o
National Management
Measures to Protect and
Restore Wetlands and
Riparian Areas for the
Abatement of Nonpoint
Source Pollution
-------
.......
,-w . i
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
(4503F)
EPA-841-B-05-003
July 2005
-------
National Management Measures
to Protect and Restore Wetlands
and Riparian Areas for the
Abatement of Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Nonpoint Source Control Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
July 2005
-------
-------
This document provides guidance to States, Territories, authorized Tribes, and the
public regarding management measures that may be used to reduce nonpoint
source pollution through the protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian
areas. At times, this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions,
which contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for
those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it docs not
impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, Territories, authorized
Tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particular situation based upon the
circumstances. EPA, State, Territory, and authorized Tribe decision makers retain
the discretion to adopt approaches to control nonpoint source pollution by protect-
ing and restoring wetlands and riparian activities on a case-by-case basis that
differ from this guidance where appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in
the future.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction [[[
1.1 What Arc the Purpose and Scope of This Guidance? 2
1.2 What Is in This Document? 3
1.3 What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution? 5
1.4 What National Efforts Are Under Way to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution? 6
Chapter 2 Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems ..................... 11
2.1 Wetlands and Riparian Areas 11
2.2 Vegetated Treatment Systems 14
Chapter 3 Management Measures [[[ 17
3.1 How Management Measures Work to Prevent Nonpoint Source Pollution 17
3.2 Management Practices 18
Chapter 4 Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas 19
4.1 Management Practices for Protecting Wetlands and Riparian Areas 24
4.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices 38
Chapter 5 Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas.......................... 43
5.1 Management Practices for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas 51
5.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices 56
5.3 Mitigation Banking 58
Chapter 6 Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems .................................................. 61
6.1 Management Practices for Vegetated Treatment Systems 66
6.2 Costs and Benefits of Practices 78
Resources [[[ 81
Glossary [[[ 85
-------
Contents
Tables
Table 1-1 Example of Map Boxes Throughout Document Referencing Case Studies (Appendix F) 5
Table 4-1 Effectiveness of Natural Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NFS Pollutant Removal 20
Table 4-2 Federal Programs and Acts That Affect Wetlands in the United States 23
Table 4-3 Potential of Wetland and Riparian Areas for NFS Pollution Control 25
Table 4-4 Descriptions of Specific Wetland Types 26
Table 4-5 Assessment of Functions and Values for Protection of Wetlands or Riparian Areas 31
Table 4-6 Programmatic Approaches to Protecting Wetlands and Riparian Areas 33
Table 4-7 Examples of State Guides for Wetland Protection and Management 34
Table 4-8 Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Protecting Wetlands 39
Table 4-9 Planning and Outreach Costs and Benefits 40
Table 5-1 Examples of Projects to Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas 53
Table 5-2 Examples of Wetland and Riparian Area Plant Information Resources 55
Table 5-3 Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Restoring WTetlands and Riparian Areas 57
Table 6-1 Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips for NFS Pollutant Removal 63
Table 6-2 Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands for NFS Pollutant Removal 67
Table 6-3 Nitrate-N Concentration Reduced by Forested Riparian Areas and VFS 69
Table 6-4 Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Vegetative Treatment Systems 78
Figures
Figure 2-1 Relationship Between "Wetlands, Uplands, Riparian Areas, and the Stream Channel 12
Figure 6-1 Example of Vegetated Filter Strip 62
Figure 6-2 Example of Constructed Wetland 64
IV
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
1
The nation's aquatic resources are among its most valuable assets. Although
environmental protection programs in the United States have successfully
improved water quality during the past 30 years, many challenges remain.
Significant strides have been made in reducing the impacts of discrete pollutant
sources, but aquatic ecosystems remain impaired, primarily because of complex
pollution problems caused by nonpoint source (NFS) pollution.
The most recent national water quality inventory (2000) shows that nearly 39
percent of assessed rivers and streams. 45 percent of lakes, reservoirs, and
ponds, and 51 percent of estuaries in the United States remain too polluted for
fishing, swimming, and other uses (USEPA, 2002). Habitat alterations, such as
hydromodification, dredging, streambank destabilization, and the loss or degrada-
tion of wetlands, contribute to the impacts on quality. Many pollutants are deliv-
ered to these surface waters and to ground water from diffuse sources, such as
urban runoff agricultural runoff, and atmospheric deposition of contaminants.The
leading causes of impairment are nutrients, pathogens, siltation, oxygen-depleting
substances, metals, and suspended solids (USEPA. 2000a).
Wetlands and riparian areas play a significant role in protecting water quality and
reducing adverse water quality impacts associated with NFS pollution, and they
help decrease the need for costly stormwater and flood protection facilities.
Thus, wetlands and riparian areas are an important component of a combination
of management practices that can be used to reduce NFS pollution. In addition,
in their natural condition they provide habitat for feeding, nesting, cover, and
breeding to many species of birds, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.
Although wetlands have long been recognized for their water quality improve-
ment functions, unrestricted use of natural wetlands as receptacles for point and
nonpoint source pollution, such as urban stormwater and other sources of runoff
could have an adverse effect on wetlands and wetland biota. As stated by Robb
(1992):
Wetlands have an important role in (he landscape through
their ability to improve water quality by filtering, transform-
ing, and accumulating pollutants and thereby protecting
adjacent rivers, lakes, and streams. This "buffering" func-
tion, however, also encourages overuse, and this overuse
can compromise these and other wetland functions, such as
wildlife habitat and aesthetic and recreational values.
According to Fields (1992), wetlands should be preserved for their pollutant
abatement abilities while maintaining overall wetland health.
Foremost, wetlands should be protected because of the many
values and functions they provide. But, in addition, protec-
tion and restoration of wetlands are also acceptable man-
agement measures for preventing the impacts to water
Wetlands and riparian
areas play a significant
role in managing the
adverse water quality
impacts associated with
NFS pollution.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
This guidance is designed
to provide current
information to state
program managers on
controlling NFS pollution
to wetlands, riparian
areas, and vegetated
treatment systems.
quality that result when wetlands are destroyed or de-
graded... The benefit of improved water quality will be
realized if wetlands and riparian areas are maintained (or
restored) in the landscape to perform their natural functions.
When this approach is used, additional BMPs [best manage-
ment practices], such as buffer zones, must be utilized to
ensure that there is no adverse impact to wildlife using the
wetlands and that the integrity of the wetlands will be
maintained over time.
1.1 Are The and of This
Guidance?
This guidance document describes practices to reduce NFS pollution of surface
waters and ground water through the protection and restoration of wetlands and
riparian areas, as well as the implementation of vegetated treatment systems.
The guidance provides background information about NFS pollution, including
where it comes from and how it enters the nation's waters; discusses the broad
concept of assessing and addressing water quality problems on a watershed
level; and presents recent technical information about how certain types of NFS
pollution can be reduced effectively through the implementation of these manage-
ment measures. This document is not intended to be used as a design guide for
restoring or constructing wetlands, nor should it replace input from experts during
the planning or implementation phases of wetland or riparian area creation or
restoration.
Although the scope of this guidance is broad and includes many diverse wetland
and riparian area NFS topics, a number of issues are not covered. Such issues
include treatment wetlands for abandoned mine drainage and wastewater
treatment wetlands. Application of constructed wetlands as an alternative to
conventional engineering methods for the treatment of mine drainage and waste-
water is gaining recognition as a reliable and economical method for improving
water quality. Information on this technology is growing at exponential rates.
Readers interested in these topics are referred to USEPA (1999), USEPA
(2000d), Kadlec and Knight (1996), Moshm (1993), or a local Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) office for information on the planning, design.
construction, and operation of treatment wetlands for water quality improvement.
This document provides guidance to states, territories, authorized tribes, and the
public regarding management measures that may be used to protect and restore
the NFS pollution abatement functions of wetlands and riparian areas. This
document refers in some instances to statutory and regulatory provisions that
contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those
provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose
legally binding requirements on the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), states, territories, authorized tribes, or the public and might not
apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. The decision
makers of EPA, states, territories, and authorized tribes retain the discretion to
adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from this guidance where
appropriate. EPA may change this guidance in the future.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
This guidance is consistent with the Guidance Specifying Management Mea-
sures for Sources of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA,
1993c), published under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). The management measures are the same, but
this document modifies, expands, and supplements the technical information
contained in the coastal management measures guidance to ensure that it reflects
particular circumstances relevant to differing inland conditions and provides up-
to-date technical information.
This guidance contrasts with the CZARA management measures guidance,
which requires that state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs are in
conformity with CZARA management measures. The guidance provided in this
document, on the other hand, is intended merely to provide technical assistance to
state program managers and others with general knowledge of wetland ecosys-
tems who are seeking updated information on practices to address NFS pollution.
This guidance accomplishes that objective by expanding and enhancing the
descriptions and examples first presented in the CZARA guidance. This docu-
ment does not set new7 or additional standards for either CZARA section 6217
Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs or Clean Water Act section 319
Nonpoint Source Management Programs.
1.2 Is in This
This document contains six chapters and six appendices, which arc described
below.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1 provides a brief introduction to NFS pollution and the national effort to
control it. It also provides background information on the 1993 Guidance
Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoinl Source
Pollution in Coastal Waters, a predecessor to this document.
Chapter 2: Overview
Chapter 2 introduces wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems.
It explains what they are, how they function, and what their importance is in
terms of NFS pollution.
Chapters: Management Measures
Chapter 3 briefly defines what management measures are and how they work to
prevent NFS pollution. It also describes management practices.
Chapter 4: Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Chapter 4 contains information on the management measure for the protection of
wetlands and riparian areas and its four practices. It also has a list of resources
for further information.
This guidance does not
replace the 1993 Guidance
Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of
Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 5: Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Chapter 5 explains what restoration is and discusses the management measure
for restoration of wetlands and riparian areas. Three practices to implement the
management measure are discussed.
Chapter 6: Vegetated Treatment Systems
Chapter 6 describes the management measure and three practices related to
vegetated treatment systems.
Resources
A list of resources for further information on topics discussed in this document is
provided.
Glossary
The glossary defines important terminology used throughout this document.
References
The references used in this document are provided in one combined section.
Appendix A: Examples of Federal, Nonprofit, and Private Financial
and Technical Assistance Programs
Appendix A contains information on federal incentive programs to protect and
restore wetlands. It also contains information on incentive programs from non-
profit and private organizations. For each agency and organization, contacts are
provided for further information.
Appendix B: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Contacts
Appendix B provides wetland contacts. NFS regional contacts, and Clean Water
State Revolving Fund contacts.
Appendix C: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Contacts
Appendix C provides information on Division Regulatory Offices and District
Regulatory Offices for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Appendix D: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Wetland
Contacts
Appendix D lists regional wetland contacts.
Appendix E: U.S. State and Territory Agency Wetland Contacts
Appendix E provides wetland contact names for each state and trust territory.
Appendix F: Case Studies Organized by State, Territory, and Tribe
Appendix F is directly related to the tables provided in the chapters. It provides
more detailed information on implementation activities, case studies, and resource
documents. In Chapters 4 through 6, appropriate implementation practices are
described for each management measure. Within the discussion of each imple-
mentation practice is a table entitled '"Map Box." The map box contains a list of
appropriate activities that can be used to implement that practice. Each imple-
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
mentation activity is followed by a list of titles and locations, e.g., "Local Wetland
Management Plans (AK)." (See Table 1-1.) These titles indicate a specific case
study representative of that implementation activity. By using the location indica-
tor, in this case AK for Alaska, the reader knows to turn to Appendix F, find the
section on Alaska, and look for the case study entitled "Local Wetland Manage-
ment Plans." It is there that the reader can find more information about the case
study, including the source of information. At the top of each map box, an outline
of the United States indicates that there are case studies for this practice from
those states that are shaded.
Table 1-1. Example of Map Boxes throughout Document Referencing Case Studies
(Appendix F)
Practice: Consider wetlands and riparian areas
and their NPS control potential on a watershed
or landscape scale.
This table provides some examples from different
locations in the United States of the kinds of
activities that can help implement this practice.
For more information about the examples, refer to
Appendix F at the back of the document.
Implementation Activities
Example Projects
Use a landscape approach to evaluate wetland water
quality functions.
Local Wetland Management Plans (AK), Wetland
Protection (FL)
Use watershed analysis as a tool to ensure functional
performance.
Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA)
1.3 What Is Nonpoint Source Pollution?
NPS water pollution comes from diffuse or scattered sources in the environment,
rather than from a defined outlet such as a pipe. Generally, NPS pollution results
from precipitation, atmospheric deposition, land runoff, infiltration, drainage,
seepage, or hydrologic modification. As runoff from rainfall or snowmelt moves,
it picks up and transports natural pollutants and pollutants resulting from human
activity, ultimately depositing them into rivers, lakes, wetlands, and coastal waters
or, through percolation, into the ground water. In a legal sense, the term nonpoint
source is defined to mean any source of water pollution that does not meet the
legal definition of point source in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act, as
amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987.
The term point source means any discernible, confined, and
discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,
ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, con-
tainer, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation,
or vessel or other floating craft from which pollutants are or
may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural
stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated
agriculture.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Although diffuse runoff is usually treated as NFS pollution, runoff that enters and
is discharged from conveyances such as those described above, as well as runoff
from construction activities, is treated as a point source discharge and therefore
is subject to the permit requirements of the Clean Water Act. In contrast,
nonpoint sources are not subject to federal permit requirements. Point sources
typically enter receiving surface water bodies at some identifiable site(s) and
carry pollutants whose generation is controlled by some internal process or
activity, rather than by the weather. Point source discharges such as municipal
and industrial wastewaters, runoff or leachate from solid waste disposal sites and
concentrated animal feeding operations, storm sewer outfalls from large urban
centers, and Phase I and Phase II construction stormwater runoff are regulated
and permitted under the Clean Water Act.
Although it is imperative that water program managers understand and manage in
accordance with legal definitions and requirements, the nonlegal community often
characterizes nonpoint sources in the following ways:
* NPS discharges enter surface waters or ground water in a diffuse
manner at intermittent intervals related mostly to meteorological events.
Pollutant generation arises over an extensive land area, and pollutants
move overland before they reach surface waters or infiltrate into the
ground water.
« The extent of NPS pollution is related to uncontrollable climatic events
and to geographic and geologic conditions, and it varies greatly from
place to place and from year to year.
Nonpoint sources are often more difficult or expensive to monitor, as
compared to point sources.
• Abatement of NPS pollution is focused on land and runoff management
practices, rather than on effluent treatment.
Hydrologic modification, an additional form of nonpoint source pollution, can
cause adverse effects on the biological and physical integrity of surface waters
and ground water. This can include increases in NPS pollutants, such as sus-
pended solids, toxic substances, organic matter, heat, excess salts, and pathogens.
1.4 Are to
Pollution?
1.4.1 Act 319)
During the first 15 years of the national program to abate and control water
pollution (1972-1987), EPA and its partners focused most of their water pollution
control activities on traditional point sources like discharges through pipes from
sewage treatment plants and industrial facilities. These point sources have been
regulated by EPA and the states through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program established by section 402 of the
1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act).
Section 319 requires
states to assess NPS
pollution and implement
management programs.
As a result of the activities mentioned previously, the nation has greatly reduced
pollutant loads from point source discharges and has made considerable progress
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
in restoring and maintaining water quality. However, the gains in controlling point
sources have not solved all of the nation's water quality problems. Recent studies
and surveys conducted by EPA and by state and tribal water quality agencies
indicate that the majority of the remaining water quality impairments in our
nation's rivers, streams, lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and wetlands result from
NPS pollution and other nontraditional sources, such as urban stormwater
discharges and combined sewer overflows.
In 1987, in view of the progress achieved in controlling point sources and the
growing national awareness of the increasingly dominant influence of NFS
pollution on water quality, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to focus
greater national efforts on nonpoint sources. Under this amended version,
referred to as the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress revised section 101,
Declaration of Goals and Policy, to add the following fundamental principle:
It is the national policy that programs for the control of NFS
pollution be developed and implemented in an expeditions
manner so as to enable the goals of this Act (o be met
through the control of both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution.
More importantly, Congress enacted section 319 of the Clean Water Act, which
established a national program to control nonpoint sources of water pollution.
Under section 31.9, states and tribes assess NPS pollution problems and causes
within the state and implement management programs to control the NPS
pollution. Section 319 authorizes EPA to issue grants to states to assist them in
implementing management programs or portions of management programs that
have been approved by EPA. Other federal water management agencies such as
the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) are also involved in nonpoint
source pollution control activities; therefore, federal agencies may need to
coordinate with state and tribal programs to the extent that agency mission
activities intersect with these programs.
1.4.2 404 of Fill
Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, persons planning to discharge
dredged or fill material to wetlands or other waters of the United States must
obtain authorization for the discharge from the USAGE, or a state approved to
administer the section 404 program. Such authorization can be through issuance
of an individual permit, or may be subject to a general permit, which apply to
certain categories of activities having minimal adverse environmental effects.
Implementation of section 404 is shared between the USAGE and EPA. The
USAGE is responsible for reviewing permit applications and deciding whether to
issue or deny permits. EPA, in consultation with the USAGE, develops the
section 404(b)( 1) guidelines, which are the environmental criteria that the
USAGE applies when deciding whether to issue permits, and EPA also has
authority under section 404(c) to "veto" USAGE issuance of a permit in certain
cases. EPA also has responsibility for determining what is a "water of the United
States'" protected by Clean Water Act programs, including Section 404. More
Section 319 authorizes
EPA to provide grants to
assist state and tribal
NPS pollution control
programs.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
Many Farm Bill programs
provide funds for land
treatment. Please contact
your state or local U. S.
Department of Agriculture
(USDA) office for details.
information about the 404 program is provided at .
1.4.3 National Estuary Program
EPA also administers the National Estuary Program under section 320 of the
Clean Water Act. This program focuses on both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution in designated geographically targeted, high-priority estuarine waters.
Through this program, EPA assists state, regional, and local governments in
developing comprehensive conservation and management plans that recommend
priority corrective actions to restore estuarine water quality, fish populations, and
other designated uses of the waters.
1.4.4 Pesticides Program
Another program administered by EPA that controls some forms of NPS pollution
is the pesticides program under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act (FIFRA). Among its provisions, the program authorizes EPA to control
pesticides that might threaten ground water and surface waters. FIFRA provides
for the registration of pesticides and enforceable label requirements, which may
include maximum rates of application, restrictions on use practices, and classifi-
cation of pesticides as "restricted use" pesticides (which restricts use to certified
applicators trained to handle toxic chemicals).
1.4.5 Farm Bill Conservation Provisions
Technical and financial assistance for landowners seeking to preserve soil and
other natural resources is authorized by the federal government under provisions
of the Food Security Act (Farm Bill). Appendix A lists several USDA programs
with provisions included in the 1996 and 2002 Farm Bills that relate directly to
installation and maintenance of BMPs. Some of these programs include:
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
Conservation of Private Grazing Land
Swampbuster Program
Conservation of Highly Erodible Lands
• Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP)
Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)
Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D)
1.4.6 Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
In November 1990 Congress enacted the CZARA. These amendments were
intended to address the impact of NPS pollution on coastal waters.
Congress enacted section 6217 of CZARA, providing that each state with an
approved Coastal Zone Management Program must develop and submit to EPA
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for approval
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. The purpose of the program is "to
develop and implement management measures for NFS pollution to restore and
protect coastal waters, working in close conjunction with other state and local
authorities."
The intent of the legislation was for state coastal zone and water quality agencies
to have balanced roles, analogous to the sharing of responsibility between NOAA
and EPA at the federal level.
Section 6217(g) of CZARA required EPA to publish, in consultation with NOAA,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and other federal agencies, "guid-
ance for specifying management measures for sources of nonpoint pollution in
coastal waters." Management measures are defined in section 6217(g)(5) as:
Economically achievable measures for the control of the
addition of pollutants from existing and new categories and
classes of nonpoinl sources of pollution, which reflect the
greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through
the application of the best available nonpoint source control
practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating
methods, or other alternatives.
In 1993 EPA published Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Source Pollution in Coastal Waters (USEPA, 1993c). In
the 1993 document, management measures for urban areas; agricultural sources;
forestry; marinas and recreational boating; hydromodification (channelization and
channel modification, dams, and streambank and shoreline erosion); and wet-
lands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems were defined and de-
scribed. The management measures included in this document for controlling
NPS pollution in wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treated systems are
based on those outlined in the 1993 CZARA guidance.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 1: Introduction
10 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
2 of
Understanding the role of wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment
systems in abating NFS pollution requires an understanding of several terms.
Because federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and policy documents define
these terms in a number of different ways, this chapter provides an overview of
how the terms might be interpreted and defines the terms as they are used in this
document.
2.1 and
For purposes of this guidance, wetlands arc defined as
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in satu-
rated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
As waters of the United States, wetlands are afforded protection under the
Clean Water Act. Although the focus of this document is on the function of
wetlands in reducing NFS pollution, it is important to keep in mind that wetlands
are ecological systems that perform a range of functions (e.g., hydrologic, flood
control, and aquatic habitat functions) in addition to pollutant removal. Therefore,
adverse impacts on existing wetlands should be avoided to the maximum extent
possible.
Definitions of wetlands are also contained in federal, state, and local laws,
ordinances, and policy documents. Because those definitions do not always use
scientific concepts, they might differ between states or even between localities
within a state.
For purposes of this guidance, riparian areas are defined as
A vegetated ecosystem along a water body through which
energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas character-
istically have a high water table and are subject to periodic
flooding and influence from the adjacent water body. These
systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination
of these two landforms. They will not in all cases have all the
characteristics necessary for them to be also classified as
wetlands.
Like the definitions for wetlands, the definitions for riparian areas can vary. For
example, a definition of riparian areas might be based on geographic region (arid
or humid climates) or on distance from a stream channel rather than on site
characteristics.
Wetlands are defined as
those areas that are
inundated or saturated by
surface water or
groundwaterata
frequency and duration
sufficient to support a
prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions.
Riparian areas are defined
as vegetated ecosystems
along a water body
through which energy,
materials, and water pass.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
11
-------
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems
Figure 2-1 illustrates the general relationship between wetlands, uplands, riparian
areas, and a stream channel. Identifying the exact boundaries of wetlands or
riparian areas is less critical than identifying ecological systems of concern. For
instance, even those riparian areas that fall outside wetland boundaries provide
many of the same important water quality functions that wetlands provide. In
many cases, the area of concern might include an upland buffer adjacent to
sensitive wetlands or riparian areas that protects them from excessive NFS
impacts or pretreats inflowing surface waters.
The functions of wetlands and riparian areas include water quality improvement;
stream shading; flood attenuation; shoreline stabilization; ground water exchange;
and habitat for aquatic, semiaquatic, terrestrial, migratory, and rare species.
Wetlands and riparian areas typically occur as natural buffers between uplands
and adjacent water bodies. Loss of these systems allows for a more direct
contribution of NFS pollutants to receiving waters. The pollutant removal func-
tions associated with wetlands and riparian area vegetation and soils combine the
physical process of filtering and the biological processes of nutrient uptake and
denitrification (Lowrance et al., 1983; Peterjohn and Correll, 1984). Riparian
forests, for example, have been found to contribute to the quality of aquatic
habitat by providing cover, bank stability, and a source of organic carbon for
microbial processes like denitrification (James et al., 1990; Pinay and Decamps,
1988). Riparian systems, particularly in western regions, have been shown to
stabilize the recharge of shallow aquifers in a manner that supports streamflows
of longer natural duration (Platts and Jenson, 1990). Riparian forests have also
been found to be effective at reducing in-stream pollution during flood flows
(Karr and Gorman, 1975; Kleiss et al., 1989).
Wetlands and riparian areas can play a critical role in reducing NPS pollution by
intercepting surface runoff, subsurface flow, and certain ground water flows.
Figure 2-1. Relationship Between Wetlands, Uplands, Riparian Areas, and the Stream Channel
12
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems
Their role in water quality improvement includes processing, removing, trans-
forming, and storing such pollutants as sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
certain heavy metals (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1996). Research
also shows that riparian areas function to control the release of herbicides into
surface waters. Thus, wetlands and riparian areas buffer receiving waters from
the effects of pollutants or they prevent the entry of pollutants into receiving
waters. It is important to consider that degradation of wetlands and riparian areas
can inhibit their ability to treat NFS pollution. Degraded wetlands and riparian
areas can also become sources of NFS pollution.
In highly developed urban areas, wetlands and riparian areas can be virtually
destroyed by construction, filling, channelization, or other significant alterations. In
agricultural areas, wetlands and riparian areas can be affected by overuse of the
area for grazing or removal of native vegetation and replacement with annual crops
or perennial cover. In addition, significant hydrologic alterations might have oc-
curred to expedite drainage of farmland. Other significant impacts might occur as a
result of various activities such as highway construction, surface mining, deposition
of dredged material, and excavation of ports and marinas. All these activities have
the potential to degrade or destroy the water quality improvement functions of
wetlands and riparian areas and might exacerbate NFS pollution problems.
A wetland's position in the landscape affects its water quality functions. Some
cases have been studied sufficiently to predict how an individual wetland will
affect water quality on a landscape scale (Whigham ct al.. 1988). For example,
relationships have been demonstrated between the extent of individual wetlands
and lowered suspended solids, fecal coliform, and nutrients in streams
(Detenbeck et al., 1993; Johnson et al., 1990). Also, wetlands that border first-
order streams were found by Whigham and others (1988) to be efficient at
removing nitrate from ground water and sediment from surface waters. When
located downstream from first-order streams, wetlands and riparian areas were
found to be less effective than those located upstream at removing sediment and
nutrient from the stream itself because of a smaller percentage of stream water
coming into contact with the wetlands (Whigham et al.. 1988). It has also been
estimated that the portion of a wetland or riparian area immediately below the
source of NFS pollution might be the most efficient at removing pollutants
(Cooper etal, 1987; Lowrance etal, 1983; Phillips, 1989).
Although wetlands and riparian areas reduce NFS pollution, they do so within a
definite range of operational conditions and cannot be viewed as a treatment
mechanism for unlimited amounts of NFS pollution. When hydrologic changes or
NFS pollutants exceed the natural assimilative capacity of wetlands and riparian
areas, these systems become stressed and can be degraded or destroyed. A
degraded wetland has less ability to remove NFS pollutants and to attenuate
stormwater peak flows (Bedford and Preston. 1988; Richardson and Davis, 1987;
Richardson. 1988). In addition, a degraded wetland can deliver increased
amounts of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants to the adjoining water body,
thereby acting as a source of NFS pollution instead of a treatment (Brinson,
1988; Richardson, 1988). Therefore, wetlands and riparian areas should be
protected to the maximum extent possible from changes that would degrade their
existing pollution abatement functions. This protection can be accomplished by
The role of wetlands and
riparian areas in water
quality improvement
includes processing,
removing, transforming,
and storing such
pollutants as sediment,
nitrogen, phosphorus, and
certain heavy metals.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
13
-------
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems
Vegetated filter strips are
defined as created areas
of vegetation designed to
remove sediment and
other pollutants from
surface water runoff by
filtration, deposition,
infiltration, adsorption,
absorption,
decomposition,
and volatilization.
applying NFS management measures appropriate to the source of pollutants
(e.g.. activities associated with agriculture, urban development, forestry,
hydromodification, and marinas and recreational boating). Finally, degraded
wetlands and riparian areas should be restored, where possible, to serve an NFS
pollution abatement function.
2.2
For purposes of this guidance, vegetated treatment systems are defined to
include vegetated filter strips or constructed wetlands. Vegetated treatment
systems can also be a combination of vegetated filter strips and constructed
wetlands. Both of these systems have been defined in scientific literature and
have been studied individually to determine their effectiveness in NFS pollutant
removal.
In this guidance, vegetated filter strips (VFS) are defined as (Dillaha ct al..
1989aand USEPA, 1996a)"
created areas of vegetation designed to remove sediment and
other pollutants from surface voter runoff by filtration,
deposition, infiltration, adsorption, absorption, decomposi-
tion, and volatilization. Vegetated filter strips are densely
vegetated sections of land designed to convey runoff in the
form of sheet flow across grassed or forested surfaces. A
vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains soil aeration
as opposed to a wetland, which at times exhibits anaerobic
soil conditions.
In this guidance, constructed wetlands are defined as (USEPA, 1998a)
wetlands that use natural processes involving wetland
vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assemblages
to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other
source water. These systems are engineered and constructed
in uplands, outside 'waters of the United States, ' unless the
water source can serve a significant restoration junction to
a degraded system.
In areas where naturally occurring wetlands or riparian areas do not exist or
cannot be restored to original sites, vegetated treatment systems can be designed
and constructed to perform some of the same functions. When such engineered
systems are installed for a specific NFS pollution abatement purpose, however,
they might not offer the same range of functions that naturally occurring wet-
lands or riparian areas offer. Vegetated treatment systems have been installed in
a wide range of settings, including cropland, pastureland, forests, cities, and
urbanizing areas, where the systems can perform a complementary function of
sediment control and surface water runoff management. Vegetated treatment
systems should be considered to have wide-ranging applicability to various NFS
categories.
When properly installed and maintained, VFS have been shown to effectively
prevent the entry of sediment, sediment-bound pollutants, and nutrients into water
14
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems
bodies. VFS reduce NFS pollutants primarily by filtering water passing over or
through the strips. Properly designed and maintained VFS can substantially
reduce the deliver}? of sediment and some nutrients to waters from nonpoint
sources. With proper planning and maintenance, VFS can be a beneficial part of
a network of NFS pollution control measures for a particular site. Efficiencies of
VFS and riparian areas in removing sediments and nutrients from water passing
over and through the systems are discussed later in this document. VFS are often
coupled with practices that reduce nutrient inputs, minimize soil erosion, or collect
runoff. Where wildlife needs are factored into the design, VFS or buffers in
urban areas can add to the species diversity of the urban environment by provid-
ing wildlife nesting and feeding sites, in addition to serving as a pollution control
measure. However, VFS might require maintenance such as grass mowing or
removal of accumulated sediment. These and other maintenance activities might
preclude some of their value for wildlife, for example, by disturbing or destroying
nesting sites.
Constructed wetlands arc designed to mimic the pollutant-removal functions of
natural wetlands and might lack aquatic habitat functions and species diversity. It
is important to note that aquatic plants and benthic organisms used in constructed
wetlands serve primarily to remove pollutants. Constructed wetlands may or may
not be designed to provide flood storage, ground water exchange, or other
functions associated with natural wetlands. In fact, if there is a potential for
exposing wildlife to contamination or other detrimental impacts, constructed
wetlands should be designed to discourage use by wildlife. If constructed wet-
lands are planned and designed correctly, however, they can be designed to
provide significant wildlife habitat, water reuse, and public use opportunities.
Pollutant removal in constructed wetlands is accomplished by several mecha-
nisms, including sediment trapping, plant uptake, bacterial decomposition, and
adsorption. Properly designed and constructed wetlands filter and settle sus-
pended solids. Wetland vegetation used in constructed wetlands converts some
pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals) into plant biomass (Watson ct al.,
1988). Nitrification, denitrification, and organic decomposition are bacterial
processes that occur in constructed wetlands. Some pollutants, such as phospho-
rus and most metals, physically attach or adsorb to soil and sediment particles;
therefore, constructed wetlands, used as a management practice, could be an
important component in managing NFS pollution from a variety of sources. They
are not intended to replace or destroy natural wetland areas, but rather to remove
NFS pollution before it enters a stream, natural wetland, or other water body.
The term vegetated buffer is currently used in many contexts, and there is no
agreement on any single concept of what constitutes a buffer, what activities are
acceptable in a buffer zone, or what is an appropriate buffer width. In one usage,
the term vegetated buffer refers to natural riparian areas that are set aside or
restored to filter pollutants from runoff and to maintain the ecological integrity of
the water body and the land adjacent to it (Nieswand et al.. 1989). In another
usage, the term refers to constructed strips of vegetation used in various settings
to remove pollutants in runoff from a developed site (Nieswand et al., 1989).
USE-PA (1996a) referred to vegetated buffers as barriers of natural or estab-
lished perennial vegetation managed to reduce the impact of development or
Constructed wetlands are
defined as wetlands that
use natural processes
involving wetland
vegetation, soils, and their
associated microbial
assemblages to assist, at
least partially, in treating
an effluent or other source
water.
Vegetated buffers are
defined as strips of
vegetation separating a
water body from a land
use that could act as a
NFS pollution source.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
15
-------
Chapter 2: Overview of Wetlands, Riparian Areas, and Vegetated Treatment Systems
pollution on the water quality of adjacent areas. Vegetated buffers reduce the
velocity of surface runoff and provide an area for infiltration of runoff into the
soil. Finally, the term vegetated buffer can be used to describe a transition zone
between an urbanized area and a naturally occurring riparian forest (Faber et al.,
1989). In all these contexts, buffers can provide value to wildlife, as well as
aesthetic value.
A vegetated buffer usually has a rough surface and typically contains a heteroge-
neous mix of ground cover, including herbaceous and woody species of vegeta-
tion (Stewardship Incentive Program, 1991; Swift, 1986). This mix of vegetation
allows the buffer to function like a filter for pollutants. A VFS can also be
constructed to remove pollutants in runoff from a developed site, but a filter strip
differs from a vegetated buffer in that a filter strip typically has a smooth surface
with a vegetated cover made up of a homogeneous species of vegetation (Dillaha
etal, 1989a).
To avoid confusion, this guidance focuses specifically on the use of VFS (not the
more general vegetated buffer) that are used as vegetated treatment systems in
abating NFS pollution.
16 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
3
When discussing specific categories of NFS pollution, such as agriculture,
forestry, urban areas, marinas and recreational boating, and hydromodification,
"'management measures" represent effective systems of practices available to
prevent or reduce NFS pollution. Implementing the management measures in this
document will help to reduce pollution coming from a broad variety of nonpoint
sources by promoting the protection and restoration of wetlands and riparian
areas and the use of vegetated treatment systems. The following management
measures have been developed to protect the multiple functions wetland and
riparian ecosystems provide and to ensure their continued capacity for NFS
pollution abatement. They are described in greater detail in chapters 4. 5, and 6.
It is important to note, however, that while wetlands have the potential to prevent
or reduce NFS pollution, unrestricted use of wetlands as receptacles for NFS
pollution could have an adverse effect on the wetlands and wetland biota.
« Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian
Areas: Protect from adverse effects wetlands and riparian areas that are
serving a significant NFS abatement function and maintain this function
while protecting the other existing functions of these wetlands and
riparian areas as measured by characteristics such as vegetative compo-
sition and cover, hydrology of surface water and ground water, geochem-
istry of the substrate, and species composition.
« Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian
Areas: Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in damaged
and destroyed wetlands and riparian systems, especially in areas where
the systems will serve a significant NPS pollution abatement function.
* Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems: Promote the
use of engineered vegetated treatment systems such as constructed
wetlands or vegetated filter strips where these systems will serve a
significant NPS pollution abatement function.
Management measures
have been developed for
the control of NPS
pollution through the
protection and restoration
of wetlands and riparian
areas and the use of
vegetated treatment
systems.
3.1 to
Implementation of the management measures will help to control the delivery of
NPS pollutants to receiving water resources by
• Minimizing pollutants available (source reduction);
* Reducing the flow rate of runoff to allow for deposition of the pollutant
or infiltration of runoff; or
Remediating or intercepting the pollutant through chem ical or biological
transformation.
Management measures generally focus on the control of a particular type of
pollutant or pollutant category from specific land uses. The intent of the three
management measures is to ensure that the NPS benefits of protecting and
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
17
-------
Chapter 3: Management Measures
restoring wetlands and riparian areas, and of constructing vegetated treatment
systems, will be considered in all water pollution control activities in a watershed.
These management measures form an essential element of any state NFS
pollution program.
Implementation of the first management measure is intended to protect the full
range of functions for wetlands and riparian areas that serve an NFS abatement
function. This protection will preserve their value as an NFS pollution control and
help to ensure that they do not become a significant nonpoint pollutant source as
a result of degradation.
The second management measure promotes the comprehensive restoration of
degraded wetlands and riparian systems with NFS pollution control potential for
reasons similar to those for the first measure—the increase in pollutant loadings
that can result from degradation of wetlands and riparian areas and the substan-
tial evidence in the literature on the effectiveness of wetlands and riparian areas
for NFS pollution abatement. In addition, restoration might benefit wildlife and
aquatic organisms. This measure recommends evaluation of degraded wetlands
and riparian systems, as well as restoration if the systems will serve an NFS
pollution abatement function (e.g., by cost-effectively treating NFS pollution or
by attenuating peak flows).
The third management measure promotes the use of vegetated treatment sys-
tems because of their wide-scale ability to treat a variety of NFS pollutants. This
measure will also apply, as appropriate, to the other sources of NFS pollution
addressed in the CZARA Guidance (USEPA, 1993c).
3.2
In addition to specifying management measures, chapters 4 through 6 also list
and describe management practices. EPA has found the practices listed in this
document to be representative of the types of practices that can be applied
successfully to achieve the management measures. EPA recognizes that there is
often site-specific, regional, and national variability in the selection of appropriate
practices, as well as in the design constraints and pollution control effectiveness
of practices. The practices presented for each management measure are not all-
inclusive. State, tribal, or local agencies may wish to apply other technically and
environmentally sound practices to achieve the goals of the management
measures.
18 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
4 Management Measure for Protection
of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
This chapter presents supporting information, including management practices,
specific implementation examples, and costs and benefits, for the following
management measure:
Management Measure
Protect from adverse effects wetlands and riparian areas
that are serving a significant NFS abatement function and
maintain this function while protecting the other existing
functions of these wetlands and riparian areas as mea-
sured by characteristics such as vegetative composition
and cover, hydrology of surface water and ground water,
geochemistry of the substrate, and species composition.
The purpose of this management measure is to maintain the water quality
benefits of wetlands and riparian areas and to ensure that such areas do not
become a source of NFS pollution as a result of degradation. The term NFS
abatement function refers to the ability of a wetland or riparian area to remove
NFS pollutants from runoff passing through the wetland or riparian area. Two
examples of NFS pollution abatement functions performed by wetlands and
riparian areas are (1) acting as a sink for phosphorus and (2) converting nitrate to
nitrogen gas through denitrification. Wetlands and riparian areas have been
shown to have useful functions for removing other NFS pollutants, including total
suspended solids (TSS), sulfates, calcium, magnesium, and sediments. Table 4-1
shows results of several studies of the NFS pollution abatement functions of
wetlands and riparian areas. The ability of wetlands and riparian areas to perform
pollution filtration functions is determined by species composition, geochemistry,
and hydrogeomorphic characteristics. Any changes to these characteristics can
affect filtering capacities. Evaluation of these data can give an indication of the
range of pollutant removals expected; however, ranges vary due to variations in
sampling techniques, parameters measured, and the nature of the sampling event
(storm event versus long-term monitoring.)
Reduction of NFS Pollutants in Coastal Plain Wetlands and Riparian Areas
A study performed in the southeastern United States coastal plain dramatically
illustrates the role that wetlands and riparian areas play in abating NFS pollutants. It
examined the water quality role played by mixed hardwood forests along stream
channels adjacent to agricultural lands. These streamside forests were shown to be
effective in retaining nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium. The study
authors projected that total conversion of the riparian forest to a mix of crops
typically grown on uplands would result in a 20-fold increase in nitrate-nitrogen
loadings to the streams. This projected increase resulted from use of fertilizers (e.g.,
nitrates) to promote crop development and from the loss of nitrate removal functions
previously performed by the riparian forest.
Source: Lowranceetal., 1983.
The NFS pollution
abatement functions
performed by wetlands
and riparian areas are
most effective as parts of
an integrated land
management system that
combines nutrient,
sediment, and soil erosion
control.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
19
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-1. Effectiveness of Natural Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NFS Pollutant Removal
P7r— -
{rvcf
\ \jCrr
M^jT]
JX-
=s
nJ
^±f
Vs
Study
Pollutant reduction by floodplain deposition in
bottomland hardwood forest
Nitrate retention in a third-order stream
Nutrient removal in a mixed hardwood, riparian
forest
Sediment and phosphorus retention in a riparian
wetland
Nitrate and sulphate reduction in a riparian
forested wetland
Removal of nutrients in a riparian deciduous
hardwood forest
Phosphorus and nitrate export and removal in a
forested riparian area
Retention of sediment and nutrient loads from
storm water runoff by an urban wetland
Nitrate reduction by a forested riparian buffer
strip
Removal of phosphate in a riparian forest
Sediment trapping efficiency in riparian areas
Nitrate removal by wetland and riparian areas in
watershed headwaters
Seasonal groundwater nitrate removal by
wetlands
Nitrate retention by riparian forest with upland
wetland transition zones and red maple
wetlands
f\
^. /-Hx/ Measurements taken throughout the United States show
^7\ f YDf the NPS pollutant abatement functions of wetlands and
j)^f~~^ij? riparian areas. Results of studies in various states (see
fl /*FVii maP a* 'e^) are snown in the table below. The
L/^L/_T effectiveness of natural wetlands and riparian areas for
^~~~^^~f removing NPS pollutants depends on many factors,
1 \V~/ which are discussed in this chapter. Natural wetlands and
l_4__/ riparian areas should be routinely monitored to measure
"^^^S \ their environmental health and protect all of the physical,
v, N chemical, and biological functions they provide. See
section 4.1.2 for more details. Additional information
about each study cited in the table is provided in
Appendix F at the back of the document.
Solids
50%1
3%
97%2
76%3
84-90%"
NOs
80%
14%
67%
86%
>80%
79%
93%
99%
80%
59%
N
47%
P
50%
25%
0.4%
>80%
80%
48%
50%
S04
25%
Ca
42%
Mg
22%
Example Projects
Cache River (AR)
Little Lost Man Creek (CA)
Tifton (GA)
Heron Pond (IL)
Rhode River 1 (MD)
Rhode River 2 (MD)
Rhode River Subwatershed
(MD)
Fish Lake (MN)
Beaver Dam Creek Watershed
(NC)
Cypress Creek 1 (NC)
Cypress Creek 2 (NC)
Lake Tahoe (NV)
Kingston 1 (Rl)
Kingston 2 (Rl)
Note: NOs, nitrates; N, organic nitrogen; P, phosphorus; SCk sulfate; Ca, calcium; Mg, magnesium.
1 Total suspended solids.
2 Nonvolatile solids.
3 Volatile solids.
4 Sediment.
20
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Factors Affecting Removal Efficiencies
The properties of a particular wetland or riparian area and of the surrounding
watershed play a significant role in the ability of the wetland or riparian area to
retain its existing wetland functions (such as food and habitat for animals, flood
storage, and ground water recharge) and serve an NFS pollution abatement
function. Several factors determine the pollutant-removal efficiency of a specific
wetland or riparian area, including the following:
• Frequency and duration of flooding
• Types of soil
• Slope of landscape
• Types of vegetation
* Balance of nitrogen and carbon
* Ratio of edge to area for the wetland or riparian area
The composition of water and characteristics of the surrounding watershed
affect the balance of wetland or riparian function and pollutant removal effi-
ciency. Some of these characteristics are the land use practices in the watershed,
the number and types of surrounding wetlands and riparian areas, and the
climatic conditions in the area.
Multiple
EPA is encouraging the preservation and protection of wetlands and riparian
areas because these natural systems have been shown to provide many other
benefits in addition to NFS pollution reduction. The basis of protection involves
avoiding and minimizing impacts on wetlands and riparian areas that control NFS
pollution by maintaining the existing functions of these areas, including vegetative
composition and cover, flow characteristics of surface water and ground water,
hydrology and gcochcmical characteristics of substrate, and species composition
(Azous, 1991; Hammer, 1992;MitschandGosselink, 1986: Reinelt and Homer,
1990; Richteretal., 1991; Stockdale, 1991).
Wetlands and riparian areas also perform important functions such as providing a
source of food, nesting material, habitat, and nursery areas for a variety of
terrestrial and aquatic wildlife (Atcheson et al., 1979). Many animals whose
development histories include an aquatic phase (amphibians, some reptiles, and
invertebrates) need habitat provided by wetlands (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993).
Other important functions of wetlands and riparian areas include fioodwater
storage, erosion control, ground water recharge, and maintenance of biological
diversity. Protection of wetlands and riparian areas should allow for both NFS
control and other corollary benefits of these natural aquatic systems.
Degradation Increases Pollution
Wetlands perform many water quality functions; however, when severely de-
graded, they can be a source of NFS pollution (Brinson 1988; Richardson, 1988).
For example, the drainage of tidal wetlands underlain by a layer of organic peat
can cause the soil to rapidly decompose and release sulfuric acid, which can
significantly reduce pH (increase acidity) in surrounding waters. Removal of
wetland or riparian area vegetation along the shorelines of streams, bays, or
The preservation and
protection of wetlands and
riparian areas is
encouraged because
these natural systems
provide many benefits, in
addition to providing the
potential for NFS pollution
reduction.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
21
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
estuaries makes these areas more vulnerable to erosion because of increased
water level fluctuation associated with storm events, concentrated runoff, and
wave action. Activities such as channelization, which modify the hydrology of
floodplain wetlands, can alter the ability of these areas to retain sediment when
they are flooded and result instead in erosion and a net export of sediment from
the wetland (Reinelt and Homer, 1990).
Permits to Protect Wetlands
A permit program administered by the USAGE, EPA, and approved states under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The management
measure and section 404 program complement each other, but the two differ in
focus.
The management measure focuses on protecting wetlands that help to abate
NFS problems, as well as on maintaining the functions of these wetlands. This
protection can include preventing impacts resulting from upland development and
upstream channel modifications that erode wetlands, change salinity, kill existing
vegetation, and upset sediment and nutrient balances. The section 404 program
focuses on protecting wetlands from physical destruction and other pollutant
problems that could result from discharges of dredged or fill material. Table 4-2
shows many of the federal programs that affect wetlands in the United States.
In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Count)' v. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, no. 99-1178 (January 9, 2001) ("SWANCC"), the United State Supreme
Court in a 5-4 decision, limited the ability of the USAGE and EPA to assert Clean
Water Act jurisdiction over isolated intrastate non-navigable waters. The Su-
preme Court held that USAGE exceeded its statutory authority by asserting
Clean Water Act jurisdiction over such waters based soley on the fact they are
or could be used as habitat for migratory birds or endangered species ("Migra-
tory bird rule"). Under this ruling, isolated wetlands and other waters may remain
protected under the Act, but only if other bases for jurisdiciton are identified. In
additon, isolated waters or wetlands may still be subject to regulation by state
agencies.
Although the SWANCC decision limits federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction over
isolated, intestate, non-navigable waters and wetlands, the Federal government
remains committed to protecting all of the nation's waters. EPA and the USAGE
will continue to monitor implementation of the Clean Water Act Section 404
regulatory program to ensure its effectiveness. As of December 2003, the
Federal government was implementing 30 programs to protect and restore
millions of acres of our Nation's wetlands. These include programs such as the
Food Security Act's "Swampbuster" requirements and the Wetlands Reserve
Program, both under the authority of USDA. EPA programs include its "Five-
Star Restoration" grant program, the EPA wetlands grants programs and the
National Estuary Program. Other federal programs include: the Fish and Wildlife
Service's "Partners in Wildlife" program, the National Marine Fisheries Service's
Coastal Wetlands Restoration Program and the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission, composed of the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture, the Admin-
istrator of EPA, and Members of Congress (USEPA, 2003).
22 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-2. Federal Programs and Acts That Affect Wetlands in the United States
Program or Act
Clean Water Act
Coastal Barriers Resources Act
(P.L. 96-348) (1982)
Coastal Wetland Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act
(P.L 101 -646) (1990)
Coastal Zone Management Act
(P.L. 92-583) (1972)
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-645)
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205)
Estuary Protection Act
(P.L. 90-454) (1968)
Estuary Restoration Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-457) (2000)
E.0. 11990, Protection of Wetlands (1977)
E.0. 11988, Protection of Floodplains (1977)
Federal Aid in Wildlife Coordination Act of 1956
Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of
1990 (P.L. 101-624)
Food Security Act of 1985 (Swampbuster)
(P.L. 99-198)
Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamps
(1934) (Ch. 71,48 Stat. 452)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(P.L. 91 -190)
North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(1986)
North American Wetlands Conservation Act
(1989) (P.L. 101-233)
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 802)
U.S. Tax Code Tax Reform Act of 1986
(P.L. 99-51 4)
Water Bank Act (1970) (P.L. 91-559)
Water Resources Development Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-541)
Wetlands Loan Act (1961) (P.L. 87-383
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542) (1968)
Agency
EPA, Corps,
FWS, NOAA
NOAA
USAGE, FWS,
EPA, NMFS,
NRCS
NOAA
FWS
FWS
DOI
USEAP, NOAA,
USAGE, FWS,
USDA
AFA
AFA
DOI
NRCS
FSA, FWS
FWS
AFA
FWS
FWS
USAGE
IRS
FSA
USAGE
FWS
DOI, USDA
Effect of Program
Section 404 establishes permit program for discharge of dredged or fill material
into all waters of the US, including wetlands. Section 402 similarly requires
permits for discharges of other pollutants.
Designates various undeveloped coastal barrier islands for inclusion in the
Coastal Barrier Resources System. Designated areas are ineligible for federal
financial assistance that may aid development.
Provides for interagency wetlands restoration and conservation planning and
acquisition in Louisiana, other coastal states, and the trust territories.
Provides federal funding for wetlands programs in most coastal states, including
the preparation of Coastal Zone Management Plans.
Pays debts incurred by FWS for wetlands acquisition and provides additional
revenue sources.
Provides for the designation and protection of wildlife, fish, and plant species
that are in danger of extinction.
Authorized the study and inventory of estuaries and the Great Lakes, and
provided for management of designated estuaries between DOI and the states.
Promotes the restoration of estuary habitat, develops a national estuary habitat
restoration strategy, provides federal assistance and promotes efficient
financing of such projects, and enhances monitoring and research capabilities.
Requires federal agencies to minimize impacts of federal activities on wetlands.
Requires federal agencies to minimize impacts of federal activities on
floodplains.
Authorizes the development and distribution of fish and wildlife information and
the development of policies and procedures relating to fish and wildlife.
Water Resources Development Act of Wetland Reserve Program purchases
perpetual nondevelopment easements on farmed wetlands. Subsidizes
restoration of croplands to wetlands.
"Swampbuster" program suspends agricultural subsidies for farmers who
convert wetlands to agriculture. Conservation Easements program allows
FmHA FSA to eliminate some farm debts in exchange for long-term easements
that protect wetlands and other areas.
Acquires wetland easements using revenues from fees paid by hunters for duck
stamps.
Requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for all major
federal actions significantly affecting the environment.
Establishes a plan for managing waterfowl resources by various methods, such
as acquiring wetlands.
Encourages public/private partnerships by providing matching grants to
organizations for protecting, restoring, or enhancing wetlands.
Provides that "due regard" be given to wildlife conservation in planning federal
water projects.
Provides deductions for donors of wetlands and to some nonprofit organizations.
Leases wetlands and adjacent uplands from farmers for waterfowl habitat for
10-year periods.
States that future mitigation plans for federal water projects should include "in
kind" mitigation for bottomland hardwood forests.
Provides interest-free loans for wetland acquisition and easements.
Protects designated river segments from alterations without a permit.
Note: AFA, all federal agencies; ASCS, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service; DOI, Department of the Interior; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; FSA,
Farm Service Agency; FmHA, Farmer's Home Administration; FWS, Fish and Wildlife Service; IRS, Internal Revenue Service; NMFS, National Marine Fisheries Service;
NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; USAGE, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture; P.L., Public Law; E.G., Executive
Order.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
23
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Wetlands and riparian
areas should be
considered as part of a
continuum of filters along
rivers, streams, and
coastal waters that
together serve an
important NFS abatement
function.
4.1 Management Practices for Protecting Wetlands
and Riparian Areas
The management measure for protecting wetlands and riparian areas generally will
be implemented by applying one or more practices appropriate to a specific source,
location, and climate. Wetland evaluation, assessment of functions and values,
programmatic approaches to wetland protection, and preliminary treatment
practices can be applied to implement the management measure for protecting
wetlands and riparian areas. The following pages and Table 4-3 provide details
about each practice.
4.1.1 Wetland Evaluation
Evaluate and document the NPS control potential of wetlands
and riparian areas on a watershed or landscape scale.
Wetlands and riparian areas should be considered part of a continuum of filters
along rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters that together serve an important
NPS abatement function. Examples of evaluating wetlands and riparian areas on
a watershed or landscape scale were outlined by Whigham and others (1988).
They found that a landscape approach can be used to make reasonable decisions
about how any particular wetland might affect water quality parameters. Wet-
lands in the upper parts of the drainage systems tend to have a greater impact on
water quality than those in lower reaches.
Wetlands and riparian areas are particularly sensitive to landscape disturbance,
including fragmentation and changes in land cover. Wetlands and riparian areas
covering large areas provide for more sustainable NPS control within a water-
shed (Mitsch, 1992). Hanson and others (1990) used a model to determine the
effect of riparian forest fragmentation on forest dynamics. They concluded that
increased fragmentation would lead to lower species diversity and an increased
prevalence of species that are adapted to isolated conditions. Naiman and others
(1988) discussed the importance of wetlands and riparian areas as boundary
ecosystems, providing a boundary between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
EPA BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint
Sources) software may also be useful for wetlands evaluations by providing
integrated databases and assessment tools to analyze environmental information,
and provide a framework for examining management alternatives.
Geographic Differences
The characteristics of wetlands and riparian areas are largely controlled by
climate, landscape characteristics, vegetation, and soils. Regional variations in
these controls can greatly affect how a wetland or riparian area functions within
a watershed. Therefore, it is important to consider geographic variations when
evaluating the potential NPS pollution control functions of wetlands and riparian
areas. For instance, wetlands in arid or semiarid areas are typically associated
24
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-3. Potential of Wetlands and Riparian Areas for NFS Pollution Control.
/ 7 \^~^\ ] (~y5^ fv^f Practice: Evaluate and document the NFS
/^^^BB 1 — \J[(J),^-^J?" pollution control potential of wetlands and
\ ( I \~ — 1— — ir^ ^Bl/WsW riparian areas on a watershed or landscape
i J / ^__[ /I — \\/ This teble provides some examples from different
\~_L-^— J ^~~\} \ Y locations in the United States of the kinds of
/-— , Xy~\ ^^^^^^Sv activities that can help implement this practice. For
^ \ «0= \( \J more information about the examples, refer to
f V, *o Appendix F at the back of the document.
•^^
Implementation Activities
Use a landscape approach to evaluate wetland water quality
functions.
Use watershed analysis as a tool to ensure functional performance.
Use tools such as the synoptic approach to construct broad scale
assessments.
Recognize geographic differences when considering wetland or
riparian area functions within a watershed.
Develop wetland conservation plans that consider wetlands and
riparian areas on a watershed or landscape scale.
Consider water quality functions of wetlands and riparian areas
during the planning process.
Example Projects
Local Wetland Management Plans (AK), Wetland Protection (FL), Wetland
Assessment (IL), Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative (Ml), Wetland
Protection (Rl), Rivers and Wetlands Program (TN), Synoptic Assessment
Approach (WA)
Wetland Protection (FL), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA)
Wetland Assessment (IL), Pearl River Basin (MS), Synoptic Assessment
Approach (WA)
Reference Reach Monitoring Program (KY), Wetland Conservation Plan (MN),
Wetland Conservation Plan (TX), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA)
Wetland Conservation Plan (ME), Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative (Ml),
Watershed Initiative Program (Ml), Wetland Protection (NY), Wetland
Conservation Plans (OR), Rivers and Wetlands Program (TN), Wetland
Conservation Plan (TX), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA), Wetlands
Conservation Plan/Outreach (Bad River Band), Watershed Demonstration Project
(Flathead Reservation), Watershed Protection (Umatilla), Wetland Conservation
Program (Nez Perce), Wetlands Conservation Project (Hopi)
Wetland Protection (MA), Wetland Conservation Plans (OR)
with perennial springs and headwaters streams; that is, they are able to exist
because they are near enough to the headwaters that the probability of erosive
scour from flood flows is minimal. The upstream pumping of ground water can
disrupt the hydrology of cienagas and playas, two of the more common arid/semi-
arid wetland types, where water is not abundant. These types of wetlands play
an important role in NFS pollution control because of their location within the
watershed or landscape. In addition, the characteristics of a watershed wield a
strong influence on rivers, flooding patterns, and riparian wetlands. Western and
eastern riparian wetlands in small watersheds tend to flood for a few months
during spring thaw, whereas eastern bottomland forests (such as those along the
Mississippi River) flood for several months. During these flood periods the
wetlands capture and filter the NFS pollutants carried in the floodwaters.
Changes in the volume and flood period can affect the NFS pollution control
potential of these wetlands. For additional geographic differences in wetlands,
refer to Table 4-4.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
25
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-4. Descriptions of Specific Wetland Types
Pocosin Pocosin wetlands occur along the Atlantic seaboard's lower
Wetlands coastal plain, from southern Virginia to northern Florida. Pocosin
wetlands are found in ridge and swale topography, as well as in
flat of the lower plain, in depressions of the Carolina
Bays, in of springs and in the upper coastal plain, and
in the floodplains of streams, The substrates of pocosins are not
very permeable so groundwater beneath the wetland, which has a
high mineral content, not come into contact with the low-
mineral-content water and soil of the pocosin. Water movement
occurs as at the pocosin's margins that flows to streams,
or as direct flow to salt marshes in estuarine areas,
Cienega is a term that usually applies to a mid-elevation wetland
characterized by permanently saturated, highly organic, reducing
soils. Cienegas are perpetuated by permanent, scarcely fluctuating
sources of water and are rarely subject to harsh winter conditions.
They occur at mid-elevations of semidesert grasslands and are
usually with perennial springs and headwater streams,
Playa Lakes The term playas generally refers to occupied by temporary
shallow lakes that have internal drainage, usually in arid to
semiarid regions of the southern Great Plains. They are not part of
an integrated surface drainage system, but are related to geologic
fracture Playa floors are plate-like with relatively constant
water depth throughout much of the basin. Very few playas are
directly associated with groundwater, and playas usually fill only
from precipitation and irrigation runoff. Most playas are dry during
one or more periods of each year, usually late winter, early spring,
and late summer. There is no surface water outflow; playas lose
their water by evaporation, seepage, and irrigation use.
