-
ment, which are discussed below.
7.1 Numeric Biological Criteria
for Wetlands
Development of narrative biological criteria is in-
cluded in the first phase of the development of water
quality standards for wetlands; see Section 5.1.2.
The second phase involves the implementation of
numeric biological criteria. This effort requires the
detailed evaluation of the components of wetland
communities to determine the structure and function
of unimpaired wetlands. These measures serve as
reference conditions for evaluating the integrity of
other wetlands. Regulatory activities involving dis-
charges to wetlands (e.g.. CWA Sections 402 and
404) can provkje monitoring data to augment data
collected by the States for the development of
numeric • biological»crrteria:' see Section 74 The
development"of"numeric btologfcar-critertrfor wet-
lands will require additional research and field test-
ing over the next several years.
Biological criteria are based on local and regional
bioiir characteristics. This is in contrast to the na-
tior j based chemical-specific aquatic life criteria
developed by r./A under controlled laboratory con-
ditions. The States will have primary responsibility
for developing and implementing biological criteria
for their surface waters, including wetlands, to
reflect local and regional differences in resident
biological communities. EPA will work closely with
the States and the EPA Office of Research and
Development to develop and test numeric biological
criteria for wetlands. Updates on this work will ce
provided through the Office of Water Reguiai c^s
29
-------
and Standards. Criteria and Standards Division's
reguiar newsletter
7.2 Wildlife Criteria
Wetlands are important habitats for wildlife
species, it is therefore important to consider wildlife
m developing criteria that protect the functions and
values of wetlands. Existing chemical-specific
aquatic life criteria are derived by testing selected
aquatic organisms by exposing them to con-
taminants in water. Although considered to be
protective of aquatic life, these criteria often do not
account for the bioaccumulation of these con-
taminants, which may cause-a major impact on
wildlife using wetland resources. Except for criteria
for PCB. DDT. selenium, and mercury, wildlife have
not been included during the development of the
national aquatic life criteria.
During the next 3 years, the Office of Water
Regulations and Standards is reviewing aquatic life
water quality criteria to determine whether adjust-
ments in the criteria and/or alternative forms of
criteria (e.g., tissue concentration criteria) are
needed to adequately protect wildlife species using
wetland resources. Since wetlands may not have
open surface waters during all or parts of the year,
alternative tissue based criteria based on con-
taminant concentrations in wildlife species and their
food sources may become important criteria for
evaluating contaminant impacts in wetlands, par-
ticularly those that bioaccumulate. Based on
evaluations of current criteria and wildlife at risk in
wetlands, national criteria may be developed, -
7.3 Wetlands Monitoring
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards
is developing guidance for EPA and State surface
water monitoring programs that will be issued by the
end of FY 1990. This guidance will (1) encourage
States to use monitoring data in a variety of program
areas to support water quality management
decisions; and (2) provide examples of Innovative
monitoring techniques through the use of case
studies. The uses of data pertinent to wetlands that
will be discussed include the following:
• refining use classification systems by developing
physical, chemical, and biological water quality
criteria, goats, and standards that account for
regional variation in attainable conditions;
• identifying nign-quaiity Caters ^eser<;ng specai
protection;
• using remote-sensing data.
• using integrated assessments to detect suotie
ecological impacts: and
• identifying significant nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion that will prevent attainment of uses
One or more case studies will address efforts to
quantify the extent of a State s wetlands and to iden-
tify sensitive wetlands through their advance iden-
tification (USEPA 19893)
30
-------
References
Adamus. P.P.. E.J. Clairain Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E.
Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Techni-
que (WET); Volume II: Methodology. Opera-
tional Draft Technical Report Y-87; U.S. Army
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station.
Vrcksburg. MS. (Source *11)
Adamus. P.P. and K. Brandt. Draft. Impacts on
Quality of Inland Wetlands of the United
States: A Survey of Techniques. Indicators,
and Applications of Community-level
Biomonitoring Data. USEPA Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallls, OR. (Source
#8)
The Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting
America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda, The
Final Report of the National Wetlands Policy
Forum. Washington, DC. (Source
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F C. Golet, and E.T.
LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
FWS/OBS-79/31. (Source #6a)
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
1968. Water Quality Criteria (the Green
Book), Report of the National Technical Ad-
visory Committee to the Secretary of the Inte-
rior. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC. {out«of print)»
Hagley, C.A. and D.L Taylor. Draft. An Approach
for Evaluating Numeric Water Quality Criteria
for Wetlands Protection. USEPA Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
(Source #12)
Lonard, P.I. and E.J. Clairain. 1986. Identification
of Methodologies for the Assessment of Wet-
land Functions and Values. Proceeding of the
National Wetland Assessment Symposium.
Association of Wetland Managers. Berne,
NY. pp. 66-72. (Source
and Standards. EPA -144 4-39 C0 1 Sr^:?
#2)
Stephan, C.E., D.I. Mount, D.J. Hansen. J H. Gentile.
G.A. Chapman, and W A. Brungs. 1985
Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National
Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. USEPA.
Office of Research and Development. Duluth.
MN. NTIS* PB-85-227049. (Source **3)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 19833
Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Sur-
veys and Assessments for Conducting Use
Attainability Analyses. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Washington. CC
(Source #4)
__ !983b. Water Quality Standards Hand-
book. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington, DC. (Source
Plafkin. J.L, M.T. Barbour. K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross.
and P.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassess-
ment Protocols for Use in Streams and
Rivers. USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
____ I984a. Technical Support Manual:
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
ing Use Attainability Analyses. Voi II. Estuarme Sys-
tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington, DC. (Source *4)
_ . I984b. Technical Support Manual
Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conduct-
ing Use Attainability Analyses. Vol ill. Lake Sys-
tems. Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington. DC. (Source #4)
_ . 1985«. Questions and Answers on: An-
tidegradation. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Washington, DC. (Source #4)
_ . !985b. Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-based Toxics Control Office of
Water Enforce' it and Permits. Washington. DC
(Source #5)
_ I987a. Quality Criteria for Water - 1986
Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
Washington, DC. EPA 440/5-86-001. (Source #6b)
_ . !987b. Report on the Use of Wetlands
for Municipal Wastewater Treatment and Disposal
Office of Municipal Pollution Control, Washington.
DC. (with Attachment D. September 20. 1
EPA 430/09-88-005. (Source *9)
31
-------
I989a. Guidance to EPA Regional Of-
'ices on the Use of Advanced Identification
Authorities Under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington.
DC (Source «M)
i989b. Guidelines for the Preparation
of the 1990 State Water Quality Assessment (305(b)
Report). Office of Water Regulations and Stand-
ards. Washington. DC. (Source #2)
1989C. Regionaiization as a Tool for
Managing Environmental Resources. Office of Re-
search and Development, Corvallis, OR. EPA/600/3-
89/060. (Source #8)
i989d. Survey of State Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands. Office of Wetlands Protec-
tion, Washington, D.C. (Source
. I989e. Water Quality Standards
Framework (draft). Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Washington, DC. (Source *4)
. 19891 Wetland Creation and Restora-
tion: The Status of the Science. Office of Research
and Development. Corvallis. OR. EPA 600/3-89/038a
and EPA 600/3-89/038b. (Source *8)
. I989g. Wetlands and 401 Certification:
Opportunities and Guidelines for States and Eligible
Indian Tribes. Office of Wetlands Protection,
Washington, DC. (Source #1)
. 19908. Agency Operating Guidance.
FY 1991: Office of Water. Office of the Ad-
ministrator. Washington, DC. (Source #7)
. 19900. Biological Criteria. National Pro-
gram Guidance for Surface Waters. Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC.
EPA 440/5-90-004. (Sourc* #4)
. 1990C. Nttkmal Guidance, Wetlands
and Nonpoint Source Control Programs. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington. DC.
(Source *2)
Sources of Documents
1 USEPA, Office of Wetlands Protection
Wetlands Strategies and State
Programs Division
401 M St., S.W. (A-104F)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5048
2 USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards
Assessment and Watershed Protec-
tion Division
401 M St., S.W. (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-7040
3 National Technical Information Ser-
vice (NTIS)
5285 Front Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22116
(703) 487-4650
4 USEPA, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards
Criteria and Standards Division
401 M St.. S W (WH-585)
Washington. DC 20460
(202) 475-7315
5 Out of print. A revised Technical Sup-
port Document for Water OuaNty-
based Toxics Control will be available
October 1990 from:
Office of Water Enforcement and
Permits
Permits Division
401 M St.. S.W. (EN-336)
Washington, DC 20460
6 U.S. Government Printing Office
North Capitol St.. N.W.
Washington. DC 20401
(202) 783-3238
a Order No. 024-010-00524-6
b Order No. 955-002-0000-8
32
-------
USEPA. Water Policy Office
401 M St.. S W (WH-556)
Washington. DC 20460
(202) 382-5818
USEPA, Office of Research and
Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis. OR 97333
(503) 420-4666
USEPA, Office of Municipal Pollution
Control
401 M St., S.W. (WH-546)
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 382-5850
10 The Conservation Foundation
:250 Twenty-Fourth St . N W
Washington, DC 20037
(202) 293-4800
11 U.S. Army. Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Research Program
(601) 634-3774
12 USEPA, Office of Research and
Development
Environmental Research Laboratory
Dututh, MN 55804
(218) 780-5549
33
-------
34
-------
Appendix A
Glossary
Ambient Monitoring • Monitoring within natural
systems (e.g., lakes, rivers, estuaries, wetlands) to
determine existing conditions.
Created Wetland - A wetland at a site where it did
not formerly occur. Created wetlands are designed
to meet a variety of human benefits including, but
not limited to, the treatment of water pollution dis-
charges (e.g., municipal wastewater. stormwater)
and the mitigation of wetland losses permitted under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This term en-
compasses the term 'constructed wetland" as used
in other EPA guidance and documents.
Enhancement - An activity increasing one or
more natural or artificial wetland functions. For ex-
ample, the removal of a point source discharge im-
pacting a wetland.
Functions - The roles that wetlands serve, which
are of value to society or the environment.
Habitat - The environment occupied by in-
dividuals of a particular species, population, or com-
munity.
Hydrology - The science dealing with the proper-
ties, distribution, and circulation of water both on
the surface and under the earth.
Restoration • An activity returning a wetland 'r
a disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage
or functions to a previous condition with greater
wetland acreage or functions. For example, restora-
tion might involve the plugging of a drainage ditcn to
restore the hydrology to an area that was a wetland
before the installation of the drainage ditch.
Riparian - Areas next to or substantially in-
fluenced by water. These may include areas ad-
jacent to rivers, lakes, or estuaries. These areas
often include wetlands.
Upland - Any area that does not qualify as wet-
land because the associated hydroiogic regime is
not sufficiently wet to elicit development of vegeta-
tion, soils and/or hydroiogic characteristics as-
sociated with wetlands, or is defined as open
waters*
Waters of the U.S. • See Appendix B for Federal
definition; 40 CFR Parts 122.2. 230 3. and 232 2
Wetlands - Those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, an hat under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence ~'-
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps
marshes, bogs, and similar areas. See Federal
definition contained in Federal regulations. -10 CFR
Parts 122.2, 2303, and 232.2
A- I
-------
A-2
-------
Appendix B
Tht Federal dtfinition of "waters of the United
States" (40 CFR Section 232.2(q)) is:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were
used in the past, or may be susceptible to
use in interstate or foreign commerce, in-
cluding all waters which are subject to the
ebb and ffow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wet-
lands;
(31 All other waters such as intrastate lakes,
rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands,
sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows.
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use.
degradation or destruction of which would
or could affect interstate or foreign com-
merce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by inter-
state or foreign travelers for recrea-
tional or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish could be
taken and sold in Interstate or
foreign commerce;
(iii) Which are used or could be used for
industrial purposes by industries in in-
terstate commerce;*
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise
defined as waters of the United States under
this definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
1-4;
(6) The territorial sea; and
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than
waters that are themselves wetlands) iden-
tified in 1-6; waste treatment systems, in-
cluding treatment ponds or lagoons
designed to meet the requirements of CWA
(other than cooling ponds as defined in 40
CFR 423.11 (m) which also meet criteria ;n
this definition) are not waters of the United
States
(•Note: EPA has clarified that waters of trie
U.S. under the commerce connection m '3)
above also include, for example, waters
Which are or would be used as
habitat by birds protected by
Migratory Bird Treaties or migratory
birds which cross State lines;
Which are or would be used as
habitat for endangered species.
Used to irrigate crops sold in inter-
state commerce.)
B- 1
-------
B-2
-------
Appendix C
Information on the
Assessment of Wetland
Functions and Values
Summary of Mtthodologits Prior to 1983
(Lonard and Clairain 1986)
Introduction
Since 1972. a wide variety of wetlands evaluation
methodologies have been developed by Federal or
State agencies, private consulting firms, and the
academic community. These evaluation methods
have been developed to ascertain all or selected
wetland functions and values that include habitat;
hydrology, including water quality recreation;
agriculture/silviculture: and heritage functions.
Publications by the U.S. Water Resources Council
(Lonard et al., 1981) and the U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station (Lonard et al., 1984}
documented and summarized pre-1981 wetland
evaluation methods. The two documents include a
critical review of th« literature, identification of re-
search needs, and recommendations for the im-
provement of wetlands evaluation methodologies.
Methodology analyses include an examination of
wetlands functions; geographic features: personnel
requirements for implementation, data require-
ments, and products; field testing; flexibility; and
administrative uses. Recently, the U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, with technical assistance
from WAPORA, Inc. (1984) summarized freshwater
wetland evaluation methodologies related to
primary and cumulative impacts published prior to
1981. The specific objective of this paper is to
present a summary of wetlands evaluation
methodologies identified from the pre-1981 litera-
ture, and to present an update of methodologies
published since 1981
Methods
In 1981, a U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experi-
ment Station (WES) study team evaluated 40 wet-
lands evaluation methodologies according to
several screening criteria, and examined 20 of the
methodologieyin detail-using a~series of descriptive
parameters-(Lonard-et-arv t98i1r-The*1critenarand
parameters were developed to ensure consistency
during review and analysis of methodologies. Five
additional methodologies proposed since 1981 have
been analyzed and summarized for this paper using
the same criteria. This does not suggest, however.
that only five methodologies have been developed
since 1981
Available Wetlands Evaluation Methodologies
Abstracts of 25 wetlands evaluation
methodologies that met the WES study team's
criteria include the following:
1. Adamus. P.R., and Stockwell. LT. 1933. A
Method for Wetland Functional Assessment
Volume I Critical Review and Evaluation
Concepts,' US Department of Transporta-
C- 1
-------
:ion. Federal Highway Administration Of-
fice of Research. Environmental Division.