Riverine or Riverine or riparian wetlands eiist along the margins of rivers,
Riparian behind natural levees, in oxbows and floodplains. Riverine
Wetland wetlands in arid climates are limited shoreward by desert and
of the riverward by water depth and scouring. These wetlands are
Southwest transitory. They develop rapidly only to be removed by channel-
straightening floods, or they proceed toward an upland community
after drying. In the American Southwest, riverine marshes are
located primarily in broad alluvial valleys.
Prairie The prairie pothole region of the northern United consists of
Potholes North Dakota, western Minnesota, northeastern South Dakota, and
upper central Iowa. A pothole is defined as a surface depression
occurring in glacial sediments, containing water from precipitation,
surface runoff, and groundwater. Potholes have an average depth
of about 2 to 5 feet and can range in size from a few hundred
square yards up to several thousand square miles. These
wetlands are not usually associated with any regional network of
stream channels, but they are related to local and regional
groundwater systems. The hydroperiods in potholes range from
temporarily to permanently flooded, and these differences cause
the development of diverse vegetation zones such as wet
meadow, shallow marsh, and marsh. Prairie potholes lose
water through evaporation, transpiration, and to
groundwater.
and Bogs have acidic, fibrous, spongy, nutrient-poor organic soil, and
Fens their organic plant material consists mostly of sphagnum moss.
Because of their location at or above the local groundwater table,
bogs acquire most of their water from precipitation. Fens
represent a transitional between marshes and bogs. Fens
obtain water not only directly from precipitation, but also by
surface runoff and groundwater seepage. Acidic water with a very
low mineral content is typical of bogs; fens are characterized by
the reverse. Mineralized fen water originates from groundwater,
whereas precipitation produces the high-aridity, low-mineral
water content of a bog.
Bottomland Bottomland hardwoods are forested wetlands in the river valley
Hardwoods floodplains of Missouri, the southern Atlantic Coastal Plain, and
the Gulf states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. They
occupy the broad floodplains, seldom exceeding a width of 5
miles. Seasonal hydrology in these wetlands affects surface
water and groundwater movement. In drier seasons, floodwaters
and lateral groundwater movement serve as the dominant inputs.
Other input sources include overbank flooding from the main
channel, flooding from small tributary streams, lateral overland
flow from valley sides, lateral groundwater flow from valley-side
rock formations, and movements of groundwater to the
main river channel. Recharge can also occur in the form of bank
storage. As water levels rise, water moves laterally from the
channel to the adjacent floodplain.
Dome Cypress dome wetlands occur in southern Georgia and Florida,
Wetlands The term cypress dome is defined as a hardwood forested
wetland occurring in seasonally or permanently wet saucer-
shaped depressions. These wetlands are small, usually not
exceeding 25 acres, and are dominated by pond cypress trees.
The assume a characteristic dome-shaped profile, with the
smaller toward the and the in the middle
due to the occurrence of wildfire, which often burns only the
outer, smaller trees. Cypress domes occur in flat areas where the
water table is dose to the surface; this surface water is
connected to shallow aquifers. Primary hydrologic inputs to
cypress dome wetlands are rainfall and surface water inflow,
Water is lost through evapotranspiration and to
graundwater systems.
Permafrost/ PermafrostfTundra wetlands occur in the interior of Alaska and
Tundra are the western extension of the wetland complexes of northern
Wetlands Canada, Permafrost is the most important characteristic that
distinguishes the hydrology of these wetlands. Wetlands
produced by permafrost include seasonal thaw ponds, shallow
emergent wetlands, partially drained lake basins, and wetlands in
wet and dry tundra. The term muskeg means peatland, and it
constitutes the organic content of wetlands. Precipitation is
the main water input because of impermeable conditions created
by permafrost. Very little water is lost or received to or from
stream and groundwater flow.
Yemal Pools Vernal pools are naturally occurring depressional wetlands that
are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to
spring but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall.
These wetlands in size from small puddles to shallow
lakes. Although generally isolated, they are sometimes connected
to each other by small drainages known as vernal swales.
Beneath vernal pools lies either bedrock or a hard day layer in
the soil that helps keep water in the pool. The pools collect water
during winter and spring rains, changing in volume in to
varying weather patterns. During a single season, pools may fill
and dry several times. In years of drought, some pools might not
fill at all.
Source: USEPA1996a
26
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Ecosystem Management
Several federal agencies, states, tribes, and many local communities are begin-
ning to outline the role of wetlands and riparian areas in terms of ecosystem
management. The underlying tenet of this management strategy is that
biodiversity and ecological processes form the core of functioning landscapes
(Henjum et al., 1994). If examples of each type of representative ecosystem in a
region can be maintained, including wetlands and riparian areas, the species that
live in these ecosystems will also be afforded an opportunity to persist (Noss and
Cooperrider, 1994). To achieve this, areas of relatively intact, functioning ecosys-
tems that represent biological diversity should be given serious consideration as
sites where wetlands and riparian area protection and restoration efforts are
focused (Doppelt et al., 1993).
Watershed Analysis
Planning for NFS pollution control in an ecosystem context will require use of
new approaches in environmental assessment. Watershed analysis is one such
tool that can be used to ensure the functional performance of wetlands and
riparian area protection and conservation practices and to evaluate the success
of such practices. Watershed analysis is structured around a series of questions
whose answers provide a model of ecosystem processes, disturbance history, and
risk (Montgomery et al., 1995). The analysis can be conducted at various spatial
scales, and used to evaluate the relative contribution of wetlands and riparian
areas to maintaining regional or basinwide w7ater quality conditions.
Watershed Approach In Arkansas
The Arkansas Wetland Strategy docs not replace other natural resource plans; it
recognizes them and puts wetlands in context with other resource plans, such as NFS
pollution management, floodplain management, habitat protection, ground water
protection, and other water quality programs, for decision making at the watershed
level. It also provides an ecosystem context by linking with regional wetland plans
and priorities. Stakeholders (including wetland scientists, policy makers, landowners,
and regulators) concluded that case-by-case wetland permitting does not result in a
balanced conservation strategy. Case-by-case permitting tends to be inconsistent
and confusing to landowners and usually does not result in "no net loss." The
Arkansas Wetland Strategy promotes voluntary, incentive-based, locally lead
conservation planning through the implementation of the strategy objectives.
Source: Multi-Agency Wet land Planning Team. 2001.
Syn optic Approach
A similar method for conducting broad-scale assessment is the Synoptic Ap-
proach developed by EPA (Leibowitz et al., 1992). The approach involves
compiling, organizing, and depicting environmental information in a manner that
ranks watersheds according to the relative significance and risks associated with
wetlands (or other ecosystems). States can use the synoptic approach and
related assessment methodologies to refine water quality protection strategies
(e.g., geographic prioritization), including plans for NFS control (Daggett, 1994).
In Louisiana and Washington State, EPA has conducted studies that use the
synoptic approach to assess wetland water quality functions on a landscape scale
(Abbruzzese et al., 1990a, 1990b). The synoptic approach considers the environ-
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 27
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Watershed Approach
A watershed is an area of land that drains to a single stream or other water resources. Watersheds are defined solely by
drainage areas and may include multiple landowners or cross political boundaries. The watershed approach is a coordi-
nating framework for environmental management that focuses public and private sector efforts to address the highest
priority problems within hydro logically defined geographic areas (e.g.. watersheds), taking into consideration both
ground and surface water flow.
EPA supports watershed approaches that aim to prevent pollution, achieve and sustain environmental improvements, and
meet other goals important to the community. Although watershed approaches may vary in terms of specific objectives,
priorities, elements, timing, and resources, all should be based on the following guiding principles:
* Partnerships. Those people most affected by management decisions are involved throughout and shape key
decisions. This ensures that environmental objectives are well integrated with those for economic stability and
other social and cultural goals. Partnerships also ensure that the people who depend on the natural resources
within the watersheds are well informed and participate in planning and implementation activities.
• Geographic focus. Activities are directed within specific geographic areas, typically the areas that drain to
surface water bodies or that recharge or overlay ground waters or a combination of both. Cooperation between
multiple landowners and political jurisdictions is essential.
* Sound management, techniques based on strong science and data. Collectively, watershed stakeholders
employ sound scientific data, tools, and techniques in an interactive decision-making process. This process
should include:
- Assessment and characterization of the natural resources and the communities that depend on them.
- Goal setting and identification of environmental objectives based on the condition or vulnerability of
resources and the needs of the aquatic ecosystem and the people in the community.
- Identification of priority- problems.
- Development of specific management options and action plans.
- Implementation.
- Evaluation of effectiveness and revision of plans, as needed.
When stakeholders work together, actions are based on shared information and a common understanding of the roles,
priorities, and responsibilities of all involved parties. The nature of the watershed approach encourages partners to set
goals and targets and to make maximum progress based on available information, while continuing analysis and verification
in areas where information is incomplete.
Watershed projects should have a strong monitoring and evaluation component. Monitoring is essential to determining
the effectiveness of management options chosen by stakeholders. Because many watershed protection activities require
long-term commitments from stakeholders, they need to know whether their efforts are achieving real improvements in
wetland or riparian area functions.
Operating and coordinating programs on a watershed basis makes good sense for environmental, financial, social, and
administrative reasons. For example, by jointly reviewing the results of assessment efforts for NFS pollution control, fish
and wildlife habitat protection, and other resource protection programs, managers can better understand the cumulative
impacts of various human activities and determine the most critical problems in each watershed. Using this information to
set priorities for action allows public and private managers from all levels to allocate limited financial and human resources
to address the most critical needs.
The final result of the watershed approach is a plan that is a clear description of resource problems, goals to be obtained,
monitoring to be conducted, and identification of sources for technical, educational and funding assistance. The successful
plan provides a basis for seeking support and for maximizing the benefits of that support.
Source: USEPA, 1996b.
28 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
mental effects of cumulative wetland losses. In addition, this approach involves
assembling a framework that ranks watersheds according to the relative impor-
tance of wetland functions and losses. States are also encouraged to refine their
water quality standards applicable to wetlands by assigning wetland-specific
designated uses to classes of wetlands (USEPA, 1990).
A number of factors in a watershed should be considered in the development of a
wetland conservation plan. Factors such as position in the landscape, present or
past land use, and existing modification of the natural hydrology help to define the
goals and objectives of a conservation plan and identify problems and opportuni-
ties for protection and management.
4.1.2 Assessment of Functions and Values
Identify existing functions of those wetlands and riparian areas
with significant NPS control potential when implementing NPS
management practices. Do not alter wetlands or riparian areas
to improve their water quality function at the expense of their
other functions.
Although wetlands are recognized for their flood control and water quality
improvement functions, use of natural wetlands to reduce pollutants in
stormwater and other forms of runoff can have dramatically adverse effects on
wetland systems. EPA's Office of Wetlands has several Fact Sheets available
(for example, Wetland Monitoring and Assessment: A Technical Framework,
USEPA, 2002 and Wetland Monitoring and Assessment, USEPA, 2001) that
provide information on protecting and monitoring wetlands. See the EPA Office
of Wetlands' website, http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/contents.html for
a complete list of wetlands fact sheets and other technical information. Several
states have laws that restrict direct conveyance of stormwater into natural
wetlands. For example, the Washington State Department of Ecology established
regulations restricting the placement of stormwater management ponds in
wetlands. Stormwater discharges to wetlands must be treated and controlled to
meet state water quality and ground water quality standards. The hydroperiod
and flows of existing site conditions must also be maintained to protect character-
istic uses of the wetland (Washington State Department of Ecology, 1992).
In general, the following practices should be avoided:
• Location of surface water runoff ponds or sediment retention basins in
wetland systems.
Extensive dredging and plant harvesting as part of nutrient or metals
management in natural wetlands.
Some harvesting within wetlands might be necessary to control the invasion of
exotic plants. Extensive harvesting of plants in a wetland for surface water
runoff or nutrient management, however, could be very disruptive to the existing
plant and animal communities.
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 29
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
A state may need to
address any one or a
combination of factors in
particular circumstances
to meet the mandates of
the Clean Water Act
articulated in section
101 (a): "to restore and
maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological
integrity of the nation's
waters."
A study conducted on two similar wetlands in New Jersey demonstrated an
increase in erosion associated with the harvesting of vegetation. Vegetation was
cut in one of the wetlands and left undisturbed in the other. Banks eroded more
than 6 feet in the harvested wetlands while the uncut site exhibited minimal
erosion (USEPA, 1995b).
Assessment
The assessment of wetland and riparian areas can provide data needed to
identify degradation of functions within the systems and potential sources of the
degradation. Several states assess wetlands that are relatively free from impacts
to define baseline conditions and establish standards to protect wetlands.
Several assessment approaches can be applied to characterize existing functions
of wetlands and riparian areas. The Hydrogeomorphic Approach to the Func-
tional Assessment of Wetlands (HGM) was developed by the USAGE Water-
ways Experiment Station (USAGE Waterways Experiment Station, 1995). HGM
establishes procedures for classifying regional wetland types and developing
models for assessing the functions of each. HGM is based on the recognition of
common hydrologic and geomorphic characteristics of different types of wetland
ecosystems and the use of reference systems as the basis of scaling functional
attributes of wetlands. With the establishment of reference wetlands, in which
functions have already been evaluated, a site being evaluated can be compared
to the reference group of the same class. The HGM' method represents a rapid
assessment approach that can be used to characterize existing functions in
wetlands, potential impacts to wetland functions as the result of an activity, and
changes in wetland function overtime.
Examples of the use of functional assessment tools for various wetland or
riparian area applications are provided in Table 4-5 and Appendix F.
Monitoring
Water quality and biological monitoring may be necessary to characterize general
conditions and to document changes overtime. Monitoring of conditions in
wetland or riparian areas, particularly where such areas are providing NFS
pollution reduction functions, is important to ensure that healthy habitat conditions
are maintained. Water quality monitoring is useful for determining the physical
characteristics and chemical composition of a water body at a particular time. A
sustained record of water quality sampling makes it possible to determine trends
in pollutant loadings. BMPs to protect habitat functions can be implemented
where adverse impacts are identified.
One of the most direct and effective ways of evaluating the ecological health or
integrity of a wetland is to directly measure the condition of the wetland's
biological community. Bioassessment methods can be used to directly measure
the long-term biological integrity of wetlands and quickly screen them for signs of
impairment. Several states, including Florida, Indiana, Maine. Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montanan, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, are developing
biological assessment methods to evaluate the health of their wetlands. Wetland
bioasscssmcnts can be useful in defining management approaches to maintain
30
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-5. Assessment of Functions and Values for Protection of Wetlands or Riparian Areas
A f v__.
uVP
\\jCTI
vUj
\
/^~~^~ — ~~-> \~/
Ł V^
y^3
•••_-x-
T r"^, j\
— — -^^F^%**jL /"Try Practice: Identify existing functions of those
L 7 ( wetlands or riparian areas to improve their water
L, /T\^.r~f quality function at the expense of their other
> — • \ j functions.
~\ J^~^*^""'X1 \ This table provides some examples from different
\ { \J locations in the United States of the kinds of
activities that can help implement this practice. For
more information about the examples, refer to
Appendix F at the back of the document.
Implementation Activities
Identify and evaluate existing NFS functions of wetland and riparian areas.
Apply assessment tools to characterize existing functions in wetlands.
Use assessment tools to evaluate potential impacts resulting from activities
within the watershed.
Monitor wetlands throughout watersheds to characterize general conditions
and changes over time.
Characterize unaltered wetlands to define baseline conditions and establish
wetland protection standards.
Example Projects
Wetland Conservation Plans (OR), Wetland Protection (Rl), Wetland
Protection (Guam), Wetlands Protection Plan (Rincon)
Wetland Protection (FL), Water Quality Assessment (KS), Meadows Golf
Club (Ml), Reference Wetlands Project (MN), Pearl River Basin (MS),
Rivers and Wetlands Program (TN), Matheson Preserve (UT), Synoptic
Assessment Approach (WA), Green River (WY), Wetlands Protection
Plan (Rincon), Wetlands Project (Santa Clara Pueblo)
Reference Wetlands Project (MN), Pearl River Basin (MS), Rivers and
Wetlands Program (TN), Synoptic Assessment Approach (WA), CIS
Assessment (Virgin Islands)
Water Quality Assessment (KS), Reference Reach Monitoring Program
(KY), Reference Wetlands Project (MN), Wetland Conservation Plan
(ME), Wetland Water Quality Standards (NH), Wetland
Restoration/Creation Site Registry (PA), Rivers and Wetlands Program
(TN), Matheson Preserve (UT), Wetland Water Quality Standards
(Miccosukee), Wetlands Protection Plan (Rincon), Wetlands Project
(Santa Clara Pueblo)
Water Quality Assessment (KS), Watershed Initiative Program (Ml),
Reference Wetlands Project (MN)
and restore wetland condition and in evaluating the performance of protection
and restoration activities.
The involvement of volunteers in wetland assessment and monitoring programs is
a realistic, cost-effective and beneficial way to obtain important information that
might otherwise be unavailable because of a lack of resources at government
agencies. Initiatives like Riverwatch, Adopt a Stream, and the Izaak Walton
League's Save Our Streams program have been highly successful in maintaining
groups of interested volunteers and yielding data useful to scientists, planners,
and concerned citizens. A growing number of organizations are training citizens
to monitor wetlands.
In addition to providing useful information, these programs have the benefit of
educating citizens about wetland functions and empowering citizens to become
more active stewards of wetland resources in their communities. Informed
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
31
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
citizens can play a key role in encouraging land and water stewardship in all
sectors of society, from industry to private homeowners and from housing
developers to municipal sewage treatment managers and local planning boards.
4.1.3 Programmatic Approaches
Provide a mechanism for
private landowners and
agencies in mixed-
ownership watersheds to
develop, by consensus,
goals, management plans,
and appropriate practices
and to obtain assistance
from federal and state
agencies.
Use permitting, licensing, certification, and nonregulatory
approaches to protect wetland functions.
There are many possible programs, both regulatory and nonregulatory, to protect
wetland functions (Table 4-6). Appendix A and Appendix F also provide informa-
tion on federal, state, nonprofit, and private programs involved in the protection
and restoration of wetlands and riparian areas on private lands. From a regula-
tory standpoint, many states have already implemented requirements for in-
creases in flow rates into wetlands and restricted the placement of detention/
retention and other basins in high ground water areas. The use of permitting,
licensing, and certification is a practice that is constantly being used, modified,
and updated.
Acquisition
Obtain easements or full fee acquisition rights for wetlands and riparian areas
along streams, bays, and estuaries. Numerous federal programs, such as the
USDA WRP, the EPA Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), and the Fish
and Wildlife Service North American Waterfowl Management Plan can provide
assistance for acquiring easements or full title. Acquisition of water rights to
ensure maintenance of minimum in-stream flows is another means to protect
wetlands or riparian areas. Water rights acquisition can be a critical issue in the
arid West. See Table 4-6 and Appendix F for examples of acquisition and ease-
ment programs.
Several states have developed landowner guides for wetland protection and
management. Table 4-7 provides examples of states that have developed guides.
Additional information on protection and management guides is provided in
Appendix F.
Zoning and Protective Ordinances
Restrict activities that have a negative impact on wetlands and riparian areas
through implementation of special area zoning and transferable development
rights. Identify impediments to wetland protection such as excessive street
standards and setback requirements that limit site-planning options and some-
times force development into wetlands.
32
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-6. Programmatic Approaches to Protecting Wetlands and Riparian Areas
'j^^jr-—-- ___^ r\
I ? Y^^H 1 fl^^& Cv^i Practice: Conduct permitting, licensing,
/~~~~^~^^/ [_ ] :s (( ) JL^-^C^ certification, and nonregulatory IMPS pollultion
1 / /^-r— — X~ \ f^\\\I^^j abatement activities in a manner that protects
\ \ / / j A ( l/J^W wetland functions.
k V / p=i T^H^--^? "*"'1'S ta^'e Prov'c'es some examples from different
' — / / ^~^J /|^J\,/ locations in the United States of the kinds of
^B_r-^^M \^> ' •__X activities that can help implement this practice. For
^__^ Vv~\ J~^XaS=^^} \ more information about the examples, refer to
^ \, \ f \\ Appendix F at the back of the document.
«m/%
".,„.-'*"
Implementation Activities
Protect sensitive lands along watercourses from
encroachment.
Require ecological transition areas or buffers adjacent to
wetlands.
Develop regulatory programs to counteract encroachment
resulting from zoning requirements.
Develop tools for determining proper buffer widths.
Develop wetland water quality standards.
Provide a mechanism for private landowners to obtain
wetlands assistance.
Provide outreach and education support for wetland and
riparian area protection and restoration.
Develop wetland management plans that specify practices
for protection.
Example Projects
Wetland Protection (FL), Wetland Protection (MA), Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act (MD),
Wetland Protection (Ml),
Freshwater Protection Act Rules (NJ), Conservation Easement Purchase (OH), Wetlands
Conservation Plan (OR), Wetland Protection (Rl), Comprehensive Plan Policy (VA), Mangrove
Protection (Puerto Rico)
Wetland Protection (CT), Wetland Protection (MA), Forest Buffer Legislation (MD), Freshwater
Protection Act Rules (NJ), Wetland Protection (NY), Wetland Protection (Rl), Coastal
Management Program (American Samoa)
Wetlands Regulatory Program (WA)
Buffer Zone Guidelines (FL), Agricultural Experiment Station (NJ)
Wetland Water Quality Standards (NH), State Water Quality Standards (Wl), Wetland Water
Quality Standards (Miccosukee), Wetlands Protection Program (Narragansett), Wetlands
Program (Pueblo of Laguana)
Landowner's Guide (AR), Wetland Conservation Guide (CA), Landowning Colorado Style (CO),
Wetlands Assistance Guide (MD), Watershed Initiative Program (Ml), Ohio Wetlands (OH),
Protecting Darby Creek (OH), Wetlands Conservation Guide (OR), Wetlands Assistance Guide
(TX), Wetlands Conservation Plan (TX), Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas (TX)
Huichica Creek Vineyard (CA), Hamakau Wetlands (HI), Tiburon Golf Course (NE), Rivers and
Wetlands Program (TN), Wetland Conservation Grant (TN), Wetland Conservation Plan (TX),
Matheson Preserve (UT), Riparian Restoration Demonstration (VA), Riparian Task Force (WV),
Wetland Conservation Plan/Outreach (Bad River Band), Watershed Demonstration Project
(Flathead Reservation), Wetlands Conservation Project (Hopi), Wetlands Outreach (MITC),
Wetlands Protection Program (Narragansett), Wetlands Outreach (Red Lake Band), Watershed
Protection (Umatilla), Wetland Community Park (Umatilla)
Gulf Oak Ridge (AL), Ramsey Canyon (AZ), Tahoe Conservancy (CA), Wetland Restoration
Program (IA), Teton River Basin (ID), Southern Lake Michigan (IN), Wetland Protection (MA),
Pine Butte Swamp (MT), Wetland Acquisition (Ml), Coastal Preserves (MS), Green Acres
Program (NJ), Conservation Easement Purchase (OH), West Eugene Wetlands Project (OR),
Hackberry Flat (OK), Wetland Restoration/Creation Site Registry (PA), Wetland Conservation
Grant (TN), Wetland Restoration Site Registry (TX), Winona Wetlands Purchase (WA)
Local Wetland Management Plans (AK), Wetland Conservation Strategy (IL), Nontidal Wetland
Protection Act (MD), Wetland Conservation Plans (OR), Wetland Conservation Plan (ME),
Wetland Protection (MA), Watershed Initiative Program (Ml), Pine Butte Swamp (MT), Wetlands
Conservation Plan (TX), Coastal Management Program (American Samoa), Wetlands
Conservation Plan/Outreach (Bad River Band), Watershed Demonstration Project (Flathead
Reservation), Wetlands Conservation Project (Hopi), Wetlands Protection Program
(Narragansett), Wetland Conservation Program (Nez Perce), Wetlands Protection Program
(Pueblo of Acoma), Wetlands Program (Pueblo of Laguana), Wetlands Conservation Plan
(Sisseton-Wahpeton Dakota Nation), Watershed Protection (Umatilla), Wetlands Conservation
Plan (Warm Springs)
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
33
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-7. Examples of State Guides for Wetland Protection and Management
c t3
o c
•JS 3
•5
O
WJ
I
s
o>
I
I
o
CO
*
CO
ExampleGuide
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Landowner's Guide (AR)
Wetland Conservation Guide (CA)
Landowning Colorado Style (CO)
Wetlands Assistance Guide (MD)
Living With Michigan's Wetlands (Ml)
Stream Managment Guide (MT)
Wetland Regulation Guidebook (NY)
Ohio Wetlands (OH)
Wetlands Conservation Guide (OR)
Wetlands Assistance Guide (IX)
A Wetlands Workbook (UT)
Winona Wetlands Purchase
The city of Port Townsend, Washington, was able to meet both stormwater manage-
ment objectives and a wetlands preservation goal by obtaining funding from
Washington's SRF to purchase an area known as the Winona Wetlands. This wetland
acts as a critical stormwater basin for the area and provides valuable wildlife habitat.
Potential development of the area not only threatened the wetlands but also would
result in stormwater management problems. By purchasing the wetlands, the city was
able to protect a natural stormwater management system as well as a wildlife refuge.
The city purchased 6.5 acres in Phase I and is currently planning to borrow additional
SRF funds for a Phase II purchase of 9 acres. This $400,000 project is part of the
National Estuary Program (Clean Water Act section 320) for the Puget Sound Estuary.
A portion of the city's stormwater utility fee paid by households is being used to
repay the Washington SRF.
Source: USEPA. 1998c.
Chesapeake Bay Program
The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed a compilation of tools to assist local
governments in the protection of wetlands, including planning, zoning, and tax
incentive approaches that have been useful for protecting wetlands in the Chesa-
peake Bay region.
Source: USEPA, 1997b.
34
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Water Quality Standards
Several states and tribes have realized the importance of developing and imple-
menting water quality standards that protect the full range of wetland functions.
A significant percentage of wetlands are waters of the United States, as defined
in the Clean Water Act. Consider natural water quality functions when specifying
designated uses for wetlands, and include biological and hydrologic narrative
criteria to protect the full range of wetland functions. Table 4-6 and Appendix F
provide examples of cases where water quality standards that specifically
address wetland functions have been, or are being, developed. Also refer to
EPA's Water Quality Standards for Wetlands: National Guidance for more
information (USEPA, 1990).
Regulation and Enforcement
Establish, maintain, and strengthen regulatory and enforcement programs. Where
allowed by law, include conditions in permits and licenses issued under Clean
Water Act sections 401, 402, and 404; state regulations; or other regulations to
protect wetlands.
As an example of a linkage to protect NFS pollutant abatement and other
benefits of wetlands, a state could determine under Clean Water Act section 401
that a proposed discharge or other activity in a wetland is inconsistent with state
water quality standards. A state might need to address any one of a combination
of factors in particular circumstances to meet the mandates of the Clean Water
Act articulated in section 101(a) "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Protection of water quality
includes protection of multiple elements that together make up aquatic systems,
including the aquatic life, wildlife, wetlands and other aquatic habitat, vegetation,
and hydrology required to maintain the aquatic system. An activity within a
wetland could be determined to be consistent with water quality standards if
existing use requirements are met and if the activity does not cause or contribute
to significant degradation of the aquatic environment as defined in the guidelines
developed under section 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water Act (USEPA, 1991).
Restoration
Programs such as USDA's CRP and WRP provide opportunities to set aside and
restore wetlands and riparian areas. Also, incentives that encourage private
restoration offish and wildlife productivity are often more cost-effective than
federal, state or local acquisition.
Education and Training
Education and outreach are essential tools for promoting an understanding of the
importance of wetland and riparian areas in maintaining water quality and in
developing support for the protection of these habitats and the valuable functions
that they perform.
• Educate farmers, urban dwellers, and federal agencies on the role of
wetlands and riparian areas in protecting water quality and on BMPs
for restoring stream edges.
For more information on
State Revolving Funds,
contact your Clean Water
State Revolving Fund
Program or contact:
The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Branch
U.S. EPA
1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW
(Mailcode4204)
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7359
http ://www. epa. gov/OWM
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
35
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Where wetlands are the
final discharge point for
runoff, BMPs can be used
to control the runoff before
it reaches the wetland and
to ensure the maintenance
of existing pollution
abatement functions.
The characteristics of
runoff are directly affected
by land use. Agricultural
runoff tends to be high in
nitrogen, phosphorus,
bacteria, and suspended
sediments. Typical
pollutants found in urban
runoff include sediment,
oxygen-demanding
substances, nutrients,
heavy metals, pesticides,
hydrocarbons, increased
temperature, and trash
and debris.
• Teach courses in simple restoration techniques for landowners.
• Use local and regional wetlands guides. Many states have developed
wetlands guides to assist landowners in protecting wetland and riparian
areas according to their different needs (see Table 4-7). Appendix A
and Appendix F provide additional examples of federal, state, tribal,
nonprofit, and private programs that provide financial and technical
assistance to landowners for wetland or riparian area protection or
restoration.
• Provide a mechanism for private landowners and agencies in mixed-
ownership watersheds to develop, by consensus, goals, management
plans, and appropriate practices and to obtain assistance from federal
and state agencies. EPA's National Estuary Program and the USFWS
Bay/Estuary Program are excellent examples of approaches that
establish a framework for multiagency program linkage and present
opportunities to link implementation efforts aimed at protection or
restoration of wetlands and riparian areas.
A number of state and federal agencies carry out programs with compatible NPS
pollution reduction goals. For example, Maryland's Nontidal Wetlands Protection
Act encourages development of comprehensive watershed plans for addressing
wetland protection, mitigation, and restoration issues in conjunction with water
supply issues. In addition, the USAGE and EPA administer the Clean Water Act
section 404 program; USDA implements the Swampbuster, CRP, and WRP;
EPA, USAGE, and states work together to perform advanced identification of
wetlands for special consideration (Clean Water Act section 404); and states
administer both the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) program, which provides
opportunity or consistency determinations, and the Clean Water Act section 401
certification program, which allows for consideration of wetland protection and
water quality objectives.
4.1.4 Preliminary Treatment Practices
Use appropriate preliminary treatment practices such as
vegetated treatment systems or detention or retention basins
to prevent adverse impacts on wetland functions that affect
NPS pollution abatement.
Land Uses
Land use directly affects the characteristics of runoff. For example, the constitu-
ents of runoff from farmland are likely to be different from those in urban runoff.
Agricultural runoff tends to be high in nitrogen, phosphorus, bacteria, and sus-
pended sediments; typical pollutants found in urban runoff include sediment,
oxygen-demanding substances, nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, hydrocarbons,
increased temperature, and trash and debris (USEPA, 1996a).
36
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Different wetland types vary in their ability to handle changes caused by
storm water flows and pollutant levels. Where runoff is directly channeled to
wetlands, treatment practices, or BMPs, should be implemented to maintain the
natural functions of the wetland. This may require the use of BMPs designed for
water quality improvement, maintenance of natural hydrologic conditions, or both,
that consider site-specific conditions, including regional variations in geography
and climate. The principal consideration in the design of a BMP is whether it will
provide the level of protection necessary to ensure that the wetland will retain its
natural health and functions. BMPs should be selected after carefully considering
the combination of variables that influence a wetland and the characteristics of
the runoff entering the wetland, as well as the capabilities and applicability of the
BMPs being considered (USEPA, 1996a). Several states, including Delaware
and Florida, have or are currently developing programs and guidelines for pro-
tecting wetlands through the use of BMPs.
Design of Pretreatment Practices
Properly designed and placed BMPs can effectively protect the functions of
natural wetlands from NPS pollution. Natural wetlands, because of their position
in the landscape, often directly receive stormwatcr runoff. Large flow volumes.
high velocities, increased sedimentation, and long-term pollutant loads delivered in
runoff can alter or destroy stable wetland ecosystems and their ability to perform
NPS pollution abatement functions. Both structural and nonstructural BMPs can
be used to provide preliminary treatment of runoff that might impact a receiving
wetland.
Often, designing a combination of BMPs is the best approach to protecting
existing wetland resources. BMPs in series (sometimes referred to as a '"treat-
ment train") incorporate several stormwater treatment mechanisms in sequence
to enhance the treatment of runoff. By combining BMPs in series rather than
using a single method of treatment for runoff, the efficiency and reliability of
pollutant removal can be improved. Examples of serial BMPs that can be used to
provide preliminary treatment of runoff headed for wetlands include (1) multiple
pond systems, (2) grassed swales combined with detention ponds, and
(3) grassed swales leading to vegetated filter strips, followed by infiltration
trenches.
It is important in the design of BMPs in series to consider the hydrologic charac-
teristics of the existing wetland. The series of BMPs should be designed to
ensure that the amount of runoff to the wetland is not decreased or otherwise
changed to a degree that negatively affects the function of the wetland. For
example, where properly designed BMPs are not used, wetlands can be impacted
by the accumulation of sediments resulting from decreased flow velocities as
runoff enters the wetland. Increased stormwater volumes and velocities associ-
ated with development in a watershed may also result in the scouring of wetland
substrates if BMPs are not in place to slow and reduce flows. In addition to the
hydrologic characteristics of the wetland, the characteristics of the NPS runoff,
as well as individual BMP capabilities, design requirements, and cost, are impor-
tant variables when considering the use of serial BMPs.
The principal
consideration in the
design of a BMP is
whether it will provide the
level of protection
necessary to ensure that
the wetland will retain its
natural health and
functions.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
37
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Many states and territories have developed manuals that provide information on
the proper design of BMPs for stormwatcr and erosion and sediment control
(ESC). Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Manage-
ment Practices (USE-PA, 1996a) provides insight into the application of BMPs to
protect wetlands from the adverse effects of NFS runoff and provides sources
for additional information. Additional information on the application of BMPs for
wetland protection can also be found in the Management Measure for Vegetated
Treatment Systems.
Additional information on
BMPs for use with
wetlands can be found in
Protecting Natural
Wetlands: A Guide to
Stormwater Best
Management Practices
(USEPA, 1996a).
Programmatic Approach es
Programmatic BMPs can also be used to help ensure that preliminary treatment
of runoff is conducted before the runoff enters wetlands. Requiring implementa-
tion of ESC practices at construction sites is an example of a good programmatic
approach for reducing sediment and other pollutant loads to wetlands. ESC
programs should provide a good source of design guidelines and make sure that
effective sediment control practices are being implemented, based on good
design criteria, monitoring of completed installations, good maintenance proce-
dures, and monitoring follow-up to ensure that maintenance is being performed.
Examples of states and territories that have developed ESC programs arc
Virginia, Delaware, North Carolina, and Guam.
For more information on the technical implementation and effectiveness of
treatment systems, refer to the Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment
Systems and Appendix F.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a long history of wetlands acquisition, protection,
and enhancement. The first national wildlife refuge, Pelican Island, was established in
1903 and was created for its namesake, the brown pelican, a wetland-dependent
species. The passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 and the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929 greatly expanded the Sen-ice's role in protecting
wetlands and species and their habitats. In 1996 the Sen-ice managed 472 national
wildlife refuges covering approximately 90 million acres. It is estimated that wetlands
constitute more than 3 5 percent of this total refuge area. Proceeds from the sale of the
Federal Migratory Bird Hunting and Consen-ation Stamp, popularly known as the
Duck Stamp, have provided more than $250 million for the acquisition of wetlands
habitats for inclusion into the refuge system.
Source: USGS, 1996.
4.2 and of
Costs to implement this management measure, as well as economic- benefits
derived from implementing this management measure, are associated with
planning, mapping, geographic- information systems (GIS), protection programs,
and pretreatment. This section describes the economic benefits of protecting
wetlands and riparian areas that serve NFS abatement functions. This informa-
tion is intended to demonstrate the cost savings accrued by implementing the
management measure as compared to the costs of not implementing it. Because
of the wide diversity of regions throughout the United States, no single cost or
economic- benefit can be used across the board. Instead, the information below
and in Table 4-8 provides examples of such costs and benefits in specific areas
of the country. The majority of the costs of protecting wetlands and riparian
38
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 4-8. Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Protecting Wetlands
r^^^^___
t^J
Vv-tM
^Xt/M
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
programs for stakeholders, and development of comprehensive land use plans
that include NFS pollutant controls and wetlands protection. Table 4-9 provides
specific examples of planning and outreach costs and associated benefits.
Estimating the costs to control NFS pollution nationwide is a difficult task.
Critical information, such as identification of waters contaminated with NFS
pollution and the contribution of each of those sources, is not readily available at
the local level, much less at a national level. Reported in a 1999 publication, EPA
estimated the annual costs of controlling three major sources (agriculture, silvicul-
ture, and animal feeding operations) of NFS pollution to be $9.4 billion, an amount
that represents one of the few systematic attempts at estimating such costs
nationwide (GAO, 1999). Part of this cost is attributed to protecting and restoring
wetlands and riparian areas.
Table 4-9. Planning and Outreach Costs and Benefits
F^r—
fr>cPr
\ \L~rJ~]
^CLT^H
O CV
? V ^
y^>
Study
GIS Flood Management and Water Quality
Models, Prince George's County
Monroe County Wetlands Education for
schools and public officials
Development of wetland protection and
conservation ordinance
Henrico County's Environmental Program:
Protection of Water Resources-regulatory
strategies (a watershed-based storm water
management program that is protective of
wetlands)
Duck, Apple, and Ashwaubenon Creeks
(DM) Priority Watershed Project-
comprehensive planning and
implementation of NPS control measures;
establishment of water quality goals and
objectives
/^h?fe ^A/
S._I\ f J^-^2? Additional costs are associated with the planning
_J\\\_,J?j °f wetlands protection, as well as with public
~C 1 y~-(f\ outreach and education. Some examples of such
\Ł— sr~~~j> costs are identified below. When available, the
~/-j — VJ=^T~~X dates for project costs are provided. More
— ( \ V^ information on these examples is provided in
'-^AS^XA. Appendix F.
Cost of Project
$450,000
$20,000 plus $9,000
in-kind services (1999)
$50,000 to $100,000
$21, 800,000 (DAA
Nonpoint Source
Control Plan) (1999)
Estimated Benefit
Exceptional cost and time savings have
resulted from use of the Geo-STORM
application, and the methods are more
consistent than previous studies.
There is a high demand for the wetland
field trip workshop. "More land use
decision-makers and residents are
receptive to the placement of constructed
wetlands in their communities."
Conflicts between developers and
homebuilders are reduced because of plan
reviews and approvals relating to U.S.
wetlands and waters. Accidental impacts
to wetlands or streams are avoided.
Water quality and quantity will be improved,
and the economy and the quality of life in
northeastern Wisconsin will benefit directly
from those improvements.
Example Projects
GIS (MD)
Wetland Education Program
(NY)
Grand Portage Reservation
(Tribal)
Henrico County's
Environmental Program (VA)
Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Oneida
Indian Reservation (Wl)
40
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
There are a number of federal and state programs available to help both public
and private groups preserve and protect wetlands and riparian areas. Some of
these programs are summarized in Appendix F.
The benefits of preserving wetlands and riparian areas in terms of reducing NFS
pollution are well recognized. Representative studies of the kind that document
benefits are summarized in Table 4-1. Wetlands have important filtering capabili-
ties for intercepting surface-water runoff from higher dry land before the runoff
reaches open water. In performing this filtering function, wetlands save commu-
nities a great deal of money. For example, a 1990 study showed that without the
Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp in South Carolina, the area would need
a $5 million wastewater treatment plant (USEPA, 1996b). The value of a wetland
to a community can be estimated based on the wetland's ability to abate NFS
pollution. For example, wetlands near cities have been estimated to be worth
about $98,000 per acre (1997) for their ability to clean water, recycle nutrients,
recharge aquifers, control floods, and support fish and wildlife (Abramovitz.
1997).
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources places a value of $665 per
acre per year (in 1996 dollars) on the ability of wetlands to remove nutrients and
sediments from the environment. In an economic assessment of wetland mitiga-
tion in northwest Minnesota, Sip et al. (1998) used a value of $175 per acre per
year as a proxy for the value of water quality protection.
It is estimated that riparian forest buffers can remove 21 pounds of nitrogen per
acre each year for $0.30 per pound and about 4 pounds of phosphorus per acre
each year for $1.65 per pound. The Interstate Commission for the Potomac
River Basin estimates that urban retrofit of BMPs to remove 20 percent of
current nutrient runoff will cost approximately $200 per acre, or $643 million for
the entire Chesapeake Bay basin. In the same study, estimated costs of reducing
runoff from highly crodible agricultural land are $ 130 per acre, or $68 million for
the basin.
Many other economic benefits of wetlands have also been described by a
number of studies and reports. A wealth of natural products are harvested from
wetlands, including fish and shellfish, blueberries, cranberries, timber, and wild
rice, as well as medicines that are derived from wetland soils and plants. Many
of the nation's fishing and shcllfishing industries harvest wetland-dependent
species; the catch is valued at $ 15 billion per year. The coastal marshes of
Louisiana alone produced 1.2 billion pounds of commercial fish and shellfish in
1991, a harvest worth $244 million. Wetlands also have recreational, historical,
scientific, and cultural value. More than half of all U.S. adults (98 million) hunt.
fish, birdwatch or photograph wildlife. They spend a total of $59.5 billion annually
(USEPA, 1996b).
Current state and local requirements for ESC increase the cost of development.
BMPs for ESC cost between $1,500 and $1,700 per acre (year 2000 dollars),
based on averaging 1.3, and 5 acre sites and assuming moderate slope (7 per-
cent) and moderate soil credibility. Administrative requirements associated with
ESC, which include notice of intent (NOI), municipal notification, stormwater
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 41
-------
Chapter 4: Management Measure for Protection of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
pollution prevention plans (SWPPP). record retention, and notice of termination
(NOT), cost about $930 per site (year 2000 dollars) (SAIC, 1999). Forest
conservation and riparian buffers sharply reduce ESC costs. Forest conservation
would keep soil on-site. resulting in less time and labor regrading, stabilizing and
relandscaping the site.
42 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
5 Management Measure for Restoration
of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
This chapter presents supporting information, including management practices,
specific implementation examples, and costs and benefits, for the following
management measure:
Management Measure
Promote the restoration of the preexisting functions in
damaged and destroyed wetlands and riparian systems,
especially in areas where the systems will serve a signifi-
cant NFS pollution abatement function.
Healthy wetland and riparian areas can effectively reduce pollutants such as
sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus in stormwater. Wetlands and riparian areas
also help to lessen flows from storm events and protect downstream areas from
impacts such as channel scour, streambank erosion, and fluctuations in tempera-
ture and chemical characteristics. When wetlands or riparian areas are degraded
or destroyed, the valuable functions they perform are lost. States and tribes can
apply this management measure to restore the full range of wetlands and riparian
functions in areas where the systems have been degraded or destroyed.
What Is Restoration?
Restoration is defined as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of
the conditions present prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to
the resource is repaired; both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem
are recreated. The goal of restoration is to emulate a natural, functioning, self-
regulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in which it
occurs (USEPA, 1995a). Restored wetlands and riparian areas, like undisturbed
ones, remove NFS pollutants from waters that flow through them. Acting as a
sink for phosphorus and converting nitrate to nitrogen gas through denitrification
are two examples of the important NFS pollution abatement functions performed
by wetlands and riparian areas.
Restoration is an integral part of a broad, watershed-based approach for achiev-
ing federal, state, and local water resource goals (USEPA, 1995a). A restoration
management measure should be used in conjunction with other measures ad-
dressing the adjacent land use activities and, in some cases, water activities as
well. Restoration of wetlands and riparian areas is a holistic approach to water
quality that addresses NFS problems while meeting the goals of the Clean Water
Act to protect and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
nation's waters.
The fundamental goal of wetland or riparian restoration is to return the ecosys-
tem to a condition that resembles the natural predisturbance state as closely as
possible. The establishment and achievement of these goals involves consider-
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 43
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
ation of the ecosystem's structure and function on both the local scale and the
broader landscape or watershed scale. Proper planning is necessary to set
ecological and NFS pollution goals and to ensure that design, implementation, and
monitoring of the project are conducted in a timely and cost-efficient manner and
that the goals of restoration are met. Monitoring is critical to measure progress
toward achieving restoration goals and to verify that the restored site is perform-
ing as it should.
Full restoration of complex wetland and riparian functions may be difficult and
expensive, depending on site conditions, the complexity of the system to be
restored, the availability of native plants, and other factors. The Department of
Energy conducted a study examining the economics of wetland creation, restora-
tion, and enhancement (USDOE, 1995). In the 1995 USDOE report, costs varied
widely, ranging from $5 per acre to more than $1.5 million per acre. Cost differ-
ences were attributed to target wetland type and to site-specific and project-
specific factors that affected the preconstruction, construction, and
postconstruction tasks necessary to meet the project goals. Specific practices for
restoration must be tailored to the specific ecosystem type, site conditions, and
economic parameters. In addition, wetlands restored to aid in reducing NFS
pollution to water bodies must be protected from being degraded by NFS pollu-
tion impacts.
Restoration projects vary in size, complexity, and cost based on wetland type.
sources of degradation, and local watershed conditions. Local experts knowl-
edgeable about restoration and the local ecology should be involved in the plan-
ning process. While certain principles apply to all restoration projects, the design
and implementation of restoration projects must be tailored to meet the particular
circumstances of each project. For example, even though comprehensive
monitoring of a restoration project is desirable, for smaller restoration projects,
monitoring programs may need to be modified to address site-specific conditions
and scaled proportionally to match the project size.
The following steps and activities should be considered in the planning and
implementation of restoration projects.
1. Conduct a
Site characterization and data collection are important initial steps in any restora-
tion effort. Data on the physical and chemical characteristics of the restoration
site and conditions in the surrounding watershed should be collected and ana-
lyzed. Both present and historical site conditions should be characterized. Histori-
cal data can provide valuable information useful for developing potentially
achievable project goals. It is important, at this stage, to compile available data on
stressors that could affect restoration efforts such as NFS pollutant loadings,
surrounding land use, and hydrologic alterations (hydromodification). Land
ownership and regulatory requirements should also be identified.
Information compiled during the site characterization, including both site-specific
and watershed-scale data, provides a baseline for developing the restoration
design and for evaluating the progress and success of the project.
44 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
« Characterize existing conditions. Basic site characterization and data
collection are important initial steps in planning restoration. Characteriza-
tion should include information on soil types, watershed features (size.
slope, water availability, water quality), existing vegetative cover types,
adjacent land uses, projected future land uses, property boundaries, and
fish and wildlife habitat.
Take advantage of existing information about the site to be restored. Use
of available documentation can save time, energy, and money. At least
some background information is likely to be available. Examples of
readily available sources of information include national wetland inven-
tory maps, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, NRCS soil
surveys, state wetland maps, aerial photographs, and flood hazard
boundary maps. Long-term residents, university libraries, and local
private conservation organizations are also good sources of information.
Many areas have been previously studied as part of watershed manage-
ment plans, resource inventories, environmental impact statements, and
the like.
• Conduct watershed-scale analysis. How a wetland or riparian area is
situated in a watershed influences its function. It is important to under-
stand what lands drain to a wetland or riparian area and how the ecosys-
tem fits into the watershed. Conditions throughout a watershed can
ultimately affect the success of restoration efforts.
* Identify nature of impairment. Initial identification of the causes of
damage to a degraded wetland or riparian area is necessary to ensure
that they are addressed and ameliorated during the restoration process.
A thorough analysis of the cause or causes of alterations or impairments
is fundamental to identifying management opportunities and constraints
and to defining realistic and attainable restoration objectives.
2. for
Before identifying and selecting restoration techniques, identify specific goals for
restoration.
* Identify pollution abatement functions along with other ecological
benefits obtainable through restoration efforts. Identify the environ-
mental benefits that may be realized as a result of restoring preexisting
wetland or riparian area functions. These benefits, such as NFS pollutant
abatement, should form the basis for developing restoration goals. Goals
are generalized statements about the expected outcome of the project. It
is important that the goals arc appropriate and obtainable based on
project characteristics and constraints. Public involvement in the develop-
ment of project goals is important. Involving the public not only improves
the validity of restoration goals, but also generates interest and support
and can be instrumental in finding necessary funding.
• Develop specific objectives for hydrology, soils, and biota appropri-
ate to the wetland type being restored. Turn objectives into measur-
able target criteria that can be monitored to determine the progress of the
project.
Restoration projects
provide excellent
opportunities to educate
the public on the roles of
wetlands and riparian
areas in protecting water
quality.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
45
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
• Begin partnership involvement and refine objectives. Partners can
include anyone who has an interest in the watershed. It is important to
include all the key interest groups so that you can tap strengths, increase
credibility, reduce duplication of efforts, and make optimal use of limited
funds. Early consideration of restoration goals, objectives, and scope can
assist participants in determining whose interests are affected. Active
participants should include all parties necessary to develop and implement
solutions to the problems being addressed, as well as those who could
impede restoration efforts.
« Plan to secure necessary permits. Restoration conducted in, or in
contact with, wetlands and other water bodies may be subject to federal,
state, and local regulator}? programs and requirements. Permit require-
ments should be determined at an early stage of the restoration process.
Based on project goals and the proposed site, requirements established
under federal, state, and local regulations may apply. Federal regulations
that may apply include the National Environmental Policy Act; sections
401, 402, and 404 of the Clean Water Act; section 6 and 10 of the
Endangered Species Act; and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899. State water laws and permit requirements are important
considerations for any restoration project.
3. Identify and
Although addressing on-sitc conditions is critical to the chemical, physical, and
biological restoration of a wetland or riparian area, the focus of management
options should include stressors that originate outside the area as well. Manage-
ment options considered should include techniques applied on-site and in the
surrounding watershed that reduce pollutant loadings and allow the restored
wetland or riparian area to reach a state of equilibrium in the landscape.
• Identify methods that allow nature to do the work (passive versus
active restoration). Consider the use of natural or bioengineering
methods over typical structural engineering methods.
* Identify viable BMPs applicable to obtaining restoration goals.
Properly designed and placed BMPs should be implemented to reduce
potential impacts to restoration efforts associated with activities or
conditions existing within or outside of the restoration site. See the
Management Measures for the Protection of Wetlands and Riparian
Areas and for Vegetated Treatment Systems for information on the
technical implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. Also, identify
BMPs to protect adjacent wetlands from impacts during the construction
of the restoration project.
* Evaluate costs and benefits. Selecting and evaluating restoration efforts
must take into account the costs of implementation, operation, and
maintenance. A selected technique should be cost-effective and result in
environmental benefits.
« Consider available financial and technical assistance. Identify
programs to help achieve the implementation of restoration efforts.
Nonreguiatory or regulator}? programs, technical assistance, financial
46 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstrated
projects should be considered. More recently, nonprofit groups have
emerged as sources of technical and financial assistance. See Appendix
A for examples of programs and sources of technical assistance.
* Select best combination of restoration options. Once restoration options
have been identified, select the ones that best meet the project goals,
benefit the environment, and are within financial means. If more than one
restoration strategy seems feasible, consider each alternative carefully
before making a final selection. In particular, make sure the benefits and
costs are understood fully when choosing an active restoration strategy. In
many instances a passive or bioenginecred approach might be preferable to
or less expensive than an active or structural technique.
• Assign priorities to restoration efforts. Limitations of funding and
human resources are often an issue for restoration projects. It is impor-
tant to establish priorities so that time-sensitive projects and efforts
providing the greatest returns can be implemented first.
• Plan for monitoring. In any restoration effort, monitoring is needed to
evaluate progress toward achieving goals. Monitoring should be planned
to track the progress of the project and identify potential problems to
ensure that progress initially gained is not lost at a later time. Planning for
monitoring should begin before the project is implemented and the site's
characteristics are modified. The monitoring plan should include all three
phases—design, installation, and evaluation.
* Establish schedule. Schedule for success. Seasonal variations and
upstream BMP implementation schedules should be taken into account
when scheduling restoration.
• Finalize restoration design plan. Develop a restoration design plan
based on information collected and evaluated in the previous steps. The
design plan will be used as the blueprint for implementation of the
restoration project. Enough flexibility should be included in the plan to
allow for modifications or corrections where needed.
• Secure necessary permits.
• Consider using volunteers.
4.
Before implementing restoration, the project designer, contractors, and other
stakeholders should meet and agree on scheduling, the order of operation, and
responsibilities. The potential for delays caused by bad weather or unforeseen
construction obstacles should be considered when developing the project sched-
ule. Allowing extra time to address unforeseen problems should improve the
potential for successful restoration.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 47
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Riparian Restoration in Arid Lands
Riparian revegetation. which involves planting trees, shrubs, forbs, or grasses to
replace species that have been lost, is one of several recovery strategies that have
been used to address the decline of riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Other strategies include improving livestock management, installing streambank
stabilization structures, and performing upland treatments. Legislation designed to
protect riparian areas by establishing requirements to maintain in-stream flows has
also been introduced as a means of restoring these arid region ecosystems.
Source: Briggs, 1996b.
« Continue public participation. Stakeholder involvement should begin
early in the restoration process and should continue throughout. An effec-
tive and inclusive communication strategy ensures that all potential partici-
pants have an opportunity to become aware of the progress of restoration.
As the process evolves, the goals and objectives may change. Changes in
goals and objectives should be articulated to stakeholders.
* Develop community support through publicity and the use of volun-
teers.
• Protect local resources from construction impacts. Inspect the site
during implementation. Have a coordinator on site to ensure plans are
followed, to ensure BMPs are working, and to direct volunteers.
« Be flexible. Restoration projects are most successful where flexibility
allows changes to be made or corrective measures to be implemented if
the original design provides inadequate or site conditions change.
5. for
Ensure that monitoring is designed so that progress is ongoing. All restoration
projects should include post-project monitoring that evaluates the effectiveness of
the restoration effort, and the evaluation technique should be based on the
specific project goals and target criteria. Monitoring the results of the restoration
effort allows recovery methods to be adjusted for greater effectiveness. In
addition, lessons learned from successes and failures can be applied to future
efforts.
• Design data collection plan. Typical monitoring activities include:
- Water quality sampling (including upstream and downstream of project)
- Measurement of water depths
- Measurement of flow7 rates and flow patterns
- Substrate characterization
- Sediment flux
- Vegetation characterization and success rates
- Habitat evaluation
- Development of a photographic record
* Collect and evaluate data. Progress can be measured in many ways
and communicated through meetings, brochures, Internet sites, annual
reports, news releases, and other ways. It is important to make sure that
the appropriate measures of progress are selected and that information
48 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Izaak Walton League of America's Save our Streams Program
Through workshops, publications, the Internet, and a toll-free hotline, the Izaak
Walton League's Save Our Streams (SOS) program provides technical assistance on
stream and wetland restoration and volunteer monitoring techniques to local water-
shed groups. Through its Watershed Literacy Assistance Center, SOS refers individual
and groups to projects across the nation where similar issues have been tackled and
solved. For more information, contact Save Our Streams at 1-(800) BUG-IWLA (284-
4952) or http:/Avww. iwla. org. Ask for a copy of SOS's excellent summary of water-
shed restoration resources.
on these indicators is shared with relevant stakeholders. Measurements
of progress should be associated with achieving goals set for the restora-
tion effort.
• Set schedule for continued routine monitoring. Continued monitoring
should be conducted at set intervals that will enable potential problems to
be identified early enough so that corrective measures can be success-
fully implemented. Routine monitoring should be performed at an appro-
priate time of year and should be repeated at appropriate intervals to
determine whether the project is on track and objectives are being met.
Inappropriate timing of monitoring visits can result in a high variability in
data. Conduct routine assessment for several years following initial
restoration.
Step 6. Long-Term Management
Restoration projects are most successful where long-term management and
monitoring are provided. Restoration features or techniques that are consistent
with natural forces often tend to require less active management. Where this is
not possible, provisions for long term management might be expected. Continued
monitoring typically differs from the initial monitoring program, which had the
burden of proving that restoration techniques were working in the given setting.
Monitoring and assessment should continue for several years and should include
water levels throughout the year, establishment of wetland vegetation, patterns of
plant succession, development of wetland soil profiles, and use by animal species.
Monitoring and assessment should also include conditions in the upstream water-
shed. Changes in upstream hydrologic conditions resulting from hydromodification
or land use changes could adversely affect the success of the restoration project.
Identification of changes in the upstream watershed and assessment of their
impacts on achieving restoration goals makes it possible to identify and implement
design or management changes necessary to ensure the continued success of
restoration. Long-term routine monitoring following the completion of initial
restoration is designed to identify maintenance needs and to ensure progress
toward project goals.
Volunteer monitoring should be considered for tracking the long-term success of
the restoration. Volunteers benefit from learning about the characteristics and
functions of wetlands and riparian areas. Also, using volunteers that are ad-
equately trained with appropriate organization and support can represent a sub-
stantial reduction in the often high cost of long-term monitoring.
Minimal maintenance activities are often required to ensure success. Typical
maintenance activities include maintaining buffer zones, preventing soil erosion
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 49
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Key Resources for Promoting Successful Restoration
A Citizen s Guide to Wetland Restoration: Approaches to Restoring Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitat Structure in
Freshwater Wetland Systems. 1994. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Pacific Northwest.
A Manual for Assessing Restored and Natural Coastal Wetlands with Examples from Southern California. 1990. Pacific Estuarine
Research Laboratory, LaJolla, CA. California Sea Grant Report Number T-CSGCP-021.
An Approach to Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation. 1993. Kentula, Brooks, Gwin, Holland, Sherman, Sifneos.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Ecological Restoration: A Tool to Manage Stream Quality. 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
DC. EPA 841-F-95-007.
Goal Setting and Success Criteria for Coastal Habitat Restoration (compilation of papers and abstracts). 1998. U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Habitat Conservation,
Silver Spring, MD.
Guide to Bottomland Hardwood Restoration. 1999. J.A. Allen, B.D. Keeland,A. Clewell, and H. Kennedy. U.S. Geological Survey.
Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration ofSeasgrasses in the US and Adjacent Waters. 1999. Fonseca, Kenworthy, and
Thayer.