Washington. D.C. 20590; and Adamus. P.R.
1983. A Method for Wetland Functional As-
sessment. Volume II. The Method,' U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal
Highway Administration. Office of Re-
search. Environmental Division.
Washington, D.C. 20590.
Volume i of the method provides a detailed litera-
ture review and discussion of the rationale of the
method. The wetland functional assessment or
evaluation methodology presented In Volume II con-
sists of three separate procedures. Procedure I.
referred to as a Threshold Analysis." provides a
methodology for estimating the probability that a
single wetland is of high, moderate, or low value for
each of 11 wetland functions discussed in detail in
Volume I. This procedure is based on assessment
of 75 bio-physical wetland features obtained from
office, field, and quantitative studies. It also incor-
porates consideration of the social significance of
the wetland as indicated by public priorities. The
priorities are determined based on results of a series
of questions that the evaluator must consider. Pro-
cedure II, designed as a "Comparative Analysis."
provides parameters for estimating whether one
wetland is likely to be more important than another
for each wetland function, and Procedure II. referred
to as 'Mitigation Analysis," provides an outline for
comparing mitigation alternatives and their
reasonableness." The evaluation methodology is
qualitative in its approach.
2. Brown. A.. Kittle, P.. Dale, E.E.. and Huf-
fman, R.T. 1974. 'Rare and Endangered
Species. Unique Ecosystems, and Wet-
• nds, Department of Zoology and Depart-
_-nt of f t \any and Bacteriology. The
University . Arkansas. Fayetteville, Arkan-
sas
The Arkansas Wetlands Classification System
contains a two-part, multivariate approach for
evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife
production and diversity. Initially. Arkansas wet-
lands were qualitatively classified as prime or non-
prime wetlands habitats according to use by man. A
numerical value for a wetland was determined by
calculating a subscore. which was based on the
multiplication of a significance coefficient by a
determined weighted value. T^e -ai^es 'or eac~
variaole were summed, ana a total «vet:and qualita-
tive value was obtained for use oy decision makers
3. Dee. N.. Baker, J., Drobney, N.. Duke. K .
Whitman. I., and Fahringer. D. 1973. En-
vironmental Evaluation System for Water
Resources Planning.' Wafer Resources Re-
search. Vol 9, No. 3. pp 523-534.
The Environmental Evaluation System (EES) is a
methodology for conducting environmental impact
analysis. It was developed by an interdisciplinary
research team, and is based on a hierarchical arran-
gement of environmental quality indicators, an ar-
rangement that classifies the major areas of environ-
mental concern into major categories, components,
and ultimately into parameters and measurements
of environmental quality. The EES provides for en-
vironmental impact evaluation in four major
categories: ecology, environmental pollution, aes-
thetics, and human interest. These four categories
are further broken down into 18 components, and
finally into 78 parameters. The EES provides a
means for measuring or estimating selected en-
vironmental impacts of large-scale water resource
development projects in commensurate units
termed environmental impact units (EIU). Results of
using the EES include a total score in EIU "with' and
'without' the proposed project; the difference be-
tween the two scores in one measure of environ-
mental impact. Environmental impact scores
developed in the EES are based on the magnitude of
specifi(i environmental impacts and their relative im-
portance. Another major output from the EES is an
indication of major adverse impacts called 'red
flags." which are of concern of and by themselves.
These red flags indicate "fragile" elements of the
environment that must be studied in more detail
(Authors' abstract.)
4 Euler, D.L. Carreiro. F T., McCullough, G B .
Snell. E.A.. Glooschenko. V.. and Spurr, R H
1983. 'An Evaluation System for Wetlands
of Ontario South of the Precambrian Shield.
First Edition. Ontario Ministry of Natural
Resources and Canadian Wildlife Service
Ontario Region. Variously paged.
The methodology was developed to evaluate a
wide variety of wetland functions that include
biological, social, hydrological. and special fea-
C-2
-------
tures. The procedures includes a rationale of scien-
tific and technical literature for wetlands values, the
evaluation methodology, a step-by-step procedure
manual, a wetland data record, and a wetland
evaluation record. The procedure was developed to
evaluate and rank a wide variety of inland wetlands
located in Ontario, Canada, south of the
Precambrian Shield.
5. Fried, E. 1974. Priority Rating of Wetlands
for Acquisition,' Transaction of the North-
east Fish and Wildlife Conference, VoJ 31,
pp 15-30.
New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act
of 1972 provides $5 million for inland wetland ac-
quisition, $18 million for tidal wetlands acquisition,
and $4 million for wetlands restoration. A priority
rating system, with particular emphasis on inland
wetlands, was developed to guide these programs.
The governing equation was: priority rating » (P »
V -»• A) x 5, where the priority rating is per acre
desirability for acquisition, P is biological produc-
tivity, V is vulnerability, and A is additional factors.
Both actual and potential conditions could be rated.
The rating system was successfully applied to some
130 inland wetlands. Using a separate equation.
wetland values were related to costs. (Authors's
abstract.)
6. Galloway. G.E. 1978. "Assessing Man's Im-
pact on Wetlands," Sea Grant Publications
Nos. UNC-SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRI-78-136,
University of North CarolinaAflaleigrvNorth
Carolina.
The Wetland Evaluation System (WES) proposed
by Galloway emphasizes a system approach to
evaluate man's impact on a wetland ecosystem. Im-
pacts are determined and compared for "with" and
without" project conditions. The advice of an inter-
disciplinary team, as well as the input of local
elected officials and laymen, are included as part of
the WES model. Parameters that make up a wetland
are assessed at the macro-level, and the results of
the evaluation are displayed numerically and graphi-
cally with computer assisted techniques.
7. Golet, F.C. 1973. 'Classification Evaluation
of Freshwater Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in
the Glaciated Northeast." Transactions of
:he Northeast Ffsn and W>idii?e Ccn'er°"c°
Vol 30 pp 257-279
A detailed classification system for freshwater
wetlands is presented along with 10 criteria for trie
evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat. The
results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150
wetlands located throughout the state of Mas-
sachusetts. The major components of the clas-
sification system include wetland classes and SUD-
classes. based on the dominant life form of vegeta-
tion and surface water depth and permanence: size
categories; topographic and hydroiogic location,
surrounding habitat types; proportions and inter-
spersion of cover and water; and vegetative inter-
spersfon. These components are combined '«Mth
wetland juxtaposition and water chemistry to
produce criteria for a wetland evaluation. Using a
system of specification and ranks, wetlands can be
arranged according to their wildlife value *cr
decision-making. (Author's abstract.) 'At this pomt.
the system has been used in numerous states on
thousands of wetlands; recent revisions have
resulted in such use." {F.C. Golet)
8. Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J H. 1973. "Valua-
tion of Visual-Cultural Benefits from Fresh-
water Wetlands in Massachusetts,' Journal
of the Northeastern Agricultural Council, voi
2, No 1, pp 262-273.
The authors suggested an alternative to the will-
ingness to pay" approaches for measuring the social
value&:-ot-.naturaL*-open space and recreational
resources: The method-combines an ident*cation
and measurement of the physical qualities of the
resource by landscape architects. Measurement
values were expressed in the context of the political
system and current public views. The procedure is
demonstrated by its application to freshwater wet-
lands in Massachusetts
9 Kibby. H.V. 1978. "Effects of Wetlands on
Water Quality," Proceedings of the Sym-
posium on Strategies for Protection ana
Management of Floodplain Wetlands and
other Riparian Ecosystems. General Techni-
cal Report No. GTR-WO-12. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service
Washington, D.C.
C-3
-------
•Vetlands potentially nave significant effects on
water quality Significant amounts of nitrogen are
assimilated during the growing season and then
released in the fall and early spring. Phosphorus.
while assimilated by wetlands, is also released
throughout the year. Some potential management
tools for evaluating the effect of wetlands on water
quality are discussed. (Author's abstract.)
10. Larson, J.S. (ed.) 1976. "Models for As-
sessment of Freshwater Wetlands,' Publica-
tion -No. 32. Water Resources Research
Center, University of Massachusetts, Am-
herst, Massachusetts^
Four submodels for relative and economic evalua-
tion of freshwater wetlands are presented within a
single, 3-phase elimination model. The submodels
treat wildlife, visual-cultural, groundwater. and
economic values.
The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based
on physical characteristics that, for the most part.
can be measured on existing maps and aerial
photographs. Each characteristic is given values by
rank and coefficient. A relative numerical score is
calculated for the total wetland characteristics and
used to compare it with a broad range of north-
eastern wetlands or with wetlands selected by the
user. The groundwater model places wetlands in
classes of probable groundwater yield, based on
surficial geologic deposits under the wetland.
The economic submodel suggests values for
wildlife, visual-cultural aspects, groundwater, and
flood control. Wildlife values ara derived from the
records of state agency purchases ol wetlands with
sportsmen's dollars for wildlife management pur-
poses. Visual-culti<^l economic values are based
on the record of v. _nd purposes for open space
values by municipal consei .ilon commissions.
Groundwater values stem from savings realized by
selection of a drilled public water supply over a sur-
face water source. Rood control values are based
on U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood con-
trol values of the Charles tiiver, Massachusetts.
mainstream wetlands.
The submodels are presented within the
framework of an overall 3-phase eliminative model.
Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands that should
be protected at all costs. Phase II applies the
wildlife, visual-cultural, and groundwater suDmoce'S
to those wetlands that do not meet criteria for out-
standing wetlands Phase (If develops the
economic values of the wetlands evaluated m Phase
II.
The models are intended to be used by local.
regional, and state resource planners and wetlands
regulation agencies. (Author s abstract.)
11. Marble, A.O.. and Gross. M. 1984 A
Method for Assessing Wetland Charac-
teristics and Values.' Landscape Planning,
VoMI, pp 1-17
The method presented for assessing wetland
values identified the relative importance of wetlands
in providing wildlife habitat, flood control, and im-
provement of surface water quality. All wetlands in
the study area were categorized on the basis of their
landscape position of hilltop, hillside, or valley
Each of the wetland values measured were then re-
lated to the corresponding landscape position
categories. Valley wetlands were found to be most
valuable in all instances. The method provides infor-
mation on wetland values that can be simply
gathered and easily assessed, requiring only avail-
able data and a minimum of resources. Implemen-
tation of this method on a regional or municipality-
wide basis can provide decision makers with reac y
accessible and comparative information on wetland
values. (Authors' abstract.)
12. Michigan Department of Natural Resources
1980. 'Manual for Wetland Evaluation Tech-
niques: Operation Draft." Division of Land
Resource Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 29
PP-
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Wetland Evaluation Technique is designed
to assist decision makers on permit applications in-
volving projects where significant impacts are an-
ticipated. The manual describes the criteria to be
used in evaluating any particular wetland The tech-
nique provides a means of evaluating the status of
existing wetlands as well as potential project-related
impacts on wetland structure and aerial extent One
part of the technique requires examination of six
basic features of wetlands, including: (1) hydrology
functions; (2) soil characteristics: (3) wildlife
habitat/use evaluation; (4) fisheries habitat/use. :5)
C-4
-------
nutrient removal/recycling functions, (6) removal of
suspended sediments A second part of the
analysis includes consideration of public interest
concerns. This method also includes brief con-
sideration of cumulative, cultural/historic, and
economic impacts.
13. Reppert, R.T., Sigleo, W., Stakhiv, E.,
Messman, L, and Meyers, C. 1979. 'Wet-
land Values: Concepts and Methods for
Wetlands Evaluation,' IWR Research Report
79-R-1, U.S. Army Engineer Institute for
Water Resources, Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
The evaluation of wetlands Is based on the
analysis of their physical, biological, and human use
characteristics. The report discusses these func-
tional characteristics and identifies specific criteria
for determining the efficiency with which the respec-
tive functions are performed.
Two potential wetlands evaluation methods are
described. One is a non-quantitative method in
which individual wetland areas are evaluated based
on the deductive analysis of their individual function-
al characteristics. The other is a semi-quantitative
method in which the relative values of two or more
site alternatives are established through the mathe-
matical rating and summation of their functional
relationships.
The specific functions and values of wetlands that
are covered in this report are (1) natural biological
functions, including food chain.productivity -aed-.-
habitat; (2) their use as sanctuaries, refuges, or
scientific study areas; (3) shoreline protection; (4)
groundwater recharge; (5) storage for flood and
stormwater; (6) water quality improvement; (7)
hydrologic support; and (8) various cultural values.
(Authors' abstract.)
"> >. Shuldiner, P.W., Cope, D.F., and Newton.
R.B. 1979. "Ecological Effects on Highway
Fills of Wetlands." Research Report. Nation-
al Cooperative Highway Research Program
Report No. 218A, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council.
Washington, DC.; and Shuldiner. PW.
Cope. D.F , and Newton, R.B 1979
'Ecological Effects of Highway Fills on Wet-
lands," User's Manual. National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program Report No
2188. Transportation Research Board Na-
tional Research Council. Wasningtcn. 3 C
The two reports include a Research Report and a
User's Manual to provide, in concise format.
guidelines and information needed for the deter-
mination of the ecological effects that may result
from the placement of highway fills on wetlands and
associated floodplains, and to suggest procedures
by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or
avoided. The practices that can be used to enhance
the positive benefits are also discussed Both
reports cover the most common physical, chemical.
and biological effects that the highway engineer is
likely to encounter when placing fills in wetlands.
and displays the effects and their interactions m a
series of flowcharts and matrices.