Illinois Wetland Restoration and Creation Guide. 1997. A.N. Admiraal, J.M. Morris, T.C. Brooks, J.W. Olson, and M.V. Miller.
Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois. Special Publication 19.
The Keystone National Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management. 1996, The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO. Report No. 6.
Living With Michigan's Wetlands: A Landowner's Guide. 1996. W. Cwikiel. Tipp of the Mitt Watershed Council, Conway, MI.
Living With Michigan s Wetlands: A Landowner's Guide. 1996-1997. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Managing Your Restored Wetland. 1996. Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences, Cooperative Extension.
Minnesota Wetland Restoration Guide: Minneapolis, Minn. 1992. T. A. Wenzel. Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources.
National Review of Corps Environmental Restoration Projects. 1995. CORPS. Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research
Program. IWR Report 95-R-12.
Northern Prairie Science Center and the MidcontinentEcological Science Center, A searchable wetland restoration bibliography with more than 3,000 entries, developed by the Northern
Prairie Science Center and the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center.
Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection Guide. 1996. M.K. Briggs. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Planning Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Monitoring Programs. 1996. Institute for Water Resources, USAGE, Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. IWR Report 96-R-2J.
Planning and Evaluating Restoration of Aquatic Habitats from an Ecological Perspective. 1996. D. Yozzo, J. Titre, and J. Sexton.
Institute for Water Resources, USACE, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. IWR Report 96-EL-4.
Principles for the Ecological Restoration of Aquatic Re sources. 2000. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC. EPA 841-F-00-003.
Protecting Coastal and Wetlands Resources. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA
842-R-92-002.
Riparian Ecosystem Recovery in Arid Lands: Strategies and References. 1996. M.K. Briggs. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems - Science, Technology, and Public Policy. 1992. National Research Council Committee on Restora-
tion of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Restoring and Creating Wetlands: a Planning Guide for the Central States Region: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 1992.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, Kansas City, KS.
Re storing Prairie Wetlands: An Ecological Approach. 1994. S. M. GalatowitschandA.G vander Valk. Iowa State University Press,
Ames, IA.
Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lotic Areas.
1998. Technical Reference 1737-15. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.
Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the Supporting Science for Lentic Areas.
1999. Technical Reference 1737-16. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, CO.
Stream Corridor Restoration: Principles, Processes, and Practices. 1998. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-R-98-900.
Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. 1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. EPA 840-F-
97-001.
50 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
and sedimentation, inspecting and nurturing plantings and controlling exotic
species.
Volunteer Monitoring
Across the country, private citizens are learning about water quality issues and
helping protect our nation's water resources by becoming volunteer monitors.
Volunteers benefit from learning more about their local water resources, identifying
what conditions or activities might be contributing to pollution problems, and
working with clubs, environmental groups, and state or local governments to address
problem areas. Volunteer monitoring can also be a valuable tool for tracking the
success of restoration projects and an effective way of reducing overall costs. EPA's
Office of Water maintains an Internet site on the activities of volunteer groups in
monitoring surface waters and selected natural resources.
Source: USEPA,2000b.
5.1 Management Practices for Restoration of
Wetlands and Riparian Areas
The management measure generally will be implemented by applying one or
more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate. The
three management practices described can be applied successfully to implement
the management measure for restoring wetlands and riparian areas.
5.1.1 Restoration Project Location
Practice
Plan restoration adjacent to or as part of naturally occurring
aquatic ecosystems.
Factor in ecological principles when selecting sites and designing restoration.
Restoration goals for a particular project site should be based on an assessment
of the condition of the surrounding landscape. The assessment will produce
information that can be used to prioritize where specific management practices
can achieve desired performance. The information can also be used to establish
environmental benchmarks applicable to performance evaluations.
Planning to restore wetlands includes the following:
• Conduct synoptic assessment (Leibowitz et al., 1992) and/or watershed
analysis (Montgomery et al., 1995) to establish restoration goals for a
geographic area. For example, the opportunity for gaining NFS benefits
from a wetland or riparian restoration project may tend to be greater in
one area than in another.
• Consider the role of site restoration within a broader context, such as on
a landscape scale.
Characterize reference sites within priority watersheds to establish
environmental benchmarks. The benchmarks are used to evaluate the
performance of management practices.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
51
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Restoration goals fora
particular project site
should be based on an
assessment of the
condition of the
surrounding landscape.
Watershed Restoration at Pike Run in Pennsylvania
A restoration project in Pennsylvania demonstrates the effectiveness of including
habitat restoration techniques in a watershed treatment program. Restoring riparian
areas and wetlands benefits landowners by providing direct economic gain through
increased land values, and by providing excellent habitat for a variety of wildlife.
Almost 22 miles of riparian restoration has been completed, a total of 40 wetland
acres have been restored by fencing cattle out of degraded wetlands, and approxi-
mately 1,000 acres of native warm season grasses have been planted. The project
included broad-based partnerships among the USFWS, EPA, NRCS, Ducks Unlimited,
Pennsylvania Game Commission, Audubon Society, and many other public and
private partnerships under the Partners For Wildlife and Clean Water Act section 319
NPS programs.
Source: USEPAandUSDA, 1998.
Depict a set of generally applicable practices for a specific geographic
area watershed analysis. The practices are used to promote the develop-
ment and understanding of a community-based strategy for controlling
NPS pollution. For example, look for opportunities to include habitat
restoration techniques such as maximizing connectedness, providing
refuge for wildlife, and offering recreational amenities to the community.
Set goals for the restoration project based on location and type of NPS
pollution problem.
Restoration sites near or connected to similar habitat have the best
chance of succeeding. At these sites, it is easier to restore hydrology,
soils might already have wetland characteristics, and native wetland
species do not have far to travel to reach the site.
Establish a citizen-based monitoring program that involves the community
in NPS pollution control. Information gathered from the monitoring can
be used to refine the future application of management practices.
American Rivers 1997 Urban Hometown River Award:
Earth Conservation Corps—Eagle and Salmon Corps
The Earth Conservation Corps works with disadvantaged young men and women to
restore riparian habitats damaged by overuse, degradation, and pollution. In the
process, members gain life and job skills that enable them to enter the workforce in
the conservation field. Eagle Corps volunteers were chosen from local public housing
communities in Washington, DC, in cooperation with the DC Housing Authority.
Volunteers work to enhance the water quality of the Anacostia River and create viable
bald eagle habitat by restoring natural areas along the river and sponsoring river
cleanups to remove solid waste from tributaries. Salmon Corps members are predomi-
nantly from five Native American tribes in the Columbia and Snake river regions of
the Pacific Northwest. Corps volunteers have enhanced salmon habitats in the five
tribal areas by planting riparian vegetation, restoring stream channels, and building
in-stream structures. They have erected pole fences to restrict livestock access to
salmon habitat and removed trash and debris from spawning beds. For more informa-
tion contact:
Earth Conservation Corps
Phone: (202) 554-1960, Fax: (202) 554-5060
Source: American Rivers, 1998.
52
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Examples of wetland and riparian area restoration are presented in Table 5-1 and
Appendix F. Appendix A and Appendix F include examples of federal, state, and
local programs to promote and implement restoration activities.
Table 5-1. Examples of Projects to Restore Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Examples of wetland and riparian area
protection projects located throughout the
United States.
Study
Type
Example Project
Riparian habitat restoration
Riparian Area
Eagle River Watershed Wonders (AK)
Intergovernmental partnership to restore Anacostia River and its tributaries
Wetland
Anacostia River Watershed (DC)
Restoration of Kenilworth Marsh
Wetland
Kenilworth Marsh Restoration (DC)
Restoration of emergent freshwater tidal wetlands
Wetland
Kingman Lake Restoration Project (DC)
Watershed treatment through the restoration of wetlands and riparian areas
Wetland and Riparian Areas
Pike Run (PA)
5.1.2 Hydrogeomorphic Regime
Provide a hydrogeomorphic regime similar to that of the type of
wetland or riparian area being restored.
Hydrologic and geomorphic conditions are responsible for maintaining many of
the functional aspects of wetland ecosystems. These controls are important for
such functions as the chemical characteristics of water, habitat maintenance, and
water storage and transport. To ensure that restoration goals are achieved,
preexisting, existing, and future hydrogeomorphic conditions must be fully under-
stood, thoroughly considered, and carefully incorporated into a design plan for a
wetland or riparian area restoration project. For restoration, local ground water
interaction is a critical element to insure measures are consistent with the original
supporting hydrologic conditions. An intact water table is also an important
component for restoring lentic wetland areas, which are associated with still
water systems.
The following are suggestions for implementing this practice:
• Site history. Know the past and projected uses of the site, including past
wetland or riparian area functions.
Restoration of hydrology
is a critical factor to gain
NFS pollution abatement
benefits and to increase
the probability of
successful restoration.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
53
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Information on native plant
species is available from
federal agencies (NRCS,
USFWS, etc.), or various
state or local agencies,
such as the local
Cooperative Extension
Service office or state
departments of agriculture
or natural resources.
Topography. Map the surface topography, including slope and relief of
the existing land surface.
Tide. Determine the mean and maximum tidal range, if applicable.
• Existing water control structures. Identify the location of culverts, flow
control structures, pumps, and outlets.
Hydrology. Investigate the hydrologic conditions affecting the site: wave
climate, currents, overland flows, ground water dynamics, average
precipitation, and flood events. Review both minimum (drought) and
maximum (extreme storms) in water budget evaluations.
• Sediment budgets. Understand the rates and paths of sediment inflow,
outflow, and retention.
Soil. Describe the existing soils, including their suitability for supporting
wetland plants.
• Plants. Identify the existing and, if different, native vegetation.
• Salinity. Measure the existing or determine the planned salinity levels at
the site, if applicable.
Table 4-4 provides examples of differences in hydrogeomorphic characteristics of
several wetland types typically found in the United States. An understanding of
these differences is essential in the development of a restoration plan. It is
important to note that based on the current state-of-the-science, many of the
wetland types described in Table 4-4 should be considered difficult to restore to a
fully functional condition. Although it is important to protect all wetlands, emphasis
should be placed on protecting those wetland types or wetlands located in areas
that are known to be difficult to restore or have a low success rate for restora-
tion.
5.1.3 Restoration of Soils and Plants
Restore native plant species and soil substrate through either
| natural succession or the introduction of plant and soil materials. |
When consistent with preexisting conditions, plant a diversity of plant types or
manage natural succession of diverse plant types rather than planting monocul-
tures. Deeply rooted plants may work better than certain grasses for transforming
nitrogen because the roots will reach the water moving below the surface of the
soil. Vegetation has been recognized as a major tool to use in soil and water
conservation to address water quality problems. For forested systems, a simple
approach to successional restoration would be to plant one native tree species,
one shrub species, and one ground-cover species and then allow natural succes-
sion to add a diversity of native species over time, where appropriate and war-
ranted by target community composition and anticipated successional develop-
ment. Table 5-2 contains information resources for wetland and riparian area
plants.
In drier climates, depth to water table is a critical factor when planning the
restoration of riparian areas. For many projects, use of an irrigation system for
one or more growing seasons might be required to get the roots of plant material
down to the water table (Carothers and Mills, 1990).
54
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Table 5-2. Examples of Wetland and Riparian Area Plant Information Resources
Location
CA
FL
IL
IA
KY
LA
MO
MN
NJ
NC
SC
AS,GU,HI,CNMI
MN and Wl
OR.WA
TX, CO, KS, NM, OK
Atlantic Coast
Eastern U.S.
Midwestern U.S.
Northern Great Plains
Northeastern U.S.
Northwestern U.S.
Southern U.S.
Southeastern U.S.
Southwestern U.S.
Western U.S.
General Coverage
Reference Guide
Mason, H.L. 1957. A Flora of the Marshes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.
• Dressier, R.L., D.W. Hall, K.D. Perkins, N.H.Williams. 1987. Identification Manual for Wetland Plant Species of Florida.
University of Florida.
• Tarver D.P., J.A. Rodgers, MJ. Mahler, and R.L. Lazor 1986. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Florida. Florida DNR.
Winterringer, G.S., and A.C. Lopinot. 1966. Aquatic Plants of Illinois. Illinois State Museum Popular Science Series Vol. VI.
Beal, E.O., and P.H. Monson. 1954. Marsh and Aquatic Angiosperms of Iowa. Monocotyledons. Dicotyledons. State University of
Iowa. Studies in Natural History Vol. 19(5), No. 429.
Beal, E.O., and J.W. Thieret. 1986. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Kentucky. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission, Frankfort.
Scientific and Technical Series No. 5.
Chabreck, R.H., and R.E. Condrey. 1979. Common Vascular Plants of the Louisiana Marsh. Louisiana State University, Center for
Wetland Resources.
Whitley, J.R., B. Bassett, J.G. Dillard, and R.A. Haefner. 1990. Water Plants for Missouri Ponds. Missouri Department of
Conservation.
Fink, D.F. 1994. A Guide to Aquatic Plants: Identification and Management. Ecological Services Section, Minnesota DNR.
Fairbrothers, D.E., and E.T. Moul. 1965. Aquatic Vegetation of New Jersey. Extension Service, College of Agriculture, Rutgers
University.
Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina with Habitat Data. NCSU Agricultural
Experiment Station.
Aulbach-Smith, C.A., S.J. de Kozlowski and L.A. Dyck. 1990. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of South Carolina. South Carolina
Water Resources Commission.
Stemmermann, L. 1 981 . A Guide to Pacific Wetland Plants. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District.
Eggers, S.D., and D. M. Reed. 1997. Wetland Plants and Communities of Minnesota and Wisconsin. Published by USAGE.
.
Guard, BJ. 1995. Wetland Plants of Oregon & Washington. Lone Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA.
Haukos, D.A., and L.M. Smith. 1997. Common Flora of the Playa Lakes. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock. 800/832-4042.
• Eleuterius, L.N. 1990. Tidal Marsh Plants. Pelican Publishing Co., Gretna, LA.
• Silberhorn, G. 1982. Common Plants of the Mid-Atlantic Coast: A Field Guide. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Pierce, RJ. 1977. Wetland Plants of the Eastern United States. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, New York.
USDA. No date. Midwestern Wetland Flora: Field Office Guide to Plant Species. Soil Conservation Service, Midwest National
Technical Center, Lincoln, NE. Home page of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND.
.
Larson, G.E. 1993. Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants of the Northern Great Plains. General Technical Report RM-238, Fort
Collins, CO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
• Hellquist, C.B., and G.E. Crow. 1980. Aquatic Vascular Plants of New England. University of New Hampshire Agricultural
Experiment Station.
• Magee, D.W. 1981. Freshwater Wetlands: A Guide to Common Indicator Plants of the Northeast. University of Massachusetts
Press.
• Tiner, R.W. 1 987. A Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Northeastern United States. University of Massachusetts
Press.
• Steward, A.N., LJ. Dennis, and H.M. Gilkey. 1963. Aquatic Plants of the Pacific Northwest with Vegetative Keys. Oregon State
University.
• Weinmann, F., M.Boule, K. Brunner, J. Malek, and V. Yoshino. 1984. Wetland Plants of the Pacific Northwest. USAGE, Seattle
District.
USDA. No date. Southern Wetland Flora: Field Office Guide to Plant Species. USDA. South National Technical Center, TX.
• Eyles, D.E., and J.L. Robertson. 1944. A Guide and Key to the Aquatic Plants of the Southeastern United States. Reprint 1963.
U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, DC.
• Godfrey, R.K., and J.W. Woolen. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Dicotyledons. 1979.
Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States. Monocotyledons. University of Georgia Press, Athens.
• Tiner, R.W. 1 993. Field Guide to Coastal Wetland Plants of the Southeastern United States. University of Massachusetts Press,
Amherst.
Correll, D.S., and H.B. Correll. 1975. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southwestern United States. Stanford University Press,
California. Vols. 1 and 2.
USDA. No date. Western Wetland Flora: Field Office Guide to Plant Species. Soil Conservation Service, West National Technical
Center, Portland, Oregon. Home page of Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND.
.
• Fassett, N.C. 1940. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Reprint 1972. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
• Hotchkiss, N. 1972. Common Marsh, Underwater and Floating-leaved Plants of the United States and Canada. Dover
Publications, NY.
• Muenscher, W.C. 1944. Aquatic Plants of the United States. Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, NY.
• Tiner, R.W. 1 988. Field Guide to Nontidal Wetland Identification. Maryland Department of Natural Resources and USFWS.
• University of Florida. 1998. Aquatic Plant Information Retrieval System. Center for Aquatic and Invasive Plants, University of
Florida, Gainesville. .
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
55
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Recent studies indicate
that it might take
decades for soil organic
matter to accumulate in
projects to levels
comparable with those in
similar, naturally
occurring wetlands
(USEPA, 1994c).
The amount of soil organic matter in wetland soils plays a critical role in the
function of a wetland, as well as its potential for restoration. In particular, the
amount of soil organic matter in wetland soils plays a critical role in nutrient
cycling and pollutant detoxification, provides substrate for essential microbes, and
influences the development of wetland vegetation. Careful consideration should
be given to whether the amount of organic matter at a project site can be in-
creased through properly timed soil amendments and nutrient applications.
The Five Star Restoration Program is a wetlands restoration program established by
the EPA. The agency created the program in an ongoing commitment to work with its
partners to educate the public through community-based wetlands restoration
projects in watersheds across the United States. The National Association of
Counties, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Wildlife Habitat Council
partner with EPA in this effort.
Each year the Five Star Program receives hundreds of applications. The applications
are reviewed by a panel of experts from the partnering organizations and ranked
according to the environmental benefit to be derived, the educational and training for
at-risk youth, and socioeconomic merits. EPA's Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds of the Office of Water provides major funding for these projects. The
NOAA Fisheries' Community-based Restoration Program provides major funding for
select grants of similar nature in the coastal areas. The average grant award is
$ 10,000, with actual award amounts ranging from $5,000 to $20,000. Each project
generally includes at least five participants; hence five star, from local governments,
corporations and businesses, and representatives of federal and state government
agencies.
The program brings together students, conservation corps, other youth organiza-
tions, citizen groups, corporations, landowners and government agencies to provide
environmental education through projects that restore stream banks and wetlands.
The program provides challenge grants, technical support, and opportunities for
information exchange to enable community-based restoration projects.
Corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Ford Motor Company, Phillips Petroleum,
and several private foundations have become project sponsors. Organizations
become project sponsors by contributing as little as $5,000. On average, each dollar
of sponsor funds is matched by four additional dollars in contributions provided by
the local restoration partners in the form of funding, labor materials, equipment, or in-
kind services.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Five Star Restoration
Program. http://www. epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5star/02factsheet.html.
Accessed on January 22, 2003.
5.2 Cost and Benefits of Practices
This section describes the economic benefits of restoring wetlands and riparian
areas that serve NFS functions. This information is intended to demonstrate the
cost savings accrued by implementing the management measure as compared to
the costs of not implementing it. Across the continental United States, the costs
56
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
of wetland creation and restoration projects vary from $5 per acre to $1.5 million
per acre. For those projects not involving the conversion of agricultural land, the
average project costs reported in 1995 range from $20,000 to more than $75,000
per acre (U.S. DOE, 1995). Because of the wide diversity of regions throughout
the United States, no single cost or economic benefit can be used across the
board. Instead, the information provided below and in Table 5-3 reflects ex-
amples of such costs and benefits in specific areas of the country.
Table 5-3. Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Restoring Wetlands and Riparian Areas
r^r^ ^ .
ffi?
\yx:i_
4^
^w
^Q/Sffi
r\ -sT\r^
r \ o
y^>
Study
Habitat restoration and enhancement
Evaluation of wetland creation in
former wetland habitat areas
Storm water control projects that
would have been implemented
instead of the streamside greenways
or other storm water controls
Demonstration project to assist
municipalities with planning issues at
a watershed level
Riparian restoration to reduce
dredging and water treatment costs
Partnership to acquire and manage
wetlands
Cost of
Conventional
Project
$120 million
(1999)
$1.6 million
(1996)
r\ Examples of projects from the United States that
j/^> show the expected cost of many types of wetland and
f VDT riparian protection projects, as well as their value to
\J~^\$f' the respective communities. For many of these
s-vjzM projects, the cost to install structural or conventional
~JL/_T methods to replace the functions of wetlands have
~2Ł~~^f been shown to be much greater than the actual cost
\/ of the wetland or riparian protection measure. When
_^^ available, the dates for project/restoration costs are
^\\ provided. Results of studies in various states (see
\j map at left) are shown in the table below. Additional
information and references about each study cited in
the table as provided in Appendix F at the back of
the document.
Cost of
Restoration
$475,000 (spent
from a total of
$828,000 budgeted
for restoration)
(1999)
$18, 793 per acre
(1996)
$600,000
(1999)
$10,450
(1999)
$660,000
(1996)
Estimated Benefit to Community
There is an increase in community
awareness and appreciation of the
environmental and economic benefits of
coastal environment restoration
$3,714 per year per acre (recreational
benefits)
Over $119 million in stormwater controls
that will not have to be installed.
Fish and wildlife habitat has been
restored, wetland habitat have been
enhanced, and community awareness
and involvement has increased.
$1 million per year
Functions and values of the wetland
system in the Willamette Valley will be
restored and will benefit the larger
ecological community.
Example Project
Emerson Point Park (FL)
East St. Louis (IL)
Johnson County Streamway
Park System (KS)
Buffalo River and Cazenovia
Creek Model (NY)
Tulatin River (OR)
West Eugene Wetlands
Project (OR)
In response to concerns from citizen groups about degrading streams,
state and local governments in Maryland spent $20,000 to $50,000 per
housing lot in some areas to repair damaged streams and restore riparian
forests. This project was funded by the two counties in the Rock Creek
watershed—Montgomery and Prince George's—and by the Maryland
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
57
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
Department of the Environment. Total project costs were $2.2 million
(NRDC, 1999).
• Vegetative seedings are a common way to stabilize or enhance shoreline.
Prairie Restorations, Inc. (2000) estimates vegetative plantings cost from
$2,600 to $9.150 per acre. Using a minimal mix of plant varieties, site
preparation, materials, seeding, and first year maintenance cost an
average of $2,950 per acre.
Federal wetland policies during the past decade have increasingly emphasized
restoration of wetland areas. Much of this restoration occurs as part of efforts to
mitigate the loss of wetlands at other sites.
Wetland Reconstruction
The City of DCS Moincs, Washington, is using SRF funds to purchase and recon-
struct a badly degraded wetland area and to construct a sediment trap/pond facility.
This project is allowing the city to meet two goals it constantly struggles to achieve:
flood protection and wetland preservation and enhancement. Area slormwater will enter
one of two sediment traps by way of the surrounding reconstructed wetlands. The
wetlands serve the dual purpose of (1) providing flood protection by collecting
stormwater runoff and (2) acting as a preliminary filter by removing suspended solids.
The majority of sediment removal and any heavy metal removal will occur while the
water is in the sediment traps. The water will then leave the traps through artificial inlets
that lead to Barnes Creek, which eventually enters Puget Sound. This $222.500 project
is part of the National Estuary Program (Clean Water Act section 320).
Source: USEPA, 1998c.
5.3
Mitigation banking increasingly is recognized as a means of achieving environ-
mentally and economically sound mitigation for unavoidable and minimized
impacts.
Mitigation banking is defined as:
Wetland restoration, creation, enhancement, and, in excep-
tional circumstances, preservation undertaken expressly for
the purpose of compensating for unavoidable wetland losses
in advance of development actions, when such compensation
cannot be achieved at the development site or would not be
as environmentally beneficial. (6QFR.58605, Nov. 28, 1995).
Mitigation of proposed actions that would adversely affect wetlands has been a
cornerstone of the Clean Water Act section 404 program in recent years. A 1990
memorandum of agreement signed by all the agencies with regulatory responsi-
bilities (EPA and USAGE) outlines a sequence of three steps that must be
considered when evaluating an application for a section 404 permit. First, adverse
impacts on wetlands should be avoided when possible; second, when they can not
be avoided, impacts should be minimized; and third, where impacts still occur,
compensator}'' mitigation is required. This "sequencing process" is designed to
ensure that there is no net loss of wetland functions.
58 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
In light of the sequencing and compensator}-- mitigation requirements under the
Clean Water Act section 404 permit program, the use of mitigation banking is
gaining popularity.
Mitigation banking occurs in the context of the wetlands programs established
under Clean Water Act section 404. the Rivers and Harbors Act section 10, and
the Swampbuster Program under the Food Security Act. Consequently, mitiga-
tion banking is to provide for the replacement of the physical, chemical, and
biological functions of wetlands that are lost as a result of authorized impacts.
The federal mitigation banking policy and its implementation are described in the
Federal Guidance for the Establishment, Use and Operation of Mitigation
Banks (60 FR 58605, Nov. 28, 1995). The federal guidance lists several advan-
tages of mitigation banking over individual mitigation projects, including the
following (Federal Register, Vol. 60, No. 228. November 28, 1995):
* It may be more advantageous for maintaining the integrity of the aquatic
ecosystem to consolidate compensator}'- mitigation into a single large
parcel or contiguous parcels when ecologically appropriate.
• A mitigation bank can bring together financial resources, planning, and
scientific expertise not practicable to many project-specific compensa-
tor}- mitigation proposals.
• Use of mitigation banks may reduce permit processing times and provide
more cost-effective compensatory mitigation opportunities.
Compensator}' mitigation is typically implemented and functioning in
advance of project impacts, thereby reducing temporal losses of wetland
function and uncertainty over whether mitigation will be successful in
offsetting wetland losses.
* Consolidation of compensatory mitigation within a mitigation bank
increased the efficiency of limited agency resources in the review and
compliance monitoring of mitigation projects, and thus improves the
reliability of efforts to restore, create or enhance wetlands for mitigation
purposes.
• The existence of mitigation banks can contribute toward attainment of
the goal for no overall net loss of the nation's wetlands by providing
opportunities to compensate for authorized impacts when mitigation might
not otherwise be appropriate or practicable.
In December 2002, the USACE in consultation with the EPA, the USDA, the
United States Department of Interior (DOI), Federal Highway Administration
(FWHA). and NOAA reevaluated wetlands mitigation guidance and reissued a
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 02-2): Compensatory Mitigation Projects
for Aquatic Resource Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program Pursu-
ant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1899 (USCAE, 2002a). This guidance applies to all new
compensator}' mitigation proposals (which may be required to replace aquatic
resource functions, including wetlands that are unavoidable lost or adversely
affected by authorized activities) associated with USACE-issued permits. The
guidance instructs the USACE Districts to use watershed and ecosystem ap-
proaches when determining compensator}-' mitigation approaches, consider the
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 59
-------
Chapter 5: Management Measure for Restoration of Wetlands and Riparian Areas
resource needs of the impacted watersheds, and consider the resource needs of
neighboring watersheds. For more details see RGL 02-2 (USAGE, 2002a) and
the National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan (USAGE. 2002b).
Other issues to consider with mitigation banking include the following: (1) the
hydrogeomorphic and ecological landscape and climate, (2) current and future
watershed hydrology and wetland location, (3) restore or develop naturally
variable hydrological conditions, (4) whenever possible, choose wetland restora-
tion over creation. (5) avoid over-engineered structures in the wetland's design,
(6) pay particular attention to appropriate planting elevation, depth, soil type, and
seasonal timing, (7) provide appropriately heterogeneous topography, (8) pay
attention to subsurface conditions, including soil and sediment geochemistry and
physics, ground water quantity and quality, and in fauna! communities, (9) con-
sider complications associated with creation or restoration in seriously degraded
or disturbed sites, and (10) conduct early monitoring as part of adaptive manage-
ment (USAGE, 2002a).
60 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
6 Management Measure for Vegetated
Treatment Systems
This chapter presents supporting information, including management practices,
specific implementation examples, and costs and benefits, for the following
management measure:
Management Measure
Promote the use of engineered vegetated treatment sys-
tems such as constructed wetlands or vegetated filter
strips where these systems will serve a significant NFS
pollution abatement function.
This management measure is intended to be applied in cases where engineered
systems of wetlands or vegetated treatment systems can treat NFS pollution.
Vegetated treatment systems are located in upland regions and protect wetlands
and aquatic resources from NFS pollution.
Vegetated treatment systems, by definition in this guidance, include vegetated
filter strips (VFS) and constructed wetlands. Although these systems are dis-
tinctly different, both are designed to reduce NFS pollution. They need to be
properly designed, correctly installed, and diligently maintained to function
properly. The two types of vegetated treatment systems are discussed in more
detail in separate sections below.
Whether constructed wetlands and VFS should be used individually or in series
depends on several factors, including the quantity and quality of the inflowing
runoff, the characteristics of the existing hydrology, and the physical limitations of
the area surrounding the wetland or riparian area to be protected.
Vegetated Filter Strips
The purpose of VFS is to remove sediment and other pollutants from runoff and
wastewater by filtration, deposition, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, decompo-
sition, and volatilization, thereby reducing the amount of pollution entering surface
waters (USDA, 1988). VFS are appropriate for use in areas adjacent to surface
water systems that may receive runoff containing sediment, suspended solids,
and/or nutrients. VFS can improve water quality by removing nutrients, sediment,
suspended solids, and pesticides; however, they are most effective in removal of
sediment and other suspended solids.
VFS are designed to be used under conditions in which runoff passes over the
vegetation in a uniform sheet flow. Sheet flow is critical to the success of the
filter strip. If runoff is allowed to concentrate or channelize, the VFS is easily
inundated and will not function as designed.
VFS can improve water
quality by removing
nutrients, sediment,
suspended solids, and
pesticides.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
61
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
In addition to serving as a
pollution control measure,
VFS can add positive
improvements to the urban
environment by increasing
wildlife habitat and adding
beauty to an area.
VFS need the following elements to work properly (Schueler, 1987; see
Figure 6-1):
• A device such as a level spreader that ensures that runoff reaches the
VFS as sheet flow. (Berms can be used for this purpose if they are
placed at a perpendicular angle to the VFS area to prevent concentrated
flows.)
A dense vegetative cover of erosion-resistant plant species.
A gentle slope of no more than 5 percent.
A length at least as long as the adjacent contributing area.
If these requirements are met, VFS have been shown to remove a high percent-
age of particulate pollutants. The effectiveness of VFS at removing soluble
pollutants is highly variable (Schueler et al., 1992).
Several studies of VFS (Table 6-1) show that they improve water quality and can
be an effective management practice for the control of NFS pollution from
silvicultural, urban, construction, and agricultural sources of sediment, phospho-
rus, and bacterial contaminants. The research results reported in Table 6-1 show
that VFS are most effective at sediment removal, with rates generally greater
than 70 percent. The published results on the effectiveness of VFS in nutrient
removal are more variable, but nitrogen and phosphorus removal rates are
typically greater than 50 percent. It is important to note, however, that removal
rates can be measured on an event basis and on a long-term basis. Comparisons
of data may be complicated by variations in the type of event sampled, sampling
techniques, and parameters measured.
Berms Placed
Perpendicular
to lop of Strip Prevent
'Concentrated Flows
Top Elevation of Strips
On Same Contour and
Directly Abuts Trench
Stone Trench
Act as
Level Spreader
Source: Schueler, 1987
Figure 6-1. Example of Vegetated Filter Strip
62
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Table 6-1. Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter Strips for NFS Pollutant Removal
rrr—
(r/5
V vQ— -
M^Jj
r V. o
yr^
[_ B^<5-
=W
n3
^
Study
Nutrient removal by forested and grassed
vegetated filter strips
Pollutant removal by vegetated filter strips under
channelized and overland flow conditions
Removal of sediment and nutrients by vegetated
filter strips
Pollutant removal by vegetated filter strips
Retention of sediment and nutrients by grassed
filters and riparian buffers
Pollutant removal from highway
runoff by vegetated buffer strips
U.S. 183
Walnut Creek
Removal of sediment and nutrients by vegetated
filter strips
Nutrient removal by vegetated filter strips
Pollutant removal from runoff by a vegetated filter
strip
Measurements taken throughout the United States
r\ show NPS pollutant removal capabilities of VFS. The
2& /m\r studies show variabilities in NPS pollutant removal
f\ ,-> ts» capabilities for various VFS lengths and vegetative
L-\^\~~~~~^y} cover types. The effectiveness of VFS for removing
y^f^M pollutants depends on several design factors, which
~^___/^-~- — 4, are described in this section. Proper operation and
H"X> — y^ maintenance are also important for ensuring that
\ \/ the VFS continues to perform at its designed
AS_A__/ capacity. See section 6.1 .1 for information about the
^l. \ design, operation, and maintenance of VFS. Results
\) of studies in various states (see map at left) are
shown in the table below. Additional information
about each study cited in the table is provided in
Appendix F
Vegetation
Cottonwood/silver maple
Reed canary grass
Mixed
Fescue/alfalfa
Foxtail
Bare plots
Com
Orchard grass
Sorghum
Oats
Average
Grass
Prairie buffalo grass
Mixed grasses
Orchard grass
Orchard grass
Fescue, ryegrass,
bluegrass
VFS
Length (ft)
53
128
300
200
500-1500
15
115-135
13
24-30
22-27
15
30
15
30
85
TSS
73%
63%
78%
66%
86%
66%
82%
75%
79%
50%
87%
85%
81%
91%
70%
84%
95%
N
90%
90%
80/86%1
71/72%1
81/85%'
0%
84%
50%
23%
64%
74%
54%
3%
92%
P
78%
27%
83%
44%
34%
61%
79%
89%
Study Title
Embarras River (IL)
University of Illinois (IL)
Chesapeake Bay (MD)
Stevens County (MN)
Coastal Plain/Piedmont
(NC)
Austin (TX)
Blacksburg (VA)
Prices Fork Research
Farm (VA)
Charlotte (VT)
VFS, vegetated filter strip; TSS, total suspended solids; N, nitrogen; P, phosphorus.
'Total Kjeldahl nitrogen/ammonia nitrogen.
The following are nonpoint pollution sources for which VFS might provide some
nutrient-removal capability:
• Cropland. The primary function of VFS is to filter sediment from soil
erosion and sediment-borne nutrients. However, VFS should not be relied
on as the sole or primary means of preventing nutrient movement from
cropland (Lanier, 1990).
• Urban development. VFS filter and remove sediment, organic material,
and trace metals. According to the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, VFS have a low to moderate ability to remove dissolved
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
63
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
pollutants in urban runoff and have higher efficiency for removal of
particulate pollutants than for removal of soluble pollutants (Schueler,
1987).
With proper planning and maintenance, VFS can be a beneficial part of a net-
work of NFS pollution control measures for a particular site. They can help to
reduce the polluting effects of agricultural runoff when coupled with either
(1) farming practices that reduce nutrient inputs or minimize soil erosion or
(2) detention ponds that collect runoff as it leaves a VFS. Properly planned VFS
can add to urban settings by framing small streams, ponds, or lakes, or by delin-
eating impervious areas.
Constructed Wetlands
Constructed wetlands are typically engineered systems that use natural pro-
cesses involving wetland vegetation, soils, and their associated microbial assem-
blages to assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other source of water
(Figure 6-2). These systems should be engineered and constructed in uplands,
outside "waters of the United States," unless the water source can serve a
significant restoration function for a degraded system. For example, agricultural
runoff could potentially be directed toward a wetland that has been degraded due
to water withdrawal in order to both treat the runoff and restore the hydrology of
the wetland. In such cases, it is important that the runoff not contain contami-
nants that could pose a threat to people or wildlife. Properly designed and
implemented constructed wetlands can be effective tools for improving water
quality, while also providing a range of other benefits, such as wildlife habitat.
25% of Pond
Perimeter
Open Grass
Safety Bench
Gate Valves to Provide
Flexibility in Depth
Control
33-Foot Wetbed Buffer
Landscaped with Native
Trees/Shrubs for Habitat
Use of Wetland Mulch
to Create Diversity
Source: Schueler, 1992
Figure 6-2. Example of Constructed Wetland
64
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
According to Hammer and others (1989). constructed wetlands typically have
four principal components that can assist in pollutant removal:
Substrates with various rates of hydraulic conductivity
Plants adapted to water-saturated anaerobic substrate
A water column (water flowing through or above the substrate)
Aerobic and anaerobic microbial populations
Moshm (1993), Kent (1994), Kadlec and Knight (1996), the Washington State
Department of Ecology (1992), and USEPA (1996a) present design and mainte-
nance criteria for constructed wetlands. Davis (1996) has developed a series of
handbooks addressing general considerations for wetland construction and
Key Resources for Vegetated Treatment Systems
A Handbook of Constructed Wetlands. 1996. L. Davis. Volumes 1-5. Prepared for the USDA-Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service and USEPA Region 3. in cooperation with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Available from Government Printing Office.
Buffer Zones: Their Processes and Potential in Water Protection. Proceedings of the International Conference on Buffer
Zones, September 1996. N.E. Haycock. T.P. Burl, K.W.T. Goulding, and G. Pinay. Quest Environmental, Harpcndcn, Herts.
UK
Compensating for Wetland Losses Under the Clean Water Act. 2001. National Research Council. NRC, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
Constructed Wetlands for Water Quality Improvement. 1993. G.A. Moshiri, CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton. FL.
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment and Wildlife Habitat. 1993. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wastewater Management. Washington, DC. EPA832-R-93-005.
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural. 1988. D. A. Hammer, ed.
Proceedings from the First International Conference on Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment, Chattanooga,
Tennessee, June 13-17,1988. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Created and Natural Wetlands for Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1993. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Creating Freshwater Wetlands. 1992. D. Hammer. Lewis Publishers, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Design ofStormwater Wetland Systems: Guidelines for Creating Diverse and Effective Storm water Wetlands in the Mid-
Atlantic Region. 1992. T.R. Schueler, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
Evaluation and Management of Highway Runoff Water Quality. 1995. G. K. Young, S. Stein, P. Cole, T. Kammer,
F. Graziano, andF. Bank. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA-
PD-96-032.
Natural Systems for Waste Management and Treatment, 2nded. 1995. S.C. Reed,R.W. Crites. andE.J. Middlebrooks.
McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY."
Relative Nutrient Requirements of Plants Suitable for Riparian Vegetated Buffer Strips. 1996. R.C. Steiner, Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River.
Treatment Wetlands. 1996. R.H. Kadlec, andR.L. Knight. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton, FL,
Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones: Their Effects on Stream .Nutrients, Sediments, and Toxic Substances. 1997. An
annotated and indexed bibliography. D. Correll. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewaler, MD.
Wetlands. 1993. WJ. Mitschand J.G. Gosselink. 2nded. VanNostrandReinhold,NewYork,NY.
Wetlands-Characteristics and Boundaries. 1995. National Research Council, Committee on Characterization of Wet-
lands, Washington, DC.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 65
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
criteria for constructing wetlands for various treatment scenarios, including
stormwater management.
Constructed wetlands have been considered for use in urban and agricultural
settings where some sort of engineered system is suitable for NFS pollution
reduction. A few studies have also been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness
of artificial wetlands that were designed and constructed specifically to remove
pollutants from surface water runoff (Table 6-2).
Table 6-2 summarizes the pollutant-removal effectiveness of constructed wetland
systems built for treatment of surface water runoff. In general, constructed
wetland systems designed for treatment of NFS pollution in surface water runoff
were effective at removing suspended solids and pollutants that attach to solids
and soil particles. The constructed wetland systems were not as effective at
removing dissolved pollutants and those pollutants that dissolve under the condi-
tions found in a wetland.
Like VFS, constructed wetlands offer an alternative to other structural NFS
pollution control systems. In some cases, constructed wetland systems can
provide limited ecological benefits in addition to their NFS control functions. In
other cases, constructed wetlands offer few, if any, additional ecological benefits
because of the type of vegetation planted in the constructed wetland or because
of the quantity and type of pollutants received in runoff. Constructed wetlands
that receive water containing large amounts of metals or pesticides should be
fenced or otherwise designed to discourage use by wildlife. However, wildlife
control requires vigilance. Fencing may not be practical for some species, or may
be too expensive and not feasible for certain projects. Methods, such as owl
decoys, noise makers, and other scare tactics may work for a while, but wildlife
can become accustomed to these types of exclusion devices and eventually
ignore them.
6.1 Management Practices for Vegetated
Treatment Systems
The management measure generally will be implemented by applying one or
more management practices appropriate to the source, location, and climate.
VFS and constructed wetlands can be applied successfully to implement the
management measure for vegetated treatment systems. The following pages
provide details about each practice.
6.1.1 Vegetated Filter Strips Factors to Consider
Construct VFS in upland areas adjacent to water bodies that
may be subject to suspended solids and/or nutrient runoff.
A survey of the literature on the design, performance, and effectiveness of VFS
shows that many factors must be considered on a site-specific basis before
designing and constructing a VFS. The effectiveness of VFS varies with topog-
raphy, drainage size, vegetative cover, implementation, and use with other man-
66 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Table 6-2. Effectiveness of Constructed Wetlands for NFS Pollutant Removal
r^7r-
ffi
Vf
\ — Lr-^— — 1
X^j \ Q%»
^
^
V
Study
Pollutant removal from urban runoff by a
subalpine constructed wetland
Suspended solids and phosphorus removal
from stormwater runoff by a wetland system
Phosphorus and nitrogen removal In a
subtropical constructed wetland
Suspended solids and nutrient removal In a
sediment filtration and constructed wetland
system
Pollutant removal from urban runoff in a
detention pond/wetland system
Pollutant removal from highway runoff by a
constructed wetland system
Pollutant removal from residential and
golfcourse runoff by wetland impoundment
Pollutant removal from urban stormwater
runoff in a detention pond/wetland system
Pollutant removal from agricultural and
urban runoff by constructed wetlands
Pollutant removal from agricultural runoff by
a constructed wetland system
Phosphorus and sediment removal from
agricultural runoff by wetland treatment
system
Phosphorus removal from urban and
agricultural runoff by constructed wetlands
Water quality improvements by a combined
detention/wetland storm water treatment
facility
Pollutant removal from storm water by a
constructed wetland
Measurements taken at several locations in the
y. 1 \ United States show the NPS pollutant removal
\^ff7^\ (v^f capabilities of constructed wetland systems. The
fc 7( *} J^-~-~J&* effectiveness of constructed wetlands for removing
_X~YT"^T~,s-Jy pollutants depends on several design factors, which
~^B J^~\/T are described in this section. Proper operation and
\t-—^r~ — ? maintenance are also important for ensuring that the
~7-| — vjC\v"~/ constructed wetland continues to perform at its
— ( \ Y designed capacity. See section 6.1.2 for information
^Jtf^^\ about the design, operation, and maintenance of
\\ constructed wetlands. Results of studies in various
v) states (see map at left) are shown in the table below.
Additional information about each study cited in the
table is provided in Appendix F.
TSS
85%
70%
94%
96%3
55%
55%-
83%
50%
71%
86%-
90%
95%-
97%
95%
96%
N
(total)
85%-
90%
76%
36%
36%
61-92%
74%
NH3
37%
44%
N03
70%
75%
63%
N02
75%
71%
75%
TKN
76%
P
(total)
47%1
20%2
72%
90%
43%
43%
62%
47%
65%-
78%
82%-
91%
92%
39%
78%
40%
P
(ortho)
52%
78%
21%
56%
metals
84% (Fe)
34%
83% (Pb)
70% (Zn)
55%-83%
(Pb, Zn)
90% (Pb)
Study Title
Lake Tahoe, CA
Shop Creek Pond,
CO
Kissimmee River, FL
Lake Jackson, FL
Orange County, FL
Orlando, FL
Palm Beach
Gardens, FL
Tampa, FL
Des Plaines River, IL
Long Lake, ME
St. Agatha, ME
Clear Lake, MN
Lake McCarrons,
MN
Spring Creek, ND
TSS, total suspended solids; N, nitrogen; NHs ammonia; NOs, nitrate; NCfc, nitrite; TKN, total kjeldahl nitrogen; P, phosphorus; Fe, iron; Pb, lead;
Zn, zinc.
1Particulate phosphorus.
2Soluble phosphorus.
3OrganicTSS.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
67
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
agement practices. In addition, different VFS characteristics such as size and
type of vegetation can result in different pollutant loading characteristics, as well
as loading reductions. Table 6-1 and Table 6-3 give some removal rates for
specific NFS pollutants based on VFS size and vegetation.
VFS have been successfully used in a variety of situations where some sort of
BMP was needed to treat surface water runoff. Typical locations of VFS have
included the following:
* Below cropland or other fields
* Above conservation practices such as terraces or diversions
* Between fields
* Alternating between wider bands of row crops
* Adjacent to wetlands, streams, ponds, or lakes
* Along roadways, parking lots, or other impervious areas
* In areas requiring filter strips as part of a waste management system
* On forested land
VFS function properly only in situations where they can accept overland sheet
flow of runoff and should be designed accordingly. Contact time between runoff
and the vegetation is a critical variable influencing VFS effectiveness. If existing
site conditions include concentrated flows, BMPs other than VFS should be used.
Pollutant-removal effectiveness increases as the ratio of VFS area to contributing
area increases.
Schueler (1992), the Washington State Department of Ecology (1992). and
USEPA (1996a) present design and maintenance criteria for VFS. Forested
riparian buffer strips are a variation of standard VFS designs. A forested riparian
buffer strip consists of an area of trees and/or shrubs located adjacent to and
upslope from water bodies (USDA, 1995). When appropriately designed and
managed, these buffer strips can contribute significantly to the maintenance of
aquatic and riparian habitat. Additional discussion and design criteria for forested
buffer strips are presented in USDA (1995) and Belt et al. (1992).
Several key local elements should be considered in the design of VFS: type of
pollutant, slope, length, climate, plant species, detention time, monitoring, and
maintenance.
Type of Pollutant
Sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxic substances are efficiently removed by
VFS although removal rates are much lower for soluble nutrients and toxics (see
Table 6-3). Monitoring should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of VFS
in pollutant reduction and to determine if the VFS are meeting performance
standards (water quality standards or prescribed VFS removal efficiency criteria).
Slope
VFS function best on slopes of less than 5 percent; slopes greater than 15
percent render them ineffective because surface runoff flow will not be sheet-
like and uniform. In areas with steep slopes, terraces can be used to reduce the
68 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Table 6-3. Nitrate-N Concentration Reduced hy Forested Riparian Areas
and VFS
Location
Length
(m)
Ground-
water
Surface
Water
Author, Year
(as cited in Martin, 1996)
Forested Sites
Lake Tahoe
Maryland
Georgia
Maryland
Rhode Island
North Carolina
Iowa
Great Britain
Iowa
Maryland
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
New Zealand
Maryland
2851
197
180
164
82-197
154
66
66
66
62
53
49
33
16
12
99%2
95%
83%
90%
>80%
>99%
83%3
99%
96%
93%
>99%
96%
99%
98%
60%
79%
95%4
Rhodes etal., 1985
Jordan etal., 1993
Lowranceetal., 1984
Peterjohn and Correll, 1984
Simmons etal., 1992
Jacobs and Gilliam, 1985b
Schultz etal., 1995
Haycock and Pinay, 1993
Licht and Schnoor, 1991
Peterjohn and Correll, 1984
Jacobs and Gilliam, 1985b
Hubbard and Sheridan, 1989
Xu etal., 1992
Schipper etal. ,1989
Doyle etal., 1977
VFS (Grass) Sites
Great Britain
Virginia
Virginia
Maryland
53
30
15
13
84%
73%4
54%4
68%4
Haycock and Pinay, 1993
Dillaha etal., 1989
Dillaha etal., 1989
Doyle etal., 1977
1 Estimated based on given area.
2 Measured using mass balance.
3 Measured in soil water.
4 Total nitrogen reduction.
length and slope of overland flow. The effectiveness of VFS is strongly site-
dependent. They are ineffective on hilly plots or in terrain that allows concen-
trated flows.
Length
The length of VFS is an important variable influencing their effectiveness be-
cause the contact time between runoff and vegetation in the VFS increases with
increasing VFS length. Some sources recommend a minimum length of about 50
feet (Dillaha ct al, 1989a;NieswandctaL 1989; Schuclcr, 1987). USDA(1988)
has prepared design criteria for VFS that take into consideration the nature of the
source area for the runoff and the slope of the terrain. Another suggested design
criterion in the literature is for the VFS to be at least as long as the runoff-
contributing area. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines available in the
literature for calculating VFS lengths for specific site conditions. Accordingly, this
guidance does not prescribe a numeric value for the minimum length for an
effective filter strip or a standard method to be used in the design criteria for
computing the length of a VFS. Table 6-3 provides examples of nitrate-N reduc-
tion in surface waters and ground water by VFS of various lengths at several
locations in the United States and Europe.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
69
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
VFSMOD
VFSMOD is a field-scale, storm-based model designed to calculate the outflow,
infiltration, and sediment-trapping efficiency of VFS. The model uses time-dependent
hyetographs, space-distributed filter parameters (vegetation roughness or density,
slope, and infiltration characteristics), and sediment characteristics to calculate VFS
efficiency.
Source: Munoz-Carpena and Parsons, 1997.
Climate
Several regional differences are important to note when considering the use of
VFS. Climate plays an important role in the effectiveness of these systems. The
amount and duration of rainfall, the seasonal differences in precipitation patterns,
and the type of vegetation suitable for local climatic conditions are examples of
regional variables that can affect the performance of VFS. VFS should not be
used in regions that have permafrost because infiltration is extremely limited.
which greatly decreases the effectiveness of the BMP (USEPA, 1997b). Soil
type and land use practices also vary with region and will affect characteristics
of surface water runoff and thus of VFS performance. The sites where published
research has been conducted on VFS effectiveness for pollutant removal are
overwhelmingly located in the eastern United States. There is a demonstrated
need for more studies located in different geographic areas in order to better
categorize the effects of regional differences on the effectiveness of VFS.
Native Plants
The best vegetative species for VFS are those which will produce dense growths
of grasses and legumes resistant to overland flow. Use native plants to avoid
negatively affecting adjacent natural areas.
Detention
In the design process for a VFS, some consideration should be given to increas-
ing the detention time of runoff as it passes over the VFS. One possibility is to
design the VFS to include small rills that run parallel to the leading edge of the
filter strip. These rills would trap water as runoff passes through the VFS.
Another possibility is to plant crops upslope of the VFS in rows running parallel to
the leading edge. Data from a study by Young and others (1980). in which com
was planted in rows parallel to the leading edge of the filter strip, show an
increase in sediment trapping and nutrient removal.
Monitoring
The design, placement, and maintenance of VFS are all critical to their effective-
ness, and concentrated flows should be prevented. Although intentional planting
and naturalization of the vegetation will enhance the effectiveness of a larger
filter strip, the strip should be inspected periodically to determine whether con-
centrated flows are bypassing or overwhelming the VFS, particularly around the
perimeter. Regular inspection should be performed to determine whether sedi-
ment is accumulating within the VFS in quantities that would reduce its effective-
ness (Magette et al, 1989). Monitoring should be conducted to determine the
efficiency of VFS in pollutant reduction and to determine whether they are
meeting performance standards.
70 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Maintenance
For VFS that are relatively short in length, natural vegetative succession is not
intended. It should be mowed two or three times a year, fertilized, and weeded in
an attempt to achieve dense, hearty vegetation. The goal is to increase the
density of the vegetation to obtain maximum filtration. For wooded filter strips,
maintenance is minimal, and gradual succession from grass to meadow to
second-growth forest will enhance, rather than detract from, the performance of
longer filter strips. This process can be enhanced by intentional landscape
planting to facilitate vegetative succession. Corrective action is still necessary
around the edge of the strip, and trees might help to prevent concentrated flows
from forming (USDOT, 1996). In cold regions where deicers are used regularly
during winter months, requirements specific to the region are usually necessary.
Use of salt-tolerant plant species could be necessary where parking lot or
roadway runoff is directed to the VFS. Maintenance activities following spring
snowmelt should include maintenance and replacement of any salt-damaged
vegetation. In addition, mulching might be required in the spring to restore soil
structure and moisture capacity because deicing salts can damage soil structure
and reduce the organic content of the soil (USEPA, 1997b). Consider including
one or more of the following items in a VFS maintenance program to make the
performance of any VFS more efficient:
Adding a stone trench to spread water effectively across the surface of
the filter.
• Designing flow spreaders to pass debris and/or to facilitate maintenance
access.
Keeping the VFS carefully shaped to ensure sheet flow.
Inspecting for damage following maj or storm events.
Removing any accumulated sediment.
• Accounting for sediment and stream bed load for open wetland treatment
systems.
All filter strips should be inspected on an annual basis and examined for gully
erosion, vegetative density and health, concentrated flows, and damage from foot
or vehicle traffic. Additional inspections should be conducted after high-volume
runoff events. The flow spreader should be inspected to ensure that trash and
debris have not collected in the spreader. Accumulated sediments should be
removed to maintain sheet flow and preserve the original grade. Maintaining soil
permeability is also crucial to ensure proper functioning of VFS. This might
require periodic removal of thatch or mechanical aeration. Grass filter strips
should be reseeded in dead or damaged areas where necessary, and dead
vegetation in wooded filter strips should be removed (USDOT, 1996).
6.1.2 Constructed Wetlands
Construct properly engineered systems of wetlands for NPS
pollution control. Manage these systems to avoid negative
impacts on surrounding ecosystems or ground water.
Constructed wetlands
must be managed to avoid
any negative impacts on
wildlife and surrounding
areas.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
71
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Siting Constructed Wetlands
The Interagency Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands has issued a guidance
document entitled Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands:
Providing Water Quality and Wildlife"Habitat (USEPA, 2000a). The
workgroup consists of representatives from the Environmental Protection
Agency, USAGE, USFWS, NRCS, National Marine Fisheries Service, and
Bureau of Reclamation. The workgroup suggests the following considerations for
siting constructed wetlands.
1. Waters of the United States and Floodplains. Constructed wetlands
should generally be constructed in upland areas and away from flood-
plains.
2. Opportunities for Restoration of Degraded or Former Wetlands.
Constructed wetlands should be built in existing or former wetlands only
if the water entering the project meets water quality standards; the
project will have a net environmental benefit; and the project will help
restore the historical condition of the wetland.
3. Watershed Considerations. Consider the role of the constructed
wetland in the watershed. Some issues to evaluate are water quality
impacts, surrounding and upstream land uses, location relative to flyways
or wildlife corridors, and public acceptance and perceptions.
4. Water-Depleted and Effluent-Dependent Ecosystems. Constructed
wetlands may provide valuable ecological benefits in regions where
water resources are limited because of climatic conditions (for example
arid areas) and human-induced impacts (for example urban areas).
5. Other Site Selection Factors. Numerous factors can affect whether a
particular site is appropriate for the development of a constructed
wetland. These factors include:
• Substrate or soils
• Hydrology/geomorphology
• Vegetation
• Presence of endangered species
• Socioeconomic impacts/issues
• Zoning considerations
• Health and safety issues
The most important variable in constructed wetland design is hydrology. If proper
hydrologic conditions are developed, the chemical and biological conditions will, to
a degree, respond accordingly (Mitsch and Gosselink, 1993). The underlying soils
in a wetland are key to establishing the proper hydrology. Soils van-" in their ability
to support vegetation, to prevent percolation of surface water into the ground
water, and to provide active exchange sites for adsorption of constituents like
phosphorus and metals.
Design Considerations
The planning and design of a constructed wetland must include considerations for
the quality of the influent, the types of pretreatment are necessary, and the shape
72 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
and size necessary to accomplish the desired treatment. The Interagency
Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands (2000) recommends that the following
guidelines be considered in the design of constructed wetland systems.
1. Minimal Impact. Adverse impacts on waters of the United States should
be avoided. Examples of impacts to be avoided include changes in
hydrology, disruption of the composition and diversity of plant and animal
communities, and degradation of water quality. Assessment and pre-
treatment for sediment removal and management should also be ad-
dressed.
2. Natural Structure. Whenever possible, use soft structures, sinuous lines,
and bioengineering practices in constructed wetlands design. Natural
landscape formations, native vegetation, and gravity should be used to
their best advantage.
3. Buffer Zones. Constructed wetlands should be surrounded by buffers or
transition zones. These areas can also be used in the design as open
space or wildlife corridors.
4. Vector Control. Facilities should be designed to minimize stagnant water
as a precaution against mosquito problems. Healthy, functioning wetlands
potentially decrease mosquito populations by providing habitat for natural
enemies of mosquitoes, and by preventing and reducing flooding in areas
that are not normally wet and would, therefore, support mosquitoes, but
not their predators.
Surveillance programs track diseases in bird populations, vector-borne
pathogens in mosquitoes, mosquito populations, larval habitats, mosquito
traps, biting counts, and reports by the public (Rose, 2001). Control
activities are initiated when threshold populations are exceeded. Predic-
tions are made from seasonal records and weather data.
Reducing mosquito populations entails eliminating or altering larval
habitats. This can be achieved through public education campaigns, with
outreach to both children and adults. Additionally, state and local mos-
quito control agencies can alter the hydrology of open water and marshy
areas to reduce or prevent the proliferation of mosquito larvae. Rose
(2001) suggests techniques in which mosquito-producing areas in
marshes are connected by shallow ditches to deep water habitats to
allow drainage or fish access; and minimally flooding the marsh during
the summer but flap-gating impounded areas to reintegrate them to the
estuary for the rest of the vear.
Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) was developed to control
mosquitoes by introducing their natural predators to areas where mosqui-
toes breed. USFWS in partnership with Massachusetts modified extensive
grid-ditching systems installed during the Depression, to allow small fish
that eat mosquito larvae to move into ponds where mosquitoes breed. With
a system of pools connected by radial ditches, fish feed on mosquitoes
during high tide, then retreat to reservoirs at low tide (Scheirer, 1994).
Restored pools in the saltmarshes also provide feeding and resting areas for
migratory birds.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 73
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Biological control can be achieved by using various predators such as
dragonfly nymphs and predacious mosquitoes (Rose, 2001). Mosquito
fish (Gambusia affinis and Gambusia holbrooki) are the most com-
monly used agents for biological control because they are easily reared,
although they also feed on nontarget species. Other types of organisms
that might be used for mosquito control include several fish types other
than Gambusia (Check with local fish and wildlife agencies for potential
species), birds, bats, fungi, protozoans, nematodes, and predacious
copepods.
It is essential that stormwater managers and public works crews who
maintain stormwater practices be educated in integrated pest manage-
ment. They should be trained to identify design flaws or maintenance
needs that might create mosquito-breeding habitat and be clear on the
procedures for reporting and remedying the problem. Pesticide handlers
should have the required training under FIFRA. and all chemicals should
be applied at rates as recommended on the packaging. Treated areas
should be monitored after application to determine the efficacy of the
applications and identify where pesticide resistance might be occurring.
Livingston (no date) recommends the following design considerations to
minimize mosquitoes in Florida stormwater management systems:
— Designs must be based on site characteristics to assure that the most
appropriate type of stormwater practice is selected. Vegetated dry
retention systems should be designed as off-line systems. They
should be used only where the soil and water table conditions will
assure that the system goes dry within 24 to 36 hours and where the
seasonal high water table is at least two feet below the bottom of the
system. If on-line retention areas are used, they should be designed
to be dry within three days of a 25-year, 24-hour design storm.
— Dry retention systems need to be carefully constructed to avoid
compacting the soil and reducing its infiltration rate. They also need
to have flat bottoms to avoid having areas of standing water.
— To minimize decaying organic matter, the grass or other vegetation in
dry retention areas should be regularly mowed with the clippings
removed and properly composted.
— The littoral zone of wet detention areas should be planted with
aquatic macrophytes such as Sagittaria latifolia (duck potato),
Sagittaria lancifolia (lance-leaf arrowhead), Juncus effuses (soft
rush), Pontedaria lancifolia (pickerelweed), Juncus roemerianus
(needle rush), Scirpus califomicus (giant bulrush), and Scirpus
validus (soft stem bulrush). Cattails (Typha spp.) should never be
planted in or allowed to remain in stormwater systems as they grow
very profusely, creating a large quantity of decaying matter.
— Wet detention systems should be stocked with native Gambusia spp.
Minnows (mosquito fish) to foster biological predation of mosquito
larvae. If needed because of site conditions, a "minnow sump"
should be excavated in the deepest part of the pond to assure
permanent habitat and survival during droughts.
74 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
— Sustained-release larvicides should be used whenever necessary
with systems known to be mosquito productive treated before the
onset of the mosquito life cycle.
— Regular inspection and maintenance of stormwater systems is
essential.
Regular monitoring for mosquito adults and larvae, retrofitting and
maintenance of practices to reduce the likelihood for breeding, and
pesticide application where needed are the three key actions for eliminat-
ing mosquito breeding in storm water facilities. The Centers Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) discussed the role of pesticides that kill
adult mosquitoes (adulticides) in mosquito management and recom-
mended that their use be incorporated into an integrated pest manage-
ment program that includes surveillance, source reduction, chemical
control (larvicide and adulticide), biological control, and public relations
and education.
Hazing and Exclusion Devices. In constructed wetlands where the
water quality could present a significant threat to the health of wildlife,
hazing or wildlife exclusion devices should be used, maintained, and
regularly evaluated for their effectiveness. Examples include fencing,
netting, and noise-makers.
Dedicated Water Source. A dedicated water supply should be available
for the life of the constructed wetland and preferably longer. The water
supply should be sufficient to maintain the wetland in times of drought. It
is important that the water supply for adjacent waterways not be nega-
tively impacted as well.
Biological Diversity and Physical Heterogeneity. If possible, con-
structed wetlands should be designed to maximize species diversity
native species. There are several guides for the selection of wetland
plants; see Table 5-2 for a list of resources. To achieve this goal of
diversity, it might be necessary to provide for physical heterogeneity in
the facility design. Some examples of physical heterogeneity include
having both surface and subsurface flow as well as some open areas of
water, and designing islands for waterfowl nesting as well as buffer or
upland areas for other bird species.
The types of vegetation used in constructed wetlands depend on region
and climate (Mitsch, 1977). For example, emergent wetlands are usually
characterized by herbaceous vegetation, while eastern riparian wetlands
are generally forested wetlands. When possible, use native plant species
to avoid negative impacts on nearby natural wetland areas. Plants should
be selected based on their ability to withstand fluctuating water levels.
Select appropriate vegetation based on the water supply. If the water
table will fluctuate over time, select plants that can withstand these
changes. Hydrophytic plant species are the most suitable wetland plant.
In coastal areas, the plants should be adapted to fluctuating salinity
levels. There are several guides for the selection of wetland plants such
as Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plans of the Northern Great Plains
(USDA, 1993), many resources listed in Table 5-2, or the U.S. Fish and
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 75
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
Wildlife Service's National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wet-
lands (http://www.nwi.fws.gov/bha).
8. Seasonality and Capacity Exceedances. Planners should consider
extreme meteorological events and how exceedances of storage and
treatment capacity will affect the facility.
9. Forebays. Constructed wetlands should contain sediment collection/
settling forebays to trap sediment before runoff enters the vegetated area
of the constructed wetland. Baffles and diversions should be strategically
placed to prevent trapped sediment from becoming resuspended during
subsequent storm events prior to cleanout. These components should be
designed for ease of maintenance and removal of sediments. Appropriate
upland disposal sites that meet applicable regulatory requirements should
also be identified.
10. Multiple Cells. The benefits of using multiple treatment cells should be
considered. Multiple cells can allow for greater flexibility in the operation
and maintenance of constructed facilities, as well as potentially providing
better treatment than single-cell systems.
11. Maintenance Access. Safe and easy access to the facility for personnel
and vehicles is important for proper operation and maintenance with a
minimum of disturbance.
12. Public Acceptance. Planners should take into consideration how the
public perceives the facility. Mosquitoes, odors, and safety issues are
common questions raised by the public. Engaging the community early in
the project development process can help in gaining support and ap-
proval.
13. Public Use. Public access to constructed wetlands might or might not be
appropriate depending on the intended purpose of the facility. If safety
and health concerns are not an issue, designers may wish to develop
educational displays for the facility to encourage better understanding of
constructed wetlands and their many benefits.
14. Pilot Projects and Design Criteria. Pilot projects might be necessary
to assist in designing full-scale projects. When pilot projects are not used,
the design considerations should be fully described and documented for
future reference.
PREWet
A screening level PC-based mathematical model (PREWet) is available for making
pollutant removal estimates for wetlands. PREWet assumes steady-state conditions
and either fully mixed or one-dimensional longitudinally varying concentrations to
allow rapid model implementation with minimal input data requirements. Given basic
wetland characteristics and the pollutants of concern, PREWet estimates the amount
of pollutant treatment provided by the wetland.
Source: USAGE, 1997.
Constructing and Maintaining Constructed Wetlands
The following guidelines should be considered during the active construction and
operation phases of a constructed wetland.
76 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
1. Construction Practices/Specification/Drawings. The construction site
should be properly evaluated prior to construction to ensure its suitability;
site survey elevations should be established; proper engineering drawings
should be used to clearly convey the design specification; and damage to
surrounding land should be minimized by limiting excavation and surface
runoff from the site. It is also important to note that a Clean Water Act
section 402 permit may be required depending on the size of the project.
2. Soils. Soils used in the wetland should be carefully evaluated to match
their permeability and other physical properties to the objectives of the
project. The use of soils that may contain the seeds of unwanted plant
species or unwanted contaminants should be avoided. Given time and
water, native soils can take on wetland soil properties.
3. Vegetation Selection. Plant species should be chosen for their abilities to
adapt to the water, soil, and light conditions of the constructed wetland. A
variety of native species is preferable; the use of weedy or invasive
species should be avoided. There are several guides for the selection of
wetland plants; see Table 5-2 for a list of resources.
4. Management Plan. Develop a long-term plan for the maintenance,
operation, funding, and monitoring of the constructed wetland. This plan
should outline the routine maintenance activities required for proper
operation and specify the person or group responsible for caring for the
wetland.
5. Regular Inspections and Maintenance Activities. Operators should
inspect the constructed wetland as necessary depending on the site and
design. The inspection criteria and frequency should be described in the
maintenance plan. The effectiveness of the constructed wetland for
removing pollutants will depend on how well it is maintained. The opera-
tion and maintenance plan should consider the monitoring and data needs
that are required to determine how well the constructed wetland is
performing relative to its design criteria. Maintenance activities that
affect the pollutant removal performance of the constructed wetland
(e.g., sediment removal, plant harvesting, and other vegetation mainte-
nance activities) should be done when the monitoring data indicate a
decline in performance under designed operating conditions. This will
ensure that the constructed wetland is achieving its pollutant removal
effectiveness overtime. Examples of maintenance activities include
checking weir settings and inlet and outlet structures, cleaning surfaces
that have solids or floatables accumulating on them, removing nuisance
species, maintaining vegetation, and removing sediment from forebays.
6. Operator Training. Operators should be trained in the proper mainte-
nance and operation of the wetland. State regulatory agencies, as well as
some public or private training centers, may be able to assist with this
training.
7. Contingency Plan. A contingency plan should address problems that
may develop during the lifetime of the wetland due to construction or
operation errors and unpredictable events. The plan might also include
instructions for dealing with potential nuisance conditions.
There are many challenges
as well as benefits for
farmers installing and
maintaining vegetative
buffers, as described in the
February 1999 NRCS
publication, The National
Conservation Buffer
Initiative: A Qualitative
Evaluation.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
77
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
6.2 Costs and Benefits of Practices
This section describes the economic costs and benefits of creating vegetated
treatment systems to control nonpoint sources of pollution. This information is
intended to demonstrate the cost savings accrued by implementing the manage-
ment measure as compared to the costs of not implementing it. Because of
regional diversity, no single cost or economic benefit can be applicable across the
United States. Instead, the information provided below and in Table 6-4 are
examples of such costs and benefits in specific areas of the country.
Table 6-4. Costs and Economic Benefits Associated with Vegetative Treatment Systems
Examples from throughout the United States show the
expected cost of many types of vegetated treatment
systems as well as their value to the respective
communities. For some of these projects, the value of
the vegetated treatment systems is based on the dollar
value saved from not using the structural or
conventional approach. The cost to install structural or
conventional technologies to replace the functions of
constructed wetlands, buffers, and vegetated filter strips
are shown to be much greater than the actual cost of
the vegetated treatment systems. When available, the
dates for project costs are provided. Results from
studies in various states (see map at left) are shown in
the table below. Additional information and references
about each study is provided in Appendix F.
Description
Cost of
Conventional
Project
(without VTS)
Vegetated
Treatment
Systems Project
Costs
Estimated Benefit to Community
Study Title and
State/Tribe/Agency
Installation of stream buffers and
riparian zones
$6,600 (CRP
rent:$150/acre
times 44 acres)
(1997)
Exclusionary fencing keeps cattle out of
stream, and filters and buffers help
protect and improve water quality.
Allamakee County (IA)
Valuation of creating vegetative filter
strips for reducing water treatment
costs
$803 to $10,522
per acre
$2.7 million per year (based on 25%
sediment reduction).
Middle Raccoon
Watershed Partnership
(IA)
Establishment of filter strips along
waterways
$26,000 worth of
switchgrass seed
given to farmers
(2000)
Installation of filter strips will remove
chemicals and sediment and lead to
improved water quality.
Iroquois County (IL)
Addition of best management practices
(BMPs) through the Skaneateles Lake
Watershed Agricultural Program
$150,000
(no date)
BMPs will help improve farm planning
and nutrient management to improve
water quality.
Skaneateles Laket (NY)
Structural versus nonstructural shore
erosion/control approaches
$3.7 million to $4.3
million per year
(1997)
$1.6 million per
year (1997)
$1.5 million to $2.1 million per year.
Chesapeake Bay (MD)
Restoration of Ronan Spring Creek
$5,000 for shrubs
(no date)
Stream restoration, through dredging
and deepening, will bring back fish
habitat and backwaters for waterfowl.
Ronan Spring Creek
(MT)
Valuation of local agricultural benefits
from riparian improvement from 25%
reduction of sediment
$2.7 million in treatment costs. (1993)
Ohio State University
Extension Service (OH)
78
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
The use of appropriate practices for pretreataent of runoff and prevention of
adverse impacts on wetlands and other watcrbodics involves the design and
installation of vegetated treatment systems such as VFS or constructed wetlands,
or the use of structures such as detention or retention basins. These types of
systems are discussed individually elsewhere in this guidance document. The
purpose of VFS and constructed wetlands is to remove, to the extent practicable,
excessive levels of NFS pollutants and to minimize the impacts of hydrologic
changes. Both VFS and constructed wetlands can function to reduce levels of
pollutants in runoff or attenuate runoff volume before the runoff enters a natural
wetland or riparian area or another water body.
One of the largest programs promoting the use of vegetated buffers is the
National Conservation Buffer Initiative, which is funded through the USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). In April 1997, USDA initiated
the National Conservation Buffer Initiative with the goal to help landowners
install 2 million miles of conservation buffers by the year 2002. As of January
2003. the National Conservation Buffer initiative contributed to the installation of
over 1.3 million miles of buffers on almost 5 million acres of land (BufferNotes,
2003). The National Conservation Buffer Initiative encourages agricultural
producers and other landowners to install buffers that can improve soil, air, and
water quality; enhance wildlife habitat; restore biodiversity; and create scenic
landscapes. The initiative is led by the NRCS in cooperation with the Agricul-
tural Research Sendee. Farm Sendee Agency; Forest Sendee; Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service; state conservation agencies;
conservation districts; and numerous other public and private partners (USDA,
2000).
Most of the buffer development is focused on farmland. There are many chal-
lenges associated with the buffer program. For example, coordinators find it
difficult to get buffers installed on rented land. Landlords are reluctant to forego
the rent on that land, yet tenants have no guarantee that they will benefit from
proposed buffers. Farmers have also voiced concerns about the program's low
rental rates and about the restrictions it places on the use (haying, grazing) of
buffers. The NRCS is addressing these issues along with educating the public on
the benefits of buffers.
The costs for establishing of multispecies riparian buffer strip systems have been
estimated at $358 to $396 per acre, and annual maintenance costs are estimated
at $20 per acre. The establishment and maintenance costs do not include any
existing governmental cost-share or other subsidy. Currently, there are several
cost-share programs available that will cover up to 75 percent of the expenses
(USEPA, 1996a).
Constructed wetlands are finding increasing uses in residential areas because
they cost less than conventional wastewater treatment plants. They can be
readily accommodated in areas that have the land such systems require. How-
ever, urban areas are also expressing a growing interest.
The town of Jerome. Arizona, recently chose to construct a wetland rather than
build a mechanical treatment plant to treat its wastewater. Maintenance of the
mechanical treatment plant was to cost about $ 1,000 per month (in 1997), whereas
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005 79
-------
Chapter 6: Management Measure for Vegetated Treatment Systems
maintaining the wetland was expected to cost "little or nothing." The city of Sierra
Vista, Arizona, has partnered with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on a con-
structed wetland project that is expected to demonstrate the technology's environ-
mental benefits. Such benefits would derive from using treated wastewater for
aquifer recharge and for release directly to the river (University of Arizona, 1997).
The city of Des Moines, Washington, is using SRF funds to purchase and recon-
struct a badly degraded wetland area and to construct a sediment trap/pond
facility. The wetlands serve the dual purpose of providing flood protection by
collecting storm water runoff and acting as a preliminary filter by removing
suspended solids. This $222,500 project is part of the National Estuary Program.
Five communities in South Dakota have received SRF loans for wetlands projects.
The communities of Clear Lake, Huron, Lake Cochrane, Pickerel Lake, and
Richmond Lake have used SRF loans to construct wetlands as part of improve-
ments to their publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Constructed wetlands are
a complex of saturated substrates, emergent and submergent vegetation, animal
life, and water that simulates natural wetlands for various benefits. In these cases,
the wetlands follow a lagoon treatment system to further reduce pollutant levels in
the wastewater prior to discharge. User charges are being used to repay the loans,
which total about $7.5 million for all five communities.
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The CRP is based on the premise that financial incentives make conservation buffers
economically attractive. Annual rental payments are based on the relative productiv-
ity of the soil type being offered and the average dryland cash rental rate for compa-
rable land in the county. A 20 percent incentive is added to the annual rental rate for
field windbreaks, grassed waterways, filter strips, and riparian buffers. A10 percent
incentive is added to the annual rental rate for land within designated wellhead
protection areas.
Cost-sharing payments up to 50 percent of the cost of establishing a permanent
cover are provided. Some of the measures eligible for cost sharing are site prepara-
tion, temporary cover until permanent cover is established, grading or shaping,
seeds, trees or shrubs, plastic mulch, and supplemental irrigation or fencing.
Contracts under the continuous CRP sign-up are 10 to 15 years in length, depending
on the approved practice. Annual rental payments are made after October 1 each year
and cost-share payments are made when the approved practices are completed.
Source: NRCS,2000a.
80
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Resources
Documents
EPA Wetlands Fact Sheets. 1995. EPA Office of
Water. EPA 843-F-95-001.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/facts/
contents.html
Created and Natural Wetlands for Controlling
Nonpoint Source Pollution. 1993. CRC Press, Inc.
Boca Raton, Florida.
Natural Wetlands and Urban Stormwater: Poten-
tial Impacts and Management. 1993. EPA Office of
Water. EPA 843-R-001.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/
stormwat.pdf
Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to
Stormwater Best Management Practices. 1996.
EPA Office of Water. EPA 843-B-96-001.
Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. 1997. EPA
Office of Water. EPA 840-F-97-001.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/lessons
Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Waters. 1998. EPA and USDA. EPA 840-
R-98-001.
http://www. epa. gov/history/topics/cwa/03. htm
Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.
1993. EPA Office of Water. EPA 840-B-92-002.
http://www. epa. gov/owow/nps/MMGI/
National Guidance: Water Quality Standards for
Wetlands. 1990. EPA Office of Water. EPA 440-S-
90-011.
For information on receiving EPA publications:
U.S. EPA
National Center for Environmental Publications and
Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419
Cincinnati, OH 45242
1-800490-9198
FAX (513) 489-8695
http ://www. epa. gov/ncepihom/orderpub .html
http://www. epa. gov/O WO W/wetlands/regs/
quality.html
Wetlands Assistance Guide for Landowners. 1995.
Texas Parks and Wildlife. State Wetlands Conserva-
tion Plan, Austin, TX.
http://www. tpwd. state, tx. us/wetlands/programs/
landowner/
National Water Summary of Wetland Resources.
1996. USGS. Water Supply Paper 2425.
http://water.usgs.gov/public/nwsum/WSP2425/
index.html
Wetlands. 1993. W. Mitsch and J. Gosselink.
Protecting America's Wetlands: An Action Agenda -
The Final Report of the National Wetlands Forum.
1989. The Conservation Foundation. Washington, B.C.
Statewide Wetlands Strategies: A Guide to Protect-
ing and Managing the Resource. 1992. World
Wildlife Fund. Island Press. Washington, B.C.
Our National Wetland Heritage: A Protection
Guide. 1996. Environmental Law Institute, Washing-
ton, BC.
The Impact of Federal Programs on Wetlands.
1994. USBOI. Report to Congress by the Secretary
of the Interior, http://www.doi.gov/oepc/wetlands2/
An Introduction to Wetland Restoration, Creation,
and Enhancement. 2001. Review Braft. Interagency
Workgroup on Wetland Restoration.
h ftp ://www. epa. gov/ow ow/w e tlands/res tore/
finalinfo.html
EPA Wetlands Protection Hotline - toll-free telephone
service and e-mail correspondent, answering requests
for information about wetland regulation, legislation,
and policy pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water
Act; wetland values and functions; and wetland
agricultural issues. For a listing of the available publica-
tions, see http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
wetline.html ^fi°ST/l'^
M-F9amto5:30pmEST. i* & \
1-800-832-7828
wetlands-hotline@epamail.epa.gov
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
81
-------
Resources
Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to
Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the
Supporting Science for Lotic Areas. 1998. Techni-
cal Reference 1737-15. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National
Applied Resources Sciences Center, Boulder, CO.
Riparian Area Management: A User Guide to
Assessing Proper Functioning Condition and the
Supporting Science for Lentic Areas. 1999. Tech-
nical Reference 1737-16. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National
Applied Resources Sciences Center, Boulder, CO.
Technical Guidance
A Hydrogeomorphic Classification for Wetlands.
1993. Mark M. Brinson. USAGE. Wetlands Research
Program Technical Report WRP-DE-4. Currently
being developed and updated.
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET II). 1987. Paul
R. Adamus. USAGE, Waterways Experiment Station.
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). 1980.
USFWS, Division of Ecological Services.
Journals
Journal of the Society of Wetland Scientists.
(785)843-1221
http://www.sws. org
Wetland Journal. Environmental Concern Inc.
(410)745-9620
http://www. wetland, org
Association of State Wetland Managers Newsletter.
(518)872-1804.
http://aswm. org/index. htm
National Wetlands Newsletter. Environmental Law
Institute. 1-800-433-5120.
h ttp://ww w. elistore. org/nwn. asp
Land and Water: The Magazine of Natural Re-
source Management and Restoration.
(515) 576-3191. http://www.landandwater.com
Nonpoint Source News-Notes. Terrene Institute.
fax: (202) 260-1517 or (202) 296-4071.
h ttp://w w w. epa. gov/owow/info/New sNotes/
Funding Information
Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Water-
shed Protection. 1997. EPA Office of Water. EPA
841-B-97-008.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF), a loan
program administered by EPA, can be used to obtain
water rights, easements, and fee simple titles to wet-
lands and riparian areas if the areas protected or
acquired serve a demonstrated water quality improve-
ment function. Additional information on this program
as well other federal, state, nonprofit, and private
programs providing financial and technical assistance
can be found in Appendix A and Appendix F.
Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II - Highlights
of State and Tribal Nonpoint Source Programs.
1997. EPA Office of Water. EPA 841-R-97-001.
Catalog of State Wetlands Protection Grants:
Fiscal Year 1991-Fiscal Year 1994. EPA Office of
Water.
h ttp://ww w. epa. gov/O WO W/wetlands/initiative/
grntcatalog. html
EPA Environmental Financing Information Network
(EFIN). http://w w w. epa. gov/efinpage/efin.htm
A State and Local Government Guide to Environ-
mental Program Funding Alternatives. 1994. EPA
Office of Water. EPA 841-K-94-001.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Federal
Assistance, http://federalaid.fws.gov/
Farm Bill Network, http://www.fb-net.org/
General Wetland Internet Links
EPA Office of Water Homepage
h ttp://ww w. epa. gov/O W/
EPA Wetlands Homepage
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/wetlands/
EPA Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program
Homepage
http://www. epa. gov/O WO W/NPS/
EPA Surf Your Watershed
http://www.epa.gov/surf
82
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Resources
EPA Watershed Academy
http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/
EPA BASINS http://www.epa.gov/ost/basins/
Wetlands Conservation and Restoration, National
Wetlands Conservation Alliance.
http: //users, erols. com/wetlandg/#top
North Carolina State University - WATERSHEDSS
(Water, Soil, and Hydro-Environmental Decision
Support System) forNonpoint Source Pollution
http://www. water, ncsu. edu/watershedss/
Izaak Walton League-American Wetlands Campaign
http://www. iwla. org/sos/awm.
Ramsar Convention on Wetlands
http://www. ramsar. org
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Agriculture Network
Information Center Water Quality Page
http://ianrhome. unl. edu/dlc/projects/unlagnic. shtml
WetNet - Texas Wetland Information Network
http://www.glo. state, tx. us/wetnet/
The U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
http://www.wes. army, mil/
Listservers
Subscribing to a listserver is a good way to recieve the
most up-to-date information.
Wetlands Listserver - Environmental Law Institute
http://w ww2. eli. org/index. cfm
NPSINFO Listserver - EPA
h ftp ://www. epa. gov/ow ow/nps/nps info/
WaterNews Listserver - EPA
http://www.epa.gov/ow/waternews/
Education Materials
Wetland Reading List. 1995. EPA Office of Water.
EPA 843-B-94-002.
http://www. epa. gov/O WO W/wetlands/science/
readlist.html
The Young Scientist's Introduction to Wetlands.
1993. USAGE, Waterways Experiment Station.
http://el. erdc. usace. army, mil/wetlands/ysi.html
WOW! The Wonders of Wetlands. 1995. Britt E.
Slattery and Alan S. Kesselheim. Co-published by
Environmental Concern and The Watercourse.
http://www.wetland.org/wowteacher.html
National Wildlife Federation Kids Page
http://www.nwf.org/kids/
Ducks Unlimited Puddler Page
h ftp://www. ducks, org/puddler/index.html
Project WET Homepage
http: //www. projectwet. org/
National Audubon Society - Wetlands
http: //www. audubon. org/campaign/wetland/
index.html
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
83
-------
Resources
84 EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Glossary
Abiotic: Not biological; not involving or produced by
organisms (Merriam-Webster, 1991).
Adsorption: The accumulation of substances at the
interface between two phases; in water treatment, the
interface is between the liquid and solid surfaces that
are artificially provided (Peavy et al, 1985).
Best Management Practice (BMP): Methods that
have been determined to be the most effective,
practical means of preventing or reducing pollution
from nonpoint sources.
Biofiltration: The removal and oxidation of com-
pounds from contaminated air using microorganisms.
(Environmental Engineering Program, University of
Southern California; http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~bfilter/
intro.html)
Biological assimilation: The conversion of nonliving
substances into living protoplasm or cells by using
energy to build up complex compounds of living matter
from the simple nutritive compounds obtained from
food (Barnhart, 1986).
Biotic: Caused or produced by living beings
(Merriam-Webster, 1991).
Chemical decomposition: Separation into elements
or simpler compounds; chemical breakdown
(Merriam-Webster, 1991).
Complexation: The process by which one substance
is converted to another substance in which the con-
stituents are more intimately associated than in a
simple mixture; chelation is one type of complexation
(Merriam-Webster, 1991).
Connectedness: Having the property of being joined
or linked together, as in aquatic or riparian habitats.
Constructed wetland: Engineered wetlands that
utilize natural processes involving wetland vegetation,
soils, and their associated microbial assemblages to
assist, at least partially, in treating an effluent or other
source water. These systems are engineered and
constructed in uplands, outside "waters of the United
States," unless the water source can serve a signifi-
cant restoration function to a degraded system
(USEPA, 1998).
Denitrification: The biochemical reduction of nitrate
or nitrite to gaseous nitrogen, either as molecular
nitrogen or as an oxide of nitrogen.
Ecosystem: The complex of a community and its
environment functioning as an ecological unit in
nature; a basic functional unit of nature comprising
both organisms and their nonliving environment,
intimately linked by a variety of biological, chemical,
and physical processes (Barnhart, 1986; Merriam-
Webster, 1991).
Erosion and Sediment Control: A set of plans
prepared by or under the direction of a licensed
professional engineer indicating the specific measures
and sequencing to be used to control sediment and
erosion on a development site during and after con-
struction (USEPA, 1993c).
Filtration: The process of being passed through a
filter (as in the physical removal of impurities from
water) or the condition of being filtered (Barnhart,
1986).
Habitat: The place where an organism naturally lives
or grows.
Mitigation: For the purpose of CWA section 404,
compensatory mitigation is the restoration, creation, or
enhancement of wetlands.
Riparian area: Vegetated ecosystems along a
waterbody through which energy, materials, and water
pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high
water table and are subject to periodic flooding and
influence from the adjacent waterbody. These sys-
tems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combina-
tion of these two landforms; they do not in all cases
have all of the characteristics necessary for them to
be classified as wetlands (Lowrance et al., 1983;
MitschandGosselink, 1986).
Sedimentation: The formation of earth, stones, and
other matter deposited by water, wind, or ice
(Barnhart, 1986).
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
85
-------
Glossary
Species diversity: The variations between groups of
related organisms that have certain characteristics in
common (Barnhart, 1986; Merriam-Webster. 1991).
Synoptic Assessment Approach: An approach that
involves compiling, organizing, and depicting environ-
mental information in a manner that ranks watersheds
according to the relative significance and risks to
wetlands and other ecosystems. The approach
considers the environmental effects of cumulative
impacts on wetlands and other ecosystems.
Upland: Ground elevated above the lowlands along
rivers or between hills (Merriam-Webster, 1991).
Vegetated buffer: Strips of vegetation separating a
waterbody from a land use that could act as a
nonpoint pollution source. Vegetated buffers (or simply
buffers) are variable in width and can range in func-
tion from vegetated filter strips to wetlands or riparian
areas.
Vegetated filter strip: Created areas of vegetation
designed to remove sediment and other pollutants
from surface water runoff by filtration, deposition,
infiltration, adsorption, decomposition, and volatiliza-
tion. A vegetated filter strip is an area that maintains
soil aeration as opposed to a wetland, which at times
exhibits anaerobic soil conditions (Dillaha et al.,
1989a).
Vegetated treatment system: A system that
consists of a vegetated filter strip, a constructed
wetland, or a combination of both.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a stream;
the watershed for a major river may encompass a
number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine
at a common point.
Waters of the United States: As defined by 40
CFR 230.3:
(s) The term waters of the United States means:
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used
in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate
or foreign commerce, including all waters which are
subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
(3) 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 could affect
interstate or foreign commerce including any such
waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign
travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken
and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial
purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as
waters of the United States under this definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs
(s)(l) through (4) of this section;
(6) The territorial sea;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters
that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs
(s)(l) through (6) of this section; waste treatment
systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons de-
signed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than
cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR423.11 (m) which
also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters
of the United States.
Waters of the United States do not include prior
converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determina-
tion of an area's status as prior converted cropland by
any other federal agency, for the purposes of the
Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean
Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA.
Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or satu-
rated by surface water or groundwatcr at a frequency
and duration to support, and that under normal circum-
stances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typi-
cally adapted for life in saturated soil conditions;
wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas. (This definition is consistent with
the federal definition at 40 CFR 230.3, promulgated
December 24. 1980. As amendments are made to the
wetland definition, they will be considered applicable
to this guidance.)
86
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Abbruzzese. B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sunnier.
1990a. Application of the Synoptic Approach to
Wetland Designation: A Case Study in Louisiana.
Final report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Office of Wetlands Protection, Washing-
ton, DC.
Abbruzzese. B., S.G. Leibowitz, and R. Sunnier.
1990b. Application of the Synoptic Approach to
Wetland Designation: A Case Study in Washington.
Final report. Submitted to U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Abramovitz, J. 1997. Damage to Nature Now Causing
Widespread "Natural"' Disasters, Economic Hardship.
Worldwatch press briefing. World Watch Institute,
Washington. DC.
American Rivers. 1998. American Rivers 1997 Urban
Hometown River Award. American Rivers, Washing-
ton, DC.
American Samoa Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollu-
tion Program. 1995. American Samoa Environmental
Protection Agency. American Samoa.
Anacostia Watershed Network. 2000. Anacostia
Watershed Restoration Committee. Anacostia
Watershed Network. Washington. DC.
Atcheson, J., E.T. Conrad, S.F., W. Bailey, and
M. Hughes, Jr. 1979. Analysis of Selected Func-
tional Characteristics of Wetlands. Prepared for the
U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Auburn University. 1995. Alabama Water Watch.
Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Azous. A. 1991. An Analysis of Urbanization
Effects on Wetland Biological Communities.
Master's thesis, University of Washington. Pugct
Sound Wetlands and Stormwater Management
Research Program.
Baird, K. 1989. High quality restoration of riparian
ecosystems. Restoration & Management Notes
7(2):60-64.
Baldwin G.W. 1995. Tinian Magpo Watershed and
Wetland Protection Plan. Prepared for Division of
Coastal Resources Management, Department of
Lands and Natural Resources, Saipan, MP; Division
of Environmental Quality, Department of Public
Works, Saipan, MP; U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington. DC.
Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary Program. No
date. Economic Value Assessment of the Barataria-
Terrebonne Estuarine System. Published Research
Report 26. Nicholls State University Campus,
Thibodaux, LA.
Barnett, J.. Greenways Coordinator, City of Boulder.
1990. Personal communication.
Barten, J.M. 1987. Stormwater runoff treatment in a
wetland filter: Effects on the water quality of Clear
Lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:297-305.
Baum, S. 1995. Illinois Wetland Strategy. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Champagne, IL.
Bedford, B.L., and E.M. Preston. 1988. Developing
the scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of
wetland loss and degradation on landscape functions:
Status, perspectives, and prospects. Environmental
Management 12(5):751-771.
Belt, G.H., J. O'Laughiin, and T. Merrill. 1992.
Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the
Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific
Literature. Report no. 8. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and
Range Policy Analysis Group, University of Idaho,
M.OSCOW, ID.
Blackburn, R.D., P.L. Pimentel, and G.E. French.
1986. Treatment of Stormwater Runoff Using
Aquatic Plants: The Use of Wetlands for Control-
ling Stormwater Pollution, ed. E.W. Strecker, J.M.
Kersnar, and E.D. Driscoll. Woodward-Clyde Con-
sultants. Portland, Oregon. Prepared for U.S. EPA.
Region 5, Water Division, Watershed Management
Unit. EPA/600 February 1992.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
87
-------
References
Booth, D.E., and C.R. Jackson. 1994. Urbanization of
Aquatic Systems-Degraded Thresholds and Limit of
Mitigation. In Proceedings Annual Summer Sympo-
sium of the American Water Resources Association,
June 26-29, 1994.
Briggs, M.K. 1996a. Our National Wetland Heri-
tage: A Protection Guide. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson.
Briggs, M.K. 1996b. Riparian Ecosystem Recovery
in Arid Lands: Strategies and References. Univer-
sity of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Brinson, M.M. 1988. Strategies for assessing the
cumulative effects of wetland alteration on water
quality. Environmental Management 12(5):655-662.
Brown, M.T., J. Schaefer, and K. Brandt. 1990.
Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in
East Central Florida. Publication no. 89-07 and
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series
no. T-00061. Center for Wetlands, University of
Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Brown, R.G. 1985. Effects of an urban wetland on
sediment and nutrient loads in runoff. Wetlands,
4(1):147-158.
BufferNotes. 2003. Buffer Benefits at Home and
Away. January 2003 issue, National Association of
Conservation Districts, Washington, DC.
. Accessed January
2003.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No date.
Problems and Solutions: A Riparian Improvement
Example. Bureau of Land Management, Washington,
DC.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997. Environ-
mental Education. Bureau of Land Management,
Eugene, OR.
Burke, D.G., E.J. Meyers, R.W. Tiner, Jr., and
H. Gronman. 1988. Protecting Nontidal Wetlands.
Planning Advisory Service report no. 412/413. Ameri-
can Planning Association, Washington, DC.
California Environmental Resources Evaluation
System. 1995. CWIS, Tahoe Conservancy. Programs.
California Environmental Resource Evaluation Sys-
tem, Sacramento CA.
Carothers, S.W., and GS. Mills. 1990. The Creation
and Restoration of Riparian Habitat in Southwestern
Arid and Semi-arid Regions. In Wetland Creation
and Restoration: The Status of Science, ed. J.A.
Kusler and M.E. Kentula. Island Press, Washington,
DC.
Cheng, Janice, USEPA, Region 5. January 18, 2000.
Personal communication.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997a. Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Riparian Buffer/Local Case Studies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997b. Riparian Buffer
Case Study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Chesapeake Bay Program. 1998. Riparian Forest
Buffer Demonstration Sites: Chapel Point State
Park, MD. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands Protec-
tion and Restoration. Coastal America, Washington,
DC.
Connecticut CZARA Program. 1996. Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford,
CT.
Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs. 1986.
Riparian Areas as a Control of Nonpoint Pollutants. In
Watershed Research Perspectives, ed. D. Correll,
pp. 166-192. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washing-
ton, DC.
Cooper, J.R., and J.W. Gilliam. 1987. Phosphorus
redistribution from cultivated fields into riparian areas.
Soil Science Society of America Journal
51(6): 1600-1604.
Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and W.P.
Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for agricul-
ture sediment. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 51(6):417-420.
Correll, D. 1997. Vegetated Stream Riparian Zones:
Their Effects on Stream Nutrients, Sediments, and
Toxic Substances. An annotated and indexed bibliog-
raphy. Smithsonian Environmental Research Center,
Edge water, MD.
88
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
References
Correll, D.L., and D.E. Weiler. 1989. Factors Limiting
Processes in Freshwater: An Agricultural Primary
Stream Riparian Forest. In freshwater Wetlands and
Wildlife, ed. R.R. Shantz and J.W. Gibbons, pp. 9-23.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science and
DOE Symposium Series no. 61. Technology Informa-
tion, Oak Ridge, TN.
Correll D.L., T.E, Jordan, and D.E, Wcllcr. 1992.
Nutrient flux in a landscape: Effects of coastal land
Use and terrestrial community mosaic on nutrient
transport to coastal waters. Estuaries 15(4, Decem-
ber)^ 1-442.
Costanza, R., S.C. Farber, and J. Maxwell. 1989.
Valuation and management of wetland ecosystems.
Ecological Economics 1: 335-361.
Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome. 1991.
Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh
soils. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 152(2): 187(14).
Cwikiel, W. 1996. Living with Michigan's Wetlands:
A. Landowner's Guide. Tip of the Mitt Watershed
Council, Conway, MI.
Daggett, S. 1994. Stage 1 Watershed Assessment:
Final Report. Oregon Division of State Lands, Salem,
OR.
Davis, L. 1996. A Handbook of Constructed Wet-
lands. Vols. 1-5. Prepared for U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Sendee,
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3.
DC Department of Health. Kingman Lake Wetland
Restoration Project. DC Watershed Protection
Division.
DC Watershed Protection Division. No date.
Kennehvorth Marsh Restoration. DC. Department
of Health, DC Watershed Protection Division, Wash-
ington, DC.
Debano, L., J. Brejda, and J. Brock. 1984. Enhance-
ment of riparian vegetation following shrub control in
Arizona chaparral. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, September-October, pp. 317-320.
Decker Lake Project. 1998. Decker Lake Wetlands
Preserve Foundation. Salt Lake City. UT.
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control. 1998. Wetlands Rehabilita-
tion Program. Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Detenbeck, N.E., C.A. Johnson, and G.J. Niemi.
1993. Wetland effects of lake water quality in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Landscape
Ecology 8:39-61.
Dickey, B.C., and D.H. Vanderholm. 1981. Vegetative
filter treatment of livestock feedlot runoff Journal of
Environmental Quality 10(3):279-284.
Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Shcrrard, D. Lee, S. Mosttaghimi,
and V.O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of vegetative
filter strips as a best management practice for feed
lots. Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation
60(7): 1231-1238.
Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Renear, S. Mostaghimi, and D.
Lee. 1989a. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural
nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
32(2):513-519.
Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, and D. Lee. 1989b.
Long-term effectiveness of vegetative filter strips.
Water Environment and Technology (November
1989):419-421.
Doppelt, B., M.C. Scurlock, C.A. Fissell, and J.R.
Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A New Ap-
proach to Save America's River Ecosystems. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Downer, C.W., and T.E. Myers. 1995. Constructed
Wetlands for Sediment Control and Non-Point Source
Pollution Abatement at US Army Corps of Engineers
Project: Ray Roberts Lake. Dallas, Texas, and Bow-
man Haley Reservoir, Bowman, North Dakota. In
National Interagency Workshop on Wetlands.
USAGE Waterways Experiment Station, New Or-
leans, LA, April 5-7, 1997.
Doyle, R.C., G.C. Stanton, and DC. Wolf. 1977.
Effectiveness of forest and grass buffer strips in
improving the water quality of manure polluted runoff
ASAE Paper 77-2501. ASAE Winter Meeting,
Chicago, IL. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
89
-------
References
Earth Conservation Corps (ECC). 1997. Eagle Corps
and Salmon Corps. Earth Conservation Corps,
Washington, DC.
Eitniear, T. 1995. Peterson Wetland Restoration
Project. In Methods of Modifying Habitat to
Benefit the Great Lakes Ecosystem, ed J.R.M.
Kelso and J.H. Hartig, pp. 282-286 CISTI Occas.
Paper No. 1. Natural Research Council of Canada,
Research Press, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Environmental Defense Fund. 1998. EDF Praises
Minnesota River Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program. News release, February 19, 1998.
Environmental News Network (ENN). 1.996. Ripar-
ian restoration is cost-effective, study shows. ENN,
Sun Valley, ID.
Faber, P.M., E. Keller, A. Sands, and B.M. Massey.
1989. The Ecology of Riparian Habitats of the
Southern California Coastal Region: A Community
Profile. Biological Report 85(7.27). U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington,
DC.
Fail, J.L., Jr., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd. No date.
Riparian forest communities and their role in nutrient
conservation in an agricultural watershed. American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11(3): 114-120.
Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors. 1982.
Occoquan Basin Study: Amendments to the Compre-
hensive Plan Adopted by the Board of Supervisors
June 15. 1982. Fairfax County Office of Comprehen-
sive Planning, Fairfax, VA.
Fannin, T.E., M. Parker, and T.J. Maret. 1985.
Multiple Regression Analysis for Evaluating Non-point
Source Contributions to Water Quality in the Green
River, Wyoming. In Proceedings of Riparian Eco-
systems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-
18,1985, pp. 201-205. GTRRM-120. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins,
CO.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working
Group. 1998. Stream Corridor Restoration: Prin-
ciples, Processes, and Practices. EPA 841-R-98-
900. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
Fields, S. 1992. Regulations and policies relating to the
use of wetlands for nonpoint source pollution control.
Ecological Engineering 1(1-2): 135-141.
Floodplain Management Association. 1994. Economic
benefits of wetlands. FMA News: The Newsletter of
the Floodplain Management Association (July).
Florida Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Con-
trol Program. 1995. Florida Coastal Management
Program, Tallahassee, FL.
Frenkel, R.E., and J.C. Morlan. 1991. Can we restore
our salt marshes? Lessons from the Salmon River,
Oregon. Northwest Environment Journal 7:119-135.
Gantt, L.K. 1994. Atlantic White Cedar Wetlands
Restoration Cookbook of Innovations in Coastal
Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed, Washing-
ton, DC.
Gillespie, A.R., B.K. Miller, and K.D. Johnson. 1995.
Effects of Ground Cover on Tree Survival and
Growth in Filter Strips of the Cornbelt Region of
the Midwestern US. Texas A&M^ Blackland Re-
search Center.
GolfWeb. 1997. Golfing with Mother Nature at
Stevinson Ranch.
Government Accounting Office (GAO). 1999. Water
Quality: Federal Role in Addressing and Contrib-
uting to Nonpoint Source Pollution. Chapter
Report, February 26, 1999, GAO/RCED-99-45.
Groenveld, D.P., and E. Griepentrog. 1985. Interde-
pendence of Groundwater, Riparian Vegetation, and
Streambank Stability: A Case Study. In Proceedings
of Riparian Ecosystems and their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona,
April 16-18, 1985, pp. 44-48. GTRRM-120. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins. CO.
Guam Nonpoinl Source Pollution Management
Plan. 1996. Guam Environmental Protection Agency.
Tivan. Guam.
90
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
References
Gumb, D., J. VokraL R. Smith, S. Mehrotra. 1996.
Statcn Island Blucbclt Project: New York City's
Watershed Approach with Multiple Benefits. In
Watershed '96 Proceedings. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Hammer, D.A., ed. 1988. Constructed Wetlands for
Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and
Agricultural. Proceedings from the First International
Conference on Constructed Wetlands for WTastewater
Treatment. Chattanooga, Tennessee, June 13-17,
1988. Lewis Publishers. Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Hammer, D.A. 1992. Designing constructed wetlands
systems to treat agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
Ecological Engineering l(1992):49-82.
Hammer, D.A., B.P. Pullin, and J.T. Watson. 1989.
Constructed Wetlands for Livestock Waste Treat-
ment. Tennessee Valley Authority. Knoxville, TN.
Hanson, G.C., P.M. Groffiiian, and A.J. Gold. 1994.
Denitrification in riparian wetlands receiving high and
low groundwater nitrate inputs. Journal of'Environ-
mental Quality 23:917-922.
Hanson, J.S., G.P. Malanson, and M.P. Armstrong.
1990. Landscape fragmentation and dispersal in a
model of riparian forest dynamics. Ecological Mod-
eling49(\99G):277-296.
Haycock. N.E., and G. Pinay. 1993. Groundwater
nitrate dynamics in grass and poplar vegetated riparian
buffer strips during the winter. Journal of Environ-
mental Quality 22:273-278.
Haycock, N.E., T.P. Hurt, K.W.T. Gouldmg, and G.
Pinay. 1996. Buffer Zones: Their Processes and
Potential in Water Protection. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Buffer Zones. Quest
Environmental, Harpenden, Herts. United Kingdom.
Heasley, P. 1994. Options for Wetland Conserva-
tion: A Guide for California Landowners. Califor-
nia Coastal Conservancy. Oakland, CA.
Henjum, M.G, J.R. Karr, D.L. Bottom, D.A. Perry,
J.C. Bednarz, S.G. Wright, S.A. Beckwett, and E.
Beckett. 1994. Interim Protection for Late-succes-
sional Forests. Fisheries, and Watersheds; Na-
tional Forests East of the Cascade Crest, Oregon
and Washington. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda,
MD.
Hoffman J.T, Green D.L., and Eager D. 1998.
Riparian Restoration and Streamside Erosion
Control Handbook. Tennessee Department of
Agriculture, Nashville, TN.
Hoffman, D., and T. Gerik. 1995. Limiting Herbicide
Runoff with Vegetative Filter Strips. In Proceeding
of the 1995 Water for Texas Conference, TWRI,
College Station, TX.
Hubbard, R.K. and J.M. Sherridan. 1989. Nitrate
movement to groundwater in the southeastern coastal
plain. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 20-
27.
Hubbard, R.K., G. Vellidis and R. Lowrance. 1992.
Wetland Restoration for Filtering Nutrients from an
Animal Waste Application Site. In Land Reclama-
tion: Advances in Research and Technology
International Symposium. Nashville, Tennessee.
December 14-15, 1992. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
International City/County Management Association
and National Association of Counties (ICMA and
NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands, Managing
Watersheds...Local Government Case Studies.
International City/County Management Association
and National Association of Counties, Washington,
DC.
Jacobs, Susan M., Maryland Department of Transpor-
tation. No date. Personal communication.
Jacobs. T.C.. and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian losses
of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters. Journal
of Environmental Quality 14(4): 472-47 8.
James, B.R., B.B. Bagley, and PH. Gallagher. 1990.
Riparian Zone Vegetation Effects on Nitrate Concen-
trations in Shallow Groundwater. Submitted for
publication in the Proceedings of the 1990 Chesa-
peake Bay Research Conference. University of
Maryland, Soil Chemistry Laboratory, College Park,
MD!
Jolley, J.W. 1990. The Efficiency of Constructed
Wetlands-Pond Systems in the Reduction of Phospho-
rus and Sediment Discharges from Agricultural
Watersheds. Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of
Maine.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
91
-------
References
Johnson, C.A., N.E. Detenbeck, and G.J. Niemi. 1990.
The cumulative effect of wetlands on stream water
quality and quantity: A landscape approach. Bio-
geochemistry 10:105-141.
Jordan, T.E., D.L. CorrelL and D.E. Weller. 1993.
Nutrient interception by a riparian forest receiving
inputs from adjacent croplands. Journal of Environ-
mental Quality 22:467-473.
Kadlec, R.H., and R.L. Knight. 1996. Treatment
Wetlands. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
Karr, J.R., and O.T. Gorman. 1975. Effects of Land
Treatment on the Aquatic Environment. In U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Non-Point
Source Pollution Seminar, 4-1 to 4-18. 905/9-75-007
USEPA, Washington, DC.
Karr, J.R., and I.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of
Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on
Water Quality and Stream Biota. Ecological
Research Series. EPA-600/3-77-097. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Kent, D.M. 1994. Applied Wetlands Science and
Technology. CRC Press, Inc.. Boca Raton, FL.
Kentula, Brooks, Gwin, Holland, Sherman, and
Sifneos. 1993. An Approach to Decision Making in
Wetland Restoration and Creation. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
The Keystone Center. 1996. The Keystone National
Policy Dialogue on Ecosystem Management.
Report No. 6. The Keystone Center, Keystone, CO.
Kleiss, B.A. 1996. Sediment retention in a bottomland
hardwood in eastern Arkansas. Wetlands 16:321-333.
Kleiss, B.A., E.E. Morns, J.F. Nix, and J.W. Barko.
1989. Modification of Riverine Water Quality by an
Adjacent Bottomland Hardwood Wetland. In Pro-
ceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes,
ed. D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-22,
1989, pp. 429-438. TPS 89-3. American Water
Resources Association. Bethesda, MD.
Kunkel, J.R., T.D. Steele, B. Urbonas, and J. Carlson.
1992. Chemical-Constituent Load Removal Efficiency
of an Urban Detention Pond/Wetlands System in the
Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado. In Proceedings
of Environmental Engineering: Saving a Threat-
ened Resource in Search of Solutions. Baltimore,
Maryland, August 2-6, 1992.
Lambou, V.Wr. 1985. Aquatic Organic Carbon and
Nutrient Fluxes. Water Quality, and Aquatic Produc-
tivity in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. In Proceed-
ings of Riparian Ecosystems and Their Manage-
ment: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson,
Arizona, April 16-18, 1985,pp! 180-185. GTRRM-120.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Sendee,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Langer E., and H. Stuart. 1997. James Pielsticker
Wins Regional Wetlands Conservation Award From
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sendee. U.S. Department of
the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Sendee, Washington,
DC.
Lanier, A.L. 1990. Database for Evaluating the
Water Quality Effectiveness of Best Management
Practices. North Carolina State University, Depart-
ment of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Leeds, R.D., L. Forster, and L.C. Brown. 1993.
Vegetative Filter Strip Economics. Ohio State
University Extension. Columbus. OH.
Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, PR. Adamus, L.E.
Hughes, and J.T. Irish. 1992. A Synoptic Approach
to Cumulative Impact Assessment. EPA/600/R-92/
167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Livingston, E.H. No date. Stormwater Management
Systems: A Source of Mosquitoes? Florida Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection. Stormwater/
Nonpoint Source Management Section, Tallahassee,
FL.
Licht. L.A.. and J.L. Schnoor. 1990. Poplar tree roost
for water quality improvement. ASAE Paper No. 90-
2057. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.
Lock. Patricia A., Division of Wildlife Resources.
1993. Personal communication.
Lorenzi, Andy. The Nature Conservancy. 1992.
Personal communication.
Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen.
1983. Waterborne Nutrient Budgets for the Riparian
92
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
References
Zone of an Agricultural Watershed. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 10:371-384.
Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E. Asmussen.
1984. Nutrient cycling in an agricultural watershed:
Phreatic movement. Journal of Environmental
Quality \3(l):22-27.
Maine Coastal Nonpoint Source Control Program.
1996. Maine State Planning Office, Coastal Program,
Augusta, ME.
Magette, W.L., R.B. Brmsfield, R.E. Palmer, and J.D.
Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal by
vegetated filter strips. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers 32(2):663-667.
Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an urban runoff
detention pond-wetlands system. Journal of Environ-
mental Engineering 114(4).
Martin E.H., and J.L. Smoot. 1986. Constituent Load
Changes in Urban Stormwaler Runoff Routed
Through a Detention Pond-Wetlands System in-
Central Florida. Prepared in cooperation with the
Florida Department of Transportation. USGS Water
Resources Investigation Report 85-4310.
Martin, K. 1996. The Effects of Riparian Zone
Restoration on Ground Water Nitrate Concentra-
tions. Master's thesis, University of Connecticut.
Massachusetts Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Plan. 1995. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone
Management, Boston, MA.
McAliney, M., ed. 1993. Arguments for Land Con-
servation: Documentation and Information
Sources for Land Resources Protection. Trust for
Public Land, Sacramento, CA.
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(MWCOG). 1996. Anacoslia Watershed. Washing-
ton, DC.
Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program. 1996.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Lansing, MI.
Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation. 1997. Saginaw
Bay Watershed: A Strategy for Wetland Restora-
tion. Consortium for International Earth Science
Information Network.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1997.
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Plan, Version
1.0. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St.
Paul, MN.
Missouri Department of Conservation. 1998. Ralph
and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation Area.
Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,
MO.
Mitsch, Wr.J. 1977. Water hyacinth (Eichhornia
crassipes) nutrient uptake and metabolism in a north-
central Florida marsh. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie
81:188-210.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands.
Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Mitsch, W.J., and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. 2nd
ed. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Monsanto. 1997. Operation Green Stripe. Monsanto,
St. Louis, MO.
Montana Department of Environmental Quality. 1995.
The Stream Management Guide for Landowners,
Managers and Stream Users. Color World,
Bozeman, MT.
Montgomery, D.R., G.E. Grant, and K. Sullivan. 1995.
Watershed analysis as a framework for implementing
ecosystem management. Water Resources Bulletin
31(3).
Moshiri, G.A. 1993. Constructed Wetlands for Water
Quality Improvement. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton,
FL.
Moustafa, M.D.. T.D. Fontaine, and M.J. Chimney.
1995. The Response of a Freshwater Wetland to
Long-term Low-level Nutrient Loads. In National
Interagency Workshop on Wetlands. USAGE
Waterways Experiment Station, New Orleans, LA,
April 5-7", 1997.
Multi-Agency Wetland Planning Team. 2001. Arkan-
sas Wetland Conservation Plan: State Wetland
Strategy. Little Rock, AR.
Myers, J. 1996. The ongoing salt marsh restoration at
Stonington, Connecticut. In Restoration and Recla-
mation Review. University of Minnesota, Department
of Horticultural Science, St. Paul, MN.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
93
-------
References
Naiman, R.J., H. Decamps, J. Pastor, and C.A.
Johnston. 1988. The potential importance of bound-
aries to fluvial ecosystems. Journal of the North
American Benlhological Society 7(4):289-306.
National Audubon Society. No date a. Wetlands
Horror Stories. National Audubon Society. New
York, NY.
National Audubon Society. No date b. What 's a
Wetland Worth? National Audubon Society, New
York, NY.
National Audubon Society. No date c. Why are
Wetlands Important? National Audubon Society.
New York, NY.
National Audubon Society. 1995. Ohio Wetlands.
National Audubon Society. New7 York, NY.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
1999. The National Conservation Buffer Initiative.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2000a. Iowa Conservation Reserve Program (CRT),
Bottomland. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash-
ington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Sen-ice (NRCS).
2000b. Erosion Control, Water Management, Local
Partnerships, Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington. DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
2000c. Illinois-Water Quality, Flood Protection,
State Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). No
date. Iowa-Middle Raccoon Watershed Partner-
ship, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), City
of Des Moines drinking water. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1999.
Reports: Stonnwater Strategies Community
Responses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource
Defense Council, New7 York, NY.
National Wildlife Federation (NWF). 1997. Wetlands
Provide Tremendous Economic Benefits for People.
National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA.
The Nature Conservancy. 1997. Gila Riparian
Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington. VA.
The Nature Conservancy. 1998a. Matheson Wetland
Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington. VA.
The Nature Conservancy. 1998b. The Nature Con-
servancy Magazine. January/February 1998. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
The Nature Conservancy. 1998c. Pine Butte Swamp
Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1997.
Programs for Restoring. Creating, and Enhancing
Wetlands on Private Lands in Nebraska. Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.
New Jersey Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Program. 1995. New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Trenton. NJ.
New7 Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy. 1992. Freshwater Wetlands Protection
Act Rules, New Jersey Administrative Code 7:7A.
New7 Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, NJ.
New York Coastal Nonpoinl Program Submission.
1995. New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany. NY.
Nieswand. G.H., B.B. Chavooshian, R.M. Hordon, T.
Shclton, S. Blarr, and B. Brodcur. 1989. Buffer Strips
to Protect Water Supply Reservoirs and Surface
Water Intakes: A Model and Recommendations.
Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection by Cook College Department of
Environmental Resources.
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. 1.998. News release, January 27,
1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
District. 1997. Conservation Currents 25(1, Septem-
ber/October) and 25(2, November/December).
Noss, R.F., and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving
Nature 's Legacy: Protecting and Restoring
Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington. DC.
94
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
References
Oberts, G.L., and R.A. Osgood. 1991. Water-quality
effectiveness of a detention/wetland treatment system
and its effect on an urban lake. Environmental
Manage men I 15(1): 131-138.
Ohlendorf, H.M., R.L. Hothem, C.M. Bunck, T.W.
Aldrich, and J.F. Moore. 1986. Relationships between
selenium concentrations and avian reproduction. In
Transactions of the North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, pp. 330-342.
Oregon Administrative Rules. 1994. Chapter 141,
Division of State Lands, Division 86, Wetland
Conservation Plan.
Oregon Wetlands Conservation Alliance. No date.
The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Guide: Volun-
tary Wetlands Stewardship Options for Oregon's
Private Landowners. Oregon Wetlands Conservation
Alliance, Portland, OR.
Osborne. L.L., and D.A. Kovacic. 1993. Riparian
vegetated buffer strips in water quality restoration and
stream management. Freshwater Biology 29:243-
258.
Palone, R.S. andA.H. Todd (eds). 1998. Chesapeake
Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for Establishing
and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers, NA-TP-
02-97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Ser-
vice, Washington. DC.
Parsons, I.E., J.W. Gilliam, R. Munoz-Carpena, R.B.
Daniels, and T.A. Dillaha. 1994. Nutrient and Sedi-
ment Removal by Grass and Riparian Buffers. In
Proceedings of the Second Environmentally Sound
Agriculture Conference, Orlando, FL, April 20-22,
1994.
Pearce, R., M.J. Trlica, W.C. Leiniger, J.L. Smith, and
G.W. Frasier. 1996. Efficiency of Grass Buffer Strip
Length and Vegetation Height on Sediment Filtra-
tion in Laboratory Rainfall Simulations. USDA
National Agricultural Library.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. 1997a. Monroe County's Wetlands Protection.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Harrisburg, PA.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. 1997b. Wetland Restoration: A Lasting Tribute
for Earth Day. Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Harrisburg, PA.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. No date. Coastal Zone Management Program.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protec-
tion, Harrisburg, PA.
Perkins, A. 1997. 4a Indiana. Perdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Peterjohn, WT.T., and D.L. Correll. 1984. Nutrient
dynamics in an agricultural watershed: Observations
on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65(5): 1466-
1475.