15. SCS Engineers. 1979. "Analysis of Selected
Functional Characteristics of Wetlands,1
Contract No. DACW73-78-R-0017. Reston.
Virginia.
The investigation focused on identifying factors
and criteria for assessing the wetland functions of
water quality improvement, groundwater recharge.
storm and floodwater storage, and shoreline protec-
tion. Factors and criteria were identified that ccuid
be used to develop procedures to assist Corps per-
sonnel in wetlands assessing the values of general
wetland types and of specific wetlands in performing
the functions indicated. To the extent possible, pro-
cedures were then outlined that allow the appiica-
tioft-oHhese-oriteruHn specific sites.
16. Smardon, R.D. 1972. 'Assessing Visual-
Cultural Values on Inland Wetlands in Mas-
sachusetts," Master of Science Thesis
University of Massachusetts. Amherst. Mas-
sachusetts.
This study deals with the incorporation of visual-
cultural values of inland wetlands into the decision
making process of land use allocation of inland wet-
lands in Massachusetts. Visual-cultural values of in-
land wetlands may be defined as visual, recreation-
al, and educational values of inland wetlands to
society. The multivariate model is an elimmatr.e
and comparative model that has three levels c*
evaluation. The first level identifies those we'iarcis
that are outstanding natural areas, have reg;cnai
landscape value, or are large wetland systems
C-5
-------
wetlands have top priority for preservation.
"he second level is a rating and ranking system At
this stage, the combined natural resource values of
me wetland are evaluated. Wetlands with high
ratings or rank from this level are eliminated and
have the next highest priority for preservation or
some sort of protection. The third level evaluation
considers the cultural values (e.g.. accessibility.
location near schools) of wetlands. The model is
designed to be utilized at many different levels of
decision making. For example, it can be used by
state agencies, town conservation commissions,
and conceivably could be used by other states in
northeastern United States. (Author's abstract.)
17. Solomon, R.D.. Colbert, B.K.. Hansen, W.J..
Richardson, S.E., Ganter. LW . and Vlachos,
E.G. 1977. 'Water Resources Assessment
Methodology (WRAM)-lmpact Assessment
and Alternative Evaluation,' Technical
Report Y-77-1, Environmental Effects
Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Missis-
sippi.
This study presented a review of 54 impact as-
sessment methodologies and found that none en-
tirely satisfied the needs or requirements for the
Corps' water resources project and programs.
However, salient features contained in several of the
methodologies were considered pertinent and were
utilized to develop a water resources assessment
methodology (WRAM). One of the features con-
sisted of weighting impacted variables and scaling
the impacts of alternatives. The weighted rankings
technique is the basic weighting and scaling tool
used in this methodology. Principal components of
WRAM include assembling an interdisciplinary team;
selecting and ensuring assessm?^' variables; iden-
tifying, predicting, and tvaluatln^ pacts an ' alter-
natives; and documenting the analysis, f »ough
developed primarily for use by the Corps in water
resources management. WRAM is applicable to
other resources agencies.
18. State of Maryland Department ot Natural
Resources. Undated. "Environmental
Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands (Draft),'
Tidal Wetlands Study, pp 181-208.
The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coas-
tal wetlands is based on the recognition of 32 dis-
tinct types of vegetation m the marshes and swamps
of tidewater areas of the state. Rankings of vegeta-
tion types were developed and parameters for the
evaluation of specific areas of wetlands were
described. The application of the scheme is ex-
plained and demonstrated. Guidance is provided
for the interpretation of results. The application of
the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory
of the types of vegetation in the area selected 'or
evaluation.
19. U.S. Army Engineer District. Rock island.
1983. 'Wetland Evaluation Methodology,
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour-
ces, Bureau of Water Regulation and
Zoning.
The Wetland Evaluation Methodology is a shor-
tened and revised version of a technique developed
for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (see
Adamus, 1983; Number 1). The FHWA technique
was designed to assess all wetland types whereas
the Wetland Evaluation Methodology assesses
those wetlands in Wisconsin (e.g., assessment pro-
cedures in the FHWA technique for estuarine mar-
shes have been omitted from the Wetland Evaluation
Methodology). Other changes have also been in-
corporated into the Wetland Evaluation Methodol-
ogy to more closely reflect other regional condi-
tions.
20. U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Missis-
sippi Valley. 1980. 'A Habitat Evaluation
System for Water Resources Planning." US
Army Corps of Engineers. Lower Mississippi
Valley Division, Vicksburg. Mississippi.
A methodology is presented for determining the
quality ot major habitat types based on the descrip-
tion and quantification of habitat characteristics
Values are compared for existing baseline condi-
tions, future conditions without the project, and with
alternative project conditions. Curves, parameter
characteristics, and descriptive information are in-
cluded in the appendices. The Habitat Evaluation
System (HES) procedure includes the following
steps for evaluating impacts of a water resource
development project. The steps include: 0) obtain-
ing habitat type or land use acreage; (2) deriving
Habitat Quality Index scores; (3) deriving Habitat
Unit Values; (4) projecting Habitat Unit Values for
the future with" and 'without" project conditions (5)
C-6
-------
using Habitat Unit Values to assess impacts of
project conditions; and (6) determining mitigation
requirements.
21. U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England.
1972. Charles River: Main Report and At-
tachments,' Waltham. Massachusetts.
The study was a long-term project directed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to study the resour-
ces of the Charles River Watershed in eastern Mas-
sachusetts. It had an emphasis on how to control
flood damage in the urbanized lower watershed, and
how to prevent any significant flood damage in the
middle and upper watershed. - Seventeen-crucial
wetlands were identified for acquisition to maintain
flood storage capacity in the watershed as a non-
structural alternative for flood protection in the lower
Charles River basin. Various aspects of the water-
shed were studied in an interdisciplinary fashion.
22. U.S. Department of Agriculture. T978. "Wet-
lands Evaluation Criteria-Water and Related
Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Mas-
sachusetts," Soil Conservation Service, Am-
herst, Massachusetts.
A portion of the document contains criteria used
to evaluate major wetlands in the coastal region of
Massachusetts. Each of the 85 wetlands evaluated
was subjected to map study and field examination
Ratings were assigned based on point values ob-
tained for various attributes. A rationale for each
evaluation.item, was .developed.la explaia~th&.
development of the criteria.
23. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980.
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
Manual (102ESM)." Washington, D.C.
H ' is a method that can be used to document
the quality ahj quantity of available habitat for
selected wildlife specto. HEP provides information
for two general types of wildlife habitat com-
parisons: (1) the relative value of different areas at
the same point in time; and (2) the relative value of
the same area at future ccirts .n :-~e By :c~r: •"•
mg the two types of comparisons. :ne r~cact cf
proposed or anticipated land and -vater changes or
wildlife habitat can be quantified This document
described HEP. discusses some probable aopiica-
tions. and provides guidance in applying HEP 'n trie
field.
24. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Un-
dated. Evaluation of Virginia Wetlands.
(mimeographed) Glouchester Point. Vir-
ginia.