Phillips, J.D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollution control
effectiveness of riparian forests along a coastal plain
river. Journal of Hydrology 110(1989):221-237.
Pinay, G, and H. Decamps. 1988. The role of riparian
woods in regulating nitrogen fluxes between the
alluvial aquifer and surface water: A conceptual
model. Regulated Rivers: Research and Manage-
ment• 2:507'-516.
Plans Developed for Wetland Community Park.
Confederated Umatilla Journal, Feb. 19. 1998. p. 9.
Platts, W.S., and S.J. Jensen. 1990. Restoration of
Degraded Riverine/Riparian Habitat in the Great
Basin and Snake River Regions. In Wetland Creation
and Restoration: The Status of Science, ed. J.A.
Kusler and M.E. Kentula. Island Press, Washington,
DC.
Prairie Restorations, Inc. 2000. Guidelines for
Establishing a Prairie. Prairie Restorations. Inc.
Princeton, MN.
Powers, R.M.. and J.F. Spcncc. 1989. Headwater
Restoration: The Key Is Integrated Project Goals. In
Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Suc-
cesses, ed. D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-
22, 1989, pp. 269-279. TPS 89-3. American Water
Resources Association, Bethesda, M'D.
Puerto Rico Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Plan. 1995. Draft. Department of Natural Resources,
Puerta de Tierra, PR.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
95
-------
References
Purdue Agriculture Experiment Station. 1997. Purdue
Makes Money Grow on Filter-Strip Bushes. Purdue
University, West Lafayette. IN.
Raccoon River Watershed Project. 1999. Partner
'Initiatives of the Raccoon River Watershed
Project: Constructed Wetland Project. Raccoon
River Watershed Project Urbandale, IA.
Reinelt, L.E., and R.R. Homer. 1990. Characteriza-
tion of the Hydrology and Water Quality of
Palustrine Wetlands Affected by Urban
Stormwater. Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
Management Research Program. King County
Department of Natural Resources, King County, WA.
Reuter, I.E., T. Djohan, and C.R. Goldman. 1992. The
use of wetlands for nutrient removal from surface
runoff in a cold climate region of California: Results
from a newly constructed wetland at Lake Tahoe.
Journal of Environmental Management
36(1):35(19).
Rhode Island Coastal Nonpoinl Pollution Control
Program. 1995. Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management, Providence, RI.
Rhodes, J., C.M. Skau, D. Greenlee, and D. Brown.
1985. Quantification of Nitrate Uptake by Riparian
Forests and Wetlands in an Undisturbed Headwaters
Watershed. In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems
and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting
Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,1985, pp. 175-
179. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO.
Richardson, C.J. 1988. Freshwater wetlands: Trans-
formers, filters, or sinks? FOREM ll(2):3-9. School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies, Duke University.
Richardson, C.J., and J.A. Davis. 1987. Natural and
artificial wetland ecosystems: Ecological opportunities
and limitations. In Aquatic Plants for Water Treat-
ment and Resource Recovery, ed. K.R. Reddy and
W.H. Smith, pp. 819-854. Magnolia Publishing Inc.,
Oklahoma City, OK.
Richman, M. 1996. Utility restores salt marshes in
large wetlands enhancement program. Water Envi-
ronment Federation 1(1, June).
Richter, K.O., A. Azous, S.S. Cooke. R. Wisseman,
and R. Homer. 1991. Effects of Stormwater Runoff
on Wetland Zoology and Wetland Soils Character-
ization and Analysis. King County Resource Plan-
ning Section. Washington State Department of Ecol-
ogy-
Robb, D. M. 1992. The role of wetland water quality
standards in nonpoint source pollution control
strategies. Ecological Engineering 1(1-2): 143-148.
Rose, R.I. 2001. Pesticides and public health:
Integrated methods of mosquito management.
Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(1): 17-23.
Rushton, B.T., and C.W. Dye. 1990. Tampa Office
Wet Detention Stormwater Treatment. In Annual
Report for Stormwater Research Program Fiscal
Year 1989-1990, pp. 39-74. Southwest Florida Water
Management District, Brooksville, FL.
SAIC. 1999. Economic Analysis of the Final
Phase II Storm Water Rule. Science Applications
International Corporation, Reston, VA.
Schipper, L., A. Cooper, and W. Dyck. 1991. Mitigat-
ing nonpoint-source-nitrate pollution by riparian zone
denitrification. NATO ASI Series, Vol. G 30. Nitrate
Contamination. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A
Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, DC.
Schueler, T. 1992. Design of Stormwater Wetland
Systems: Guidelines for Creating Diverse and
Effective Stormwater Wetlands in the Mid-Atlantic
Region. Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, Washington, DC.
Schueler, T.R. 1994. The Importance of Impervious-
ness. Watershed Protection Techniques, l(Fall
1994):3.
Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A. Heraty. 1992.
A Current Assessment of Urban Best Management
Practices. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wash-
ington, DC.
Schultz, D. No date. Portrait of an Estuary: Func-
tions and Values of the Barataria-Terrebonne
Estuary. Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary
96
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
References
Program Office, Nicholls State University Campus,
Thibodaux, LA.
Schultz, R.C., J.P. Colletti, T.M. Isenhart, W.W.
Simpkins, C.W. Mize, and M.L. Thompson. 1995.
Design and placement of a multi-species riparian
buffer strip system. Agroforestry Systems. 29:201-
226.
Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegetative
filter treatment of dairy milkhouse wastewater.
Journal of Environmental Quality 18:446-451.
Shead, L. 1997. Restoration and Construction of
Coastal Wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Simmons, R.C., A.J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman. 1992.
Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Groundwater
studies. Journal of Environmental Quality, 21:659-
665.
Simmons, R.C., A.J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman. 1992.
Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Groundwater
studies. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:659-
665. ISSN: 0047-2425.
Sip, R.L., J.A. Leitch, A.J. Meyer. 1998. An Eco-
nomic Assessment of Wetland Mitigation in North-
west Minnesota. North Dakota State University,
Department of Agricultural Economics, Fargo, ND.
Scheirer, R.S. 1994. Wetlands Restoration and
Mosquito Control. Northeastern Mosquito Control
Assocation Newsletter, December, 1994.
Smith, R.D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M.M.
Brinson. 1995. An Approach for Assessing Wetland
Functions Using Hydrogeomorphic Classification,
Reference Wetlands, and Functional Indices.
Technical Report WRP-DE-9, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Sperl, R., A. Davis, and B. Scheidecker. 1996. Wet-
land Development: Economic Evalvation. East St.
Louis Action Research Project. University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
State of Alaska. 1995. Alaska Coastal Clean Water
Plan. Draft. Alaska Coastal Management Program,
Anchorage, AK.
State of Maryland. 1989. Maryland Code, Annotated.
Natural Resources. Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act
Sections 8-1201-8-1211.
State of Maryland. 1992. Private Landowner's
Wetlands Assistance Guide: Voluntary Options for
Wetlands Stewardship in Maryland. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
Steiner, R.C. 1996. Relative Nutrient Requirements
of Plants Suitable for Riparian Vegetated Buffer
Strips. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River,
Rockville,MD.
Stewardship Incentive Program. 1991. Riparian
Forest Buffers, pp. 29-1 and 29-2. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC.
Stockdale, E.G. 1991. Freshwater Wetlands, Urban
Stormwater, and Nonpoint Source Pollution Con-
trol: A Literature Review and Annotated Bibliogra-
phy. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia,WA.
Stuart, G., and J. Greis. 1991. Role of Riparian
Forests in Water Quality on Agricultural Water-
sheds. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Washington, DC.
Swift, L.W., Jr. 1986. Filter strip widths for forest
roads in the southern Appalachians. Southern Jour-
nal of Applied Forestry 10(l):27-34.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conser-
vation. 1997. Environment and Conservation Receives
an EPA Grant. Tennessee Department of Environ-
ment and Conservation, Nashville, TN.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conser-
vation. 1998. Tennessee Rivers and Wetlands
Program. Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Nashville, TN.
Tepper, L., and W. Cwikiel. 1995. Wetland Monitor-
ing and Assessment in the Grand Traverse Bay
Watershed: Background Paper. Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council, Conway, MI.
Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1995. Wetlands Assistance
Guide for Landowners. State Wetlands Conserva-
tion Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin, TX.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
97
-------
References
Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997a. Texas Wetlands
Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin,
TX.
Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997. Texas Wetlands Plan
Update. Vol. 2, issue 2. Texas Parks and Wildlife,
Austin, TX.
Tori, G. No date. Project 21. Metzger Marsh Coastal
Wetland Restoration Project. In Methods of Modify-
ing Habitat to Benefit the Great Lakes Ecosystem.
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Informa-
tion, Ottawa, ON. Occasional paper no. 1.
Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W.
Zellweger, and K.E. Bencala. 1990. In situ retention-
transport response to nitrate loading and storm dis-
charge in a third-order stream. Journal of North
American Benthological Society 9(3):229-239.
Trust for Public Land. 1999. Economic Benefits of
Open Space Bibliography: Infrastructure Savings.
Trust for Public land, San Francisco, CA.
Tuovila, B.J., T.H. Johengen, P.A. LaRock, J.B.
Outland, D.H. Esry, and M. Franklin. 1987. An
Evaluation of the Lake Jackson (Florida) Filter System
and Artificial Marsh on Nutrient and Particulate
Removal from Stormwater Runoff. In Aquatic Plants
for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery.
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
University of Arizona. 1997. Constructed wetlands
treating more of Arizona's wastewater. Arizona
Water Resource, 6(1)1-2.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 1997a. Heron
Haven Wetland Restoration Project. Water Center
Environmental Programs Unit. University of Ne-
braska, Lincoln, NE.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 1997b. Riparian
Buffer Strips (RBS). Water Center Environmental
Programs Unit. University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
University of North Dakota. 1997. Red River Ripar-
ian Demonstration Project. Energy and Environmen-
tal Research Center. University of North Dakota,
Fargo, ND.
Urban Resources Partnership. 1997. Prairie Wolf
Slough—A Chicago Wetland/Prairie Restoration
Project. In WHC 1997 midlands Conference
"Beyond-the-Case-Study" Workshops. United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organiza-
tion, World Heritage Commitee, Paris, France.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 1990.
Anacostia River Basin Reconnaissance Study. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District; Balti-
more, MD.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Great
Lakes Regional Headquarters. 1997. Environmental
Management Program: Bay Island Wetland Habi-
tat Rehabilitation and Enhancement. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes Regional Headquar-
ters, Chicago, IL.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), Waterways
Experiment Station. 1997. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS.
U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2001.
Annual Report to Congress on the Status of the
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for Fiscal Year
1999. IWR-Report OO-R-7.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2002a.
Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 02-2): Compensa-
tory Mitigation Projects for Aquatic Resource
Impacts Under the Corps Regulatory Program
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of
1899, USAGE, Washington, DC.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2002b.
National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan, USAGE,
Washington, DC. . Accessed
February 2003.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1988.
Handbook of Conservation Practices. Supplement.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1993.
Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants of the North-
ern Great Plains. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment
Station, Fort Collins, CO.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995.
Riparian Forest Buffers: 391 Model State Stan-
98
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
References
dard and General Specifications. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Watershed Science Institute.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2000.
Conservation Buffers Work... Economically and
Environmentally. USDA, Washington, DC.
-------
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1995d. Section 319 National Monitoring Program:
An Overview. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1995-1996. Landowners Guide to Voluntary Wet-
land Programs in Arkansas. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1996a. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to
Stormwater Best Management Practices. EPA-843-
B-96-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1996b. Watershed Approach Framework. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1996-1997. Living with Michigan's Wetlands: A
Landowners Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1997a. Personal communication from Laura J. Talbot
to Wetlands Strategies and State Programs Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1997b. Protecting Wetlands: Tools for Local Gov-
ernments in the Chesapeake Bay Region. EPA 903-
R-97-008. Prepared for Chesapeake Bay Program by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1997d. The Water Monitor. EPA 841-N-97-005.U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds. August-September 1997.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1998a. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned. EPA
840-F-97-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1998b. Wetlands Projects funded by the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste-
water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1998c. Winona Wetlands Purchase. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office ofWastwatcr
Management, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
1999. Free Water Surface Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment: A Technology Assessment. Environmen-
tal Technology Initiative Report prepared by Humboldt
State University, CH2M Hill, and PBS&J." EPA 832-
S-99-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2000a. The Quality of Our Nation 's Waters. A
Summary of the National Water Quality Inventory:
1998 Report to Congress. EPA841-5-00-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2000b. Monitoring Water Quality. U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2000c. Guiding Principles for Constructed Treat-
ment Wetlands: Providing Water Quality and
Wildlife Habitat. Developed by the Interagency
Workgroup on Constructed Wetlands. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water.
Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2000d. Constructed Wetlands Treatment of Munici-
pal Wastewater (Manual). EPA 625-R-99-010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington. DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2002. National Water Quality Inventory 2000
Report. EPA-841-R-02-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
2003. EPA and Army Corps Issue Wetlands Deci-
sion. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
100
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
References
.
Accessed March 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). No
date. Landowning Colorado Style. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1998.
Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Waters. EPA 840-R-98-001. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washing-
ton, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998a.
Case Studies—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998b.
1998 Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant. U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998c.
Illinois. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998d. New
Mexico Partners Project Wins National Wetlands
Award. Press release, April 22, 1998. U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing-
ton, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998e.
Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish and
Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,
1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1996. National
Water Summary of Wetlands. Water Supply Paper
2425. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Northern Prairie
Science Center. 1997a. Riparian Ecosystem Cre-
ation and Restoration: A Literature Summary. Case
Studies: Agrico Swamp. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997b. Summary of
Project MN14702: Effectiveness of Vegetated Filter
Strips for Remediating Feedlot Runoff in Minnesota.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. Watershed
Scale Wetland Restoration. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA.
U.S. Golf Association. 1998. An Overview of U.S.
Golf Association Environmental Research. U.S.
Golf association, Far Hills, NJ.
Vance, T., and A.B. Larson. February 1988. Fiscal
Impact of Major Land Uses in Culpeper County,
Virginia. Piedmont Environmental Council, VA.
Vellidis, G, R. Lowrance, M.C. Smith and R.K.
Hubbard. 1993. Methods to assess the water quality
impact of a restored riparian wetland. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 48(3):223(8).
Walsh, P.M., Barrett, M.E., Malina, J.F., Jr., and
Charbeneau, R.J. 1997. Use of Vegetative Controls
for Treatment of Highway Runoff. Center for
Research in Water Resources. CRWR Online Report
97-5. University of Texas, Center for Research in
Water Resources, Austin, TX.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1992.
Stormwater Program Guidance Manual for the
Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 1996.
Managing Water Pollution from Nonpoint Sources
in Washington State. Preliminary draft. Publication
no. 96-15. Washington State Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA.
Watson, J.T., S.C. Reed, R. Kadlec, R.L. Knight, and
A.E. Whitehouse. 1988. Performance Expectations
and Loading Rates for Constructed Wetlands. In
paper prepared for International Conference on
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment,
Chattanooga, TN, June 13-17, 1988.
Whigham, D.F., C. Chitterling, and B. Palmer. 1988.
Impacts of freshwater wetlands on water quality: A
landscape perspective. Environmental Management
12(5):663-671.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1991.
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands—Natural
Resources Chapter 103. Register, July 1991, No. 427.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
101
-------
References
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1999.
Apple, Ashwaubenon Creek Watershed (LF02).
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madi-
son, WI.
Wright, C. 1997. Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative. Traverse City, MI.
Wood, G. 1997. BMPs make the grade. Farm Jour-
nal, February.
World Wildlife Fund. \992.Statewide Wetlands
Strategies: A Guide to Protecting and Managing
the Resource. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Xu, L., J.W. Gilliam, and R.B. Daniels. 1992. Nitrate
movement and loss in riparian buffer areas.
Agronomy Abstracts 342. ASA. Madison. WI.
Yonge, D. 1996. Vegetative Filter Strip Monitoring
and Assessment. Washington State Department of
Transportation. Olympia, WA.
Young, G.K., S. Stein, P. Cole. T. Kammer, F.
Graziano, and F. Bank. 1995. Evaluation and Man-
agement of Highway Runoff Water Quality.
FHWA-PD-96-032. U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Federal Highway Administration. Washington,
DC.
Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson. 1980.
Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in controlling
pollution and feedlot runoff. Journal of Environmen-
tal Qualify 9(3):4%3-4%7.
Zinkand, D. 1996. Wetlands restoration project to look
like giant buffer strip. Iowa Farmer Today. Iowa
Fanner Today Publications. Cedar Rapids, IA.
102
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix A
Federal, State, Nonprofit, and Private
Financial and Technical Assistance
Programs to Protect and Restore
Wetlands
This appendix contains examples of financial and technical assistance programs
to protect and restore wetlands. It also contains incentive programs offered by
state, nonprofit, and private organizations. For each agency and organization,
contacts are provided for further information.
-------
-------
Appendix A
Federal Programs
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USAGE) provides design and engineering services
and construction support for a variety of military and
civilian projects worldwide. One civil duty includes
protecting the integrity of the navigable waters of the
United States, wetland resources, and the nation's
water resources. US ACE's duties also include
maintaining navigation and shipping channels, provid-
ing emergency response to natural disasters, regulat-
ing discharges of dredged or fill material, operating
and maintaining flood control reservoirs, and regulating
activities in wetlands.
• Wetlands are managed by the USAGE by the
issuance or denial of Clean Water Act section
404 and other permits authorizing certain
activities in wetlands and other waters of the
United States. Of the approximately 15,000
permits requested each year, approximately
67 percent are granted.
For more information on the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, contact:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
CECW-OR
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Phone: (202)761-0199
Web site: www.usace.army.mil
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
The missions of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) are to enhance the quality of life
for the American people by supporting production of
agriculture by
Ensuring a safe, affordable, nutritious, and
accessible food supply.
• Caring for agricultural, forest, and range
lands.
Supporting sound development of rural
communities.
• Providing economic opportunities for farm and
rural residents.
Expanding global markets for agricultural and
forest products and services.
• Working to reduce hunger in America and
throughout the world.
Within the USDA, the Natural Resources Conserva-
tion Service, Farm Service Agency, Forest Service,
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extensive
Service, and the National Association of Conservation
Districts participate in wetland incentives programs.
USDA
farm Service Agency
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) of the USDA is
interested in ensuring the well-being of American
agriculture, the environment, and the American public
through efficient management of farm commodities,
emergency and disaster assistance, domestic and
international food assistance and credit programs, and
conservation and environmental programs.
• The Conservation Easement Debt Cancella-
tion Program of the FSA allows for reduction
of Farmer's Home Administration borrower
debt in exchange for granting conservation
easements for valuable habitat, including
wetlands, on their property for a period of not
less than 50 years.
• The Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP) is a cooperative partnership
between the federal and state governments.
The program has been administered by the
USDA FSA since 1986. The program pro-
vides ranchers and farmers with incentives to
remove land from production. These lands are
then planted with trees or grass to prevent
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-1
-------
Appendix A
erosion, improve air and water quality, and
establish wildlife habitat.
• Farmers nationwide have contributed 36
million acres of cropland into the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) (as of 1997). These
farmers receive annual rental payments, cost-
sharing, and technical assistance to plant
vegetation for land they put into reserve for
10 to 15 years. Few of the fields placed in
reserve have yet to have their full wetlands
values restored. Although CRP funds are no
longer available to help restore wetlands on
these lands, the landowner may do so at any
time with any other non-USDA assistance.
The CRP is administered by the CFSA in
cooperation with the NRCS.The Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP),
under the Conservation Reserve Program, is a
1996 initiative continued in the 2002 Farm Bill.
CREP targets state and federal funds to
achieve shared environmental goals of
national and state significance. The program
uses financial incentives to encourage farmers
and ranchers to voluntarily protect soil, water,
and wildlife resources.
• Grassland Reserve Program (GRP) - This
2002 provision of the Farm Bill will use 30-
year easements and rental agreements to
improve management, restore, or conserve up
to 2 million acres of private grasslands.
500,000 acres are to be reserved for pro-
tected tracts of 40 acres or less as native
grasslands. Restoration cost payments may
be up to 75 percent of eligible projects.
For more information, contact:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farm Service Agency
14th and Independence Avenues, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: (202) 720-3467
Web site: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/
The Forest Service (FS) is a USDA agency that
manages public lands in national forests and grass-
lands and is also the largest forestry research organi-
zation in the world. The agency provides technical and
financial assistance to state and private forestry
agencies "to provide the greatest amount of good for
the greatest amount of people in the long run."
Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) and
Stewardship Incentive Program (SIP) - FSP
and SIP are U.S. Forest Service programs
established to help landowners protect and
enhance their forestlands and associated
wetlands. FSP provides technical assistance
to help landowners enhance and protect the
timber, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality,
wetlands, and recreational and aesthetic
values of their property. SIP provides cost-
share assistance to private landowners for
implementing the management plans devel-
oped under FSP.
http://www.fs.fed.us/spf/coop/programs/loa/
fsp.shtml
Forest Legacy Program - The Forest Legacy
Program is a U.S. Forest Service program
that purchases easements to conserve envi-
ronmentally important forestlands, which often
contain wetlands, threatened with conversion
to other uses. Puerto Rico and 17 states are
currently active in the program (as of 1997)
(USEPA, 1997c).
• Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) -
Authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill, the FLEP is
a new conservation program to provide
financial, technical, and educational assistance
to State Foresters who will help private
landowners actively manage their land. It
replaces and expands the Stewardship
Incentive program and Forestry program.
The new FLEP will provide up to $ 100 million
over 6 years to private, non-industrial forest
A-2
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
owners. The new title also provides $210
million to help fight fire on private land and
address fire prevention.
For more information on the Forest Service, contact:
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service
Public Affairs Office
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC 20090-6090
Phone: (202)205-1760
Fax: (202)205-1765
Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us
NRCS
The Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) [formerly USDA Soil Conservation Service]
is a federal agency that works in partnership with the
public to conserve and sustain natural resources. The
NRCS provides technical assistance to landowners in
development of resource management systems that
conserve soil, air, water, plant, and animal resources.
This agency employs soil scientists, plant scientists,
and engineers who can provide assistance in identify-
ing, restoring, enhancing, and creating wetlands. The
NRCS provides technical assistance and information
for making wetland determinations for wetland
protection and management programs; developing
conservation plans for protecting and managing
wetlands; providing income-producing alternatives for
use and management of wetlands; developing stan-
dards and specifications and designing and installing
conservation measures for wetland restoration,
creation, and enhancement; providing information on
plant materials for wetland planting; and providing soil
surveys and information for identifying, planning, and
managing wetlands. Wetland incentive programs
administered by the NRCS include the following:
• Conservation of Highly Erodible Lands - The
highly credible land part of the 1985 Food
Security Act restricts access by agricultural
producers who grow crops on highly credible
land to specified farm program benefits. The
goals are to reduce soil lost to wind and water
erosion and to improve water quality. Compli-
ance requires the development of a conserva-
tion plan for all highly credible fields on a
farm. The plans must be approved by the
producer, NRCS, and the local Natural
Resources District. NRCS provides technical
assistance to the producer in developing the
plan.
Conservation of Private Grazing Land - This
program was authorized by the 1996 Farm Bill
for the purpose of providing technical and
educational assistance to owners of private
grazing lands. It offers opportunities for better
land management, erosion reduction, water
conservation, wildlife habitat, and improving
soil structure.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP) - EQIP provides a voluntary conser-
vation program for farmers and ranchers to
address threats to soil, water, and related
natural resources. It offers 5- to 10-year
contracts that provide incentive payments and
cost-sharing for conservation practices called
for in the site-specific plan. NRCS conducts
an evaluation of the environmental benefits
the producer offers, and funding is approved
for the highest-priority applications first. Cost
sharing may pay up to 75 percent of the costs
of certain conservation practices, such as
grassed waterways, filter strips, and other
practices important to improving and maintain-
ing the health of natural resources in the area.
National Conservation Buffer Initiatives - The
National Conservation Buffer Initiative plans
to install 2 million miles of conservation
buffers nationwide by the year 2000. This
initiative does not specifically target stream-
side areas for buffers, but it includes buffers
between fields, wind breaks, and a variety of
other practices.
Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D) - The RC&D is a program for
landowner associations and interest groups
that allocates grants to RC&D areas to
accelerate resource protection projects and
programs in multicounty areas as a base for
economic development and environmental
protection.
Swampbuster - The Swampbuster program is
a provision of the Food Security Act of 1985.
It discourages the draining, filling, and other
alteration of wetlands for agricultural uses
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-3
-------
Appendix A
through financial disincentives. The NRCS
determines compliance with Swampbuster
provisions and assists farmers in identifying
wetlands and developing wetland protection,
restoration, and creation plans.
• Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) - The
WRP is a voluntary USDA program offering
landowners a chance to receive payments for
restoring and protecting wetlands. Authorized
by the Food Security Act of 1985, the WRP
provides a unique opportunity for farmers to
retire marginal lands through permanent
easements, 30-year easements, or restoration
cost-share agreements and reap the many
benefits of having wetlands on their property.
• Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
- WHIP is a voluntary program for people
who want to develop and improve wildlife
habitat on private lands. The USDA provides
both technical assistance and cost-share
incentives to help establish and improve fish
and wildlife habitat. Participants who own or
control land agree to prepare and implement a
wildlife habitat development plan.
For more information on the NRCS programs, contact:
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service
14th and Independence Avenues, SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phone: (202)720-4525
Web sites: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/2002/
United States Department of The Interior
The mission of the United States Department of the
Interior (DOI) is to manage, develop, and protect
water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the
American people.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is an
agency within the DOI whose mission is to manage,
develop, and protect water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Reclamation operates
and manages dams and reservoirs throughout the
western United States for irrigation, hydroelectricity,
municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife,
and recreation uses.
Reclamation's Wetland Development Pro-
gram restores, enhances, and develops
wetlands, riparian habitat, and associated
habitats on Reclamation lands and on lands
associated with water supplies and systems
affected by Reclamation projects. The
program aims to improve water quality and
habitat for wildlife at Reclamation projects
and to support the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and other migratory bird
initiatives. Although not required, almost
every project involves partnership develop-
ment and cost-sharing with federal and non-
federal entities. Recent collaborative projects
include restoration of the 3 00-acre Alpine
wetland on the Idaho-Wyoming border,
restoration of the 8,000-acre Rincon Bayou-
Nueces estuary on the Texas Gulf Coast,
development of wetlands to improve waste-
water and provide habitat for endangered
species in Arizona and Nevada, restoration of
vernal pools and habitat for endangered
species in California, development and
restoration of wetlands in the Devils Lake
basin in North Dakota to attenuate runoff and
reduce high lake levels in Devils Lake,
restoring wetlands and water control struc-
tures on national wildlife refuges and water-
fowl management areas, and working with
irrigation districts to develop wetlands to
improve the quality of return flows.
• Reclamation partnerships with the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation have funded
wetland restoration and development projects
A-4
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
for fish and wildlife throughout the western
United States. Funds have been provided to
restore wetlands in Oklahoma for migratory
birds, develop wetlands for endangered
species in Nevada, and stabilize channel
morphology and restore riparian habitat to
improve water quality in Montana.
The DOI's National Irrigation Water Quality
Program was established in 1986 to develop
coordinated remediation plans with appropri-
ate federal, state, and local entities to imple-
ment corrective actions where irrigation
drainage from federal irrigation projects has
affected endangered species or migratory
birds or created water quality problems from
naturally occurring sources. Reclamation is
responsible for program management. The
U.S. Geological Survey, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs work
cooperatively with Reclamation on program
oversight and technical issues.
For more information, contact:
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation, Public Affairs
1849 C Street, NW
Main Interior Building
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: (202)513-0575
Web Site: http://www.usbr.gov/
National Park Service (NPS) was created to
promote and regulate the use of national parks to
conserve scenery and the natural and historic re-
sources within them to serve for enjoyment today and
in the future.
The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assis-
tance Program (RTCA) is a program that
works in partnership with project cooperators
to help them obtain funding for their projects.
Several projects have some focus on wetland
protection and restoration. Examples of such
programs include the protection of 2,500 acres
of wetlands in the upper Des Plaines River
Macrosite (Illinois and Wisconsin) and the
rehabilitation of habitat of wetlands in the
Missouri River Corridor (Kansas, Nebraska,
and Iowa).
For more information on NPS projects, contact:
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240
Phone: (202) 208-6843
Web site: http://www.nps.gov/
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
is the principal federal agency responsible for con-
serving, protecting, and enhancing certain fish and
wildlife and their habitats, in particular migratory game
and endangered species. Among other roles, the
USFWS administers the federal Endangered Species
Act and establishes and maintains a system of more
than 500 National Wildlife Refuges nationwide. The
USFWS also manages the taking of migratory water-
fowl and conducts research and monitoring programs
to inventory and record changes in populations offish
and wildlife and in habitats.
• Challenge Cost Share Program - The USFWS
designed this program to manage, restore, and
enhance fish and wildlife resources and
natural habitats on public and private lands.
The program is a partnership with non-federal
public and private institutions, organizations,
and individuals. Challenge Cost Share allows
the USFWS to provide matching funds for
projects that support the management, resto-
ration, and protection of natural resources on
more than 500 National Wildlife Refuges, 70
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-5
-------
Appendix A
fish hatcheries, research facilities, and private
lands.
The National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program was founded with the enact-
ment of the Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act (Title III of
P.L. 101-646) in 1990. The program allows
the USFWS to work directly with states to
acquire, restore, manage, or enhance coastal
wetlands through a matching grants program.
Louisiana is the only coastal state that is not
eligible for grant monies because that state
has its own coastal wetland program under
the act. The program has awarded $53 million
to 24 states and one territory, allowing more
than 63,000 acres of coastal wetlands to be
acquired, protected, or restored.
The Small Wetlands Acquisition Program
(SWAP) was created by the Migratory Bird
Hunting Stamp Act to preserve wetlands and
increase waterfowl production. The primary
focus of the program is on the Prairie Pothole
Region of the United States (Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).
Prairie potholes are freshwater depressions.
usually less than 2 feet deep and smaller than
1 acre, that were carved by glaciers. Since
1989 more than 23,000 casements on 1.2
million acres of wetlands have been obtained
by the USFWS to protect these areas.
Conservation Easement Debt Cancellation
Program - The Consolidated Farm Sen-ice
Agency (CFSA) allows for reduction of
Fanner's Home Administration (FmHA)
borrower debt in exchange for granting
conservation easements for valuable habitat.
including wetlands, on their property for a
period of not less than 50 years. Wetlands
placed in easements by fanners for FmHA
debt reduction may be managed by the
USFWS. FmHA has become part of the
CFSA; therefore, CFSA now manages FmHA
loans.
The North American Wetlands Conservation
Act (NAWCA), established in 1989, encour-
ages partnerships among public agencies and
other interests in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico to (1) protect, enhance, restore,
and manage wetland ecosystems and other
habitats for migratory birds, fish, and wildlife
in North America; (2) maintain current or
improved distribution of migratory bird popula-
tions; and (3) sustain an abundance of water-
fowl and other migratory birds consistent with
the goals of the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan and international treaty
obligations.
* The North American Waterfowl Management
Plan (NAWMP) was signed in 1986 between
the United States and Canada to protect,
restore, and enhance wetlands important to
waterfowl and other wetland-dependent bird
species. Mexico has recently signed the
NAWMP as well. The NAWMP's primary
objective is to return waterfowl populations to
levels observed in the 1970s, when fall flights
exceeded 80 million ducks. The plan is
implemented at the grassroots level by
partnerships called joint ventures. Wetlands
identified under NAWMP as "areas of major
concern" for waterfowl habitat (e.g., migra-
tion, nesting, and forage areas) are targets for
these joint ventures.
Examples of NAWMP projects include the Gulf Coast
Joint Venture, which focuses on perpetuating healthy
wintering grounds for migrating waterfowl and other
birds and wildlife species along the Gulf Coast from
Alabama to Texas, and the Lower Mississippi Valley
Joint Venture, covering 22 million acres in 10 Delta
states. Its target is the enhancement of wetlands on
private lands. In California, there are three joint
ventures: the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture
(1988), the Pacific Coast Joint Venture (1994), and the
Intermountain West Joint Venture (1994). A fourth,
covering the southern region of the state, is being
planned.
Partners
/0f
Fish and
Wildlife
The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
(PFFW), also known as the Private Lands Assistance
A-6
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix A
and Restoration Program, offers technical and cost-
share assistance to landowners who wish to restore
wildlife habitat, including degraded or converted
wetlands and those upland habitats that meet specific
eligibility criteria. The objectives of PFFW programs,
which operate in all 50 states, are to restore, enhance,
and manage wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat;
promote profitable land use for agriculture, industry,
and private landowners; and promote a wise and
lasting land-use ethic. Formerly known as the Partners
for Wildlife Program (PFW), the USFWS will enter
into agreements with private landowners for the
restoration, creation, and enhancement of wetlands
and associated habitats. The PWF and PFFW have
protected almost 1 million acres of wetlands and other
habitats since 1987.
• The Montana PFFW has focused on five
areas for restoration projects: Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem, the Rocky
Mountain Front, Beaver Creek Prairie Pothole
Joint Venture, and Centennial and Big Hole
Valleys. Under these projects, Montana
PFFW has worked with the Montana Depart-
ment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Ducks
Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and the Flat-
head Indian Reservation to restore wetlands,
fence riparian areas, and manage livestock.
In South Dakota, 1,879 landowners are
participating in the program (as of 1997).
• The Prairie Wetlands Project (PWP) was
designed to accomplish the goals and objec-
tives of the Gulf Coast Joint Venture (GCJV);
the PWP is a partnership effort to restore,
create, or enhance wetlands beneficial for
waterfowl and other wildlife use. PWP
projects include management of water on
cropped lands, restoration of converted
wetlands, enhancement of natural wetlands,
or creation of wetlands on non-wetland sites.
The PWP is a FWS partnership effort to
restore, create, or enhance wetlands benefi-
cial for waterfowl and other wildlife. In
exchange for financial and technical incen-
tives, landowners develop a management plan,
which may include management of water on
cropped lands, restoration of converted
wetlands, enhancement of natural wetlands,
or creation of wetlands on non-wetland sites.
Cost-share assistance of up to 75 percent is
available.
For more information on the USFWS programs,
contact:
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid
Arlington Square, Room 140
4401 North Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703)358-2156
Fax: (703)358-1837
Web site: http://www.fws.gov/
For information specific to the Coastal Habitat Con-
servation Program, contact USFWS':
Division of Habitat Conservation
4401 N. Fairfax Drive Room 400
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703)358-2201
Fax: (703)358-2232
Web site: http://www.fws.gov/coastal/coastalgrants
USGS
The United States Geological Survey (USGS)
provides the nation with reliable, impartial information
to describe and understand the earth.
The National Wetlands Research Center
(NWRC) was established by USGS to
develop and disseminate scientific information
needed for understanding the ecology and
values of the nation's wetlands and for
managing and restoring wetland habitats and
associated plant and animal communities. The
Water Quality Incentives Program (WQIP) is
a voluntary incentive program designed to
protect water sources on farmlands through
3- to 5-year agreements with the CFSA.
These agreements require the development
and implementation of a water quality man-
agement program that provides water quality
benefits, wetland protection, and wildlife
benefits. The Wetland Ecology Branch of the
NWRC conducts research related to sustain-
able management and restoration of the
nation's coastal saltwater wetlands, coastal
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-7
-------
Appendix A
and inland freshwater wetlands, submerged
aquatic ecosystems, and coastal prairie.
For more information, contact:
U.S. Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston,VA20192
Phone: (703)648-4748
Web site: http://www.usgs.gov/
oEPA
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is to protect human health and to
safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and
land—upon which life depends.
EPA is responsible for implementing federal laws
designed to protect the nation's natural resources.
This is done primarily through regulation, but EPA has
also developed a wide variety of funding, planning, and
education programs. EPA has the authority to regulate
wetlands under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
awards funds to states and eligible tribes to implement
NPS management programs. These funds can be
used for projects that include protection and restora-
tion of wetlands and the development of vegetated
treatment systems. More information about the
Section 319 program is provided at www.epa.gov/
owow/nps/cwact. html.
• EPA's Wetland State Partnership Grant
Program provides money to states that
encourage wetlands protection and restora-
tion. For example, the Division of Natural
Heritage of the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation received a
$208,207 grant to encourage property owners
to voluntarily enroll wetlands in state and
federal wetland conservation and assistance
programs; to work with state, county, and
local governments to avoid or minimize
impacts on wetlands; and to encourage
voluntary wetland conservation in four of the
state's counties: Fayette, Franklin, Lauderdale,
and Rutherford.
• The 51 Clean Water State Revolving Funds
(SRF) programs currently issue approximately
$3 billion in loans annually. SRF loans are
issued at below market rates (0 percent to
less than market), offering borrowers signifi-
cant savings over the life of the loan. Based
on the serious threats to wetland resources
across the country, EPA would like to see the
SRF become a major source of funding for
wetland protection. In creating the SRF,
Congress ensured that it would be able to
fund virtually any type of water quality
project, including nonpoint source, wetlands,
estuary, and other types of watershed
projects, as well as more traditional municipal
wastewater treatment systems. Today, the
SRF provisions in the Clean Water Act give
no more preference to one category or type
of project than any other. Wetland projects
typically fall under approved state nonpoint
source management plans or are included in
national estuary management plans. Con-
structed wetlands may be considered waste-
water or storm water management projects
and are also eligible for funding. SRF-
fundable projects include wetland restoration,
wetland protection, and constructed wetlands.
For more information, contact your Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Program or contact:
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Branch
U.S. EPA
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202)260-7359
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/OWM
For more information on EPA's other wetlands
programs, contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OWOW, OW, Office of Wetlands
Phone: (800) 832-7828 (Monday through Friday
from 9:00 am to 5:30 pm EST)
Web site: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/
A-8
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
State, Nonprofit, and
Private Organizations
ALLIANCE
CHESAPEAKE BAY
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is a private,
nonprofit organization that recruits and mobilizes broad
participation in restoration of the bay's resources,
public policy, and education by providing citizens with
the information and opportunities to make a difference
at home, in their communities, and on a regional basis.
The Alliance was chosen to manage the Small
Watershed Grants program, developed by the
Chesapeake Bay Program. This program was
allocated $750,000 by Congress for grants to
local governments and watershed-based
nonprofit groups in the Chesapeake Bay
drainage basin. In 1998 more than 160
organizations applied for the grants, and 37
were chosen. The major criterion for selection
was that the project must have tangible results
showing bay or river improvement that
includes community involvement.
For more information, contact:
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
6600 York Road, Suite 100
Baltimore, MD 21212
Phone: (410) 377-6270 (or call the Chesapeake
Regional Information Service (800) 662-CRIS)
Web site: http://www.acb-online.org
American farmland Ihtst
American Farmland Trust
The American Farmland Trust (AFT) was established
as a nonprofit organization that works with farmers,
business people, legislators, and conservationists to
encourage sound farming practices and preserve the
country's most critical agricultural resources.
The Farm Legacy Program of the AFT
encourages farm owners threatened by
development to donate their lands to AFT. By
donating their land, the landowners may retain
lifetime use of the property because the AFT
sells the farm with conservation easements to
guarantee the preservation of the property.
The AFT also accepts nonfarm properties and
appreciated securities.
For more information, contact:
American Farmland Trust National Office
1920 N Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202)659-5170
Fax: (202) 659-8339
Web site: http://www.farmland.org
Coastal
Conservancy
California Coastal Conservancy
The California Coastal Conservancy was established
by the California legislature to protect, restore, and
enhance coastal resources by working in partnership
with local governments, other public agencies, non-
profit organizations, and private landowners.
The California Coastal Conservancy has done more
than 700 projects along California's 1,110 mile coast-
line and San Francisco Bay. The goals of the Califor-
nia Coastal Conservancy include:
Improving public access to the coast and bay
shores.
• Protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands,
steams, and watersheds.
Restoring urban waterfronts for public use
and coastal development.
• Resolving coastal land use conflicts.
Acquiring and holding environmentally valu-
able coastal land.
• Protecting agricultural lands.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-9
-------
Appendix A
For more information, contact:
California Coastal Conservancy
1330 Broadway, llth Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)286-1015
Fax: (510)286-0470
Web site: http://www.coastalconservancy.ca.gov/
California Waterfowl Association
The California Waterfowl Association (CWA) is a
nonprofit organization that preserves, protects, and
enhances California's waterfowl and wetland re-
sources. The CWA provides technical assistance to
landowners, conducts research, and lobbies state and
federal governments to promote protection of water-
fowl and provision of habitat.
• The Waterfowl Programs seek increases in
populations of waterfowl, especially mallards,
pintails, wood ducks, and Canada geese.
• Under the California Waterfowl Habitat
Program, CWA assists the California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game in providing incentive
funds and preparing detailed plans for habitat
management on private lands.
• A nontraditional effort involving salvage of
eggs from nests destroyed by agricultural
operations is being closely monitored to
determine if released ducklings can assist
waterfowl population enhancement efforts.
For further information, contact:
California Waterfowl Association
4630Northgate Boulevard, Suite 150
Sacramento, CA 95834
Phone: (916)648-1406
Fax: (916)648-1665
Web site: http://www.calwaterfowl.org/
'«*S*5& '
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) is a nonprofit
organization whose mission is to restore and sustain
the bay's ecosystem by substantially improving water
quality and productivity of the watershed.
• Restoration programs by CBF are voluntary
and include citizens, school groups, and
corporate participants. Examples of wetland
restoration projects include wetland plantings,
wetland mapping, and educational activities.
For more information, contact:
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410)268-8816
Fax: (410)268-6687
Web site: http://www.cbf.org
air.SApr.AKr:
BAY TRUST
Chesapeake Bay Trust
The Chesapeake Bay Trust is a nonprofit organization
that promotes public awareness and participation in
the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay.
The Trust was created by the Maryland
General Assembly in 1985.
• More than 1,000 communities, volunteer
groups, and schools in Maryland have re-
ceived grant money totaling $933,287 for
habitat restoration, cleanups, and other bay
resource-related projects.
• The Trust is supported by private citizens and
the business community. The purchase of
Chesapeake Bay license plates funds part of
the Trust. In addition, taxpayers may make
donations of their refund to the Trust.
A-10
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
For further information, contact:
Chesapeake Bay Trust
60 West Street, Suite 200A
Annapolis, MD 21401
Phone: (410)974-2941
Fax: (410)269-0378
Web site: http://www.chesapeakebaytrust.org
Ducks Unlimited
Ducks Unlimited (DU) is a private, nonprofit organiza-
tion that works to help fulfill annual life cycle needs of
waterfowl by protecting, enhancing, restoring, and
managing important wetland and associated upland
habitat throughout the states.
DU cost-shares in the improvement of habitat
through the Matching Aid to Restore States'
Habitat (MARSH) Program. This reimburse-
ment program provides matching funds for
wetland acquisition and development.
Habitat 2000: Campaign for a Continent - This
is DU's six year comprehensive campaign to
ensure a future for North America's wetlands
and waterfowl. The program's goal is to
restore 1.7 million acres of wetland and
upland habitat by raising $600 million.
For further information, contact:
Ducks Unlimited National Headquarters
One Waterfowl Way
Memphis, TN 3 8120-2351
Phone: (901) 758-3825 or (800) 45-DUCKS
Web site: http://www.ducks.org
Great Plains Partnership
Spanning the 13 Great Plains states and the corre-
sponding regions of Canada and Mexico, the Great
Plains Partnership (GPP) is an outcome-oriented
partnership composed of federal, state, and local
agencies, tribes, nongovernmental organizations, and
landowners. Its mission is to catalyze and empower
the people of the Great Plains to define and create
their own generational sustainable future.
• The GPP provides technical assistance and
help in overcoming institutional and regulatory
hurdles that local partnerships cannot resolve
on their own.
• Sandhills (NE) - Ranchers in the Sandhills of
Nebraska have been working with a local
coordinator from the USFWS to preserve and
restore wetlands areas that are important for
hay meadows and fens, which are globally
unique natural communities. Their coalition
has grown to include representatives from
other state and federal agencies. Their work
provides an important example of successful
cooperation.
• Rainwater Basin (NE) - The Rainwater Basin
is a North American Waterfowl Management
Plan Joint Venture in Nebraska to restore
wetlands for migratory birds. GPP will test the
use of a newly developed model that classifies
wetland by functional value, in order to foster
an alternative compliance strategy that allows
farmers to develop a wetland restoration
program through wetlands banking and trades
to protect both the most valuable wetlands
and croplands. Regulatory agencies, which
will have to suspend current regulations, will
be important partners and will oversee that
the results equal or exceed those achievable
through normal enforcement.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-11
-------
Appendix A
For more information, contact:
Great Plains Partnership
Web site: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov
ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT Ol:
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Illinois Wetlands Conservation Strategy
The Illinois Wetlands Conservation Strategy (IWCS)
is a comprehensive plan to guide the development and
implementation of Illinois's wetland programs and
protection initiatives. It is an organizational tool used
to identify opportunities for making programs work
better. The goal of the IWCS is to ensure that there
will be no net loss of wetlands or their functions in
Illinois.
For further information, contact:
Illinois Wetlands Conservation Strategy
15536 Sr. 78
Havana, IL 62644
Web site: http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/chf/pub/
surveyreports/jul-aug95/wetland.html
Iowa River Corridor Project
The Iowa River Corridor Project uses a voluntary
approach to wetland restoration by giving landowners
economic alternatives for frequently flooded farmland,
and the project is intended to improve water quality
and wildlife habitat. It is sponsored by the Iowa
NRCS. The farmers can choose to continue farming
as they have, sell an easement and have a wetland
restored, sell an easement and title to the USFWS, or
try some alternative farming practices.
For further information, contact:
Iowa River Corridor Project
Web site: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/
lowaRiverCorridor/
Izaac Walton League of America
The mission of the Izaac Walton League of America
(IWLA) is to protect the nation's soil, air, woods,
waters, and wildlife.
• The Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability
Project, part of the Save Our Streams Pro-
gram, helps bring citizens, planners, govern-
ment agencies, businesses, and others to-
gether to become wetland stewards by taking
a proactive role in wetland conservation and
protection. The IWLA has lobbied at the
national level to create and protect wetland
legislation, and League members have worked
for wetland protection and restoration through
350 local chapters nationwide.
For further information, contact:
Izaac Walton League of America National Office
707 Conservation Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
Phone: (301)548-0150
Fax: (301)548-0146
Web site: http://www.iwla.org
LAND T RU SI ALLIANCE
Land Trust Alliance
The Land Trust Alliance supports conservation in
communities across the country by ensuring that
people who work through voluntary land trust organi-
zations have the information, skills, and resources they
need to save land.
A-12
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
Land trusts are used to acquire land and then
either transfer it to a governmental agency or
retain it for long-term ownership and steward-
ship.
• Conservation easements are the principle tool
used by most land trusts to achieve their land
conservation objectives.
• There are currently more than 1,100 land
trusts in America, including many for wet-
lands.
For more information, contact:
Land Trust Alliance
1319 F Street, NW, Suite 501
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202)638-4725
Fax: (202)638-4730
Web site: http://www.lta.org/
Michigan Wildlife Conservancy
The Michigan Wildlife Conservancy provides technical
and financial assistance that landowners and manag-
ers need to restore and maintain wildlife habitat
through cost-effective projects.
For more information, contact:
Michigan Wildlife Habitat Conservancy
Web site: http://www.miwildlife.org
National
Audubon
Society
National Audubon Society
The mission of the National Audubon Society (NAS)
is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focus-
ing on birds and other wildlife for the benefit of
humanity and the earth's biological diversity.
• One of the high-priority campaigns of the
NAS is to preserve wetlands. The goal of the
Wetlands Campaign is to preserve and restore
the nation's wetland ecosystems through a
partnership of Audubon volunteer leaders,
staff, and directors to protect birds, other
wildlife, and their habitats, as well as to
protect human health and safety and to
sustain a healthy economy. The campaign
includes a community-based effort to protect
and restore 1,000,000 wetland acres within 3
years, establishment of strong wetland
protection and restoration laws, creation of a
network of thousands of Audubon volunteers
and chapters, working together to promote
sound measures to manage and protect
wetland ecosystems, and public communica-
tion and education.
For more information, contact:
National Audubon Society
700 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Phone:(212)979-3000
Web site: http://www.audubon.org/
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) is
a nonprofit organization established by Congress in
1984 to foster cooperative efforts to conserve fish,
wildlife, and plant species. Its mission is to provide
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-13
-------
Appendix A
creative and sustainable solutions for fish and wildlife,
and plant conservation. All NFWF grants are a two-
to-one match (non-federal to federal), and the match
must be derived from a source other than the appli-
cant.
NFWF projects include education projects about fish,
wildlife, plants, and habitats for schoolchildren, higher
education institutions, and professionals. The organiza-
tion is involved in fisheries conservation and manage-
ment, neotropical migratory bird conservation, wet-
lands and private lands, and wildlife and habitat.
For more information, contact:
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 2003 6
Phone: (202)857-0166
Fax: (202)857-0162
Web site: http://www.nfwf.org
NATIONAL
WILDLIFE
National Wildlife Federation
The mission of the National Wildlife Federation
(NWF) is to educate, inspire, and assist individuals and
organizations of diverse cultures to conserve wildlife
and other natural resources and to protect the earth's
environment in order to achieve a peaceful, equitable,
and sustainable future.
The NWF's main goal is to raise awareness and
involve people of all ages in their fight to conserve and
protect the environment.
For further information, contact:
National Wildlife Federation
8925 Leesburg Pike
Vienna, VA 22184
Phone: (703)790-4000
Web site: http://www.nwf.org
"NATIONAL WKTLINDS
fcTORUTWX ALLIANCE
National Wetlands Conservation Alliance
The National Wetlands Conservation Alliance is an
informal partnership of private organizations and
government agencies working to build broad support
for and to improve the delivery of voluntary landowner
wetlands restoration, enhancement, and conservation.
• The organization's vision is to become in-
formed landowners voluntarily deciding to
protect and manage existing wetlands and
restore and enhanced drained and partially
drained wetlands.
Funding and program guidance are provided
by participating organizations and government
agencies and the National Association of
Conservation Districts.
• A major emphasis of the organization is to
support and improve USDA's Wetland Re-
serve Program, Conservation Reserve
Program, and other "Farm Bill" programs, and
the Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for
Wildlife and North American Waterfowl
Management Plan programs.
For further information, contact:
National Wetlands Conservation Alliance
509 Capitol Court, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4946
Phone: (202)547-6223
Fax: (202)547-6450
Web site: http://www.erols.com/wetlandg
Nebraska
Envimmmemtmt Trust
Nebraska Environmental Trust
The Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund was orga-
nized in 1992 as a means to raise money for
Nebraska's environment. What is unique about this
program is that it is funded by the Nebraska Lottery.
The public is also involved in the state's environment
because the fund is administered by a governor-
appointed board of nine citizens and six state agency
representatives.
A-14
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
One of the major focuses of the trust fund is
the preservation and restoration of wetlands
and other areas critical to rare or endangered
species.
• Applicants that receive grant money must
meet economic, technical, and financial
feasibility criteria and show that the public
benefits of the proposed project will be as
apparent as the environmental benefits.
For more information, contact:
Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund
2200 North 33rd Street, P.O. Box 3070
Lincoln, NE 68503-0370
Phone: (402)471-5409
Web site: http://www.environmentaltrust.org
o
(,
Operation Green Stripe
Operation Green Stripe was developed in 1992 to
combat the problem of surface water runoff of soil
sediment by encouraging the planting of grassy buffer
strips along streams, lakes, and sinkholes on farm
property.
• Through Operation Green Stripe, Future
Farmers of America (FEA) chapters recruit
farmers to establish vegetative buffers
between their fields and surface water
supplies. Cooperating agriculture retailers
provide free grass seed for the strips, and
Monsanto provides educational grants to FFA
chapters based on the number of farmers the
students recruit.
For further information, contact:
Monsanto Company
800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63167
Phone: (314)694-2789
Fax: (314)694-2922
Web site: http://www.monsanto.com
Pheasants Forever
Pheasants Forever (PF) is a nonprofit wildlife conser-
vation group whose mission is to protect and enhance
pheasant and other wildlife populations throughout
North America through public awareness and educa-
tion, habitat restoration, development and mainte-
nance, and improvements in land and water manage-
ment policies. Local PF chapters work with private
landowners to provide for the creation and enhance-
ment of wildlife habitat.
• Since its establishment, PF has spent more
than $24 million on habitat restoration projects
on 850,000 acres of land. These projects
restore habitat by renovating nesting cover,
planting windbreaks and hedgerows, establish-
ing food plots, restoring wetlands, and acquir-
ing lands.
For further information, contact:
Pheasants Forever National Headquarters
1783 Buerkle Circle
St. Paul, MN 55110
Phone: (612)773-2000
Fax: (612)773-5500
Web site: http://www.pheasantsforever.org
Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
The Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (PSE&G) is a
leader in providing energy-efficient services and
developing environmentally sound energy systems to
improve the social, economic, and environmental
standards of society.
• PSE&G is conducting the Estuary Enhance-
ment Program (EEP) under the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and
the Delaware Department of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Control. Of the
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-15
-------
Appendix A
land slated for restoration, 12,500 acres are in
New Jersey, and 8,000 are in Delaware.
Nearly 17,000 acres are going to be restored
as salt marshes, creating the largest endeavor
of its kind. PSE&G purchased land and made
agreements with landowners to gain access to
land.
For more information, contact:
Public Service Enterprise Group (PSE&G)
Englewood,NJ 07631
Phone: 800-350-PSEG
Web site: http://www.pseg.com
Quail Unlimited
Quail Unlimited is a nonprofit organization that was
established in 1981 to improve and preserve upland
game habitat. It has more than 400 chapters. QU
funds are used for local habitat and education projects,
state wildlife departments, upland game bird manage-
ment, habitat research, and education programs.
One of QU's habitat improvement initiatives is
to create water sites in arid and semiarid
areas for quail habitat. Much of the water site
development work is performed in coopera-
tion with the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Land Management under cost-share agree-
ments.
For further information, contact:
Quail Unlimited National Headquarters
P.O. Box 610
Edgefield,SC 29824
Phone: (803) 637-5731, ext. 28
Web site: http://www.qu.org
Restore America's Estuaries
Restore America's Estuaries (RAE) is a nonprofit
coalition of community-based organizations working to
save coastal resources. Its mission is to protect and
restore coastal areas by increasing awareness and
appreciation of the resources and leading a campaign
to restore 1 million acres of estuarine habitat (includ-
ing wetlands) by the year 2010.
• RAE's 11 members are American Littoral
Society (Hudson-Raritan estuaries of New
York and New Jersey), Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Coalition to Restore Coastal
Louisiana, Conservation Law Foundation
(Gulf of Maine), Galveston Bay Foundation;
North Carolina Coastal Federation, North
Carolina Coastal Federation, People for Puget
Sound, Save San Francisco Bay Association;
Save the Bay (Narragansett Bay), Save the
Sound (Long Island Sound), and Tampa
BAYWATCH.
• Estuary habitat restoration includes maintain-
ing food supplies for aquatic life, creating and
protecting jobs that rely on estuaries (fishing,
tourism, boating), protecting human health,
expanding recreational abilities, enhancing
quality of life, and education.
For more information, contact:
Restore America's Estuaries
1200 New York Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005
Phone: (202)289-2380
Fax: (202) 842-4932
Web site: http://www.estuaries.org
A-16
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix A
Sierra Club
The Sierra Club is a nonprofit organization that
promotes conservation of the natural environment by
influencing public policy decisions.
More information about wetlands is available from the
Sierra Club's wetlands website at
http: //www. sierraclub.org/wetlands
For information on the Sierra Club, contact:
Sierra Club
85 Second Street, Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
Phone: (415)977-5500
Fax: (415)977-5799
Web site: http://www.sierraclub.org/
::;Taho'e
The Tahoe Conservancy
The Tahoe Conservancy, a California agency, is
charged with preserving and enhancing the unique
ecological and recreational values of the Tahoe basin
through the Tahoe Conservancy Program. Its primary
objectives goals are to protect the natural environment
of the basin, to increase public access and recreation
opportunities for visitors to the lake, and to preserve
and enhance the broad diversity of wildlife habitat in
the Tahoe Basin.
• The Conservancy's work with private owners
of wetland property comes primarily through
its acquisition program. It focuses on obtaining
conservation easements, development rights,
and full titles to lands that contain marsh,
meadow, or riparian areas. The Conservancy
offers 95 percent of what property would
bring on the open market.
For further information, contact:
The Tahoe Conservancy
2161 Lake Tahoe Boulevard
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Phone: (916)542-5580
Fax: (916)542-5591
Web site: http://www.tahoecons.ca.gov/
The Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) mission is to
preserve plants, animals, and natural communities that
represent the diversity of life on earth by protecting
the lands and water they need to survive.
• The Natural Areas Registries program of the
TNC honors private landowners of outstand-
ing natural areas for their commitment to the
survival of the land's natural heritage. The
registry is voluntary, and no payment is
involved.
For more information, contact:
The Nature Conservancy, International Headquarters
1815 North Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
Phone:(703)841-5300
Web site: http://nature.org
Trout Unlimited
Trout Unlimited (TU) is an organization of conserva-
tion-minded anglers who promote quality trout and
salmon fisheries for their intrinsic values, as well as a
reminder of watershed health. TU conserves, pro-
tects, and restores North America's trout and salmon
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
A-17
-------
Appendix A
fisheries and their watersheds. This is accomplished
on the local, state, and national level.
For more information, contact:
Trout Unlimited
1500 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22209-2404
Phone: (703)522-0200
Fax: (703)284-9400
Web site: http://www.tu.org
Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas
The Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas (WHAT) is an
organization dedicated to preserving Texas wetlands
by raising public awareness and appreciation of
wetlands and funding projects to manage wetland
waters; protect, enhance, and restore natural wet-
lands; and create wetlands on non-wetland sites.
• The cooperator and WHAT agree to a
proposed project, and NRCS verifies the
operable conditions before the project is
approved. Interested landowners can receive
up to 100 percent financial assistance for a
10-year minimum agreement.
For more information, contact:
Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas
118 East Hospital, Suite 208
Nachodoches, TX 75961
Phone: (409) 569-9428 or (800) 962-WHAT
Web site: http://www.whatduck.org/homepage.htm
VtlUMJCKfUUIlAI <"
-------
Appendix B
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts
This appendix provides wetlands contacts, nonpoint source regional contacts, and
Clean Water State Revolving Fund Contacts.
-------
-------
Appendix B
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contacts
EPA is grouped into 10 Regions. For questions about a particular state, contact the appropriate EPA Regional
Coordinator listed below.
EPA Region
Wetland Contact
Nonpoint Source Regional
Coordinators
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Regional Coordinators
Region 1:
CT,MA,ME,NH,
RI,VT
http://www.epa.
gov/regionOl/
Region 2:
NJ, NY, PR, VI
http://www.epa.
gov/Region2
Region 3:
DC,DE,MD,PA,
VA,WV
http://www.epa.
gov/region03
Region 4:
AL,FL,GA,KY,
MS,NC,SC,TN
http://www.epa.
gov/region4/
Region 5:
IL,lN,MI,MN,
OH,WI
http://www.epa.
gov/region5/
U.S.EPA-Regionl
Wetlands Protection Unit
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
http://www.epa.gov/regionO II
topics/ecosystems/
wetlands.html
U.S.EPA-Region2
Water Programs Branch
Wetlands Section
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
http ://www. epa. gov/region02/
water/wetlands/
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Wetlands Protection
Section
1650 Arch Street (3 WP12)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
http://www.epa.gov/reg3esdl/
hydricsoils/index.htm
U.S.EPA-Region4
Wetlands Section
6 IForsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
http://www.epa.gov/region4/
water/wetlands/
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Watersheds and Wetlands
Water Division (W-15J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
http://www.epa.gov/region5/
water/wshednps/
topic_wetlands.htm
U.S.EPA-Regionl
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
One Congress Street,
Boston, MA 02114-2023
http://www.epa.gov/regionO II
topics/water/npsources.html
U.S.EPA-Region2
Water Programs Branch
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
http ://www. epa. gov/region02/
water/npspage.htm
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
1650 Arch Street (3 WP 12)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
http: //www. epa. gov/reg3 wapd/
nps/
U.S.EPA-Region4
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
6 IForsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
http ://www. epa. gov/region4/
water/nps/
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
Water Division (W-15J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
http ://www. epa. gov/region5/
water/wshednps/topic_nps.htm
U.S.EPA-Regionl
SRF Program Contact
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02114-2023
http://www.epa.gov/ne/cwsrf/
index.html
U.S.EPA-Region2
Water Programs Branch
SRF Program Contact
290 Broadway
New York, NY 10007-1866
http://www.epa.gov/Region2/
water/wpb/staterev.htm
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Construction Grants Branch
SRF Program Contact
1650 Arch Street (3 WP 12)
Philadelphia, PA 19103
http: //www. epa. gov/reg3 wapd/
srfYindex.htm
U.S.EPA-Region4
Surface Water Permits & Facilities
SRF Program Contact
6 IForsyth St.
Atlanta GA, 30303
http://www.epa.gov/Region4/
water/gtas/grantprograms.html
U.S.EPA-RegionS
SRF Program Contact
Water Division (W-15J)
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
http ://www. epa. gov/region5/
business/fs-cwsrf.htm
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
B-1
-------
Appendix B
EPA Region
Wetland Contact
Nonpoint Source Regional
Coordinators
Clean Water State
Revolving Fund
Regional Coordinators
Region 6:
AR,LA,NM,OK,
TX
http://www.epa.
gov/region6
Region 7:
IA,KS,MO,NE
http://www.epa.
gov/region?
Region 8:
CO,MT,ND,SD,
UT,WY
http://www.epa.
gov/region8
Region 9:
AZ,CA,HI,NV,
Pacific Islands
http://www.epa.
gov/region9/
Region 10:
AK, ID, OR, WA
http://www.epa.
gov/regionlO/
General Program
Information
U.S.EPA-Region6
Marine and Wetlands Section
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
http://www.epa.gov/region6/
water/ecopro/index.htm
U.S.EPA-Region7
Wetlands Protection
Section (ENRV)
90IN. 5thSt.
Kansas City, KS 66101
http://www.epa.gov/region7/
wetlands/index, htm
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Wetlands Program
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
http://www.epa.gov/region8/
water/wetlands/wetlands.html
U.S.EPA-Region9
Water Division, Wetlands
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
http://www.epa.gov/region09/
water/wetlands/index.html
U.S. EPA-Region 10
Wetlands Section
1200 SixthAve.
Seattle, WA 98101
http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/
ECOCOMM.NSF/webpage/
Wetlands
U.S. EPA
Wetlands Division (4502F)
Mail Code RC-4100T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
http: //www. epa. gov/o wo w/
wetlands/
U.S. EPA-Region 6
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
http ://www. epa. gov/region6/
water/ecopro/watershd/
nonpoint/
U.S. EPA-Region 7
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
90IN. 5thSt.
Kansas City, KS 66101
U.S.EPA-RegionS
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2405
http ://www. epa. gov/region8/
water/nps/contacts.html
U.S. EPA-Region 9
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
http: //www. epa. gov/regionO 91
water/nonpoint/index.html
U.S. EPA-Region 10
Nonpoint Source Coordinator
1200 SixthAve.
Seattle, WA 98101
U.S. EPANonpoint Source
Control Branch (4503 -T)
Ariel RiosBldg.
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20460
http ://www. epa. gov/o wo w/nps
U.S.EPA-Region6
SRF Program Contact
1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202
http ://www. epa. gov/Arkansas/
6en/xp/enxp2c4. htm
U.S. EPA-Region 7
SRF Program Contact
90IN. 5thSt.
Kansas City, KS 66101
http://www.epa.gov/Region7/
water/srf.htm
U.S.EPA-RegionS
SRF Program Contact
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2405
U.S. EPA-Region 9
Construction Grants Branch
SRF Program Contact
75 Hawthorne Street
SanFrancisco, CA 94105
http://www.epa.gov/region9/
funding/
U.S. EPA-Region 10
Ecosystems & Communities
SRF Program Contact
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
http://yosemite.epa.gov/rlO/
ecocomm. nsf/webpage/
Clean+Water+State+Revolving
+Fund+in+Region+10
U.S. EPA
The Clean Water State
Revolving Fund Branch
(4204M)
1201 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20004
http://www.epa.gov/owm/
cwfinance/cwsrf/index.htm
Wetlands Helpline
For general questions about wetlands and questions about the national wetlands program,
call the EPA Wetlands Helpline at 1-800-832-7828 or send an e-mail to .
B-2
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix C
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Contacts
This appendix provides information on Division Regulatory Offices and District
Regulatory Offices for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
US Army Corps
of Engineers
-------
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland
Contacts (Civil Works - Regulatory Office)
Appendix C
Headquarters Regulatory Office:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Office of the Chief of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Phone:202-761-0200
Fax: 202-761-5096
Division and District Offices:
Great Lakes and Ohio River Division
CELRD-ET-CO-F
550 Main Street
Cincinnati, OH 45201-1159
Phone:513-684-6212
Fax:513-684-2460
Mississippi Valley Division
CEMVD-ET-CO
1400 West Walnut Street
Vicksburg, MS 39181
Phone:601-634-5821
Fax:601-634-7073
North Atlantic Division
CENAD-ET-O
90 Church Street
New York, NY 10007-2979
Phone:212-264-7636
Fax: 212-264-5037
Northwestern Division
CENWD-ET-OR
220 Northwest 8th Avenue
Portland, OR97209-3589
Phone: 503-808-3888
Fax: 503-808-3880
Missouri River Regional Headquarters
CENWD-MR
12565 West Center Road
Omaha, NE 68144-3871
Phone: 402-697-2552
Pacific Ocean Division
CEPOD-ET-PO
Building 230
Ft. Shatter, HI 96858-5440
Phone: 808-438-0030
Fax: 808-438-4060
South Atlantic Division
CESADET-CO-R
77 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30355-6801
Phone:404-331-6744
Fax:404-331-2613
South Pacific Division
CESPD-ET-CR
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111 -2206
Phone:415-977-8030
Fax: 415-977-8047
Southwestern Division
CESWD-ETO-R
1114 Commerce Street
Santa Fe Building
Dallas, TX 75242-0216
Phone:214-767-2435
Fax: 214-767-5305
District Offices:
Alaska
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District
Attention: CEPOA-CO-RF
P.O. Box 898
Anchorage, AK 99506-0898
Phone: 907-753-2712
Fax: 907-753-5567
Albuquerque
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District
Attention: CESPA-OD-R
4101 Jefferson Plaza, NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109-3435
Phone: 505-342-3283
Fax: 505-342-3498
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
C-1
-------
Appendix C
Baltimore
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Distict
Attention: CENAB-OP-R
P.O. Box 1715
Baltimore, MD 21203-1715
Phone:410-962-3670
Fax:410-962-8024
Buffalo
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District
Attention: CELRB-CO-S
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, NY 14207-3199
Phone:716-879-4313
Fax:716-879-4310
Chaleston
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Charleston District
Attention: CESAC-CO-P
P.O. Box 919
Charleston, SC 29402-0919
Phone:803-727-4330
Fax: 803-727-4445
Chicago
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago District
Attention: CELRC-CO-R
111 North Canal Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60606-7206
Phone:312-353-6428
Fax:312-353-4110
Detroit
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District
Attention: CELRE-CO-L
P.O. Box 1027
Detail, MI 48231-1027
Phone:313-226-2432
Fax:313-226-6763
Ft. Worth
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District
Attention: CESWF-EV-R
P.O. Box 17300
Ft. Worth, TX 76102-0300
Phone:817-978-2681
Fax:817-978-2120
Galveston
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District
Attention: CESWG-CO-R
P.O.Box 1229
Galveston, TX 77553-1229
Phone: 409-766-3930
Fax:409-766-3931
Huntington
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Huntington District
Attention: CELRH-OP-F
502 8th Street
Huntington, WV 25701-2070
Phone: 304-529-6900
Fax: 304-529-6086
Honolulu
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District
Attention: CEPOH-CO-O
Building 230, Fort Safter
Honolulu, ffl 96858-5440
Phone:808-438-0030
Fax: 808-438-4060
Jacksonville
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District
Attention: CESAJ-RD
P.O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019
Phone: 904-232-1666
Fax:904-232-1684
Kansas City
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Kansas City District
Attention: CENWK-CO-R
700 Federal Building
601 East 12th Street
Kansas City, MO 64106-2896
Phone:816-983-3990
Fax:816-426-2321
Little Rock
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Little Rock District
Attention: CESWL-CO-P
P.O. Box 867
Little Rock, AR 72203-0867
Phone:501-324-6296
Fax:501-324-6013
C-2
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix C
Los Angeles
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Los Angeles District
Attention: CESPL-CO-R
91 IWilshire Boulevard
P.O. Box 2711
Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325
Phone:213-452-3425
Fax:213-452-4196
Louisville
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Louisville District
Attention: CELRL-OP-F
P.O. Box 59
Louisville, KY 40401-0059
Phone:502-582-6461
Fax: 502-582-5072
Memphis
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memphis District
Attention: CEMVM-CO-G
Clifford Davis Federal Building Room B-202
Memphis, TN 38103-1894
Phone:901-544-3471
Fax:901-544-3266
Mobile
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District
Attention: CESAM-OP-S
P.O. Box 2288
Mobile, AL 36628-00001
Phone:334-690-2658
Fax: 334-690-2660
Nashville
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nashville District
Attention: CELRN-CO-F
P.O. Box 1070
Nashville, TN 3 7202-1070
Phone:615-736-2761
Fax:615-736-2745
New England
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District
Attention: CENAE-OD-R
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA 02254-9149
Phone:617-647-8338
Fax:617-647-8303
New Orleans
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District
Attention: CEMVN-OD-S
P.O. Box 60267
New Orleans, LA 70160-0267
Phone: 504-862-2255
Fax: 504-862-2289
New York
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
Attention: CENAN-OP-R
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
Phone:212-264-3996
Fax:212-264-4260
Norfolk
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District
Attention: CENAO-CO-R
803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23 510-1096
Phone:757-441-7068
Fax: 757-441-7678
Omaha
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District
Attention: CENWO-OP-N
P.O. Box 5
Omaha, NE 68101-0005
Phone:402-221-4211
Fax:402-221-4939
Philadelphia
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District
Attention: CENAP-OP-R
100 Penn Square East
2nd and Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3396
Phone:215-656-6725
Fax:215-656-6724
Pittsburgh
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District
Attention: CELRP-OP-F
Federal Building
1000 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186
Phone:412-644-4204
Fax:412-644-4211
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
C-3
-------
Appendix C
Portland
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District
Attention: CENWP-OP-G
P.O. Box 2946
Portland, OR 97208-2946
Phone:503-808-4371
Rock Island
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Rock Island District
Attention: CEMVR-OD-S
Clock Tower Building
Rock Island, IL 61201-2004
Phone: 309-794-5370
Fax:309-794-5191
Sacramento
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District
Attention: CESPK-CO-R
1325 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-2922
Phone:916-557-5252
Fax:916-557-6877
St. Louis
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District
Attention: CEMVS-OD-F
210 Tucker Blvd North
St. Louis, MO 63101-1986
Phone:314-331-8575
Fax:314-331-8741
St. Paul
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
Attention: CEMVP-CO-RF
1135 USPO & Custom House
St. Paul, MN 55101-1479
Phone:612-290-6376
Fax:612-290-5330
San Francisco
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District
Attention: CESPN-CO-R
333 Market Street, 8th floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
Phone:415-977-8460
Fax:415-977-8483
Savannah
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District
Attention: CESAS-OP-F
P.O. Box 889
Savannah, GA 31402-0889
Phone:912-652-6768
Fax: 912-652-5065
Seattle
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
Attention: CENWS-OP-RF
P.O. Box C-3755
Seattle, WA 98124-2255
Phone: 206-764-3495
Fax: 206-764-6602
Tulsa
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District
Attention: CESWT-OD-RF
P.O. Box 61
Tulsa, OK 74121-0061
Phone:918-669-7401
Fax:918-669-7373
Vicksburg
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District
Attention: CEMVK-Regulatory Branch
4155 Clay Street
Vicksburg, MS 39180-3435
Phone:601-631-6276
Fax:601-631-6459
Walla Walla
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District
Attention: CENWW-OP-RF
201 North 3rd Street
Walla Walla, WA 993 62
Phone:509-527-7151
Fax: 509-527-7823
Wilmington
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Attention: CESAW-CO-E
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
Phone:910-251-4630
Fax:910-251-4025
This information can be found at the following web sites:
C4
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix D
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional
Wetland Contacts
This appendix provides wetland contacts for each region of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
us,
FISH Ł WILDLIFE
SHWKJB
-------
-------
Appendix D
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional
Wetland Contacts
This information can be found at the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory web site:
http://wetlands.fws.gov/Regionofc/Rwc.htm
Region 1
(CA, HI, ID, NV, OR, WA)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
911 Northeast llth Avenue
Portland, OR 97232
Region 2
(AZ, NM, OK, TX)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 1306
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Region 3
(IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, OH, WI)
National Wetlands Inventory Office
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
9720 Executive Center Drive,
Monroe Building, Suite 101
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
Region 4
(AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, PR,
VI)
National Wetlands Inventory Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1875 Century Blvd, Room 240
Atlanta, GA 30345
Region 5
(CT, DE, ME, MA, MD, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI,
VT, VA, WV)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
300 West Gate Center Drive
Hadley,MA01035
Region 6
(CO, KS, MT, NE, ND, SD, UT, WY)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, CO 80225-0486
Region 7
(AK)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1011 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, AK 99503
Region 8
(Washington, DC National Office)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 110
Arlington VA, 22203
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
D-1
-------
-------
Appendix E
U.S. State and Territory Agency Wetland
Contacts
This appendix provides agency wetland contact information for each state and
trust territory.
-------
-------
Appendix E
U.S. State and Territory Agency
Wetland Contacts
Alabama
Department of Environmental Management
1400 Coliseum Blvd.
Montgomery, AL 36111
(334)271-7700
http: //www. adem. state. al .us/
Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Water
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 303
Juneau,AK 99801-1795
(907)465-5180
http://www.dec.state.ak.us
Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality
1110 W.Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602)771-2300
http: //www. azdeq .gov
Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, AR 72209
(501)682-0744
http: //www. adeq. state. ar.us/
California
California State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95 814
(916)341-5250
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov
Colorado
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Rm. 818
Denver, CO 80203
(303)866-3581
http://www.dnr.state.co.us/index.asp
Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127
(860) 424-3009
http://dep.state.ct.us
Delaware
Department of Natural Resources
& Environmental Control
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19901
(302) 739-5072
http://www.dnrec.state.de.us/dnrec2000
Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
M.S. 49
Tallahassee, FL 32399
(850)245-2118
http: //www. dep. state .fl .us/
Georgia
Department of Natural Resources
2 Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive, S.E.
Suite 1252 East Tower
Atlanta, GA 30334
(404)656-3500
http://www.gadnr.org
Hawaii
Department of Land and Natural Resources
Kalanimoko Bldg.
1151 Punchbowl St.
Honolulu, HI 96813
(808)587-0400
http: //www. state .hi .us/dlnr/
Idaho
Department of Water Resources
322 E. Front St.
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0098
(208)287-4800
http://www.idwr.state.id.us
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
E-1
-------
Appendix E
Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency
500 Stratton Office Bldg.
Springfield, IL 62706
(217)524-1321
http://www.epa. state .il .us/
Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
Indiana Govt. Center-North
100 N. Senate Ave.
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317)232-8603
http: //www. state .in .us/idem
Iowa
Department of Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Building
502 E. 9th Street
Des Moines, IA 50319-0034
(515)281-5918
http://www.iowadnr.com
Kansas
Department of Health and Environment
1000 SW Jackson
Topeka,KS66612
(785)296-1500
http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us
Kentucky
Division of Water
14ReillyRoad
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)564-3410
http ://www. water.ky.gov
Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
602 N. 5th Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225)342-1234
http://www.deq.state.la.us/
Maine
Department of Environmental Protection
17 State House Station
Augusta, ME 043 3 3-0017
(207) 287-7688, (800) 452-1942
http: //www.maine .gov/dep/index. shtml
Maryland
Department of Natural Resources
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410)260-8701
http: //www. dnr. state .md .us/
Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108-4746
(617)292-5500
http://www. state .ma.us/dep/brp/ww/rpwwhome .htm
Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality
525 W. Allegan St.
P.O. Box 30473
Lansing, MI 48909-7973
(517)373-7917
http://www.michigan.gov/deq
Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Rd., Box 7
St. Paul, MN 55155-4040
(612)296-6157
http: //www. dnr. state .mn .us/waters/index.html
Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O.Box 10631
Jackson, MS 39289-0631
(601)961-5171
http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/page/
main_home ?opendocument
Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102
(573)751-3443
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/wpscd/wpcp/wp-index.html
Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation
1625 Eleventh Avenue
P.O. Box 201601
Helena, MT 5 9620-1601
(406)444-2074
http://www.dnrc.state.mt.us/index.htm
E-2
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix E
Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality
1200 "N" Street, Suite 400
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, NE 68509
(402)471-2186
http://www.deq.state.ne.us/
Nevada
Department of Conservation
& Natural Resources
901 S. Stewart St., Suite 5001
Carson City, NV 89701
(775)687-4360
http://www.dcnr.nv.gov
New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services
29 Hazen Dr.
P.O. Box 95
Concord, NH 03 3 02
(603)271-3503
http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/
New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 402
Trenton, NJ 08625-0402
(609)292-2178
http: //www. state .nj .us/dep/
New Mexico
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 1928
Albuquerque, NM 87103
(505)841-8409
http: //www.dol. state .nm .us/dol_asd .html
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, NY 1223 3
(518)357-2234
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/
North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
(919)733-4984
http ://www.enr.state .nc.us/
North Dakota
Department of Health
600 East Boulevard Ave.
Bismarck, ND 58505-0200
(701)328-2372
http: //www.health. state .nd .us
Ohio
Department of Natural Resources
2045 Morse Rd.
Columbus, OH 43229
(614)265-6717
http: //www. dnr. state. oh .us/
Oklahoma
Conservation Commission
2800 North Lincoln Blvd., Suite 160
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405)521-2384
http://www.okcc.state.ok.us
Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
811 Southwest Sixth Ave.
Portland, OR 97204-13 90
(503) 229-5696
http://www.deq.state.or.us
Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection
16th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Bldg.
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
(717)787-4686
http ://www.dep. state .pa.us/
Rhode Island
Department of Environmental Management
235 Promenade Street
Providence, RI02908-5767
(401)222-6800
http ://www.dem .ri.gov
South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803)898-3432
http ://www.scdhec .gov/environment
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
E-3
-------
Appendix E
South Dakota
Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Joe Foss Bldg.
523 East Capitol
Pierre, SD 57501
(605)773-3151
http: //www. state. sd .us/denr/denr.html
Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation
1st Floor L&C Annex
401 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37243-0435
(615)532-0109
http: //www. state .tn .us/environment/
Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512)239-1000
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/index.html
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
(512)389-4800
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us
Utah
Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 145610
15 94 W. North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5610
(801)538-7200
http://www.water.utah.gov
Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources
103 South Main Street, Center Bldg.
Waterbury, VT 05 671 -03 01
(802)241-3300
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/
Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality
629 East Main Street, P.O. Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804)698-4000
http ://www.deq.state .va.us/
Washington
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(800)633-6193
http://www.ecy.wa.gov
West Virginia
DEP, Division of Water and Waste Mgt
601 -5 7th Street
Charleston, WV 25 3 04
(304)926-0495
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=ll
Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI53707-7921
(608)266-2621
http: //www. dnr. state. wi .us/
Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality
122 West 25th Street, Herschler Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002
(307) 777-7937
http://deq.state.wy.us/
Territories
American Samoa
American Samoa Coastal Management Program
Department of Commerce
Government of American Samoa
Pago Pago, AS 96799
(684)633-5155
Guam
Coastal Management Program
Economic Research Center
P.O. Box 9970
Tamuning, Guam 96931
(617)475-7062
http://www.spc.int/prism/country/gu/stats/divisions/
gcmp.htm
Northern Marianas Islands
Coastal Resources Management Office
Nauru Building
Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands 96950
(670)234-6623
E-4
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix E
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico DNER
Bureau of Reserves, Refuges, and Coastal Resources
P.O. Box 5887
Puerto de Tierra, PR 00906
(809)724-2816
Virgin Islands
Department of Planning and Natural Resources
Cyril E. King Airport Terminal Bldg., 2nd Floor
Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, VI 00800
(340)774-3320
http://www.dpnr.gov.vi
EPA 841-B-05-003 July 2005 E-5
-------
-------
Appendix F
Index of Case Studies Organized by State,
Territory, and Tribe
-------
-------
Appendix F
Index of Case Studies Organized by State,
Territory, and Tribe
STATES
Alabama
Gulf Oak Ridge
The Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources will acquire 588 acres of Gulf Oak
Ridge, the only remaining globally imperiled maritime
forest in Alabama. The area will be included in Gulf
State Park. Six rare plant species occur on the site,
and a large number of neotropical migratory birds use
the area as their first and last staging area in spring
and fall. The federally endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker, Mississippi sandhill crane, and jaguarundi
and federally threatened indigo snake are likely
inhabitants of the Gulf Oak Ridge.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998b. 1998 Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Water Watch
Alabama Water Watch is dedicated to developing
Citizen Volunteer Monitoring of Alabama's lakes,
streams, and wetlands. The program, which is funded
in part by a grant from EPA and the Alabama Depart-
ment of Environmental Management, educates
citizens about water issues, both statewide and
worldwide, and trains them to measure water quality
conditions at sites of concern. The program challenges
citizens to make a difference and potentially improve
environmental policy by actively participating in
determining long-term water quality trends.
Source: Auburn University. \995.Alabama Water
Watch. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
Alaska
Eagle River Watershed Wonders
The Anchorage School District and partners are
collaborating to restore riparian habitat along the
habitat banks of the Eagle River, which supports all
five species of Pacific salmon in addition to resident
populations of rainbow trout. The project is bringing
together the fourth-grade students from Ravenwood
Elementary School with experts from Chugach Sate
Park, the Anchorage Waterways Council, federal
resource agencies, and others to promote stewardship
of the Eagle River Watershed through the restoration
projects. As part of their involvement, students learn
scientific methods for collecting water samples and
monitoring fish populations, as well as gaining an
ecological understanding of human activities that
affect the health of the watershed. Partial funding for
this grant is being provided by the National Marine
Fisheries Service Community-based Restoration
Program.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, River
Corridor and Wetland Restoration: Projects Funded by
Five Star Restoration Program in FYOO.
. Accessed January 2003.
Local Wetland Management Plans
The municipalities of Anchorage and Juneau have
implemented wetlands management plans that identify
sensitive wetlands, specify practices for protection
and restoration of high-value wetlands, and contain
enforceable policies requiring compensation for
wetland damages from development. Similar plans for
wetlands management and conservation are antici-
pated for other populated areas of the state's coastal
region.
Source: State of Alaska. \995.AlaskaCoastalClean
Water Plan. Draft. Alaska Coastal Management
Program, Anchorage, AK.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-1
-------
Appendix F
Arizona
Chaparral Watershed
The effect of upstream shrub control on the establish-
ment of riparian vegetation was evaluated on a
chaparral watershed in central Arizona. The response
of riparian vegetation to increased water yield through
shrub control treatments was evaluated. Studies
indicated that the continuity of flow had a greater
effect on enhancing the riparian zones than did total
streamflow increases.
Source: Debano, L., J. Brejda, and J. Brock. 1984.
Enhancement of riparian vegetation following shrub
control in Arizona chaparral. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation, September-October, pp. 317-320.
Ramsey Canyon
The Nature Conservancy acquired an in-stream water
rights certificate for its Ramsey Canyon Preserve in
the Huachuca Mountains. The certificate gives the
Arizona Nature Conservancy the legal right to main-
tain in-stream flows in the stretch of Ramsey Creek
along their property, which in turn preserves in-stream
and riparian habitat and wildlife.
Source: Andy Lorenzi, The Nature Conservancy. 1992.
Personal Communication.
Tres Rios Project
The Tres Rios Demonstration Constructed Wetlands
Project was originally initiated to meet current and
future NPDES discharge requirements for the 91st
Avenue wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) in
Phoenix. For 60 months, 12 acres of wetland system
were created and monitored. This project has been
underway since 1995. The use of constructed wet-
lands for wastewater treatment is preferred because
the cost of initial upgrades to existing WWTP facilities
to meet future NPDES charges were estimated at
$625 million, and wetland treatment is estimated at
$82 million. Other benefits would include habitat;
environmental education; flood control; aesthetics; and
reduction in vandalism, dumping, and nuisance condi-
tions in the river corridor.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA andNACO). \999.Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Arkansas
Bottomland Hardwood Study
A long-term study was conducted to determine
chemical and hydrological functions of bottomland
hardwood wetlands along the Cache River. Hydro-
logic gauging stations were established at inflow and
outflow points on the river, and more than 25 chemical
constituents were measured. Preliminary results for
the 1988 water year indicated that total and inorganic
suspended solids and nitrate were retained in the
wetlands, and organic suspended solids, total and
dissolved organic carbon, inorganic carbon, total
phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, ammonia,
and total Kjeldahl nitrogen were exported. All mea-
sured constituents were exported during low water
when there was limited contact between the river and
the wetlands and retained when the Cypress-Tupelo
part of the floodplain was inundated.
Source: Kleiss, B.A., E.E. Morris, J.F. Nix, and J.W.
Barko. 1989. Modification of Riverine Water Quality
by an Adjacent Bottomland Hardwood Wetland. In
Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed.
D.W. Fisk, Tampa, Florida, September 17-22, 1989,
pp. 429-438. TPS 89-3. American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda, MD.
Cache River
The USAGE studied a 20-mile stretch of the Cache
River where floodplain deposition was shown to
reduce suspended solids by 50%, nitrates by 80%, and
phosphates by 50%.
Source: Stuart, G, and J. Greis. 1991. Role of Riparian
Forests in Water Quality on Agricultural Watersheds.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Washington, DC.
F-2
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
Cache River Wetland
Suspended sediment dynamics were measured in a
hardwood wetland adjacent to the Cache River during
the 1988-1990 water years. A suspended sediment
mass balance was calculated using depth-integrated,
flow-weighted daily measurements at wetland inflow
and outflow points. Measurements of sediment
accretion were made at 30 sites in the wetland.
Multiple regression was used to relate sedimentation
rates to several biological factors. A combination of
distance to the river, flood duration, and tree basal
area accounted for nearly 90% of the variations in
sedimentation rates.
Source: Kleiss, B.A. 1996. Sediment retention in a
bottomland hardwood in eastern Arkansas. Wetlands
16:321-333.
Landowner's Guide
The purpose of the guide is to assist private landown-
ers in the conservation and management of Arkansas'
wetlands and associated agricultural lands. The guide
contains information on voluntary programs that
provide technical and/or financial assistance for
wetland and riparian habitat restoration and agricul-
tural land management activities.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995-1996. Landowner's Guide to Voluntary
Wetland Programs in Arkansas. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
California
Nature Conservancy
The Nature Conservancy brought together a dozen
public partners to acquire 5,000 acres critical to the
Cosumnes River Preserve, which now covers 12,000
acres. The Cosumnes watershed supports significant
natural communities, such as vernal pool grasslands,
streamside forests, and wetlands, that are used by
thousands of migratory birds.
Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1998b. The Nature
Conservancy Magazine. January/February 1998. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
Huichica Creek Vineyard
The Napa County Resource Conservation District of
Napa, California, received a loan from the SRF for the
Huichica Creek Vineyard Sustainable Agricultural
Demonstration Project. The project will be an outdoor
classroom designed to encourage the adoption of best
management practices in perennial crops in California.
The SRF loan will be used to install surface drainage
improvements; restore wetland areas between vine-
yard blocks, which includes constructing a weir,
planting native vegetative species, and developing the
necessary habitat structures for waterfowl and
raptors; and stabilize the creekbed and restore riparian
vegetation. The overall project includes incorporating
best management practices and low input viticulture
techniques that include long-term monitoring of water
quality, soil nutrition, insect pest populations, and
biodiversity changes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter, Washington, DC.
Tahoe Conservancy
The Tahoe Conservancy is charged with preserving
and enhancing the unique ecological and recreational
values of the Tahoe basin. The Conservancy's work
with private owners of wetland property comes
primarily through its acquisition program. It focuses on
obtaining conservation easements, development rights,
and full titles to lands that contain wetlands, meadows,
or riparian areas. The Conservancy offers 95% of
what the property would bring on the open market.
Source: California Environmental Resources Evaluation
System. 1995. CWIS, Tahoe Conservancy. Programs.
California Environmental Resource Evaluation System,
Sacramento CA.
Carmel River
A study was conducted that linked Mediterranean
climate and ground water extraction with the decline
of riparian vegetation and subsequent severe bank
erosion on the Carmel River. Ground water is closely
coupled with streamflow to maintain water supply to
riparian vegetation, particularly where precipitation is
seasonal.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-3
-------
Appendix F
Source: Groenveld, D.R. andE. Griepentrog. 1985.
Interdependence of Ground water. Riparian Vegetation,
and Streambank Stability: A Case Study. In Proceedings
of Riparian Ecosystems and their Management:
Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April
16-18, 1985, pp. 44-48. GTRRM-120. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Little Lost Man Creek
Nitrate retention was evaluated in a third-order stream
under background conditions and during four intervals
of modified nitrate concentration caused by nutrient
amendments or storm-enhanced discharge. Measure-
ments of stream response to nitrate loading and storm
discharge showed that nitrate was exported from the
subsurface (11% greater than input) under normal
background conditions. With increased nitrate input,
there was an initial 39% reduction followed by a
steady state reduction of 14%. Subsurface measure-
ments taken during a storm event showed a 6%
increase in exported nitrate.
Source: Triska, F.J., V.C. Kennedy, R.J. Avanzino, G.W.
Zellweger, and K.E. Bencala. 1990. In situ retention-
transport response to nitrate loading and storm
discharge in a third-order stream. Journal of North
American Benthological Society 9(3):229-239.
Lake Tafaoe
A wetland was constructed near Lake Talioc to
determine the potential for treating urban runoff in
sub-Alpine regions of the United States. The purpose
of the project was to determine the effectiveness of
the wetland in removing nitrate, phosphorus, iron,
suspended solids, and other constituents from runoff.
Nitrate concentrations were decreased by the
wetland by 85%-90%. Particulate phosphorus concen-
trations decreased by 47%, soluble phosphorus
decreased by 20%, iron was reduced by 84%, and
turbidity and suspended solids were reduced by 85%
by the wetland.
Source: Reuter, .I.E., T. Djohan, and C.R. Goldman.
1992. The use of wetlands for nutrient removal from
surface runoff in a cold climate region of California:
Results from a newly constructed wetland at Lake
Tahoe. Journal of Environmental Management
36(1):35(19).
Redwood City
Wetland loss near the port of Redwood City, Califor-
nia, is believed to be responsible for damage to
shipping channels. The USAGE recently spent $2.8
million on a dredging project there.
Sources: McAliney, M., ed. 1993. Arguments for Land
Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources
for Land Resources Protection. Trust for Public Land,
Sacramento, CA.
LI. S Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). 2001. Annual
Report to Congress on the Status of the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund for Fiscal Year 1999. IWR-
Report OO-R-7.
San Luis Rey and San Diego Rivers
A restoration project was conducted to create and
restore riparian habitat for the endangered least
Bell's vireo. The most important aspects of restoration
planning were found to include careful analysis of
species composition, density, community structure.
and arrangement, and ground water and soil charac-
teristics.
Source: Baird, K. 1989. High quality restoration of
riparian ecosystems. Restoration & Management Notes
7(2):60-64.
Stevinson Ranch
The Stevinson Ranch golf course has achieved
Signature Status from Audubon International through
the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program for
Golf Courses (see New York Audubon Golf Course
Program). At Stevinson, great care has been taken to
protect existing wetlands, and more than 100 acres of
additional wetlands have been added.
Source: GolfWeb. 1997. Golfing with Mother Nature at
Stevinson Ranch.
Wetland Conservation Guide
The guidebook describes the financial advisory' and
technical assistance available to private property
owners who choose to create, protect, or enhance
wetlands on their land. It also explains benefits that
can be derived from having wetlands on private
property and from making use of this assistance. All
options presented in the program are voluntary.
F-4
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
Source: Heasley, P. 1994. Options for Wetland Conser-
vation: A Guide for California Landowners. California
Coastal Conservancy, Oakland, CA.
Colorado
Boulder Creek Restoration
Boulder reduced potential wastewater treatment costs
significantly by deciding to restore Boulder Creek
rather than construct a nitrification tower. Discharge
effluent at the wastewater treatment plant met water
quality standards; however, farther downstream
ammonia concentrations exceeded the allowable level.
Downstream the creek previously had been
channelized and degraded. Through revegetation,
terracing, construction of aeration structures, and
other improvements, the stream was restored. The
natural functions of the stream would then cool and
reaerate the water to convert the ammonia. Restora-
tion of Boulder Creek would also improve wildlife
habitat, particularly fisheries.
Source: Bamett, J., Greenways Coordinator, City of
Boulder. 1990. Personal communication.
Fort Collins
A laboratory study was conducted by the Crops
Research Laboratory in Fort Collins using a rainfall
simulator to evaluate how buffer zone length and
vegetation height influence runoff and sediment yield.
Results showed not only that sediment was filtered
from the runoff by vegetation, but also that most
sediment was deposited upslope from the vegetated
buffer strips as a sediment wedge. The sediment
wedge developed outside the vegetation zone and then
progressed into the vegetation as time passed.
Source: Pearce, R., M.J. Trlica, W.C. Leiniger, J.L.
Smith, and G.W. Frasier. 1996. Efficiency of Grass
Buffer Strip Length and Vegetation Height on Sediment
Filtration in Laboratory Rainfall Simulations. USDA
National Agricultural Library.
Landowning Colorado Style
The booklet offers information about natural and man-
made laws in Colorado. Riparian area and wetland
functions along with regulatory policies are discussed.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). No date. Landowning Colorado Style.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Shop Creek Pond
The Shop Creek Pond/wetland system was evaluated
to determine ability to remove suspended solids and
phosphorus species from stormwater runoff. Sus-
pended solid removals for 66 storms averaged 78% in
Shop Creek Pond and 36% in the wetlands. Total
phosphorus removals for the same storm events
averaged 47% in Shop Creek Pond and 10% in the
wetland. The Shop Creek Pond/wetland system was
capable of removing about 52% of the total phospho-
rus load entering the system.
Source: Kunkel, J.R., T.D. Steele, B. Urbonas, and J.
Carlson. 1992. Chemical-Constituent Load Removal
Efficiency of an Urban Detention Pond/Wetlands
System in the Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado. In
Proceedings of Environmental Engineering: Saving a
Threatened Resource in Search of Solutions, Baltimore,
Maryland, August 2-6, 1992.
Connecticut
Barn Island
Impoundment of the Barn Island tidal marsh in the
1940s for waterfowl management following ditching
for mosquito control and harvesting of salt meadow
hay greatly impacted and altered habitat in the system.
Prior to restoration efforts the impoundment consisted
primarily of phragmites and narrow-leafed cattails.
Several attempts at restoring salt marsh vegetation to
the site have been made with varying degrees of
success. The restoration has proceeded significantly
toward restoring salt marsh communities following
reestablishment of tidal influx.
Source: Myers, J. 1996. The ongoing salt marsh
restoration at Stonington, Connecticut. In Restoration
and Reclamation Review. University of Minnesota,
Department of Horticultural Science, St. Paul, MN.
Coastal Embayments
In 1991 the Connecticut Department of Environmental
Protection requested a study be conducted by Coastal
America to identify salt marshes that have been
degraded as a result of tidal flow restrictions caused
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-5
-------
Appendix F
by the placement of transportation facilities. This
study provided an initial assessment of all degraded
salt marshes between New Haven and the Connecti-
cut-Rhode Island border. Ten sites were selected for
further study, and six were found to be experiencing
degradation as a result of tidal flow restrictions. As a
result, the Connecticut congressional delegation
drafted legislation to provide for a comprehensive
examination of degraded coastal wetlands.
Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands
Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washing-
ton, DC.
Wetland Protection
Connecticut requires a permit for dredging or filling
activities in tidal and inland wetlands. Permit applica-
tions for new projects are reviewed for impacts on
water quality, water circulation, aquatic life, and
wetlands. Soil erosion and sediment controls are also
required for construction adjacent to wetlands, thereby
reducing sediment impacts in wetlands from develop-
ment in adjacent upland areas. Local authorities
frequently incorporate mandatory setbacks from
wetlands into zoning regulations to provide added
protection against effects from upland areas on
wetlands.
Source: Connecticut CZARA Program. 1996. Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT.
Delaware
PSE&G's Estuary Enhancement Program:
The Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (PSE&G) is
conducting a restoration program under the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and
the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control. Of the land slated for restora-
tion, 12,500 acres are in New Jersey and 8,000 are in
Delaware. Nearly 17,000 acres will be restored as salt
marshes, making this the largest endeavor of its kind.
PSE&G purchased land and made agreements with
landowners to gain access to land.
Source: Richman, M. 1996. Utility restores salt
marshes in large wetlands enhancement program. Water
Environment Federation 1(1, June).
Wetlands Rehabilitation Program
The Northern Delaware Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program was established by the Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control to bring
together civic and business leaders, scientists, re-
source managers, and property owners to develop
strategies to restore close to 10,000 acres of wetlands
in 31 distinct sites along the Christina and Delaware
rivers in New Castle County. The program seeks to
improve water quality; increase wildlife populations;
control nuisance plants, mosquitoes, and flooding;
reduce shoreline erosion; and improve recreational
and educational opportunities in designated marshes.
Source: Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control. 1998. Wetlands Rehabilitation
Program. Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control, Dover, DE.
Florida
Agrico Swamp
This evaluation of the success of restoring phosphate
mined lands involved comparisons between natural
and reclaimed sites over a 4-year period. Species
richness, percent cover, and the survival and growth
of vegetation were measured. Restored sites were
determined to improve water quality to levels consis-
tent with state water quality standards.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Northern
Prairie Science Center. 1997a. Riparian Ecosystem
Creation and Restoration: A Literature Summary. Case
Studies: Agrico Swamp. U.S. Geological Survey,
Reston, VA.
Banana Lake
The Banana Lake project was conducted as compen-
sation for impacts on wetlands from a highway
construction project. Objectives of the restoration
project included improving the surface water quality,
eliminating localized flooding, restoring pre-mining
drainage and functions of the headwater system, and
restoring a hardwood wetland. The restored wetland
was shown to reduce nitrate, ammonia, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total
F-6
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
phosphorus in comparison to adjacent unrestored
wetlands.
Source: Powers, R.M., and IF. Spence. 1989. Headwa-
ter Restoration: The Key Is Integrated Project Goals. In
Proceedings of Wetlands: Concerns and Successes, ed.
D.W. Fisk," Tampa, Florida, September 17-22, 1989,
pp. 269-279. IPS 89-3. American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda, ML).
Buffer Zone Guidelines
The East Central Florida Regional Planning District
has developed guidelines for determining buffer zones
for water, wetlands, and wildlife.
Source: Brown, M.T., I Schaefer, and K. Brandt. 1990.
Buffer Zones for Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife in East
Central Florida. Publication no. 89-07 and Florida
Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series no.
T-00061. Center for Wetlands, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Emerson Point Park
The Emerson Point Park restoration project is part of
a larger estuary watershed restoration program
through the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program.
Emerson Point is one of 26 habitat restoration and
enhancement projects. In 1995 Manatee County
began planning the restoration project. A $1.5 million
budget was secured through the integral financial
commitment of local, regional, state, and federal
agencies and several nonprofit and corporate dona-
tors. So far, $475,000 of $828,000 budgeted for
restoration has been spent. The project has helped
increase community awareness and appreciation of
the Tampa Bay environment.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Kissimmee Prairie Watershed
Through the efforts of the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's Division of Recreation and
Parks, Florida's Conservation and Recreation Lands
Program, the South Florida Water Management
District, the National Audubon Society, and the Nature
Conservancy, 48,000 acres in the 100,000-acre
Kissimmee Prairie Watershed were acquired. The
Kissimmee Prairie Watershed is an area of more than
100.000 acres in northern Okccchobcc and southern
Osceola counties. Habitats in the watershed consist of
wet and dry prairie, pine flatwoods, scrub, oak ham-
mock, marsh, and hardwood swamp, as well as native
and improved rangeland. The watershed, therefore,
provides prime habitat for several federally listed
threatened and endangered birds.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City /County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Kissimmee River
Total phosphorus and total nitrogen mass balance
equations were calculated for Boney Marsh, a sub-
tropical constructed freshwater wetland in the flood-
plain of the Kissimmee River in South Florida. River
water was diverted through the marsh for 9 years.
Nutrient retention was influenced primarily by nutrient
loading rates. The Boney Marsh mean annual total
phosphorus removal efficiency was 72%. Total
phosphorus removal efficiencies were consistently
higherthan total nitrogen removal efficiencies at all
times. Unlike wetlands intemperate latitudes, Boney
Marsh was a net positive sink for total phosphorus
year-round but not for total nitrogen.
Source: Moustafa, M.D., T.D. Fontaine, and M.J.
Chimney. 1995. The Response of a Freshwater Wetland
to Long-term Low-level Nutrient Loads. In National
Interagency Workshop on Wetlands, USAGE Water-
ways Experiment Station. New Orleans, LA, April 5-7,
1997.
Lake Jackson
A sediment filtration plant and artificial wetland were
constructed to remove suspended solids and nutrients
from stormwater runoff prior to discharge into Lake
Jackson. Water samples collected during storm events
were analyzed for a wide range of particulate and
dissolved parameters including suspended solids and
various nitrogen and phosphorus species. Results from
the first year of study indicated that under normal
operating conditions, the facility was capable of
removing about 95% of the suspended solid load. All
other parameters measured showed reductions of
from 35% to 90%.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-7
-------
Appendix F
Source: Tuovila, B.J., T.H. Johengen, P.A. LaRock, J.B.
(Jutland, D.H. Esry, and M. Franklin. 1987. An
Evaluation of the Lake Jackson (Florida) Filter System
and Artificial Marsh on Nutrient and Particulatc
Removal from Storm water Runoff. In Aquatic Plants
for Water Treatment and Resource Recovery. University
of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Orange County
The efficiency of a detention pond and wetland
temporary storage system in reducing constituent
loads in runoff was determined in a study conducted in
an urban area of west Orlando. Regression efficien-
cies, which relate the amount of constituent load into
the wetland versus the amount exported, were used to
quantify the removal effectiveness. The detention
pond generally reduced suspended constituent loads.
The pond had regression efficiencies of 65% for
suspended solids, 41% for suspended lead, 37% for
suspended zinc, 17% for suspended nitrogen, and 21%
for suspended phosphorus. The wetland was generally
effective in reducing both suspended and dissolved
constituent loads. Regression efficiencies for sus-
pended constituents were 66% for solids, 75% for
lead, 50% for zinc, 30% for nitrogen, and 19% for
phosphorus. Regression efficiencies for dissolved
constituents were 38% for solids, 54% for lead, 75%
for zinc, 13% for nitrogen, and 0% for phosphorus.
The detention pond/wetland system achieved appre-
ciable reduction of loads for most constituents. System
regression efficiencies were 55% for total solids, 83%
for total lead, 70% for total zinc, 36% for total nitro-
gen, and 43% for total phosphorus.
Source: Martin E.H., and J.L. Smoot. 1986. Constituent
Load Changes in Urban Storrtnvater Runoff'Routed
Through a Detention Pond-Wetlands System in Central
Florida. Prepared in cooperation with the Florida
Department of Transportation. USGS Water Resources
Investigation Report 85-4310.
Orlando
An urban stormwater treatment system consisting of a
detention pond and a wetland was constructed to
receive runoff from a four-lane roadway and adjacent
areas. Water quality monitoring at the pond inlet, pond
outlet, and wetland outlet was conducted to determine
the effectiveness of the pond, the wetland, and the
system in treating stormwater runoff. The detention
pond reduced suspended constituent concentrations
and loads of solids, lead, and zinc. The wetland was
found to be more effective at reducing constituent
concentrations and loads than the detention pond. By
utilizing two treatment units in series, a variety of
physical and biological processes acted to improve
water quality. The system achieved appreciable
reductions in the loads of solids, lead, zinc, and, to a
somewhat lesser degree, loads of nutrients. Total
solids, lead, and zinc efficiencies ranged between 55%
and 83%. Total nitrogen and phosphorus efficiencies
were 36% and 43%, respectively.
Source: Martin, E.H. 1988. Effectiveness of an urban
runoff detention pond-wetlands system. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 114(4).
Palm Beach Gardens
A system of man-made wetlands (36 ha) and a natural
wetland retention impoundment (120 ha) were used to
treat stormwater runoff from a residential/golf course
development (947 ha). The wetland system was
designed to improve water quality, restore destroyed
wetlands, provide habitat for fish and wildlife, and add
natural aesthetics. All water quality parameters
monitored were improved by the wetland treatment
system. The wetland system removed 71% of nitrite,
68% of turbidity, 62% of total phosphate, and 50% of
total suspended solids. Water discharged from the
development met state potable water standards.
Source: Blackburn, R.D., P.L. Pimentcl, and G.E.
French. 1986. Treatment of Slomiwa/er Runoff Using
Aquatic Plants: The Use of Wetlands for Controlling
Stormwater Pollution, ed. E.W. Strecker, J.M. Kersnar,
and E.D. Driscoll. Woodward-Clyde Consultants,
Portland. Oregon. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 5,
Water Division, Watershed Management Unit. EPA/600
February 1992.
Tampa
A wet detention pond built as part of a parking lot
expansion in Tampa was studied to assess its ability to
remove pollutants from urban runoff. The pond, which
has a wetland vegetation coverage of 90%, was
measured for pollutant removal efficiencies from
flows generated by 18 storm events over the summer
of 1989. Measurements taken at pond inflow and
outflow points showed reductions of 44% for ammo-
nia nitrogen, 75% for nitrate and nitrite, 56% for
orthophosphate, 47% for total phosphorus, and 71%
for total suspended solids. Organic nitrogen was not
removed.
F-8
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
Source: Rushton, B.T., and C.W. Dye. 1990. Tampa
Office Wet Detention Stormwater Treatment. In Annual
Report for Stormwater Research Program Fiscal Year
1989-1990, pp. 39-74. Southwest Florida Water
Management District, Brooksville, FL.
Wetland Protection
Florida requires a permit for dredging or filling activi-
ties in waters of the state, including wetlands. Permit
applications are reviewed for impacts on water quality,
habitat, and the functions of wetlands as NFS pollution
filters. Stormwater regulations require the placement
of BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants entering
wetlands from upland developments. Further protec-
tion of wetlands and riparian areas is achieved through
the Surface Water Improvement and Management
Program, which identifies point and nonpoint sources
of water pollution in individual watersheds and devel-
ops strategies for restoration and protection of river
corridors and wetland systems with the goal of
bringing all sources of surface water pollution into
compliance with state water quality standards.
Source: Florida Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program. 1995. Florida Coastal Management
Program, Tallahassee, FL.
Georgia
Little River
A study was conducted on riparian forests located
adjacent to agricultural uplands to test their ability to
intercept and utilize nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus,
potassium, calcium) in agricultural runoff. Tissue
nutrient concentrations, nutrient accretion rates, and
production rates of woody plants on the sites were
compared to control sites. Data from the study
provide evidence that young (bloom state) riparian
forests within agricultural ecosystems absorb nutrients
lost from agricultural uplands.
Source: Fail, J.L., Jr., B.L. Haines, and R.L. Todd. No
date. Riparian forest communities and their role in
nutrient conservation in an agricultural watershed.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 11(3): 114-
120.
Tifton
A mixed hardwood riparian forest located in an
agricultural watershed was shown to be effective in
retaining nitrogen (67%), phosphorus (25%), calcium
(42%), and magnesium (22%). Nitrogen was removed
from subsurface water by plant uptake and microbial
processes. Riparian land use was also shown to affect
the nutrient removal characteristics of the riparian
area. Forested areas were more effective in nutrient
removal than pasture areas, which were more effec-
tive than croplands.
Source: Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, andL.E.
Asmussen. 1983. Waterborne Nutrient Budgets for the
Riparian Zone of an Agricultural Watershed. Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems and Environment 10:371-384.
Nutrient Cycling in an Agricultural Watershed
Processes within a riparian area apparently converted
primarily inorganic nitrogen (76% nitrate, 6% ammonia,
18% organic nitrogen) into primarily organic nitrogen
(10% nitrate, 14% ammonia, 76% organic nitrogen).
Source: Lowrance, R.R., R.L. Todd, and L.E.
Asmussen. 1984. Nutrient cycling in an agricultural
watershed: Phreatic movement. Journal of Environmen-
tal Quality \\Y):11-11.
Riparian Restoration
The study evaluated the effectiveness and feasibility
of restoring a riparian wetland and using it as a
bioremediation site for nutrients moving downslope
from an animal waste application site. Short-term
effectiveness of the restored wetland in enhancing
water quality was monitored. Water sampling design
and procedures are presented in detail.
Source: Vellidis, G, R. Lowrance, M.C. Smith and R.K.
Hubbard. 1993. Methods to assess the water quality
impact of a restored riparian wetland. Journal of Soil
and Water Conservation 48(3):223(8).
w Hawaii
Hamakau Wetlands
The Hamakau Wetlands restoration project, funded
through the National Coastal Wetlands Conservation
Grant Program, was completed in the spring of 1995.
The project was designed to restore a 22.7-acre
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-9
-------
Appendix F
wetland in Honolulu County that had been donated to
the state by Ducks Unlimited. The parcel was donated
to Ducks Unlimited by a private landowner, the
Kaneohe Ranch. The wetland is connected to the
Kawainiu Marsh, which at 800 acres is the largest
wetland in Hawaii. An important goal of this project
was to restore habitat to benefit endangered birds.
Critical to the restoration of the wetlands was removal
of nonnative plants and animals species. In addition to
the direct benefits to wildlife, the Hamakua Wetlands
is important as a model for the multi-partner approach
to wetland conservation projects in Hawaii. Finally, its
high profile in the urban setting of the city of Kailua in
Honolulu County provides excellent public education
opportunities on the importance of conserving and
restoring wetlands.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998a. Case Studies—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Idaho
Teton River Basin
The National Wildlife Refuge System has provided
funding for the acquisition of 1,000 acres of wetland
habitat in Teton County. The site, which consists of
several wetlands and associated uplands, provides
migratory, nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for
waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, and wading birds, as
well as several rare, threatened, and endangered plant
and animal species. The project will be managed by
the Teton Valley Land Trust.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish
and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,
1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Illinois
Des Plaines River
The Des Plaines River Wetlands Demonstration
Project was designed to improve water quality in the
river through the use of constructed wetlands. Four
wetlands were constructed to improve water quality
affected by agricultural and urban runoff. The four
wetlands were found to reduce total suspended solids
by 86% to 90%, nitrogen by 61% to 92%, and phos-
phorus by 65% to 78%.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1993a. Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment and Wildlife Habitat. EPA832-R-93-005.
USEPA, Office of Wastewater Management, Washing-
ton, DC.
East St. Louis
The East St. Louis Action Research Project evaluated
the economics of wetland development in areas where
wetlands had formerly been located to improve
surface water quality, to create recreational spaces, to
create habitat, and to alleviate flooding. Many benefit
assumptions were made to estimate the amount of
benefit that can be derived from the reintroduction of
a wetland. This analysis took into account only the
money that the wetland would bring in by people using
it for recreation and education. Lodging will be
provided in the wetlands and is included in the cost
and benefit analysis. The total recreational benefit
comes to $371,350 per year. The true benefits of the
wetland will be seen by the surrounding area and its
various populations. The indirect monetary benefits of
wetlands were not estimated for East St. Louis.
However, the following list is being considered in
addition to the direct benefits from recreation alone.
It is likely that the residents get their water
supply from these wetlands, as opposed to
ground wells. Wetlands recharge the water
table overtime by trapping and holding
snowmelt and rainfall. The benefits from
increased water will be felt by farms border-
ing the wetland, which may discover in-
creased yields.
F-10
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
The large size of this wetland will provide
flood protection to large areas lower in the
drainage basin, increasing property values.
• The wetlands and their surrounding vegetation
will help to capture and filter runoff water of
pesticide residue, nutrients from crop fertilizer,
animal waste, and organic matter. After this
occurs, the particles can be converted to less
harmful forms or remain buried, helping to
improve water quality. This puts less demand
on treatment facilities.
Source: Sperl.R., A. Davis, andB. Scheidecker. 1996.
Wetland Development: Economic Evaluation. East St.
Louis Action Research Project. University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Embarras River
Studies were conducted on forested and grassed VFS
in central Illinois. It was found that both types of VFS
reduced nitrate-nitrogen concentrations up to 90% in
shallow ground water. On an annual basis, the forested
VFS was more effective at reducing nitrate-N than the
grass VFS, but it was less efficient at retaining total and
dissolved phosphorus.
Source: Osborne, L.L., andD.A. Kovacic. 1993.
Riparian vegetated buffer strips in water quality
restoration and stream management. Freshwater
Biology 29:243-25%.
Iroquois County
Iroquois County, Illinois, is using the Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service's (NR.CS) Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) to establish VFS along the
many miles of creeks, streams, rivers, and drainage
ditches throughout the county. An NRCS district
representative helps farmers register for the program,
which has provided about $26,000 worth of switch-
grass seed to the participants. The VFS will remove
chemicals and sediment and lead to improved water
quality. NRCS is also working to obtain easements for
those areas currently enrolled in the program, so that
the land does not return to production after the CRP
contract ends. In addition, the Illinois Department of
Natural Resources, through its Conservation 2000
fund, is acquiring easements on key floodplains,
many of which are in or adjacent to continuous CRP
buffers.
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 2000c. Illinois-Water Quality, Flood Protec-
tion, State Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Prairie Wolf Slough Restoration Project
The Prairie Wolf Slough Restoration Project was an
Urban Resources Partnership-funded program that
involved 13 different local, private, state, and federal
agencies. There was a desire among partners to
demonstrate wetland restoration techniques and the
benefit of wetlands in urban and suburban areas. The
restored wetlands were shown to help improve water
quality and control storm water flooding. During storm
events in 1996. the site flooded and stored water that
would normally have moved downstream.
Source: Urban Resources Partnership. 1997. Prairie
Wolf Slough—A Chicago Wetland/Prairie Restoration
Project. In WHC 1997 Wildlands Conference "Beyond-
the-Case-Study" Workshops. United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, World
Heritage Committee, Paris, France.
Agricultural Watersheds
Small streams in agricultural watersheds in Illinois
were shown to have water temperature problems
following the removal of trees. Loss of shade in-
creased water temperatures by 10 to 15 degrees
Fahrenheit. Slight increases in water temperature over
60 degrees caused a significant increase in phospho-
rus release from sediments.
Source: Karr, J.R., andl.J. Schlosser. 1977. Impact of
Nearstream Vegetation and Stream Morphology on
Water Quality and Stream Biota. Ecological Research
Series. EPA-600/3-77-097. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Heron Pond
A riparian forested wetland adjacent to the Cache
River in southern Illinois was studied to determine its
ability to serve as a nutrient and sediment trap. The
30-ha alluvial cypress wetland, dominated by bald
cypress and water tupelo, was estimated to retain
about 0.4% of the total annual phosphorus flux of the
river and approximately 3% of the sediments passing
through the system.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1993b. Created arid Natural Wetlands for
Controlling Nonpoinl Source Pollution. Office of
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-11
-------
Appendix F
Research and Development and Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton,
FL.