The authors presented a procedure to evaluate
the wetlands of Virginia. The objective of the wet-
land* watuatron program was to recognize wettands
that possess great ecological significance as wen as
those of lesser significance Two broad categories
of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological
significance of wetlands: (1) the interaction of wet-
lands with the marine environment: and (2) the inter-
action of the wetland with the terrestrial environ-
ment. A formula was developed to incorporate
various factors into "relative ecological significance
values."
25. Winchester. B.H., and Harris. L.D 1979
•An Approach to Valuation of Florida Fresn-
water Wetlands. Proceedings of :ne S »r.i
Annual Conference on !he Restorat'on a~a
Creation of Wetlands, Tampa. Florida
A procedure was presented for estimating trie
relative ecolo.gicaJ.and. functional value of Florida
freshwater weUaods_ Wetland Junctions, evaluated
by this procedure include water quality enhance-
ment, water detention, vegetation diversity ana
productivity, and wildlife habitat value. The field
parameters used in the assessment were wetland
size, contiguity, structural vegetative diversity ard
an edge-to-area ration. The procedure was field
tested and was time- and cost-effective. Allowing
flexibility in both the evaluative criteria used and trie
relative weight assigned to each criterion t>-.e
methodology is applicable in any Florida region for
which basic ecological data are available
C-7
-------
Literature Cited
Adamus, P. and Stockwdl. LR. 1983. A method for
wetland functional assessment. Volume 1
Critical review and evaluation concepts US
Department of Transportation. Federal High-
way Administration. Office Research. En-
vironmental Division. Washington, DC.
20590 (No. FHWA-IP-82-23).
Adamus. PR. 1983. A method for wetland function-
al assessment. Volume II. The method. U.S.
Department of Transportation. Federal High-
way Administration. Office of Research, En-
vironmental Division. Washington, D.C.
20590. (No. FHWA-IP-82-24).
Brown, A., Kittte. P.. Dale, E.E.. and Huffman. R.T.
1974. Rare and endangered species, unique
ecosystems, and wetlands. Department of
Zoology and Department of Botany and Bac-
teriology. University of Arkansas, Fayet-
teville, Arkansas.
Dee. N., Baker. J., Drobney. N.. Duke. K.. Whitman.
I., and Fahringer, D. 1973. Environmental
evaluation system for water resources plan-
ning. Water Resources Research. Vol 9. No
3. pp 523-534.
Euier, D.L.. Carreiro, F.T., McCullough, G.B.. Snell,
E.A.. Glooschenko; \A, and'Spurr.-R.H'-1983.'
An evaluation system for wetlands of Ontario
south of the Precambrian Shield. First Edi-
tion. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
and Canadian Wildlife Service, Ontario
Region. Variously paged.
Fried. E. 1974. Priority ntlng of wetlands ac-
quisition. Transaction of the Northeast Fish
and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31, pp 15-30.
Galloway, G.E. 1978. Assessing man's Impact on
wetlands. Sea Grant Publication Nos. UNC-
SG-78-17 or UNC-WRRl-78-136, University of
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Golet. F C. 1973. Classification and evaluation of
freshwater wetlands as wildlife habitat in the
glaciated Northeast. Transactions of the
Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference. Voi
30. pp 257-279
Gupta, T.R., and Foster, J.H. 1973. Evaluation of
visual-cultural benefits from freshwater wet-
lands in Massachusetts. Journal of the North-
eastern Agricultural Council. Voi 2. No 2. pp
262-273.
Kibby, H.V. 1978. Effects of wetlands on water
quality. Proceedings of the symposium on
strategies for protection and management of
floodptain wetlands and other riparian
ecosystems. General Technical Report No
GRW-WO-12. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service. Washington, D.C.
Larson, J S (ed.) 1976. Models for assessment of
freshwater wetlands. Publication No. 32.
Water Resources Center, University of Mas-
sachusetts. Amherst, Massachusetts.
Lonard. R.I.. Clairain, E.J.. Jr., Huffman, R.T., Hardy.
J.W., Brown. L.D.. Ballard. P.E.. and Watts.
J.W. 1981. Analysis of methodologies used
for the assessment of wetlands values. U S
Water Resources Council. Washington. DC
Lonard. R.I., Clairain, E.J., Jr.. Huffman, R.T . Hardy.
J.W.. Brown. L.D., Ballard. P E., and Watts.
J.W. 1984 Wetlands function and values
study plan; Appendix A. Analysis of
methodologies for assessing wetlands
vrtae»* Tec*intefl4*fleport-V-83-2; U S Army
Engineer Waterways* Experrmenf3ratl oTTTCe.-
Vicksburg. Mississippi.
Marble, A.D.. and Gross. M. 1984. A method for
assessing wetland characteristics and
values. Landscape Planning II, pp 1-17
. :chigan Department of Natural Resources. 1980
Manual for wetland evaluation techniques
operation draft. Division of Land Resources
Programs, Lansing, Michigan. 22 pp
Reppert. R.T , Sigleo. W , Stakhiv, E.. Messman. w
and Meyer, C. 1979. Wetlands values con-
cepts and methods for wetlands evaluation
IWR Research Report 79-R-1. U.S. Army En-
gineer Institute for Water Resources ~cr:
Belvoir. Virginia.
C-8
-------
Shuldiner, P W., Cope. D.F . and Newton. R B
I979a. Ecological effects of highway fills on
wetlands. Research Report No. 2186.
Transportation Research Board. National Re-
search CouncH. Washington, D.C.
Smardon. R.C. 1972. Assessing visual-cultural
values on intand wetlands in Massachusetts.
Master of Science Thesis, University of Mas-
sachusetts. Amherst, Massachusetts
Solomon, R.D.. Colbert, B.K., Hansen, W.J.,
Richardson, S.E., Canter. L.W., and Vlachos.
E.G. 1977. Water resources assessment
methodology (WRAM)--impact assessment
and alternative evaluation. Technical Report
Y-77-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Ex-
periment Station, CE. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Undated. Environmental evaluation of coas-
tal wetlands (Draft). Tidal Wetlands Study,
pp 181-208.
Stearns. Conrad and Schmidt Consulting Engineers.
Inc. 1979. Analysis of selected functional
characteristics of wetlands. Contract No.
DACW72-78-0017, Draft Report, prepared for
U.S. Army Engineers Research Center by the
authors. Reston. Virginia.
U.S. Army Engineer Division, Lower Mississippi Val-
ley. 1980. A habitat evaluation system
(HES) for water resources planning. U S
Army Engineer Division,.Lowe/.-Mississippi
Valley. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U S Army Engineer Division, New England '9~2
Charles River; mam report and attachments
U.S. Army Engineer Division, New England
Waltham, Massachusetts.
US. Department of Agriculture. 1978. Wetland
evaluation criteria-water and related land
resources ot the coastal region of Mas-
sachusetts Soil Conservation Service. Am-
herst, Massachusetts.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 198-t
Technical report: literature review of wetland
evaluation methodologies. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency. Region 5, Chicago. Il-
linois.
US. Fish and Wildlife Service i960. Hab:tat
evaluation procedures (HEP) manual 102
ESM, Washington, D.C.
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Undated.
Evaluation of Virginia wetlands.