Meredosia Wetland Complex Project
In March 1998 the Migratory Bird Conservation
Commission, as authorized under the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act, approved $524,556 in
funding for the Meredosia Wetland Complex Project in
Brown, Cass, and Morgan counties. This act is non-
regulatory and calls for voluntary partnerships to
develop and implement the projects. Partners will
acquire 1,160 acres (a $2 million value) of farmland
from John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
as part of a larger project that is protecting and restor-
ing areas along the Illinois River. Restoration of this
property could provide a significant increase in water-
fowl hunting, birdwatching, and nature exploration.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998c. Illinois. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Wetland Assessment
The synoptic assessment approach is being applied to
develop maps for use in ranking riparian wetlands for
restoration according to their potential for water
quality improvements. The approach is being used to
identify areas where wetland restoration would
provide the greatest benefit from reduced nitrogen
levels to human water supply and to non-degraded fish
communities.
Source: USERA. 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to
Cumulative Impact Assessment - A Proposed Method-
ology. EPE/600/R-92/167.
Wetlands Conservation Strategy
The Illinois Wetland Conservation Strategy is a
comprehensive plan to guide the development and
implementation of Illinois's wetland programs and
protection initiatives. It is an organizational tool used
to identify opportunities for making programs work
better. The goal of the Illinois Wetland Conservation
Strategy is to ensure that there will be no net loss of
wetlands or their functions in Illinois.
Source: Baum, S. 1995. Illinois Wetland Strategy. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Champagne, IL.
University of Illinois
Four vegetative filters were installed on feedlots in
central and northern Illinois. Two configurations were
used: channelized flow and overland flow. Filters
removed as much as 95% of nutrients and
oxygen-demanding materials from the applied runoff
on a weight basis and 80% on a concentration basis.
Removal was directly related to two variables: flow
distance and contact time with the filter. Channelized
flow with greater flow depths required either greater
contact time or longer flow distance than shallow
overland flow to achieve the same level of treatment.
Source: Dickey, E.C., andD.H. Vanderholm. 1981.
Vegetative filter treatment of livestock feedlot runoff.
Journal of Environmental Quality 10(3):279-284.
Indiana
Center for Alternative Agricultural Systems
Purdue University Center for Alternative Agricultural
Systems began a study in 1990 to determine the
feasibility of offsetting the costs of converting produc-
tive land into VFS by planting certain tree and shrub
species. Pussy willow, red twigged dogwood, and
corkscrew willows were planted as wind breaks in
buffer strips. Two years after planting, researchers
sold harvested branches to florists for gains equivalent
to $5,500 per acre. Erosion from the test fields was
dramatically reduced, and corn stubbles and soil that
would normally have washed into ditches and drain
tiles were trapped by the shrubs.
Sources: Perkins, A. 1997. 4a Indiana. Perdue Univer-
sity, West Lafayette, IN.
Purdue Agriculture Experiment Station. 1997. Purdue
Makes Money Grow on Filter-Strip Bushes. Purdue
University, West Lafayette, IN.
Kosciusko County
A 1-acre wetland was constructed downstream of a
dairy farm and monitored to determine the water
quality effects of the system on surface water runoff
from the dairy. The effects of the wetland on water
quality were determined by monitoring the chemical
composition of the surface water, nutrient load, and
F-12
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
plant and animal dynamics. Significant reductions
were seen in fecal coliform, phosphates, total phos-
phorus, ammonia, suspended solids, total nitrogen, and
conductivity. Year-round routine operation and mainte-
nance were determined to be required for successful
treatment.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1997d. The Water Monitor. EPA841-N-97-
005.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. August-September
1997.
Purdue University
A project was conducted to develop a VSF system
with familiar native herbaceous and tree species that
would not inhibit tree establishment and growth, would
provide beneficial wildlife habitat, and would provide
necessary erosion control. Three VSF plots composed
of mixed native weeds and grasses, ladino clover, and
orchard grass were established with seedlings of oak,
walnut, and ash. VSF cover, wildlife, and erosion
control were monitored monthly throughout a 4-year
period. The native species control plot performed
belter than the planted clover and orchard grass plots.
Wildlife habitat use and browsing statistics indicated
an increase in biodiversity due to VSF use. Tree
planting within the VSF system was shown to diver-
sify land use objectives to include hardwood produc-
tion and wildlife habitat enhancement without restrict-
ing tree growth or VSF effectiveness in meeting
water quality improvement objectives.
Source: Gillespie, A.R., B.K. Miller, and K.D. Johnson.
1995. Effects of Ground Cover on Tree Survival and
Growth in Filter Strips of the Cornbelt Region of the
Midwestern US. Texas A&MBlackland Research
Center.
Southern Lake Michigan
A $ 1 million grant through the National Wildlife
Refuge System will be used to help purchase more
than 1,200 acres of critical habitat for migrating
waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds, and neotropical birds in
Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties along southern
Lake Michigan.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish
and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,
1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Iowa
Allamakee County
Since the Conservation Reserve Program was initi-
ated in Allamakee County, 1,700 acres of continuous
land have been enrolled. In addition, buffers on 40
miles of stream have been enrolled. One contract is
on Vernon and Sandra Gavles' dairy farm, which has
44 acres in the CRP. A state-owned, stocked trout
stream runs across their property. Practically the
entire corridor they own is in buffers, with 29.2 acres
of woody riparian zone and 14.6 acres of grass filter.
The CRP rent is approximately $150/acre for a total
of $6,600. The Gavles have also installed 6,870 feet of
exclusionary fencing to keep their cattle out of the
stream. All of these efforts will help protect and
improve water quality. Without the 50 percent cost
share, they would not have been able to make these
changes.
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 2000a. Iowa Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), Bottomland. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Iowa River Corridor Project
The Iowa River Corridor Project uses a voluntary
approach to wetland restoration, gives landowners
economic alternatives for frequently flooded farmland,
and is intended to improve water quality and wildlife
habitat. It is sponsored by the Iowa Natural Re-
sources Conservation Service. The farmers can
choose to continue farming as they have, sell an
easement and have a wetland restored, sell an ease-
ment and title to the FWS, or try some alternative
farming practices.
Source: Zinkand, D. 1996. Wetlands restoration project
to look like giant buffer strip. Iowa Farmer Today.
Iowa Farmer Today Publications, Cedar Rapids, IA.
Iowa State University
Studies at Iowa State University have shown that
vegetated buffer strips are 35% to 40% effective in
reducing runoff volumes. Vegetated buffer strips
removed, on average, 26% to 50% of the atrazine,
metolachlor, and cyanazine from runoff from test
fields. Heavier rainfall meant a lower percentage
reduction in runoff. Plots with a 15-to-l drainage
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-13
-------
Appendix F
area-to-buffer strip area ratio had an average 40%
runoff reduction, while plots with a 30-to-l ratio had a
35% reduction.
Source: Wood, G. 1997. BMPs make the grade. Farm
Journal, February.
Middle Raccoon Watershed Partnership
Farmers in Carroll County, Iowa, have been encour-
aged to participate in CRP to reduce soil erosion,
improve water quality, enhance wildlife habitat, and
improve the aesthetic qualities of their farms. By the
third year of the CRP program, the 420-square mile
Middle Raccoon watershed outside Des Moines,
Iowa, had about 75 miles of stream buffers averaging
approximately 100 feet wide. Also, four constructed
wetlands have been installed on farms in the water-
shed through an EPA and Iowa Department of
Natural Resources Section 319 grant.
The city of Des Moines, Iowa, may also join the
collaborative watershed protection effort in the Middle
Raccoon watershed. Since the city receives its
drinking water from the Raccoon River, it is investi-
gating the impact of the stream buffers on water
quality in the Raccoon River. The CEO and General
Manager of the Water Works Department, L.D.
McMullen, is researching whether the stream buffers
have made enough difference in the water quality to
avoid having to alter or expand the city's water
treatment system. He stated that currently it costs
$1,000 per day to run the system's nitrate reducer
after a severe rainstorm and hopefully the installation
of stream buffers will enable the city to save that
money.
Sources: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). No date. Iowa-Middle Raccoon Watershed
Partnership, Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
City of Des Moines drinking water. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Raccoon River Watershed Project. 1999. Partner
Initiatives of the Raccoon River Watershed Project:
Constructed Wetland Project. Raccoon River Watershed
Project, Urbandale, IA.
Wetland Restoration Program
The Wetland Science and Watershed Science Insti-
tutes, in cooperation with the Social Sciences Institute,
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Iowa
State Office), and the USFWS, are implementing a
watershed-scale wetland restoration project in
Winnebago County, Iowa. Winnebago County is in the
heart of the southern prairie pothole region, and all of
the wetlands in the project watershed have been
impacted to some degree by agricultural drainage. The
overall purpose of this project is to determine where
wetland restoration would create the greatest benefits
and give deference to those wetlands in the Wetland
Restoration Program sign-up. Landowners with
wetlands identified for restoration are being given
assurance that their lands would be accepted into the
program.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1998.
Watershed Scale Wetland Restoration. U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston, VA.
Kansas
Johnson County Streamway Park System
Leaders in Johnson County, Kansas, expected to
spend $ 120 million on storm water control projects.
Instead, voters passed a $600,000 levy to develop a
county-wide stream way park system. Development of
a greenways network along streambeds will address
some of the county's flooding problems, as well as
provide a valuable recreation resource. This greenway
network will save Johnson County over $ 119 million if
it is implemented, and no additional stormwater
controls are necessary.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Water Quality Assessment
Every 3 years, Kansas assesses water quality condi-
tions in seven state or federally owned wetlands
covering 25,069 acres. Data collected at these wet-
lands are compared against baseline wetland condi-
tions. The data will be used to define standards to
protect wetlands.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:
1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.
F-14
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Kentucky
Reference Reach Monitoring Program
Kentucky has added several wetlands to its reference
reach monitoring program to characterize general
wetland conditions in each of the physiographic
regions of the state. The assessments will be used to
develop designated uses and biological criteria for
wetlands.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:
1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Louisiana
Atchafalaya Basin
Overflow areas in the Atchafalaya Basin had large
areal net exports of total nitrogen (predominantly
organic nitrogen) and dissolved organic carbon but
acted as a sink for phosphorus. Ammonia levels
increased dramatically during the summer. The
Atchafalaya Basin floodway acted as a sink for total
organic carbon mainly through reductions in particu-
late organic carbon.
Source: Lambou, V.W. 1985. Aquatic Organic Carbon
and Nutrient Fluxes, Water Quality, and Aquatic
Productivity in the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. In
Proceedings of Riparian Ecosystems and Their
Management: Reconciling Conflicting Issues, Tucson,
Arizona, Aprill6-18, 1985, pp. 180-185. GTR RM-
120. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Fort Collins, CO.
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuary
Several economic studies have shown that the value
of Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine System (BTES)
wetlands for tertiary wastewater treatment ranges
from $82 to $157 per acre for municipal wastewater.
The value for industrial wastewater is as high as
$4,626 per acre. The costs to replace wetlands in the
BTES area ranges from $368 to $2,204, depending on
the type of creation. For dredged material placement,
the costs range from $502 to $1,250; for uncontrolled
sediment diversion, $368; and for controlled sediment
diversion, $1,004 to $2,204. In addition to the commer-
cial activity that is dependent on the estuary, the
resource provides area residents and visitors with a
number of valuable non-market services, such as
recreational opportunities. The most significant
activities are fishing, hunting, swimming, and boating.
The economic benefits were estimated to be between
$3.3 million and$l billion per year for these activities.
Estimates were also developed for recreational
benefits per acre of wetland within the study area.
Fishing was the highest-valued activity at between $96
and $1,213 per acre of wetland.
Source: Barataria-Terrebonne National Estuary
Program. No date. Economic Value Assessment of the
Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine System. Published
Research Report 26. Nicholls State University
Campus, Thibodaux, LA.
Coastal Wetlands
Louisiana's coastal swamps constitute about 40% of
the entire coastal wetland resources of the U.S.
(Bergstrom et al., 1990). These wetlands are of great
importance for the recreational, commercial harvest,
and ecological service benefits they provide. A case
study involved an attempt to value several of the key
direct and indirect uses of Louisiana's coastal wet-
lands within a total valuation framework (Farber and
Costanza, 1987; Costanzaetal., 1989). Since the
population of the region has been growing rapidly, the
researchers incorporated a 1.3% annual increase into
their benefit estimates to take this into account.
The estimated value of commercial fisheries in the
coastal wetlands of Louisiana is between $317 and
$846 per acre. The value for trapping is estimated to
be between $151 and $401 per acre. The value placed
on recreation in these wetlands is between $46 and
$181 per acre. The highest value is found in
stormwater protection, estimated to be between
$1,915 and $7,549 per acre. These values were
obtained from Costanza et al. (1989) and are in 1983
dollars, shown for both an 8 percent and 3 percent
discount rate.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-15
-------
Appendix F
Source: Costanza, R., S.C. Farber, and J. Maxwell.
1989. Valuation and management of wetland ecosys-
tems. Ecological Economics 1: 335-361.
Marsh Terracing
In response to critical coastal land loss, this pilot
project was launched to test a technique for restoring
wetlands in an area where sediment inflow is minimal.
Bay bottom terracing uses existing sediment to form a
baffle system of ridges or "terraces" at marsh eleva-
tion, after sedimentation. Data analyzed from aerial
photography, on-site surveys, and readings from
satellite-linked data collection platforms have shown
that the technique was a success and that the marsh is
coming back strongly. The terraces were quickly and
completely vegetated, shoreline retreat was reversed,
and annual primary productivity was increased.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994a. Innovations in Coastal Protection:
Searching for Uncommon Solutions to Common
Problems. EPA 842-F-94-002. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Maine
St. Agatha
A constructed wetland-pond treatment system was
installed on Long Lake to test its effectiveness in
removing phosphorus and sediments from agricultural
runoff. The 1-acre treatment system, which consists
of an initial sedimentation basin, a grass filter strip, a
constructed wetland, and a deep detention pond,
removed 92% of total phosphorus and 95% of total
suspended solids over a 150-day study period.
Source: Jolley, J.W. 1990. The Efficiency of Con-
structed Wetlands-Pond Systems in the Reduction of
Phosphorus and Sediment Discharges from Agricultural
Watersheds. Thesis in Civil Engineering, University of
Maine.
Long Lake
Agricultural runoff was determined to be the largest
pollutant source to Long Lake. The NRCS designed
treatment systems called Nutrient/Sediment Control
Systems to improve the quality of runoff entering the
lake. Four systems, consisting of sediment basins,
grass filters, constructed wetlands, and pond compo-
nents, were installed in the Long Lake watershed. The
system approach incorporated design ideas based on
the ecology of wetlands, in addition to design param-
eters already reported in the literature on the individual
performance of ponds, filter strips, and wetlands.
Monitoring data for 1989 and 1990 showed annual
removal efficiencies of 82% to 91% for total phospho-
rus, 96% to 97% for total suspended solids, and 92%
to 94% for volatile suspended solids. Monitoring for
both years ended in mid-November when the systems
froze over. Although the annual removals were good,
seasonal removals varied considerably, with spring
(April to May) flows exporting more phosphorus and
sediment from the system than was imported.
Source: Moshiri, G.A. 1993. Constructed Wetlands for
Water Quality Improvement. CRC Press, Inc., Boca
Raton, FL.
Wetland Conservation Plan
The State Planning Office, in cooperation with other
state agencies and a diverse task force, is developing
a State Wetland Conservation Plan (WCP). The plan
will include an inventory and assessment of state
wetland resources, implementation of a conservation
strategy, recommendations for regulatory changes,
and a monitoring program.
Source: Maine Coastal NonpointSource Control
Program. 1996. Maine State Planning Office, Coastal
Program, Augusta, ME.
Maryland
Anacostia Restoration Plan
In Maryland and the District of Columbia, a basinwide
plan for the restoration of the Anacostia River and
associated tributaries considered in detail the impacts
of wetland creation and riparian plantings within the
watershed.
Source: USAGE. 1990. Anacostia River Basin Recon-
naissance Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District; Baltimore, MD.
Chesapeake Bay
Simulated rainfall and bare plots were used to deter-
mine the effectiveness of 4.6- and 9.2-meter-long
F-16
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
VFS in removing nutrients and sediments from
agricultural runoff. Total suspended solids, total
nitrogen, and total phosphorus in surface runoff were
reduced by 66%, 0%, and 27%. respectively, by the
4.6-meter VFS. Nutrient removals appeared to be
greater with longer filters but decreased as the
number of runoff events increased.
Source: Magette, W.L., R.B. Brinsfield, R.E. Palmer,
and J.D. Wood. 1989. Nutrient and sediment removal
by VFSs. Transactions of the American Society of
Agricultural Engineers 32(2):663-667.
Chesapeake Bay
Riparian forest buffers have been used to treat
stormwater in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
According to a study found in the Chesapeake Bay
Riparian Handbook, the costs of engineered
stormwater BMPs that incorporate natural systems.
such as grassed swales and bioretention areas, is less
expensive than the construction of storm drain sys-
tems. These engineered stormwater BMPs cost $500
to $10,000 per acre.
Sources: Palone,R.S. andA.H. Todd(eds). 1998.
Chesapeake Bay Riparian Handbook: A Guide for
Establishing and Maintaining Riparian Forest Buffers^
NA-TP-02-97. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1997b.
Protecting Wetlands: Tools for Local Governments in the
Chesapeake Bay Region. EPA903-R-97-008. Prepared
for Chesapeake Bay Program by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Forest Buffer Legislation
Baltimore County, Maryland, has adopted legislation to
protect the water quality of streams, wetlands, and
floodplains. The legislation requires forest buffers for
any activity that is causing or contributing to pollution,
including NFS pollution, of the waters of the state.
Baltimore County has also developed management
requirements for the forest buffers, including those
located in wetlands and floodplains, that specify
limitations on alteration of the natural conditions of
these resources. The provisions call for public and
private improvements to forest buffers to abate and
prevent water pollution, erosion and sedimentation of
stream channels, and degradation of aquatic and
riparian habitat.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997a. Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Riparian Buffer/Local Case Studies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
CIS
Since the early 1980s, Prince George's County has
been using GIS technologies. The Department of
Environmental Resources found GIS to be the most
cost-effective means to continue its flood manage-
ment and water quality programs. In 1992 the county
completed a 15-year effort modeling the watershed,
covering approximately 85% of the county. Recogniz-
ing the need to update the data, the county determined
that it could cost $4 million by traditional methods. As
an alternative, the county developed Geo-STORM, a
flood management model, and WPS, a water quality-
model. These models automatically perform much of
the necessary7 data analysis and provide alternative
solutions. The final part of the program was a Wetland
Banking System using GIS. The total cost of this
program was $450,000 and is part of the county's
stormwater management funding, provided through ad
valorem taxes, surplus, interest income, permit fees, a
fee-in-lieu program, and miscellaneous budgeting
items.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case,
Studies. International City /County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Nontldal Wetlands Protection Act
Maryland's Nontidal Wetlands Protection Act encour-
ages development of comprehensive watershed plans
for addressing wetlands protection, mitigation, and
restoration issues in conjunction with water supply-
issues.
Source: State of Maryland. 1989. Maryland Code,
Annotated. Natural Resources. Nontidal Wetlands
Protection Act Sections 8-1201-8-1211.
Rhode River 1
A case study focusing on the hydrology and below-
ground processing of nitrate and sulfate was con-
ducted on a riparian forested wetland. Nitrate and
sulfate entered the wetland from cropland ground
water drainage and from direct precipitation. Data
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-17
-------
Appendix F
collected over a 3-year period showed that an average
of 86% of nitrate and 25% of sulfatc inputs were
removed in the wetland. Annual removal of nitrates
varied from 87% in the first year to 84% in the second
year, and sulfate removal varied from 13% in the
second year to 43% in the third year. Nitrate removal
was always highest in the fall (average of 96%) when
input fluxes were lowest and lowest in the winter
(average of 81%) when input fluxes were highest.
Source: Correll,D.L., andD.E. Weller. 1989. Factors
Limiting Processes in Freshwater: An Agricultural
Primary Stream Riparian Forest. In Freshwater
Wetlands and Wildlife, ed. R.R. Shantz and J.W.
Gibbons, pp. 9-23. U.S. Department of Energy. Office
of Science and DOE Symposium Series no. 61.
Technology Information, Oak Ridge. TN.
Rhode River 2
A riparian deciduous hardwood forest in the Rhode
River watershed was shown to remove over 80% of
nitrate and total phosphorus in overland flows and
about 85% of the nitrate in shallow ground water
drainage from cropland.
Source: Correll D.L., I.E. Jordan, andD.E. Weller.
1992. Nutrient flux in a landscape: Effects of coastal
land Use and terrestrial community mosaic on nutrient
transport to coastal waters. Estuaries 15(4, Decem-
ber)^ 1-442.
Riparian Forest Buffer Demonstration Sites
A restoration effort in the Chapel Point State Park,
located in the town of Marbury. has been made
possible by funds from the Maryland Greenways
Program. Excess sediment from erosion of agricul-
tural land is of primary concern. The main objectives
of the restoration effort are improved water quality
and establishment of forested buffer strips along the
Port Tobacco River. Riparian forest buffer demonstra-
tion sites have already been established along the Port
Tobacco River in the Chapel Point State Park.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1998. Riparian
Forest Buffer Demonstration Sites: Chapel Point State
Park, MD. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Sligo Creek
Wet Ponds were constructed to filter stormwater
entering Sligo Creek, a tributary to the Anacostia
River. The Sligo Creek watershed is highly urbanized,
which has resulted in the creek's poor water quality
and limited habitat. Before the stormwater ponds
were constructed, there were only three species of
fish and no amphibians living in the creek. The
Wheaton Branch stormwater detention pond project is
one of 12 stormwater projects. It captures runoff from
a commercial area and filters it through a retrofitted
and expanded three-celled extended detention wet
pond. Hand stones were placed to stabilize the
channel. In 1993 vernal ponds were dug to help
repopulatc fish and amphibians.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. 1997a. (Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Riparian Buffer/Local Case Studies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
In the Maryland Department of Transportation, the
Environmental Programs Division (EPD) is respon-
sible for the preparation of plans, specifications, and
estimates for wetland mitigation and stream restora-
tion projects; ensuring compliance with all applicable
environmental regulations; and ensuring that all
natural, cultural, and socioeconomic commitments
made during the planning phase are met during final
design of all SHA capital projects.
Source: Jacobs, Susan M., Maryland Department of
Transportation. No date. Personal communication.
Wye Island
Changes in nitrate concentrations in ground water
between an agricultural field planted in tall fescue
(Festuca amndinacea) and riparian zones vegetated
by leguminous or nonleguminous trees were measured
to determine the effectiveness of riparian vegetation
management practices. Analysis of shallow ground
water samples indicated that nitrate concentrations
beneath nonleguminous riparian trees decreased
toward the shoreline, and removal of the trees resulted
in increased nitrate concentrations. Nitrate concentra-
tions did not decrease below leguminous trees, and
removal of the trees resulted in decreased ground
water nitrate concentrations.
Source: James, B.R., B.B. Bagley, and PH. Gallagher.
1990. Riparian Zone Vegetation Effects on Nitrate
Concentrations in Shallow Groundwater. Submitted for
publication in the Proceedings of the 1990 Chesapeake
Bay Research Conference. University of Maryland, Soil
Chemistry Laboratory, College Park, MD.
F-18
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
Rhode River Subwatershed
Phosphorus export from a riparian forest was shown
to be nearly evenly divided between surface runoff
(59%) and ground water flow (41%) for a total
phosphorus removal of 80%. The mean annual
concentration of dissolved total phosphorus changed
little in surface runoff. Most of the concentration
changes occurred during the first 19 meters of the
riparian forest for both dissolved and particulate
pollutants. Dissolved nitrogen compounds in surface
runoff also declined. Total reductions of 79% for
nitrate, 73% for ammonium nitrate, and 62% for
organic nitrate were observed. Changes in mean
annual ground water concentrations decreased
significantly (90% to 98%), while ammonium nitrate
concentrations increased by more than threefold.
Again, most of the nitrate loss occurred in the first 19
meters of the riparian forest. It appears that the major
pathway of nitrogen loss from the forest was in
subsurface flow (75% of the total nitrate) with a total
removal efficiency of 89% for total nitrate.
Source: Peterjohn, W.T., andD.L. Correll. 1984.
Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed:
Observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology
65(5): 1466-1475.
Wetlands Assistance Guide
The Private Landowner's Wetland Assistance
Guide is a comprehensive guide to federal, state, and
private/nonprofit programs offering technical and/or
financial assistance to private wetland owners within
the state of Maryland.
Source: State of Maryland. 1992. Private Landowner's
Wetlands Assistance Guide: Voluntary Options for
Wetlands Stewardship inMaryland. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 3, Philadelphia, PA.
Massachusetts
Cape Cod Coastal Embayments
In 1990 the Massachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Protection initiated a $100,000 study to exam-
ine the potential restoration of 500 to 1000 acres of
salt marsh cut off from tidal influence by transporta-
tion infrastructure. It is anticipated that, by designing
culverts to provide tidal flows that more closely
approximate natural conditions and by constructing
larger channels in and around transportation facilities,
the productivity of these marshes will be restored.
Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands
Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washing-
ton, DC.
Natural Storage in the Charles River Valley
The Charles River basin drains approximately 307
square miles in the Boston, Massachusetts, area. It is
the most densely populated river watershed in New
England. Severe flooding in 1955 due to Hurricane
Diane caused more than $5 million in damages to the
watershed. The USAGE studied the area to identify a
solution for future flooding. In 1984 the USAGE
unveiled a plan entitled "The Charles River Natural
Valley Storage Project." Instead of structural controls,
the project relied mainly on preserving wetlands. The
plan identified 6,930 acres of land in 17 existing
wetlands within the river basin as essential and stated
that they would be protected. Protection is a result of
purchasing the land outright or purchasing easements,
which prevent current and future owners from
interfering with natural water storage. A portion of the
land protected is uplands and fringe wetlands.
The USAGE decided on the measures in the Charles
River Natural Valley Storage Project because "wet-
lands provide a prudent and least-cost solution to
future flooding." By preserving the wetlands, costly
structural controls were avoided. Purchasing the land
and easements had cost $10 million, only 10 percent of
the estimated $100 million cost of constructing a dam
for the same purpose. The USAGE also estimated
that in 1987 an additional $3.2 million in damages was
prevented by controlling severe spring flooding in the
land purchased as part of the Charles River Natural
Valley Storage Project. It has been further estimated
that the city of Boston has realized annual savings of
$ 17 million in flood damage from the proj ect.
In addition to maintaining the natural hydrology of the
area, the preservation of the wetlands also benefits
the aesthetic and ecological quality of the floodplain.
Further benefits are seen in the local property values.
Statistical analysis in the Charles River Natural Valley
Storage Project area has confirmed a 1.5 percent
premium added to the property values of homes next
to the wetlands. Realtors in the area have also noted
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-19
-------
Appendix F
an undeniable advantage to selling the land adjacent to
the wetlands.
Sources: NationalAudubon Society. No date b. What's
a Wetland Worth? National Audubon Society, New
York, NY.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1999.
Reports: Stomrwater Strategies—Community Responses
to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource Defense Council,
New York, NY.
Wetland Protection
Massachusetts requires a permit for activities involv-
ing dredge-and-fill, or other alterations, within a
wetland area or within a 100-foot buffer zone around
a wetland area. The Wetlands Protection Act (Massa-
chusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 40)
provides jurisdiction for activities outside wetland
areas and their buffer zones once a wetland has been
altered as a result of an activity. Regulations have
explicit criteria for the protection of water quality and
aquatic habitat functions of wetlands, which are
addressed in the review of permit applications. The
Commonwealth's Stormwater Initiative also helps to
protect wetlands by requiring the best practical
method of treatment of new storm water discharges to
wetlands. Other practices to protect wetland func-
tions, such as acquisition efforts, local bylaws, and
increased buffer zones, are achieved through planning
processes at the town meeting level.
Source: Massachusetts Coastal NonpointPollution
Control Plan. 1995. Massachusetts Office of Coastal
Zone Management, Boston, MA.
Michigan
Peterson Wetland Restoration
The project successfully restored 14 ha of wetlands
drained by a county tax ditch. Project goals included
restoration of the 14-ha wetland, reduction of siltation
and water volume entering the county drain and the
Looking Glass River, increased flood storage, im-
proved water quality, and creation of habitat for
wetland wildlife. Wetland vegetation, waterfowl
usage, and water retention increased. Because of the
increase in water retention, the restored wetland now
provides excellent wildlife habitat in addition to
reducing sedimentation, erosion, and flooding. Water
quality and siltation data are not available due to the
absence of an adequate monitoring and assessment
program.
Source: Eitniear, T. 1995. Peterson Wetland Restoration
Project. In Methods of Modifying Habitat to Benefit the
Great Lakes Ecosystem, ed J.R.M. Kelso and J.H.
Hartig, pp. 282-286 CISTI Occas. Paper No.l. Natural
Research Council of Canada, Research Press, Ottawa,
ON, Canada.
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative in
Michigan represents an effort on the part of local
organizations and agencies to manage resources in a
five-county area in the state's lower peninsula. The
program considers wetlands, riparian areas, and other
environmental issues related to water quality within
the bay watershed in a manner that balances eco-
nomic growth with environmental protection.
Source: Wright, C. 1997. Grand Traverse Bay Water-
shed Initiative. Traverse City, MI.
Landowner's Guide
Living with Michigan's Wetlands is a comprehensive
guide designed to help landowners understand wet-
lands, their benefits, basic techniques and options for
wetland management, and the economic benefits of
various protection methods. Wetland regulatory
policies affecting landowners and sources for informa-
tion and assistance are included. The document also
provides information to help landowners make deci-
sions regarding protection of wetlands and other
natural resources while meeting economic needs and
personal goals.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1996-1997. Living with Michigan's Wetlands:
A Landowner's Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Meadows Golf Club
The Meadows Golf Club, which finished its first year
of operation in 1994, was designed to model sound
environmental practices. Wetlands located on the
course are used as biological filters. In addition,
vegetated buffer zones, established around sensitive
wetland areas, aid in reducing nutrient runoff into the
waterways. Water quality monitoring indicates a
F-20
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
steady decline in the amount of nitrates, phosphates,
suspended and dissolved solids, and ammonia exported
from golf course wetlands.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995c. NonpointSource News-Notes.
August/September, issue no. 42. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation
The Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation (MWHF) is
focused on restoring and improving wildlife habitat,
and it has an active program for wetland restoration
on private lands. The landowner must provide a match
of at least $100 per acre and must sign an agreement
that land uses on the site will not change for 10 years.
The remaining restoration costs are covered by
MWHF.
Source: Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation. 1997.
Saginaw Bay Watershed: A Strategy for Wetland
Restoration. Consortium for International Earth Science
Information Network.
Wetland Protection
Michigan has implemented the Clean Water Act §404
Program since 1984. Water quality impacts are
considered in the permit review process, and §404
permits are not issued for activities that would result in
a violation of state water quality standards. The
Goemaere-Anderson Wetland Protection Act, the
Inland Lakes and Streams Act, and the Great Lakes
Submerged Lands Act are also used to protect
wetlands and riparian areas from the effects of new
activities.
Source: Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.
1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Lansing, MI.
Watershed Initiative Program
Michigan's Watershed Initiatives program implements
management measures to protect nonpoint source
functions within wetlands and riparian areas. Existing
conditions within the wetlands, as well as the effects
of activities upstream in the watershed, are addressed.
This is accomplished on a targeted basis through the
Watershed Initiatives, which identify priority areas for
wetland protection and restoration in selected water-
sheds. The state utilizes funds and technical assis-
tance provided through Clean Water Act §319 and
Coastal Zone Management Act grants to encourage
local governments and communities to implement best
management practices on a watershed basis for
wetland protection and restoration.
Source: Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.
1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Lansing, MI.
Wetland Acquisition
Michigan's wetland protection approach is supple-
mented by a program of state acquisition of wetlands,
state encouragement of wetland easements, state
designation of Environmental Areas to protect coastal
wetlands and adjacent uplands, and encouragement of
private wetland acquisition efforts. Instruments such
as tax reversion and land exchange are used to
maximize acquisition efforts.
Source: Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Source Program.
1996. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
Lansing, MI.
Minnesota
Clear Lake
Clear Lake, a 257-ha body of water in south central
Minnesota, is a heavily used recreational area. The
lake has become eutrophic because of inflow of
nutrient-rich runoff from the adjacent city of Waseca.
In 1981, 50% of the hydraulic load and 55% of the
phosphorus load to the lake was diverted into a 21.4-
ha marsh system. Between 1981 and 1986, the
wetland reduced the annual phosphorus load to Clear
Lake by 39%. In 1986 construction was completed on
a second marsh system designed to filter urban and
agricultural runoff carrying 20% of the phosphorus
load into the lake.
Source: Barten, J.M. 1987. Stormwater runoff treatment
in a wetland filter: Effects on the water quality of Clear
Lake. Lake and Reservoir Management 3:297-305.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
In February 1998 Minnesota and the Federal Govern-
ment approved the Minnesota River Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). CREP will
combine state funds with the federal Conservation
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-21
-------
Appendix F
Reserve Program to restore 190,000 acres of flood-
plain marshes and forests around the Minnesota River.
Source: Environmental Defense Fund. 1998. EDF Praises
Minnesota River Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program. News release, February 19,1998.
Economic Efficiency of Wetland Mitigation in
Minnesota's Red River Valley
The economic efficiency of wetland mitigation in
Minnesota's Red River Valley was examined using
the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method on 10
wetland case studies to rate the functions of impacted
and replacement wetlands. Secondary sources were
used to assign dollar values to wetland functions of
impacted and replacement wetlands. Estimated annual
social values ranged from $207 to $1,027 per acre for
impacted wetlands and from $268 to $927 per acre for
replacement wetlands. The social values of replace-
ment wetlands exceeded the social values of impacted
wetlands in seven cases. Values of replacement
wetlands were 1.8 to 4 times greater than the values
of impacted wetlands due to 2-to-l replacement
ratios.
Source: Detenbeck, N.E., C.A. Johnson, and G.J. Niemi.
1993. Wetland effects of lake water quality in the
Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. Landscape
Ecology 8:39-61.
Fish Lake
An urban lake in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area was
found to retain sediment and nutrient loads in runoff
routed through the wetland. Comparison of annual
loads entering and leaving the wetland showed the
retention of incoming loads in the wetland was 97% of
nonvolatile suspended solids, 76% of volatile sus-
pended solids, 48% of total phosphorus, 4% of dis-
solved phosphorus, 3% of dissolved nitrite plus nitrate
nitrogen, 1% of total ammonia nitrogen, and 47% of
total organic nitrogen.
Source: Brown, R.G. 1985. Effects of an urban wetland
on sediment and nutrient loads in runoff. Wetlands,
4(1): 147-158.
Lake McCarrons
A combined detention/wetland stormwater treatment
facility was constructed upstream of Lake McCarrons
to decrease phosphorus loads in stormwater entering
the lake and to restore a degraded wetland. Nutrient
removal effectiveness of the pond was determined
based on mass inflows and outflows from rainfall and
snowmelt events summed over the entire period of the
study. Samples were analyzed for a wide range of
participate and dissolved constituents including sus-
pended solids and various nitrogen and phosphorus
species. Removal of total suspended solids was
greater that 90%, total phosphorus was reduced by
over 78%, and total nitrogen was reduced by greater
than 74%. The goal to reduce the total phosphorus
load to the lake by 75% was achieved.
Source: Oberts, G.L., andR.A. Osgood. 1991. Water-
quality effectiveness of a detention/wetland treatment
system and its effect on an urban lake. Environmental
Management \
The Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
computed the average cost to replace an acre-foot of
floodwater storage to be $300. In other words, if
development eliminates 1 -acre of wetland that natu-
rally stores a 12-inch depth of water during a storm, it
would cost the public $300 to replace the water
storage. The cost to replace 5,000 acres of wetlands
lost annually in Minnesota would be $1.5 million.
Source: Floodplain Management Association. 1994.
Economic benefits of wetlands. FMA News: The
Newsletter of the Floodplain Management Association
(July).
Minnesota USGS
The USGS conducted a study to determine the
effectiveness of two VSF for reducing chemical loads
in feedlot runoff and to investigate how infiltration
from the VSF affects ground water. Water samples
were analyzed for concentrations of nitrate, ammo-
nium, organic nitrogen, phosphorus, chloride, sulfate,
fecal coliforms, and chemical oxygen demand. Ground
water samples were analyzed for dissolved oxygen,
pH, specific conductance, and temperature. A report
is being prepared that will summarize the discharge
and chemical data collected, information about the
effectiveness of VSF for treating feedlot runoff, and
information about the impacts of infiltration from VSF
on ground water.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1997b.
Summary of Project MN14702: Effectiveness of
F-22
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
Vegetated Filter Strips for Remediating Feedlot Runoff
in Minnesota. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Reference Wetlands Project
Minnesota initiated the Reference Wetlands Project to
develop a basis for assessing the biological and
chemical health of wetlands. The assessment of 32
relatively undisturbed and three disturbed wetlands
will be used to provide a basis for determining use
support status and will help the state determine if
restored wetlands can achieve conditions comparable
to natural wetlands.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:
1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Stevens County
Vegetated buffer strips were evaluated to determine
pollution control efficiencies for feedlot runoff. Buffer
strips were planted in corn, sorghum, sudan grass, or
oats. Runoff and total solids transported from the
feedlot were reduced by 67% and 79%, respectively.
Total nitrogen was reduced by an average of 84% and
total phosphorus by an average of 83%.
Source: Young, R.A., T. Huntrods, and W. Anderson.
1980. Effectiveness of vegetated buffer strips in
controlling pollution and feedlot runoff. Journal of
Environmental Quality 9(3):483-487.
Wetland Conservation Plan
The Conservation Plan was developed to improve
management and conservation of wetlands. The plan
was designed to use existing wetland policies as a
starting point to improve policies and enhance infor-
mation for decision making. The plan addresses
regional differences in the state based on their ecology
and general landscape, watershed features, major land
use patterns, and wetland characteristics.
Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
\991.Minnesota Wetland Conservation Plan, Version
1.0. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St.
Paul, MN.
Mississippi
Coastal Preserves
The Mississippi Department of Marine Resources will
acquire 2,500 acres of Grand Bay savannah and
coastal marshes within the Grand Bay Bioreserve in
the Grand Bay/Bangs Lake area of Jackson County.
Only 3% of the rare and biologically significant coastal
savannah remains. It is the largest and least disturbed
wet pine savannah in the nation. The area includes
estuarine, marsh, and scrub shrub wetlands. The
preserve is one of Mississippi's three largest estuarine
wetland ecosystems and is a vital nursery area for
estuarine and marine fish and shellfish species.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998b. 1998 Coastal Wetlands Conservation Grant.
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Pearl River Basin
The synoptic assessment approach is being used in the
Pearl River Basin to provide information on cumula-
tive impacts for use in the 404 permit review process.
The assessment approach evaluates wetland losses
from conversion and the effects of the losses on
hydrologic function.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative
Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPE/
600/R-92/167. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency,
Washington, DC.
Missouri
Missouri Department of Conservation
The Ralph and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation
Area Wetlands Restoration program created 737
acres of wetlands in three counties located along the
Blackwater River. The project will enable the Mis-
souri Department of Conservation to better manage
the habitat by controlling the flow of water to and
from the land in ways that simulate natural processes.
This is one of only 24 projects nationwide that re-
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-23
-------
Appendix F
ceived funding in 1995 from the North American
Wetlands Conservation Council.
Source: Missouri Department of Conservation. 1998.
Ralph and Martha Perry Memorial Conservation Area.
Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City,
MO.
Bay Island, Hannibal
Sedimentation resulting from high flow levels in the
Upper Mississippi River has resulted in deterioration
and loss of riverine forested wetland habitat. Restora-
tion of wetland functions in the Bay Island Complex
included construction of low-level levees, water level
management, and planting of mast tree species. Water
level management during critical times of the year
provides valuable resting and feeding habitat for
migratory waterfowl and wintering bald eagles.
Shorebirds, furbearers, and other wildlife species also
benefit from restoration of prime wetland habitat.
Planting of mast tree species provides important food
resources for wood ducks and adds diversity to the
bottomland hardwood forest that currently exists in the
area.
Source: USAGE, Great Lakes Regional Headquarters.
1997. Environmental Management Program: Bay
Island Wetland Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhance-
ment. USAGE, Great Lakes Regional Headquarters,
Chicago, IL.
Operation Green Stripe
Through Operation Green Stripe, Future Farmers of
America (FFA) chapters recruit farmers to establish
vegetative buffers between their fields and surface
water supplies. Cooperating agriculture retailers
provide free grass seed for the strips, and Monsanto
provides educational grants to FFA chapters based on
the number of farmers the students recruit.
Source: Monsanto. 1997. Operation Green Stripe.
Monsanto, St. Louis, MO.
Montana
Pine Butte Swamp
The Nature Conservancy's Pine Butte Swamp
Preserve is an 18,000-acre area consisting of a large
fen, native foothills prairie, and rocky ledges of limber
pine and creeping juniper. The preserve includes the
largest wetland complex along the Rocky Mountain
Front and represents the grizzly bear's last stronghold
on the plains. Studies have been completed on the
area's hydrology, vegetation, and wildlife, and the
Conservancy has developed a long-range manage-
ment plan for the fen, the grizzly bear, and the sur-
rounding foothill prairie. Cooperative efforts with local
agencies and neighboring landowners enhance the
integrity of the ecosystem.
Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1998c. Pine Butte
Swamp Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
VA.
Ronan Spring Creek
Located in northwestern Montana, about 50 miles
north of Missoula, Ronan Spring Creek is only 4 miles
long. It is a tributary to Crow Creek, which flows to
the Flathead River and eventually drains into the
Columbia River. Farming practices, urbanization, and
grazing activities had led Ronan Spring Creek to be
200 feet wide but only a few inches deep. In 1996 the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Bill
Edelman (who owns the creek), and the NRCS began
to contact neighbors along the creek, local groups, and
state and federal natural resource agencies to create a
large partnership. Money for the restoration effort
was provided through a grant by the state Fish,
Wildlife and Parks Department's Future Fisheries
program, the Ronan State Bank, and Pheasants
Forever. Approximately $5,000 was used for shrubs.
Harriman Trout Farms donated fish, and the Confed-
erated Salish and Kootenai Tribes offered staff time
and expertise. In the end, the creek was restored to 8
feet wide and 4 feet deep, which will help to bring
back fish habitat and backwaters for waterfowl.
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 2000b. Erosion Control, Water Management,
Local Partnerships, Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Stream Management Guide
The Stream Management Guide for Landowners,
Managers, and Stream Users provides helpful
background information for landowners and managers,
resource professionals, state and local decision
makers, recreationists, and others interested in
streams. The document discusses the characteristics
of streams and restoration of degraded streams and
F-24
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
riparian areas, and it presents examples of stream and
riparian area problems that might be encountered.
Source: Montana Department of Environmental
Quality. 1995. The Stream Management Guide for
Landowners, Managers and Stream Users. Color
World, Bozeman, MT.
Nebraska
Heron Haven Wetland Restoration
Monitoring of water quality is being conducted (as of
1997) on this highly urbanized wetland to determine
the appropriate best management practices to be
applied in restoration efforts. Restoration efforts are
being directed at protecting the wetland from NFS
impacts and improving water quality and habitat
characteristics. Quarterly monitoring was begun in
December 1995, and some impacts of urban runoff to
the wetland have been assessed. A report on restora-
tion efforts to date is being prepared for the project.
Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 1997a. Heron
Haven Wetland Restoration Project. Water Center
Environmental Programs Unit. University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE.
Ithica
A series of studies and demonstrations are being
conducted at the Agricultural Research and Develop-
ment Center near Ithica to develop and demonstrate
regionally relevant VFS designs in large-scale riparian
plots, compare and demonstrate the efficacy of several
VFS designs with different vegetation compositions and
widths, and to evaluate the overall contribution of
riparian VFS in NFS abatement on a realistic
subwatershed scale. The overall aim of the program is
to better define the most effective VFS for the Mid-
west and promote their use as BMPs in Nebraska.
Source: University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 1997b.
Riparian Buffer Strips (RBS). Water Center Environ-
mental Programs Unit. University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE.
Private Lands Wetlands Initiative Program
The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)
funds a two component program that provides for
wetland development and financial incentives to
participate in the water bank program. The intent of
the program is to pay for the landowner's actual costs
for restoring, enhancing, or creating shallow wetlands
and adjacent upland habitat for the benefit of water-
fowl and other wildlife. The NGPC will reimburse the
landowner for 100% of the costs. It will also provide
landowners a one-time lump sum incentive for enroll-
ing existing wetlands in the USDA's Water Bank
Program or for extending their existing contract.
Source: Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. 1997.
Programs for Re storing, Creating, and Enhancing
Wetlands on Private Lands in Nebraska. Nebraska
Game and Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.
Tiburon Golf Course
The Wehrspann Lake Watershed Project has orga-
nized several Water Quality Opens at a local golf
course in Omaha. Participants enjoy 18 holes of golf
while learning about measures the golf course is
taking to preserve water quality on the course and
other steps being taken to preserve water quality and
habitat elsewhere in the watershed. A unique educa-
tional feature of the tournament lies in the fact that
people from all walks of life are brought together in a
casual environment that is conducive to learning about
nonpoint source pollution. The tournaments also help
to stimulate discussions between the golfers and the
golf course managers about management practices,
such as the nonpoint source treatment functions of
wetlands.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998a. Top Ten Watershed Lessons Learned.
EPA 840-F-97-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Nevada
Lake Tahoe
A 3-year study in Lake Tahoe of nitrate removal in an
undisturbed headwater watershed showed that riparian
forests and wetlands were capable of removing over
99% of the incoming nitrate nitrogen. Wetlands and
riparian areas in the watershed appeared to be capable
of "cleaning up" nitrate-containing waters with a very
high degree of efficiency and for providing a major
value as natural pollution controls for sensitive waters.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-25
-------
Appendix F
Source: Rhodes, J., C.M. Skau, D. Greenlee, and D.
Brown. 1985. Quantification of Nitrate Uptake by
Riparian Forests and Wetlands in an Undisturbed
Headwaters Watershed. In Proceedings of Riparian
Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
Conflicting Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,1985,
pp. 175-179. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Walker River Paiute Tribe
The purpose of the Walker River Paiute Riparian
Management Plan (Walker River Paiute Tribe) is to
protect and improve riparian areas and water quality
on the reservation.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
New Hampshire
Wetland Water Quality Standards
In New Hampshire, monitoring of a variety of param-
eters at five wetlands throughout the state will provide
baseline data for developing specific wetland water
quality standards.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:
1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station
The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station has
developed a five-zone model for determining buffer
widths for the protection of surface waters from NPS
pollution.
Source: Nieswand, G.H., B.B. Chavooshian, R.M.
Hordon, T. Shelton, S. Blarr, and B. Brodeur. 1989.
Buffer Strips to Protect Water Supply Reservoirs and
Surface Water Intakes: A Model and Recommendations.
Prepared for the New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection by Cook College Department of
Environmental Resources.
Freshwater Protection Act Rules
The Freshwater Protection Act Rules (New Jersey
Administrative Code 7:7A) require ecological transi-
tion areas adjacent to wetlands of exceptional or
intermediate value. Wetlands of ordinary resource
value, which constitute approximately 5% of the state,
do not require buffers. The standard width of the
transition area for wetlands of exceptional value is 150
feet, and for freshwater wetlands of intermediate
value, it is 50 feet. Wetlands of exceptional value
include those which discharge into FW-1 or FW-2
trout waters or their tributaries (FW-1 and FW-2 are
water quality rankings for fresh surface waters in
New Jersey) or those which provide habitat for
threatened or endangered species. Freshwater
wetlands of ordinary resource value are those which
do not exhibit the characteristics above, are isolated
wetlands that are more than 50% surrounded by
development, and are less than 5,000 square feet in
size, including, but not limited to drainage ditches,
swales, and detention facilities. Freshwater wetlands
of intermediate value include those which are not
defined as either exceptional or ordinary. Activities
within buffers are limited based on the determined
wetland value and guidelines established at New
Jersey Administrative Code 7:7A-6.2.
Source: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy. 1992. Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act Rules, New Jersey Administrative Code
7:7A. New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, Trenton, NJ.
Green Acres Program
The New Jersey Green Acres Program provides
funding for state, county, municipal, and nonprofit
organization acquisition of open lands, including
wetlands, for the purpose of conservation. The
program also provides funding for the development of
recreational facilities that offer public access and use
of wetlands and riparian areas.
Source: New Jersey CoastalNonpointPollution Control
Program. 1995. New Jersey Department of Environ-
mental Protection, Trenton, NJ.
F-26
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
New Mexico
Partners Project
Kimberly de Castro of Santa Fe, a participant in the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program, received the Environmental Law
Institute's National Wetlands Award in the Land
Stewardship and Development category. The award
recognizes her commitment to habitat restoration and
her devotion to educating youth about having respect
for the land. Ms. de Castro dedicated her entire 50-
acre property to wildlife, restoring two wetlands and
planting more than 5,000 plants. The restored land has
also become an outdoor learning center. Since 1987,
Partners for Fish and Wildlife has funded more than
17,900 landowner agreements and helped restore
397,000 acres of wetlands and 1,400 miles of riparian
and in-stream habitat.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998d. New Mexico Partners Project Wins National
Wetlands Award. Press release, April 22, 1998. U.S.
Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Riparian Preserve
The Gila Riparian Preserve protects a prime example
of Southwest riparian habitat along the Gila River,
New Mexico's last major free-flowing river. Regular
flooding facilitates the germination of seedlings in beds
created by high river flows.
Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1997. Gila Riparian
Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA.
New York
Audubon Golf Course Program
The Audubon Society of New York State teamed with
the U.S. Golf Association to establish the Audubon
Cooperative Sanctuary Program for Golf Courses.
Objectives include enhancement of wildlife habitat and
protection of natural resources on golf courses. Active
participation in conservation programs by golf course
superintendents, course officials, golfers, and the
public is encouraged. Participants in the program
develop a plan of action to enhance habitat and
improve management practices. A course may
become certified in the following areas: environmental
planning, wildlife and habitat management, public
involvement, integrated pest management, water
conservation, and water quality management. More
than 1900 golf courses nationwide have joined the
program since its inception.
Source: U.S. Golf Association. 1998. An Overview of
U.S. Golf Association Environmental Research. U.S.
Golf association, Far Hills, NJ.
Buffalo River and Cazenovia Creek Model
The Buffalo River and Cazenovia Creek Model
Wetlands and Watershed Stewardship Program is part
of the Erie County Department of Environment and
Planning's program to assist municipalities with
planning issues at a watershed level. The project was
first proposed in 1997 as a demonstration project,
which was very successful and cost-effective. It aims
to create a heightened sense of community awareness
and encourages environmental stewardship for three
new natural parks along the Buffalo River. It also
provides an educational work experience and real job
training for youth. The project cost $10,450 and was
supplemented by a grant from EPA and the U.S.
Department of Labor. NACO provided funding to
implement and document the program. The county
estimates that other counties that wish to implement a
similar project should expect a cost of $10,000 to
$15,000.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). \999.Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Monroe County Wetland Education Program
Through a $20,000 grant from EPA, $5,000 of in-kind
services from the county Health Department, and at
least $4,000 of in-kind services from the Environmen-
tal Management Council, Monroe County hired an
intern to advance wetland education efforts in schools
and with public officials. The wetland education
activities were developed by the intern and other
county staff. This effort focuses on watersheds in
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-27
-------
Appendix F
Monroe County, but participants from adjoining
municipalities that share common watersheds with
Monroe County have participated in the wetland
workshops.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMAandNACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties.
Washington. DC.
The Salt Marsh Restoration Team (SMRT)
The SMRT has received the American Rivers 1997
Urban Hometown River Award, a GOLD award for
Special Achievement in Scientific/Engineering Break-
through. SMRT is restoring and enhancing a critical
salt marsh on the western shore of Staten Island and
on the islands of Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull that
were damaged by a 567,000-gallon oil spill. The
restoration focused on restoring smooth cordgrass.
Cordgrass stabilizes the shoreline against the massive
erosion that is occurring in the absence of the plant
community, replaces lost habitat, and accelerates the
rate of reduction for petroleum contaminants left from
the spill. SMRT has successfully restored over 1.25
miles of shoreline, amounting to over 6 acres of hand-
planted nursery-grown grasses. Rapid erosion of
shoreline has been halted in this area.
Source: American Rivers. 1998. American Rivers 1997
Urban Hometown River Award. American Rivers.
Washington. DC.
Skaneateles Lake
Chris and Rick Fesko own a 1,200-acre farm on the
hillside east of Skaneateles Lake. With the help of the
Onondaga Soil and Water Conservation District and
the Skaneateles Lake Watershed Agricultural Pro-
gram, the Feskos plan to add more BMPs to those
already existing on their property. The costs for these
new efforts are estimated at $150.000, which will be
contributed by the Feskos, NRCS, Farm Service
Agency, EPA, New York State, and the city of
Syracuse.
Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). 2000b. Erosion Control, Water Management,
Local Partnerships, Wildlife Habitat. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Staten Island Bluebelt Project
Staten Island is the least populated and least devel-
oped of New York City's five boroughs. In the 1970s,
the city zoned 672 acres as "Open Space Network,"
an undevelopable, environmentally sensitive area. In
the 1980s, the state began regulating freshwater and
tidal wetlands, which allowed for more wetland
protection on Staten Island. In the 1990s, the DEP
started the storm sewer construction and maintenance
system in South Richmond, Staten Island. The system
uses existing, natural drainage systems (including
streams, ponds, and wetlands) as the main part of the
stormwater system. The system covers 11 watersheds
consisting of 6,000 acres. Additions to the system will
include constructed wetlands, settling ponds, and sand
filters (NRDC, 1999). Freshwater and tidal wetlands
on Staten Island were acquired for use as stormwater
treatment systems. Beginning in the 1970s, the New
York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion delineated rivers and wetlands of important
nonpoint source abatement functions. A cost/benefit
study indicated that the Bluebelt project saves about
$50 million over the conventional trunk sewer line
approach! Constructed wetlands might be incorpo-
rated into the Bluebelt System (Gumb, D., et al.,
1996). The Bluebelt is 265.5 acres.
Sources: Gumb, D., J. Vokral, R. Smith, S. Mehrotra.
1996. Staten Island Bluebelt Project: New York City's
Watershed Approach with Multiple Benefits. In
Watershed '96Proceedings. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 1999.
Reports: Stormwater Strategies Community Re-
sponses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resource Defense
Council, New York, NY.
Wetland Protection
New York requires permits for activities within a tidal
or nontidal wetland or regulated adjacent area, gener-
ally extending a distance of 100 to 300 feet landward
from the wetland boundary. New York also establishes
cooperative agreements with local governments and
municipal governments for the purpose of preserving,
maintaining, or enhancing wetlands. The State Envi-
ronmental Quality Review evaluates impacts on
F-28
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
wetlands and riparian areas from activities outside the
wetland or regulated adjacent area.
Source: New York Coastal Nonpoint Program Submis-
sion. 1995. New York Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany, NY.
Wetland Regulation Guidebook
The purpose of the guidebook is to provide planners,
developers, and the public with an introduction to the
scope and application of existing laws and regulations
that directly or indirectly affect wetlands in New York.
Source: Trust for Public Land. \999.EconomicBenefits
of Open Space Bibliography: Infrastructure Savings.
Trust for Public land, San Francisco, CA.
North Carolina
Atlantic White Cedar Wetland Restoration
The purpose of the restoration project was to restore
wetland hydrology on 392 acres and plant Atlantic
White Cedars on 25 acres of cleared, ditched, and
drained wetlands to revitalize wildlife and water
quality attributes. The time frame for completing
restoration work was limited due to planting require-
ments. The project was completed in 3 months.
Source: Gantt, L.K. 1994. Atlantic White Cedar
Wetlands Restoration Cookbook of Innovations in
Coastal Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watershed,
Washington, DC.
Coastal Plain vs. Piedmont
The effectiveness of VFS and riparian buffers for
trapping sediment and nutrients was compared for two
sites in North Carolina, one in the Piedmont Physi-
ographic Province and the other in the Coastal Plain.
Runoff, sediment, and chemical analyses were
completed on a number of storm events at each site.
At both test sites, the grass strips filtered in excess of
50% of the sediment from the agricultural source
areas. The riparian strips were less consistent at
reducing sediment yields. Chemical filtration of
agricultural runoff by the grass and riparian buffers
also occurred. Sediment-bound constituents were
shown to be reduced to a greater degree than soluble
nutrients, such as orthophosphorus.
Source: Parsons, J.E., J.W. Gilliam, R. Munoz-Carpena,
R.B. Daniels, and T.A. Dillaha. 1994. Nutrient and
Sediment Removal by Grass and Riparian Buffers. In
Proceedings of the Second Environmentally Sound
Agriculture Conference, Orlando, FL, April 20-22,1994.
Pamlico River
The chemistry of porewaters and soils was compared
using a low-organic-matter created intertidal marsh
and an adjacent high-organic-matter natural intertidal
marsh. Five years after emergent vegetation had
established in the created wetland, the conversion
from upland porewater and soil properties to natural
wetland characteristics was incomplete. Results of the
study indicate that wetlands created on upland sites
initially may not duplicate the hydrologic and nutrient
cycling functions characteristic of natural wetland
systems. It is likely to take many more years before
the created wetland soils become reduced and soil and
porewater nutrient reservoirs develop to produce
hydrologic and nutrient cycling attributes comparable
to natural wetlands.
Source: Craft, C.B., E.D. Seneca, and S.W. Broome.
1991. Porewater chemistry of natural and created marsh
soils. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 152(2): 187(14).
Riparian Buffer Width Study
Riparian forests are effective as sediment, nitrogen,
and phosphorus filters. Four watersheds in two
research projects on the Coastal Plain were studied.
The optimal width of a riparian forest for effective
filtering is based on the contributing area, slope, and
cultural practices on adjacent lands. Riparian strips as
narrow as 16 meters were effective in removing
nitrate.
Source: Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jacobs.
1986. Riparian Areas as a Control of Nonpoint
Pollutants. In Watershed Research Perspectives, ed. D.
Correll, pp. 166-192. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, DC.
Streamside Rules for Nuese River
Modified rules protecting existing 50-foot riparian
buffers along the Nuese River became effective
January 22,1998. The riparian rule makes it illegal to
remove existing forest vegetation within 30 feet of the
bank, and it requires maintenance of dense vegetative
cover for an additional 20 feet. Landowners are
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-29
-------
Appendix F
required to keep trees and plants healthy and to
promptly repair any eroded channels.