Mimeographed Paper, Glouchester Point,
Virginia.
Winchester, B.H.. and Harris, LD. 1979. An ap-
proach to valuation of Florida freshwater wet-
lands. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Con-
ference on the Restoration and Creation of
Wetlands, Hillsborough Community College.
Tampa. Florida.
C-9
-------
Wetland Assessment Techniques
Developed Since 1983 (USEPA I989a)
• Wetlands Evaluation Technique (Adamus. et al.
1987). This nationally applicable procedure has
been used in at least six AOIDs to date, mostly in
its original form (known popularly as the 'FHWA"
or Adamus" method) it has since been extensive-
ly revised and is available at no cost (with simple
software) from the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Research Program (contact: Buddy Qairain, 601-
534-3774). Future revisions are anticipated.
• Bottomland Hardwoods WET (Adamus 1987).
This is a simplified, regionalized version of WET.
applicable to EPA Regions 4 and 6. It is available
from OWP (contact: Joe DaVla at 202-475-8795).
Supporting software is being developed, and fu-
ture revisions are anticipated.
• Southeastern Alaska WET (Adamus Resource As-
sessment 1987). This is also a simplified, regional-
ized version of WET.
• Minnesota Method (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-
St.'Paul, 1988). This was a joint State-Federal effort
that involved considerable adaptation of WET A
similar effort is underway in Wisconsin.
• Ononaaga County Method '.S'JNY-Syracuse
1987). This was adapted from AET by Smardon
and others at the State University of New YorK
• Hollands-Magee Method. This is a scoring techni-
que developed by two consultants and has been
applied to hundreds of wetlands m New England
and part of Wisconsin (contact: Dennis Magee at
603-472-5191). Supporting software is available.
• Ontario Method (Euler et al. 1983). This is also a
scoring technique, and was extensively peer-
reviewed in Canada. (Contact: Vaianne Gioos-
chenko. 416-965-7641).
• Connecticut Method (Amman et al 1986). This is
a scoring technique developed for inland
municipal wetland agencies.
• Marble-Gross Method (Marble and Gross 1964)
This was developed for a local application in Con-
necticut.
• Habitat Evaluation System (HES) (Tennessee
Dept. of Conservation 1987). This is a revised
version of a Corps-sponsored method used to
evaluate Lower Mississippi wildlife habitat.
C- 10
-------
References
Adamus, P.R. (ed.) 1987. Atlas of breeding Dirds in
Maine 1978-1963. Maine Department of In-
land Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 366 pp.
Adamus Resource Assessment. Inc. 1967 Juneau
wetlands: functions and values. City and
Borough of Juneau Department of Com-
munity Development. Juneau. Alaska. 3 vols.
Amman, A.P., R.W. Franzen, and J.L.
Johnson. 1986.
Method for the evaluation of inland wetlands in Con-
necticut. Bull: No. 9. Connecticut Dept.
Envir. Prot. and USDA Soil Conservation Ser-
vice, Hartford, Connecticut.
Euler, D.L, F.T. Carreiro, G.B. McCullough, G B.
Snell. V.
Glooschenko. and R.H. Spurr. 1983. An evaluation
system for wetlands of Ontario south of the
Precambrian Shield. Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources and Canadian w.iai.fe
Service. Ontario Region
Marble. A.D. and M. Gross. 1984 A method for
assessing wetland characteristics and
values. Landscape Planning 2 1-17
State University of New York at Syracuse (SUNYV
1987. Wetlands evaluation system (or Cnon-
daga County, New York State. Draft. 93 pp
Tennessee Dept. of Conservation
Evaluation
1987 Habitat
System: Bottomland Forest Community Model
Tennessee Dept. of Conservation. Ecological
Services Division, Nashville. 92 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-St. Paul. 1988 The
Minnesota wetland evaluation methodology
for the North Central United States. Min-
nesota Wetland Evaluation Methodology
Task Force and Corps of Engineers-St. Paul
District. 97 pp. + appendices.
C- 77
-------
C- 12
-------
Appendix D
REGIONAL COORDINATORS
Regional Water Quality Standards Coordinators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Eric Hall, WQS Coordinator
USEPA. Region 1
Water Management Division
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(FTS) 835-3533
(617) 565-3533
Rick Balla. WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 2
Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(FTS) 264-1559
(212) 264-1559
Linda Hoist, WQS Coordinator
USEPA. Region 3
Water Management Division
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(FTS) 597-0133
(215) 597-3425
Fritz Wagoner, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 4
Water Management Division
345 Courtland Street. N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30306
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2128
Larry Shepard, WQS Coordinator
USEPA. Region 5 (TUD-8)
Water Management Division
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. IL 60604
(FTS) 886-0135
(312) 886-0135
David Neleigh, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 6
Water Management Division
1445 Ross Avenue
First Interstate Bank Tower
Dallas, TX 75202
(FTS) 255-7145
(214) 655-7145
John Houlihan, WQS Coordinator
USEPA. Region 7
Water Compliance Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City. KS 66101
(FTS) 276-7432
(913) 551-7432
Bill Wuerthele. WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 8 (8WM-SP)
Water Management Division
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-24Q5
(FTS) 330-1586
(303) 293-1586
Phil Woods. WQS Coordinator
USEPA. Region 9
Water Management Division (W-3-1)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(FTS) 484-1994
(415) 744-1994
Sally Marquis, WQS Coordinator
USEPA, Region 10
Water Management Division (WD-139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(FTS) 399-2116
(206) 442-2116
D- I
-------
Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Doug Thompson, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA. Region t
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston. Massachusetts 02203-2211
(FTS) 835-4422
(617) 565-4422
Dan Montella. Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA. Region 2
Water Management Division
Marine & Wetlands Protection Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York. New York 10278
(FTS) 264-5170
(212) 264-5170
Barbara D'Angelo, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA. Region 3
Environmental Service Division
Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(FTS) 597-9301
(215) 597-9301
Tom Welborn. Wetlands Coordinator
(Regulatory Unit)
Gail Vanderhoogt, Wetlands Coordinator
(Planning Unit)
USEPA. Region 4
Water Management Division
Water Quality Branch
345 Courtland Street. N.E.
Atlanta. Georgia 30365
(FTS) 257-2126
(404) 347-2126
Doug Ehorn, Wetland Coordinator
USEPA. Region 5
Water Management Division'
Water Quality Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago. Illinois 60604
(FTS) 886-0243
(312) 886-0243
Jerry Saunders, Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA. Region 6
Environmental Services Division
Federal Activities Branch
12th Ffoor, Suite 1200
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas. Texas 75202
(FTS) 255-2263
(214) 655-2263
Diane Hershberger, Wetlands Coordinator
Assistant Regional Administrator for
Policy and Management
USEPA. Region 7
Environmental Review Branch
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(FTS) 276-7573
(913) 551-7573
Gene Reetz. Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA, Region a
Water Management Division
State Program Management Branch
One Denver Place. Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-2405
(FTS) 330-1565
(303) 293-1565
Phil CTsfiida. Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA. Region 9
Water Management Division
Wetlands. Oceans and Estuarine Branch
75 Hawthorne Streec
San Francisco. Calirc i 94105
(FTS)484-1971
(415) 744-1971
Bill Riley. Wetlands Coordinator
USEPA. Region 10
Water Management Division
Environmental Evaluation Branch
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle. Washington 98101
(FTS) 399-1412
(206) 422-1412
D-2
-------
Regional Wetland Program Coordinators
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Region 1 California. Hawaii,
Idaho, Nevada.
Oregon, Washington
RWC: Dennis Peters
ASST: Howard Browers
Region 2 Arizona. New Mexico
Oklahoma, Texas
RWC: Warren Hagenbuck
ASST: Curtis Cartey
Rtgion 3 Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Michigan.
Minnesota. Missouri,
Ohio, Wisconsin
RWC: Ron Erickson
ASST: John Anderson
Region 4 Alabama, Arkansas.
Florida. Georgia.
Kentucky. Louisiana.
Mississippi,
North Carolina,
Puerto Rico.
South Carolina,
Tennessee,
Virgin Islands
RWC: John Hefner
ASST: Charlie Storrs
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 1
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
1002N.E. Holladay Street
Portland, Oregon 97232-4181
COM: 503/231-6154
FTS: 429-6154
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS. Region 2
Room 4012
500 Gold Avenue, SW
Albuquerque. New Mexico 87103
COM: 505/766-2914
FTS: 474-2914
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS. Region 3
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Federal Building, Ft Snelling
Twin Cities, Minnesota 55111
COM: 612/725-3536
FTS: 725-3536
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS. Region 4
R.B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street. S.W,
Suite 1276
Atlanta. Georgia 30303
COM: 404/331-6343
FTS: 841-6343
D-3
-------
Region 5 Connecticut.
Delaware, Maine.
Maryland,
Massachusetts. New
Hampshire. New York,
New Jersey.
Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, Vermont, Virginia.
West Virginia
RWC: Ralph Tiner
ASST: Glenn Smith
Region 6 Colorado. Kansas,
Montana. Nebraska.
North Dakota.
South Dakota.
Utah. Wyoming
RWC: Chuck Elliott
ASST Bill Pearson
Region 7 Alaska
RWC. Jon Hall
ASST: David Dall
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS. Region 5
One Gateway Center. Suite 700
Newton Corner. MA 02158
COM. 617/965-5100
FTS. 829-9379
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 6
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
P.O. Box 25486
Denver Federal Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
COM: 303/236-8180
FTS: 776-8180
Regional Wetland Coordinator
USFWS, Region 7
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
COM: 907/786-3403 or 3471
FTS: (8)907/786-3403
D-4
-------
Appendix E
EXAMPLE OF STATE CERTIFICATION ACTION INVOLVING
WETLANDS UNDER CWA SECTION 401
The dam proposed by the City of Harrisburg was
to be 3,000 feet long and 17 feet high. The dam was
to consist of 32 bottom-hinged flap gates. The dam
would have created an impoundment with a surface
area of 3,800 acres, a total storage capacity of
35,000 acre-feet, and a pool elevation of 306.5 feet.
The backwater would have extended approximately
8 miles upstream on the Susquehanna River and
approximately 3 miles upstream on the Con-
odoguinet Creek.
The project was to be a run-of-the-river facility,
using the head difference created by the dam to
create electricity. Maximum turbine flow would have
been 10.000 cfs (at a net head of 12.5),'and minimum
flow would have been 2,000 cfs. Under normal con-
ditions, all flows up to 40,000 cfs would have passed
through the turbines.
The public notice denying 401 certification for this
project stated as follows:
1. The construction and operation of the
project will result in the significant loss of
wetlands and related aquatic habitat and
acreage. More specifically:
a. The destruction of the wetlands will
have an adverse impact on the local
river ecosystem because of the in-
tegral role wetlands play in maintain-
ing that ecosystem.
b. The destruction of the wetlands will
cause the loss of beds of emergent
aquatic vegetation that serve as
habitat for juvenile fish. Loss of this
habitat will adversely affect the rela-
tive abundance of juvenile and adult
fish (especially smallmouth bass).
c. The wetlands which will be lost are
critical habitat for. among other
species, the yellow crowned night
heron, black crowned night heron.
marsh wren and great egret. In addi-
tion, the yellow crowned night heron
is a proposed State threatened
species, and the marsh wren and
great egret are candidate species of
special concern.
d. All affected wetlands areas are impor-
tant and, to the extent that the loss ot
these wetlands can be mitigated, the
applicant has failed to demonstrate
that the mitigation proposed is ade-
quate. To the extent that adequate
mitigation is possible, mitigation must
include replacement in the river sys-
tem.
e. Proposed riprapping of the snorenne
could further reduce wetland
acreage. The applicant has failed to
demonstrate that there will not be an
£-;
-------
adverse water quality and related
habitat impact resulting from riprap-
pmg.
f Based upon information received by
the Department, the applicant has un-
derestimated the total wetland
acreage affected.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will be no adverse water quality im-
pacts from increased groundwater levels
resulting from the project. The ground
water model used by the applicant is not
acceptable due to erroneous assumptions
and the lack of a sensitivity analysis. The
applicant has not provided sufficient infor-
mation concerning the impact of increased
groundwater levels on existing sites of sub-
surface contamination, adequacy of subsur-
face sewage system replacement areas and
the impact of potential increased surface
flooding. Additionally, information was not
provided to adequately assess the effect ot
raised groundwater on sewer system
laterals, effectiveness of sewer rehabilitation
measures and potential for increased flows
at the Harrisburg wastewater plant.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be a dissolved oxygen problem
as a result of the impoundment. Present in-
formation indicates the'exlsting rt^er system
in the area is sensitive to diurnal, dissolved
oxygen fluctuation. Sufficient information
was not provided to allow the Department to
conclude that dissolved oxygen standards
will be met in the pool area. Additionally, the
applicant failed to adequately address the
issue of anticipated dissolved oxygen levels
below the dam.
The proposed impoundment will create a
backwater on the lower three miles of the
Conodoguinet Creek.' Water quality in the
Creek is currently adversely affecrec: ~/
nutrient problems. The applicant has 'aiied
to demonstrate that there will not be /.ater
quality degradation as a result of the im-
poundment.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact resulting from combined sewer over-
flows.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact to the 150-acre area downstream of
the proposed dam and upstream from the
existing Dock Street dam.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
the construction and operation ol the
proposed dam will not have an adverse im-
pact on the aquatic resources upstream
from the proposed impoundment. For ex-
ample, the suitability of the impoundment for
smallmouth bass spawning relative to the
frequency of turbid conditions during
spawning was not adequately addressed
and construction of the dam and impound-
ment will result in a decrease in the diversity
and density of the macroinvertebrate com-
munity in the impoundment area.
Construction of the dam will have an ad-
varsa itnpacLon upstream and downstream
migratiooxLmigratoryJish^especially.shacLi..
Even with the construction of fish pas-
sageways for upstream and downstream
migration, significant declines in the num-
bers of fish successfully negotiating me
obstruction are anticipated.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate that
there will not be an adverse water quality
impact related to sedimentation withm the
pool area.
E-2
------- |