Source: North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. 1998. News release, Janu-
ary 27, 1998. North Carolina Department of Environ-
ment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Beaver Dam Creek Watershed
Nitrate concentrations in shallow ground waters
beneath cultivated fields and in the drainage waters
from those fields were examined to determine the fate
of nitrogen lost to drainage waters. Studies indicated
that a substantial part of the nitrogen in the drainage
water was denitrified in the buffer strip. Buffer strips
of less than 16 meters were effective for nitrogen
reduction before drainage waters reached the stream.
Subsurface nitrate leaving agricultural fields was
reduced by 93% on average after passing through a
forested buffer.
Source: Jacobs, T.C., and J.W. Gilliam. 1985. Riparian
losses of nitrate from agricultural drainage waters.
Journal of Environmental Quality 14(4):472-478.
Cypress Creek 1
A riparian forest was shown to be a sink for phos-
phate from cultivated fields. Over a 20-year period the
riparian forest provided a sink for about 50% of the
phosphate in runoff from adjacent croplands.
Source: Cooper, J.R., and J.W. Gilliam. 1987. Phospho-
rus redistribution from cultivated fields into riparian
areas. Soil Science Society of America Journal
51(6):1600-1604.
Cypress Creek 2
Riparian areas adjacent to agricultural fields were
examined to determine sediment accumulation over a
20-year period. The areal extent and thickness of
sediment were described using 137Cesium data and
soil sediment morphology. Sediment delivery estimates
for the Coastal Plain watershed indicated that 84% to
90% of the sediment removed from the cultivated
fields remained in the watershed.
Source: Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, R.B. Daniels, and
W.R Robarge. 1987. Riparian areas as filters for
agriculture sediment. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 5l(6):4n-420.
North Dakota
Red River Riparian Area
The objectives of this research project were to
identify and demonstrate BMPs by restoring riparian
areas and subsequently reducing NFS pollution and to
transfer this technology to producers and natural
resource professionals throughout North Dakota.
Source: University of North Dakota. 1997. Red River
Riparian Demonstration Project. Energy and Environ-
mental Research Center. University of North Dakota,
Fargo, ND.
Spring Creek Wetland
Two wetlands constructed on USAGE reservoirs
were monitored for their ability to remove NFS
pollutants from stormwater runoff and possibly
improve reservoir water quality. The two sites were
the Spring Creek wetland, a 23-acre emergent marsh
constructed in 1991 on Bowman Reservoir near
Bowman, North Dakota, and a 5-acre wetland
constructed in 1992 as part of a larger wetland
complex on Range Creek, a major tributary of Ray
Roberts Reservoir near Dallas, Texas. Sampling
focused on storm events with less emphasis on base
low flows. Samples were analyzed for suspended
sediments, nutrients, and selected herbicides. Results
from the two sites varied, but overall, the wetlands
removed suspended sediments from inflows while
being less effective at removing dissolved NFS
pollutants. The Spring Creek wetland was capable of
removing approximately 40% of total phosphorus.
Neither wetland was effective at removing nitrogen or
herbicide.
Source: Downer, C.W., and T.E. Myers. 1995.
Constructed Wetlands for Sediment Control and Non-
Point Source Pollution Abatement at US Army Corps
of Engineers Project: Ray Roberts Lake, Dallas, Texas,
and Bowman Haley Reservoir, Bowman, North
Dakota. In National Interagency Workshop on Wet-
lands, USAGE Waterways Experiment Station, New
Orleans, LA, April 5-7, 1997.
F-30
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
Ohio
Conservation Easement Purchase
The Ohio EPA recently awarded a low-interest SRF
loan to The Nature Conservancy to foster creek bank
conservation. The Nature Conservancy received the
$110,000 loan to purchase a 154-acre permanent
conservation easement along Brush Creek in Adams
County, Ohio. Ohio EPA's water quality standards
classify this section of Brush Creek as almost achiev-
ing the exceptional warm water aquatic habitat
classification. The creek is a significant statewide
water resource and is known to contain four endan-
gered aquatic species, including the club shell mussel.
Conservation easements allow owners to voluntarily
place permanent restrictions on how their property will
be used and are an effective way to protect the
quality of streams and their adjacent areas.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter, Washington, DC.
Metzger Marsh Coastal Wetland Restoration
Project
The Metzger Marsh Coastal Wetland Restoration
Project, undertaken through the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, seeks to restore
emergent wetland vegetation while permitting open
access between the wetland and Lake Erie. This
approach has not been successful in the past along
Lake Erie, but innovative methods are being imple-
mented to try to maximize coastal wetland values and
functions.
Source: Tori, G. No date. Project 21. Metzger Marsh
Coastal Wetland Restoration Project. In Methods of
Modifying Habitat to Benefit the Great Lakes Ecosys-
tem. Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical
Information, Ottawa, ON. Occasional paper no. 1.
Ohio State University Extension Service
The Ohio State University Extension Service calcu-
lated the costs associated with creating VSFs on
agricultural land. One of the costs they found was for
tree planting and maintenance. The planting of seed-
lings in a VSF adds about $0.45/seedling to the total
installation cost. Mowing once per month during May
through September of the first 2 years only of the
VSF adds $7/acre for each mowing operation. VSFs
provide both economic and noneconomic benefits to
the farmer, landowner, and surrounding areas. VSFs
can cause a reduction in ditch maintenance costs that
are assessed to landowners. In 1985 Ohio had 4,615
miles of open ditch under county maintenance pro-
grams. The costs of ditch maintenance in those
counties with 50 miles or more of maintained ditch
averaged $328/mile/year. The total estimated costs
would exceed $1.5 million per year.
Since the VSF is an edge-of-the-field best manage-
ment practice, which reduces the potential for sedi-
ment movement into water resources, most of the
economic pollution control benefits occur off the farm.
Based on a 1987 estimate, sediment added an extra
$0.32/ton to water treatment costs. When considering
all the communities in Ohio, a 25 percent reduction in
the amount of sediment entering surface water
supplies would save $2.7 million per year in water
treatment costs.
Source: Leeds, R.D., L. Forster, and L.C. Brown. 1993.
Vegetative Filter Strip Economics. Ohio State Univer-
sity Extension, Columbus, OH.
Ohio Wetlands
The Ohio Wetlands guide provides useful information
on wetland status, type, and function. The effects of
land use on wetlands and their protection and conser-
vation are also presented.
Source: NationalAudubon Society. 1995. Ohio
Wetlands. National Audubon Society, New York, NY.
Protecting Darby Creek
Recently, the Ohio SRF provided a low-interest loan to
a homebuilder to construct a variety of preventive
nonpoint source measures to protect the Darby Creek,
which is one of the highest quality watersheds in the
state. The project includes a wide variety of structural
and nonstructural best management practices intended
to protect approximately 1.5 miles of this high-quality
watershed from potential runoff from a new housing
development. The project includes construction of
sediment and stormwater retention lakes, grassed
waterways for stormwater treatment, restoration of
the wooded stream corridor, and the establishment of
emergent wetland habitat. Additionally, the project
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-31
-------
Appendix F
includes a 200-acre conservation easement to protect
the most environmentally sensitive areas. The conser-
vation easement contains conditions, covenants, deed
restrictions, and regulations that protect the entire
area. The project also contains an environmental
education component for homeowners and housing
contractors. This $575,000 project is part of the
Nonpoint Source Program (Clean Water Act §319).
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter, Washington, DC.
Oklahoma
Hackberry Flat
More than 4,000 acres of wetlands and associated
uplands in Tillman County will be acquired as migra-
tion, wintering, and breeding habitat for waterfowl and
other migratory birds. A grant of $900,000 through the
National Wildlife Refuge System and partner contribu-
tions of $2.4 million will fund the project, which also
contributes to the habitat goals of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan's Playa Lakes Joint
Venture. The project area is in the direct migration
route of whooping cranes and provides habitat for
bald eagles, thousands of ducks and geese, and
sandhill cranes.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish
and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30,
1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Wetlands Conservation Award
James Pielsticker, a civic leader in Tulsa who owns
land along the Deep Fork River in Chandler, was
awarded the Fish and Wildlife Service's Regional
Wetlands Conservation Award for his work to restore
and enhance wetlands on 310 acres of his property
and his efforts to promote wetland conservation
across Oklahoma. The restored wetlands are now
managed to benefit waterfowl and other wetland-
dependent wildlife, such as wintering bald eagles and
migratory songbirds. Water quality has also improved
with the reduced sedimentation and decreased ero-
sion. Pielsticker participated in the Fish and Wildlife's
Partners for Wildlife and has contributed over
$150,000 to restoring wetland habitat on his property
along the Deep Fork River floodplain.
Source: LangerE., andH. Stuart. 1997. James
Pielsticker Wins Regional Wetlands Conservation
AwardFromU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, DC.
Oregon
Bear Creek
Bear Creek, located in central Oregon, has been
undergoing a constant transformation for more than 20
years. During 1977, it was reported that streambanks
were eroding and sedimentation levels in Bear Creek
were elevated during high water flows. To reverse
this condition, grazing was reduced in the area, and
during the early 1980s, grazing was stopped. In an
attempt to promote willow growth along Bear Creek,
existing juniper trees were also felled. By the mid
1980s, a new grazing regime was instituted to pre-
serve newly emerging stream-bank vegetation. The
surrounding pasture was divided into three units, and
livestock were grazed in late winter and early spring.
By this point, the stream channel had narrowed and
approximately 1.5 feet of sediment was trapped in the
floodplain by vegetation. A flood during the summer of
1987 threatened the stability of the stream, but within
one month streamside vegetation reestablished and
stabilized the floodplain.
Forage amounts for grazing livestock increased to
5 times the original amount grazed in the area by
1989. This led to local cost savings of $10,000 annu-
ally for hay production by local livestock operators. By
the mid 1990s, Bear Creek was experiencing minimal
damage from occasional flooding because of well-
established riparian vegetation. The overall health of
the creek was also improving as rainbow trout and
beaver returned to the creek. In addition, forage levels
increased from 200 pounds/acre to 2,000 pounds/acre,
and the area now stores 4 million gallons of water per
mile compared to 1977's 500,000 gallons per mile.
F-32
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
Sources: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). No date.
Problems and Solutions: A Riparian Improvement
Example. Bureau of Land Management Washington, DC.
Salmon River Salt Marsh
Progress in the restoration of the Salmon River Salt
Marsh was assessed by examining changes in the
plant species, plant communities, elevation of the site,
the role of salinity and soil texture, width and depth of
creek cross sections, and estimated aboveground net
primary production. Restoration goals were deter-
mined to be met in the sense that the restored salt
marsh now consists of typical Pacific Northwest salt
marsh communities; tidal exchanges are complete;
creeks now provide habitat for juvenile fish; and the
marsh is highly productive. The goal of returning the
diked salt marsh to its original high salt marsh condi-
tion was not met. Based on study results, guidelines
were developed to aid wetland managers in restora-
tion projects.
Source: Frenkel, R.E., and J.C. Morlan. 1991. Can we
restore our salt marshes? Lessons from the Salmon
River. Oregon. Northwest Environment Journal
7:119-135.
Tulatin River, Washington County
A graduate student at Oregon State University studied
two tributaries of the Tulatin River. His studies
showed that riparian restoration on a widespread scale
could result in savings of more than $ 1 million annually
in reduced river dredging and water treatment costs.
The costs of restoring 19.7 miles of Gale Creek and
26.1 miles of Dairy Creek, two tributaries of the
Tulatin. were estimated at $660.000, or $2 per person
in Washington County.
Source: Environmental News Network (ENN). 1996.
Riparian restoration is cost-effective, study shows.
ENN, Sun Valley, ID.
West Eugene Wetlands Project
The West Eugene Wetlands Project is a cooperative
partnership between the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, the City of Eugene, and Lane County. Oregon.
to acquire and manage the last wetlands in the
Willamette Valley.
Source: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997.
Environmental Education. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, Eugene, OR.
Wetland Mitigation Bank
The West Eugene Wetland Mitigation Bank was
established by the city of Eugene, Public Works
Engineering Division, Water Resources Team. Its goal
is to provide a mechanisms to fund wetland mitigation
projects and to carry out the West Eugene Wetlands
Plan. It might also serve other community needs.
Funds for mitigation arc derived from credit sales. The
mitigation bank currently charges $30,000 per mitiga-
tion credit, of which 83 percent was spent on the
development, design, planning, and construction of the
credit. The remaining charge is for the management
of the mitigation site and the mandated operation and
management period.
Source: Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1997.
Environmental Education. Bureau of Land Manage-
ment. Eugene. OR.
Wetlands Conservation Guide
The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Guide is a
comprehensive guide to federal, state, and private/
nonprofit programs offering technical and/or financial
assistance to private wetland owners in the state of
Oregon. It is also an appropriate resource guide for
management of public lands (parks, open space,
wildlife refuges, recreation areas).
Source: Oregon Wetlands Conservation Alliance. No
date. The Oregon Wetlands Conservation Guide:
Voluntary Wetlands Stewardship Options for Oregon s
Private Landowners. Oregon Wetlands Conservation
Alliance, Portland, OR.
Wetland Conservation Plan
Local jurisdictions are authorized to develop WCPs.
The plans enable decisions on wetland use to be made
through the planning process, rather than on a case-
by-case basis. The WCPs provide a basis for charac-
terizing wetlands and adjacent uplands over a large
area and to evaluate the effects of land use activities
on wetlands.
Source: Oregon Administrative Rules. 1994. Chapter
141, Division of State Lands, Division 86, Wetland
Conservation Plan.
Wetlands Construction
Oregon has taken advantage of its SRF for many
wetland projects. In the town of Lakeview, city of
Woodburn SRF is funding a project to expand and
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-33
-------
Appendix F
upgrade a lagoon wastewater treatment system.
Included in this project is the construction of a wet-
land to improve the natural treatment system. The
SRF funded the construction of a wetland in the city
of Mount Angel to polish effluent from another lagoon
treatment system. The city of Woodburn used the
SRF to fund the construction of a wastewater treat-
ment system using a poplar plantation for
phytoremediation. Although this is not a constructed
wetland, it is a project that expanded and improved a
natural treatment system. In addition, the cities of
Florence and Ashland plan to use constructed wet-
lands in future SRF funded projects.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter, Washington, DC.
Pennsylvania
DEP
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, through several partnerships, has restored
more than 100 miles of tributary habitat. This amounts
to 3,728.1 acres of wetlands, representing a net gain
of 3,107.4 acres. Funding was provided by section 319
money to initiate Pennsylvania's Stream ReLeaf—A
Plan for Restoring and Conserving Buffers Along
Pennsylvania Streams and the Forest Buffer Toolkit,
a "how-to" manual.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. No date. Coastal Zone Management
Program. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Harrisburg, PA.
East Goshen
Wetlands destroyed throughout East Goshen, Pennsyl-
vania to make room for rapid development in the town
resulted in septic system overflows. Residents' yards
were polluted with wastewater, and the town was
forced to install a $ 1.5 million sewer system. The
town also expects to expand the system in the future.
Source: National Audubon Society. No date a. Wetlands
Horror Stories. National Audubon Society, New York,
NY
The Pike Run Restoration Project
The Pike Run restoration project demonstrates the
effectiveness of including habitat restoration tech-
niques in a watershed treatment program. Forty
wetland acres were restored as a result of coopera-
tive efforts among landowners, government agencies,
and conservation groups. The main source of funding
for the project came from an EPA section 319 grant
administered by the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed
Conservation. The project is a partnership venture of
the USFWS Partners for Wildlife Program, the
Pennsylvania Game Commission, the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service and Pasture Systems
and Watershed Management Research Laboratory,
Ducks Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Founda-
tion, California University of Pennsylvania, Pheasants
Forever, the Audubon Society of Western Pennsylva-
nia, and interested landowners.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted
Runoff (NonpointSource Pollution): Partners in
Wildlife- The Pike Run Watershed Restoration Project.
Accessed January 2003.
Wetland Restoration/Creation Site Registry
Under the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection's Wetland Restoration/Creation Site
Registry Program, interested property owners register
the number of acres they have available for wetland
creation. A developer with requirements to mitigate
for wetland impacts then pays the cost of restoration
or creation of new wetlands on the property at no cost
to the landowner. The developer is also responsible for
monitoring the success of the project. So far, 39
landowners have registered 240 acres in the program
(as of 1997).
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. 1997b. Wetland Restoration: A Lasting
Tribute for Earth Day. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, PA.
Wetland Replacement Project
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, in cooperation with the USFWS, Ducks
Unlimited, and the Lake Naomi Club, will create 7.5
acres of wetlands from an abandoned sand and gravel
mine on the club's property in Monroe County. The
Wetland Replacement Fund provides permit applicants
F-34
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
with more options for replacing small wetlands that
are unavoidably lost. Wetlands can thus be created on
a larger scale and in better areas.
Source: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection. \997a.Monroe County's Wetlands Protection.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection,
Harrisburg, PA.
Rhode Island
Galilee Bird Sanctuary
In 1992 the Rhode Island Division of Fish, Wildlife and
Estuary Resources requested the USAGE to act as
the federal lead in the restoration of tidal flows into a
portion of the salt marsh at the Galilee Bird Sanctuary,
Narragansett. Up to one-half of the sanctuary quali-
fies for salt marsh restoration under the authority of
section 1135 of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1986. The remaining half will be restored under
the authority of the state. Two acres will consist of
intertidal habitat within tidal channels, 24 acres will be
fully restored to salt marsh, and 8 acres will be
partially restored to salt marsh. This will be done by
re-excavating natural channels and installing twin box
culverts beneath the escape road to improve tidal
exchange.
Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands
Protection and Restoration. Coastal America, Washing-
ton, DC.
Kingston 1
A study was conducted to evaluate the removal of
ground water nitrate in and adjacent to wetlands
located within three different riparian forests. Re-
moval rates were found to be in excess of 80% within
wetlands during both the growing and dormant sea-
sons. Removal rates within transition zones were less
than 36% during the growing season and ranged
between 50% and 78% in the dormant season. Test
results show that both wetlands and transition zones
between wetlands and uplands can be important sinks
for ground water nitrate.
Source: Simmons, R.C., A. J. Gold, and P.M. Groffman.
1992. Nitrate dynamics in riparian forests: Groundwa-
ter studies. Journal of Environmental Quality 21:659-
665. ISSN: 0047-2425.
Kingston 2
Denitrification was measured in a riparian forest with
upland wetland transition zones and red maple wet-
lands on two sides of a stream. Upland use on one
side of the stream was high-density, unsewered
residential development, and upland on the other side
was undeveloped. The developed and undeveloped
sites were compared to determine removal efficien-
cies. Nitrate removal efficiencies for the developed
site were determined to be 59% from ground water.
Source: Hanson, G.C., P.M. Groffman, and A.J. Gold.
1994. Denitrification in riparian wetlands receiving high
and low groundwater nitrate inputs. Journal of
Environmental Quality 23:917-922.
Wetland Protection
The Division of Freshwater Wetlands Rules and
Regulations Governing the Administration and En-
forcement of the Freshwater Wetlands Act regulates
all projects that might alter freshwater wetlands,
including activities in close proximity to a freshwater
wetland that might impact the natural character or
functions of a wetland, including nonpoint source
functions. Projects in close proximity to a wetland
require a permit if changes result in the flow of
surface runoff into or away from a wetland, or if
modifications in water quality would change its natural
character.
Source: Rhode Island Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Program. 1995. Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management, Providence, RI.
South Carolina
Congaree Swamp
The Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp has
been determined to provide valuable water quality
functions, such as removing and stabilizing sediment,
nutrients, and toxic contaminants. It was determined
that the total cost of constructing, operating, and
maintaining a tertiary treatment plant to perform the
same functions would be $5 million.
The National Audubon Society estimates that the cost
to replace the pollution prevention role of all of the
Congaree Bottomland Hardwood Swamp in South
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-35
-------
Appendix F
Carolina with a water treatment facility would be $5
million.
Sources: NationalAudubon Society. No date b. What's
a Wetland Worth? National Audubon Society, New
York, NY.
USEPA. 1995b. National Water Quality Inventory:
1994 Report to Congress. EPA841-R-95-005. USEPA,
Office of Water, Washington, B.C.
South Dakota
Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater
Treatment
Five communities in South Dakota have received SRF
loans for wetland projects. The communities of Clear
Lake, Huron, Lake Cochrane, Pickeral Lake, and
Richmond Lake have used SRF loans to construct
wetlands as part of improvements to a publicly owned
treatment works. Constructed wetlands are a complex
of saturated substrates, emergent and subemergent
vegetation, animal life, and water that simulates
natural wetlands for various benefits. In these cases,
the wetlands follow a lagoon treatment system to
further reduce pollutant levels in the wastewater prior
to discharge. User charges are being used to repay
the loans, which total about $7.5 million for all five
communities. These projects are all eligible under the
Nonpoint Source Program (Clean Water Act §319).
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter, Washington, DC.
Tennessee
Riparian Restoration Guide
The Riparian Restoration and Streamside Erosion
Control Handbook was prepared in response to a
need by landowners to prevent erosion of private
lands and to rehabilitate damaged streamside or
riparian zones. The document presents successful
techniques for planting, bank armoring, in-stream
structures, and soil bioengineering, which have been
used by others to stabilize streambanks and restore
riparian and aquatic resources.
Source: Hoffman IT., Green D.L., and Eager D. 1998.
Riparian Restoration and Streamside Erosion Control
Handbook. Tennessee Department of Agriculture,
Nashville, TN.
Rivers and Wetlands Program
The Rivers and Wetlands Program assesses the
conditions and trends of rivers and wetlands in Ten-
nessee and uses the information to assist in the
restoration and conservation of aquatic resources. The
mission of the Rivers Program is to characterize the
biological, aesthetic, recreational, and cultural re-
sources of the rivers of Tennessee. The mission of the
Wetlands Program is to identify wetlands across
Tennessee for conservation and restoration, assist in
the development of a strategy for the best use of
wetland resources, assist in the implementation of the
State Wetlands Conservation Strategy, and educate
the public and private sectors about the importance of
wetlands. The program was established in 1995
through an EPA Wetlands Planning Grant.
Source: Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation. 1998. Tennessee Rivers and Wetlands
Program. Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation, Nashville, TN.
Wetland Conservation Grant
The Division of Natural Heritage of the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation has
received a $208,207 grant from EPA's Wetland State
Partnership Grant Program to continue funding for the
Division's Wetlands Program through June of 1999.
The grant will be used to encourage property owners
to voluntarily enroll wetlands in state and federal
wetland conservation and assistance programs; to
work with state, county, and local governments to
avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands; and to encour-
age voluntary wetlands conservation. The grant will
also be used to provide information about wetland
values and protection to all 95 Tennessee counties.
Source: Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation. 1997. Environment and Conservation
Receives an EPA Grant. Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation, Nashville, TN.
F-36
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
Texas
Austin
A study was conducted to measure the efficiency of
VFS for removing constituents in highway runoff.
Efficiency was determined by measuring concentra-
tions of pollutants in samples of the runoff directly off
the road and after the runoff passed through the VSF.
Two VSF were monitored (U.S. 183 and Walnut
Creek) to investigate the potential for variation in
performance between VFS.
Source: Walsh, P.M., Barrett, M.E., Malina, J.F., Jr.,
and Charbeneau, RJ. 1997. Use of Vegetative Controls
for Treatment of Highway Runoff. Center for Research
in Water Resources. CRWR Online Report 97-5.
University of Texas, Center for Research in Water
Resources, Austin, TX.
Galveston Bay Foundation
A cooperative effort between volunteers and local,
state, and federal agencies was organized by the
Galveston Bay Foundation to restore coastal marshes
primarily through the planting of smooth cordgrass.
Approximately 200 volunteers participated in 16
plantings at 6 sites and created over 20,000 square
feet of marsh. The large number of volunteers is a
reflection of the growing awareness of the need to
restore the ecological balance in Galveston Bay.
Source: Shead, L. 1997. Restoration and Construction of
Coastal Wetlands. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Ingleside
Underutilized public property is being converted into a
multiuse coastal biofilter and wildlife habitat. Best
management practices implemented at the site include
a VSF, enlargement of a mitigated wetland for filtering
runoff, soil enhancement, xeriscaping, and the use of
solid waste disposal material and dredge material to
improve the effectiveness of the biofilter. The project
includes an education component targeting high school
and adult populations. The site is being monitored to
evaluate the effectiveness of the best management
practices.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1997a. Personal communication from Laura
J. Talbot to Wetlands Strategies and State Programs
Branch, U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.
Refugio
A wetland is being constructed (as of 1997) in Lions/
Shelby Park in the city of Refugio. Storm water runoff
from urban and rangeland sources will be directed to
the constructed wetland for treatment. A strong public
outreach program is intended to complement the
project for maximum effectiveness and demonstration.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1997a. Personal communication from Laura
J. Talbot to Wetlands Strategies and State Programs
Branch, U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency.
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
A study was conducted to determine the effectiveness
of permanent grass and winter wheat strips in trapping
herbicides. Study sites were located in nine water-
sheds. In each watershed, three 30-foot wide buffer
strips of grass, winter wheat, and corn were estab-
lished. Atrazine, cyanazine, and metolachlor were
applied as preemergent herbicides. Runoff was
measured and sampled during rainfall events to
determine the amount and quality of water leaving
each field. Results show that 15- and 30-foot-wide
filter strips of coastal Bermuda grass were effective
at intercepting herbicides and that the filter strips
reduced runoff volume by 60%. Herbicide levels in
both wheat and grass filter strips were shown to be
significantly lower than those in areas that were
planted completely in corn.
Source: Hoffman, D., and T Gerik. 1995. Limiting
Herbicide Runoff with Vegetative Filter Strips. In
Proceeding of the 1995 Water for Texas Conference,
TWRI, College Station, TX.
Wetlands Assistance Guide
Texas Parks and Wildlife has developed the Wetlands
Assistance Guide for Landowners to assist land-
owners in protecting wetlands and riparian areas
according to their different needs within the context of
broader conservation goals. The document provides a
comprehensive guide to federal, state, and private
programs offering technical and/or financial assistance
to private wetland owners within the state of Texas.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-37
-------
Appendix F
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1995. Wetlands
Assistance Guide for Landowners. State Wetlands
Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin,
TX.
Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas
The Wetland Habitat Alliance of Texas (WHAT) is an
organization dedicated to preserving Texas wetlands
by raising public awareness and appreciation of
wetlands and funding projects to manage wetland
waters; protect, enhance, and restore natural wet-
lands; and create wetlands on nonwetland sites. The
cooperator and WHAT agree to a proposed project,
and the NRCS verifies the operable conditions before
the project is approved. Interested landowners can
receive up to 100% financial assistance for a 10-year
minimum agreement.
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1995. Wetlands
Assistance Guide for Landowners. State Wetlands
Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin,
TX.
Wetlands Conservation Plan
The Conservation Plan focuses on nonregulatory,
voluntary approaches to conserving Texas's wetlands.
Wetland issues addressed in the plan fall into five
general categories: education, economic incentives,
statewide and regional conservation, assessment and
evaluation, and coordination and funding. Because of
the extensive size and physiography of the state, a
regional approach is used to best characterize the
diverse wetlands needs and resources of Texas.
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997a. Texas
Wetlands Conservation Plan. Texas Parks and Wildlife,
Austin, TX.
Wetlands Restoration Site Registry
Texas Parks and Wildlife received a $60,000 grant
from EPA to develop a voluntary registry for public
and private lands available for mitigation or registra-
tion. The program will function to link those who do
not own land but who need or want to do wetland
restoration with property owners who have similar
goals. The purpose of the registry is to identify
potential sites for wetland restoration, but there is no
guarantee that all registered sites will be restored.
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife. 1997. Texas Wetlands
Plan Update. Vol. 2, issue 2. Texas Parks and Wildlife,
Austin, TX.
Utah
Decker Lake
The Decker Lake Wetlands Preserve Foundation is a
nonprofit group dedicated to preserving its namesake
lake as an educational resource and natural preserve.
The group is hoping to create a preserve surrounding
the 35-acre, West Valley City lake that includes trails,
an education center, and wildlife observation areas,
thus creating a retreat in the center of the urban
valley.
Source: Decker Lake Project. 1998. Decker Lake
Wetlands Preserve Foundation. Salt Lake City, UT
Matheson Preserve
The Scott M. Matheson Wetlands Preserve is man-
aged by the Nature Conservancy and the Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) to ensure the
lasting protection of a spectacular desert wetland
system and its associated biological diversity. Studies
are being conducted in hydrology and ground salinity
to develop an understanding of how the wetland
system functions. Surveys are being conducted for
sensitive species, such as the northern leopard frog,
and to identify invasive plant species that pose a
threat to native vegetation communities. Birds are also
monitored to assess their resting, breeding, and
foraging habits. With this information, the Conser-
vancy and UDWR can better design conservation
strategies to maintain the wetland and its plant and
animal residents. The Conservancy hopes to demon-
strate cooperative private land management efforts
and educate children and other visitors about wetlands
and broader conservation issues on the Colorado
Plateau.
Source: The Nature Conservancy. 1998a. Matheson
Wetland Preserve. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
VA.
Wetlands Workbook
Utah's Guide to Proper Wetland Management and
Development is a workbook that targets decision
F-38
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
makers, land managers, planners, and private citizens
and is intended to aid these groups in proper wetland
management. The document provides guidelines for
wetland identification, discusses wetland functions,
and provides guidelines for responsible development.
Wetland permitting requirements and a list of available
technical and agency resources is provided.
Source: Lock, PatriciaA., Division of Wildlife Re-
sources. 1993. Personal communication.
Vermont
Charlotte
A VSF constructed to treat milkhouse wastewater
from a dairy farm was evaluated to determine its
effectiveness in reducing phosphorus and nitrogen
concentrations as well as exports in surface and
subsurface flow. The strip significantly reduces solids,
phosphorus, and nitrogen on a concentration basis, and
it retained 95% solids, 89% phosphorus, and 92%
nitrogen on a mass basis. Retention was greatest
during the growing season and poorest during periods
of snowmelt. Concentrations in subsurface outputs
were greater than those in surface runoff.
Source: Schwer, C.B., and J.C. Clausen. 1989. Vegeta-
tive filter treatment of dairy milkhouse wastewater.
Journal of Environmental Quality 18:446-451.
Lake Champlain Basin
The Lake Champlain Basin Watersheds National
Monitoring Program is designed to implement and
evaluate the effectiveness of livestock exclusion,
riparian revegetation, and grazing management in
reducing the concentrations and loads of nutrients,
bacteria, and sediment from agricultural sources.
Monitoring will continue over at least a 6-year period,
including a 2-year calibration period prior to best
management practice implementation, 1 year during
land management implementation, and at least 3 years
after best management practice implementation.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1995d. Section 319 National Monitoring
Program: An Overview. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
Virginia
Blacksburg
VFS were used to remove sediment, nitrate, and
phosphate from a confined livestock area. Removal
efficiencies were evaluated under varying flow
characteristics and filter strip lengths. Results indi-
cated that the VSF were effective for the removal of
sediment and other suspended solids if the feedlot
runoff was shallow and uniform. Sediment removal
decreased with time as sediment accumulated in the
filters. Total nitrogen and phosphorus were not
removed as effectively as sediment, and the filter
strips were not effective in removing soluble nitrogen
and phosphorus.
Source: Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, D. Lee, S.
Mosttaghimi, and V.O. Shanholtz. 1988. Evaluation of
vegetative filter strips as a best management practice
for feed lots. Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation 60(7):1231-1238.
Comprehensive Plan Policy
Fairfax County, Virginia, adopted a comprehensive
plan policy in 1982 to protect water quality and
sensitive lands along watercourses from encroach-
ment. The environmental quality corridor (EQC)
policy established a "sensitive lands EQC" that
provides for all presently mapped 100-year floodplains
(and those mapped during the subsequent develop-
ment process); all floodplain soils or soils with high
water table, poor bearing strength, or other severe
development constraints; wetlands adjacent to the
streams; and steep slopes (defined as 15 percent or
greater) adjacent to the floodplains, soils, or wetlands.
Where the floodplains, soils, and wetlands cover only
a narrow area, a minimum buffer width of 50 feet plus
a factor of 4 times the percent slope is provided. The
policy has resulted in protection of substantial portions
of Fairfax County stream valleys. However, because
it is only a policy rather than an ordinance, it can be
implemented in an enforceable manner only on land
uses that must be found to be in conformance with the
county's comprehensive plan.
Source: Fairfax County, Virginia, Board of Supervisors.
1982. Occoquan Basin Study: Amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan Adopted by the Board of
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-39
-------
Appendix F
Supervisors June 15, 1982. Fairfax County Office of
Comprehensive Planning, Fairfax, VA.
Culpeper County
A study concluded that for every dollar of tax revenue
collected from residential land uses in Culpeper
County in 1987, $1.25 was spent on county services.
For every dollar collected from industrial/commercial
or farm/forest/open space lands, only $0.19 was spent
on services.
Source: Vance, T, andA.B. Larson. February 1988.
Fiscal Impact of Major Land Uses in Culpeper County,
Virginia. Piedmont Environmental Council, VA.
Henrico County's Environmental Program
Henrico County, which lies within the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed, was dominated by agricultural activity
until the 1940s and is now growing at a steady rate.
Because of the many wetlands in the county, the
Environmental Division of the Department of Public
Works is developing a stormwater management
program that will offer additional protection to water
resources, including wetlands. The goal of this project
is to strike a balance between the need to protect
stream systems not yet degraded and the desire to
restore those that have been impacted by develop-
ment. This proposed program would help increase the
overall effectiveness of the county's future
Stormwater Management Program, protect and
restore stream systems in the county, and protect and
establish forested buffers.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Prices Fork Research Farm
Rainfall simulation was used to evaluate the effective-
ness of 9.1 and 4.6 meter-long VFS for the removal of
sediment, nitrogen, and phosphorus from cropland
runoff. The 9.1 and 4.6 meter long VFS under shallow
uniform flow conditions removed an average of 84%
and 70% of the incoming suspended solids, 79% and
61% of the incoming phosphorus, and 73% and 54%
of the incoming nitrogen, respectively. Soluble nutri-
ents in effluent were sometimes greater than the
incoming soluble nutrient load.
Source: Dillaha, T.A., R.B. Renear, S. Mostaghimi, and
D. Lee. 1989a. Vegetative filter strips for agricultural
nonpoint source pollution control. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers 32(2): 513-
519.
Riparian Restoration Demonstration
The Riparian Restoration Demonstration and Educa-
tion Project Committee was established in 1994 to
provide technical training and support for riparian
restoration. In 1997, as part of the program, the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation
conducted hands-on riparian restoration seminars at
six locations across the Commonwealth. The seminars
were designed to present restoration techniques for
both rural and urban settings.
Source: Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
District. 1997. Conservation Currents 25(1, Septem-
ber/October) and 25(2, November/December).
VFS Effectiveness Study
VFS of varying ages were inspected and evaluated
throughout rural Virginia through site visits and mail
surveys. Results of the study indicate that many VFS
performed poorly because of poor design and mainte-
nance. It was determined that in order to make VFS
more efficient, one or more of the following should be
included in the design or management: a stone trench
to spread water effectively; careful shaping of VFS to
ensure sheet flow; inspection for, and repair of,
damage following major storm events; and removal of
any accumulated sediment.
Source: Dillaha, T.A., J.H. Sherrard, andD. Lee. 1989b.
Long-term effectiveness of vegetative filter strips.
Water Environment and Technology (November
1989):419-421.
Washington
City of Bellevue
Estimates of the cost of artificially replacing wetland
functions with engineering solutions are enormous and
such projects are, in many case, impossible. The city
of Bellevue, Washington, conducted a study which
F-40
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
showed that it would be 8 times more expensive to
build an artificial stormwater system than to use the
natural stormwater control system provided by
wetlands. The flood peaks in watersheds with exten-
sively destroyed or degraded wetlands are substan-
tially higher than those in healthy watersheds. Higher
flood levels cause greater individual property damage
and impose massive costs on taxpayers.
Source: National Audubon Society. No date c. Why Are
Wetlands Important? National Audubon Society, New
York, NY.
Synoptic Assessment Approach
The synoptic assessment approach was applied to
provide information on future risk of valued habitat
loss and to identify habitat areas for protection as part
of the development of a State WCP. The assessment
tool was used to evaluate wetland functions, make
regional comparisons, and identify significant impacts
on wetland resources.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1992a. A Synoptic Approach to Cumulative
Impact Assessment: A Proposed Methodology. EPE/
600/R-92/167. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Thurston County
A study is being conducted to determine the pollutant
removal effectiveness of VFS constructed along
roadsides in treating stormwater runoff from high-
ways. Water quality data from the study will be used
to assist the Washington State Department of Trans-
portation in developing design criteria for inclusion in
its highway runoff manual. Three 20-foot-wide, 10-
foot-long VFS located in three different soil types will
be evaluated in the study. Removal rates for total
suspended solids, zinc, copper, lead, cadmium, total
petroleum hydrocarbons, nitrate-nitrite, total phospho-
rus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and toxics will be
measured.
Source: Yonge, D. 1996. Vegetative Filter Strip Monitor-
ing and Assessment. Washington State Department of
Transportation. Olympia, WA.
Wetland Reconstruction
The City of Des Moines, Washington, is using SRF to
purchase and reconstruct a badly degraded wetland
area and to construct a sediment trap/pond facility.
This project is allowing the city to meet two goals it
constantly struggles to achieve: flood protection and
wetland preservation and enhancement. Area
stormwater will enter one of two sediment traps by
way of the surrounding reconstructed wetlands. The
wetlands serve the dual purpose of providing flood
protection by collecting stormwater runoff and acting
as a preliminary filter by removing suspended solids.
The majority of sediment and any heavy metal re-
moval will occur while the water is in the sediment
traps. The water will then leave the traps through
artificial inlets that lead to Barnes Creek, which
eventually enters Puget Sound. This $222,500 project
is part of the National Estuary Program (Clean Water
Act §320).
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998b. Wetlands Projects Funded by the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CW-SRF). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter, Washington, DC.
Wetlands Regulatory Program
The Washington State Department of Ecology has
instituted a regulatory program to counteract en-
croachment into wetlands due to compliance with
infrastructure-related development standards. Local
governments in the Puget Sound basin have authority
to require more stringent controls to protect water
quality where minimum setback requirements do not
provide adequate protection of water quality-sensitive
areas such as wetlands.
Source: Washington State Department of Ecology.
1992. Storm-water Program Guidance Manual for the
Puget Sound Basin. Washington State Department of
Ecology, Olympia, WA.
Winona Wetlands Purchase
The city of Port Townsend, Washington, was able to
meet both stormwater management objectives and a
wetlands preservation goal by obtaining funding from
Washington's SRF to purchase an area known as the
Winona Wetlands. These wetlands act as a critical
stormwater basin for the area and provide valuable
wildlife habitat. Potential development of the area not
only threatened the wetlands but would also result in
stormwater management problems. By purchasing the
wetlands, the city was able to protect a natural
stormwater management system as well as a wildlife
refuge. The city purchased 6.5 acres in Phase I and is
currently planning to borrow additional SRF for a
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-41
-------
Appendix F
Phase II purchase of 9 acres. This $400,000 project is
part of the National Estuary Program (Clean Water
Act §320) for the Puget Sound estuary. A portion of
the city's stormwater utility fee paid by households is
being used to repay the Washington SRF.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1998c. Winona Wetlands Purchase. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewa-
ter Management, Washington, DC.
West Virginia
Riparian Task Force
The Hampshire County Riparian Task Force was
established in 1992. The task force, which is com-
posed of landowners and 12 local organizations, has
dedicated itself to educating the public about the
important role that forested riparian buffers play in
maintaining water quality. An important part of the
task force's message is that individual actions and
personal choices can have both good and bad effects
on the region's water resources. Committed to
reaching as large an audience as possible, the task
force developed an educational strategy that targets
both children and adults. The task force has developed
educational materials and demonstration sites to
promote the importance of protecting water quality in
the Potomac River Basin.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program. \997b.Riparian
Buffer Case Study. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
Wisconsin
State Water Quality Standards
The state of Wisconsin has adopted specific wetlands
water quality standards designed to protect the
sediment and nutrient filtration or storage function of
wetlands. The standards prohibit addition of those
substances that would "otherwise adversely impact
the quality of other waters of the State" beyond
natural conditions of the affected wetland. In addition,
the state has adopted criteria protecting the hydrologic
conditions in wetlands to prevent significant adverse
impacts on water currents, erosion or sedimentation
patterns, and the chemical and nutrient regimes of the
wetland. Wisconsin has also adopted a sequenced
decision-making process for projects potentially
affecting wetlands that considers the wetland depen-
dency of a project; practicable alternatives; and the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
1991. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands—Natural
Resources Chapter 103. Register, July 1991, No. 427.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Oneida Indian Reservation
The Duck, Apple, and Ashwaubenon (DAA) Priority
Watershed Project is a 10-year project to reduce
runoff and improve water quality and aquatic habitat
within the 265-square-mile watershed of Lake Michi-
gan. In 1997 the Wisconsin Land and Water Conser-
vation Board approved the $21.8 million DAA
Nonpoint Source Control Plan to improve water
quality and quantity and the economy and quality of
life in northeastern Wisconsin. The Priority Watershed
Project is a watershed-based program that addresses
all nonpoint sources of pollution and provides a
coordinating framework for environmental manage-
ment that focuses on public and private efforts to
address the highest priority problems within hydrologi-
cally defined geographic areas. The goal of the
program is to reduce phosphorus and total suspended
solids by 50 percent or more.
Source: International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties
(ICMA and NACO). 1999. Protecting Wetlands,
Managing Watersheds...Local Government Case
Studies. International City/County Management
Association and National Association of Counties,
Washington, DC.
Wyoming
Green River
The Green River drains 12,000 square miles of
western Wyoming and northern Utah and incorporates
a diverse spectrum of geology, topography, soils, and
F-42
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
-------
Appendix F
climate. Land use is predominantly range and forest.
A multiple regression model was used to associate
various riparian and nonriparian basin attributes
(geologic substrate, land use, channel slopes, etc.)
with previous measurements of phosphorus, nitrate,
and dissolved solids.
Source: Fannin, T.E., M. Parker, and T.J. Maret. 1985.
Multiple Regression Analysis for Evaluating Non-point
Source Contributions to Water Quality in the Green
River, Wyoming. In Proceedings of Riparian Ecosys-
tems and Their Management: Reconciling Conflicting
Issues, Tucson, Arizona, April 16-18,1985, pp. 201-
205. GTR RM-120. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Washington, DC
Anacostia River Watershed
Intergovernmental agencies that include the District of
Columbia, Montgomery County, Prince George's
County, and the State of Maryland collaborated and
organized efforts to restore the Anacostia River and
tributaries. Over 98 percent of the tidal wetlands and
nearly 75 percent of the freshwater wetlands within
the watershed were destroyed prior to the start of the
project. Restoration activities were facilitated by the
Metropolitan Council of Governments through admin-
istrative and technical support. The project was
funded through annual contributions from Anacostia
residents.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Polluted
Runoff (Nonpoint Source Pollution): Anacostia River
Watershed District of Columbia, . Accessed
January 2003.
Kenilworth Marsh: A Classic Wetland
Restoration Success Story in The Nation's
Capitol
The USAGE in consultation with several federal and
local agencies restored more than 30 acres of emer-
gent wetland in a reconstructed freshwater tidal
marsh in Washington, DC's Anacostia River. Restora-
tion of the marsh involved using dredge materials from
the Anacostia River and planting about 350,000 plants
comprising of 16 local, native species. An EPA section
319 grant administered by the District of Columbia
was used to support the monitoring effort of the
restored marsh. The lessons learned from using
dredged materials were used to build similar wetlands
in nearby marshes.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), Office of Research and Development. 2002.
Kenilworth Marsh: A Classic Wetland Restoration
Success Story in The Nation s Capitol.
TERRITORIES
American Samoa
Coastal Management Program
The American Samoa Coastal Management Program
Administrative Rules require the establishment of
buffer zones of 25 to 50 feet between wetlands and
development. Special Management Plans, which
provide additional protection to wetlands, have been
established for Pago Pago Harbor and the pala, or
wetland, areas around the villages of Leone and
Nu'uuli. In addition, American Samoa, has developed
a Comprehensive Wetlands Management Plan for the
islands of Tutuila, Aunu'u, American Samoa, and
Manu'a that documents the status of wetlands and
suggests strategies to protect remaining wetlands.
Source: American Samoa Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution Program. 1995. American Samoa Environ-
mental Protection Agency, American Samoa.
Guam
Wetland Protection
The Guam Environmental Protection Agency includes
NPS evaluations of all wetlands in or adjacent to
projects under their review. The Guam Nonpoint
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-43
-------
Appendix F
Source Management Plan states that the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency will include in their
formal review standards specific evaluations for NFS
control potential of existing and constructed wetlands.
The agency will also review projects adjacent to
wetlands for their impact on wetlands.
Source: Guam Nonpoint Source Pollution Management
Plan. 1996. Guam Environmental Protection Agency,
Tivan. Guam.
Commonwealth of the
Tlnian Magpo Watershed and Wetland
Protection Plan
The Division of Coastal Resources Management and
the Division of Environmental Quality applied for and
received a grant from EPA to prepare the Tinian
Magpo Watershed and Wetland Protection Plan.
The plan includes rationale for development and
descriptions of the environment, previous and ongoing
investigations, federal and commonwealth agencies
regulating wetlands, and water resources. The final
plan includes detailed descriptions of the Magpo
watershed and the Magpo wetland. The plan also
identifies problems and concerns within the Magpo
watershed and wetland and provides recommenda-
tions for solutions.
Source: Baldwin G.W. 1995. Tinian Magpo Watershed
and Wetland Protection Plan. Prepared for Division of
Coastal Resources Management, Department of Lands
and Natural Resources. Saipan, MP; Division of
Environmental Quality. Department of Public Works,
Saipan, MP; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, DC.
Los Manchos Mangrove Restoration
The $1.6 million Los Manchos Mangrove Restoration
Project lies within the Los Manchos Mangrove Forest.
It involves the restoration of tidal flushing to approxi-
mately 1,000 acres of mangrove forest along the
eastern coast of Puerto Rico, at the U.S. Naval
Station. Roosevelt Roads. Construction phasing of the
project includes the demolition of existing causeways,
construction of a new causeway with bridges to allow
greater tidal flow and saltwater exchange, and the
clearing of damaged or fallen mangroves. New
mangroves will be planted in areas that were severely
damaged.
Source: Coastal America Partnership. 1997. Wetlands
Protection and Restoration. Coastal America. Washing-
ton, DC.
Mangrove Protection In Puerto Rico
In Puerto Rico protection of mangroves receives
priority attention. In 1974 the Environmental Quality
Board adopted Resolution 74-21 to protect mangrove
wetlands. The resolution states a need to preserve,
protect, and when possible restore mangroves;
minimize changes in the quantity or quality of water in
mangroves; protect mangroves from adverse effects
of dredging orthe placement of dredge spoils; and
promote environmental measures for the protection of
mangroves.
Source: Puerto Rico Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
Plan. 1995. Draft. Department of Natural Resources.
Puerta de Tierra, PR.
F-44
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
Virgin
GIS Assessment
The U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and
Natural Resources is developing a wetland geographic
information system (GIS). The system will be used to
evaluate wetland management needs and priorities.
Data in the GIS wetlands database will be used to
ascertain historic losses of salt ponds. This data will
also be used to formulate salt pond protection mea-
sures, e.g., establishment of specific salt pond bound-
aries and setbacks, and creation of guidelines for the
maintenance and restoration of ponds.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(LISEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington. DC.
Of
Wetlands Conservation Plan/Outreach
The Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Indians is serving as a wetlands information center for
Wisconsin tribes. The Bad River Band is focusing on
learning various wetland programs and on the devel-
opment of a tribal Wetlands Conservation Plan (WCP)
for their reservation. The WCP addresses the threats
to the Kakagon/Bad River Sloughs ecosystem. In
conjunction with this plan, the tribe is working with
federal agencies to provide outreach services and help
other Wisconsin tribes develop WCP.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Canada
WA
Colville
Tribes
Owhi Lake
Owhi Lake, Washington, has the most important
resident fisher}'- within the Colville Confederated
Tribes reservation. The tribes have restored riparian
areas and limited livestock access to Owhi Creek and
Lake in an effort to reduce phosphorus levels. Tribal
activities included the fencing of Owhi Lake and
creation of livestock enclosures to restrict the use of
pastures along the creek. School children worked with
tribal technicians; they planted riparian vegetation and
helped put medium organic debris in the creek, using
only local mate rials.
Source: U.S. Environmental ProtcctionAgcncy
(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.
U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency, Washington. DC.
and
of the
Watershed Demonstration Project
The tribe is conducting a Watershed Demonstration
Project for the Bitterroot watershed. Criteria are
being developed by the Flathead Tribes to inventory
wetland resources and to identify wetlands that have
incurred detrimental impacts. Outreach activities are
being undertaken with stakeholders to determine what
measures could be taken to restore and enhance the
use of wetland resources.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-45
-------
Appendix F
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington. DC.
of the
Umatilla Indian
Reservation
Wetland Community Park
There are plans to create a community park between
two wetland areas near Oregon housing projects and
the Umatilla Indian Reservation tribal government
campus. The 3.5-acre park, among the cottonwoods
of Mission Highway, would provide traditional ameni-
ties in addition to a platform that extends into the
wetlands to accommodate viewing, with information to
educate the public on the value of wetlands and
wetland protection.
Source: Plans Developed for Wetland Community Park.
Confederated Umatilla Journal, Feb. 19, 1998, p. 9.
Umatilla River Watershed
A variety of land uses on the Umatilla Indian Reserva-
tion and in the surrounding Umatilla River watershed
(in north-central Oregon) result in nonpoint source
pollution. Erosion has led to the loss of wetlands and
riparian vegetation along the river. The tribes hope to
restore these areas by improving livestock and crop
management practices. Objectives include increased
riparian shade and bank storage to improve productiv-
ity and survival of coldwater fisheries habitat; rota-
tional grazing and wider use of upland pastures;
improved crop management; increased riparian
vegetation and the possible introduction of beaver to
provide natural habitat structural improvements;
increased in-stream structure and channel diversity;
and implementation of a proactive approach to private
land grazing and agricultural management.
Source: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency
(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.
U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC.
Watershed Protection
The tribes are conducting a watershed protection
approach demonstration project in the Umatilla Basin.
Building on last year's grant, they are developing a
watershed protection program and multilevel-govern-
ment integrated watershed management plan.
Source: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
:' Canada 1
!i=F
MT
NO
Fort
Sioux Tribes
Managed Grazing
The demonstration of a managed grazing system is
under way as part of a riparian restoration and water
quality protection plan for the Fort Peck Reservation
in northeastern Montana. The system is located in the
Little Porcupine Creek watershed. Little Porcupine
Creek has lost almost all integrity because of uncon-
trolled grazing, which has stripped the banks and the
riparian corridor of vegetation. The stream also serves
as the only livestock watering source for the range.
The goal of the project is to restore the riparian zone
from a severely impaired to a moderately impaired
biological condition.
Source: U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency
(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.
U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, Washington, DC.
The Grand Portage Reservation
The Grand Portage Reservation received an EPA
grant for $50,000 in 1995 to develop a Wetland
Protection and Conservation Ordinance for the
reservation that includes regulatory and nonregulatory
approaches to wetland protection. The draft ordinance
was developed, and sections of land on the reservation
that were most at risk from development were the
focus of the wetland evaluations conducted in con-
junction with the development of the ordinance.
According to Janice Cheng, EPA Region Wetlands
Division, the tribe did not use other outside funding
F-46
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
sources besides EPA for the development of the
ordinance, but the tribe did provide a 25 percent match
to the grant funds. Ms. Cheng stated that other tribes
in EPA Region 5 have received similar grants for
developing wetland protection ordinances. The cost of
developing the ordinances has varied from approxi-
mately $50,000 to $100,000. The length of time
involved in their development has also ranged from
slightly less than 1 year to more than 2 years. The
variation in cost and duration of the projects depends
largely on the amount of background wetland informa-
tion that is available for the reservation.
Source: Cheng, Janice, USEPA, Region 5. January 18,
2000. Personal communication.
UT
AZ
CO
Wetlands Conservation Project
The Hopi Tribe is preparing the Hopi Wetland Con-
servation Plan for protecting and conserving wet-
lands on the Hopi Reservation. In addition, the tribe is
completing a watershed protection demonstration
project for the Blue Canyon area of the reservation, a
unique riparian area that is currently being considered
for a National or Tribal Park. An important objective is
to develop a plan that provides adequate protection but
still allows for economic development by the tribe.
The emphasis is on establishing goals that provide
direct protection of the wetland resources.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Hualapai Tribe
Spencer Creek
Spencer Creek is the largest perennial stream on the
Hualapai Indian Reservation in Arizona. The creek,
nearby wetlands, and native vegetation are plagued by-
fecal contamination resulting from burro overgrazing.
A 3-day restoration project involves helicopter crews
that will haul fence panels down to Indian Gardens to
make a temporary holding pen. net all burros, and
transport them by helicopter to the holding pen for
relocation to other areas. The Hualapai Department of
Natural Resources hopes to prevent the buildup of
buro populations to allow woody riparian vegetation,
now lost to overgrazing, to reestablish. Removal of the
burros will improve wetland plants and water quality
throughout the Spencer Creek drainage.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1997c. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Inter-Tribal Council of
Michigan
Wetlands Outreach
The Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan (MITC) is
providing wetlands technical assistance to the Bay-
Mills Indian Community and expanding this assistance
to all Michigan tribes. This project is fulfilling the need
for outreach and education specific to the 404 pro-
gram. MITC is determining the specific needs of each
tribe and is working with the federal agencies to
provide technical information and wetland manage-
ment assistance. MITC's goal is to eventually develop
wetland management strategies for all the Michigan
tribes that request their assistance. The strategies
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-47
-------
Appendix F
include the identification, preservation, and manage-
ment of wetlands on reservations.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington. DC.
of
of Florida
Wetland Water Quality Standards
The Miccosukee Tribe has vested interests in approxi-
mately 2.1 million acres in South Florida, and the vast
majority of this acreage is wetlands. The tribe is
collecting and analyzing water samples at 20 sites,
including eight wetland reference sites on the
Miccosukee Tribe's federal reservations. The tribe is
using this information to develop wetland water quality
standards and to assess and monitor the ecological
integrity of the tribe's wetlands with development of
potential indicators.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington. DC.
CT
RI ,
Indian Tribe
Wetlands Protection Program
The tribe is developing a program for the protection of
tribal wetlands, including development of zoning
by-laws, a conservation and recreation plan, and
biological criteria/wetland water quality standards. In
addition, the tribe is developing educational and
training opportunities for tribal members and staff
involved in the administration of their newly developed
wetland protection program.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Perce Tribe
Wetland Conservation Program
The tribe is developing and implementing a watershed
protection approach demonstration project in the
Lapwai Creek Watershed and a comprehensive WCP
forthe reservation.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. Stale/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
tnr
AZ
CO
of Acoma
Wetlands Protection Program
The tribe is developing a comprehensive plan for
wetland areas on the reservation as an ongoing project
with other tribal programs such as range management,
forestry, fish and wildlife, and various agricultural and
recreational programs. By developing a Wetlands
Protection Plan, these areas can be incorporated into
an overall tribal lands management program.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. Slate/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
F-48
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
-------
Appendix F
Uf
MI
Of
Wetlands Program
The tribe is developing a program to manage and
conserve its wetlands as they relate to other re-
sources. The elements of the wetland program are
being incorporated into the overall Integrated Re-
sources Management Plan. The objectives are to
establish a Wetlands Section within the pueblo's
Natural Resources Department to gather data for a
WCP, to develop a WCP, to develop water quality
standards, to improve wetlands potential through
watershed improvement projects, and to gain public
input on a WCP.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Of
Red Lake Farm
The Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians will manage
more than 1,200 acres of wetlands and other habitats,
including a portion of the Kiwosay Wildlife Area in
Minnesota. A $ 177,000 grant through the National
Wildlife Refuge System, along with $338,000 from
partners, will be used to help restore nesting habitat as
well as wild rice and small grain food plots, which are
a food source for migrating and breeding waterfowl.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
1998e. Wetlands Projects Approved for 19 States. Fish
and Wildlife Service News List Server. Listed April 30.
1998. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
Wetlands Outreach
The Red Lake Band is developing expertise in both
regulatory and advanced planning aspects of the
wetland program and providing wetland outreach to
the tribes of Minnesota. They are providing technical
assistance in wetland delineation, wetlands regulations,
and eventually, assistance in the development of
individual tribal wetland ordinances or WCP. They are
also upgrading their existing computer equipment to
accommodate an expanded geographic information
system. They are gathering information on current
needs of the Minnesota tribes and are working with
the federal agencies on training in policy issues.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
Rincon San
Wetlands Protection Plan
In 1992 the Rincon San Luiseno Band initiated work
to develop a wetland management program for the
reservation lands along the San Luis Rev River. The
Rincon are defining short- and long-term data require-
ments to assess water and wetland quality on the
reservation. Data include quantitative information on
chemical, physical, and biological parameters. Perma-
nent sampling and monitoring stations are being
defined on the reservation, along with data collection
requirements and protocols.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July 2005
F-49
-------
Appendix F
UT
CO
D<
Wetlands Project:
The tribe is developing a comprehensive wetland
monitoring and assessment plan for the pueblo.
finalizing a draft Wetlands Management Plan, and
developing a pollution prevention strategy for
remediation of the pueblo's wetlands.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington. DC.
M>
UN
SB
Nation
Wetlands Conservation Plan
The nation is developing a Tribal WCP. They are
undertaking activities to protect, restore, and maintain
wetland resources on the reservation. With the
assistance of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service and USFWS. they are using existing wetland
data to inventory wetland resources and identify
priority wetlands on the reservation.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 1994b. State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Water. Washington. DC.
Springs Tribe
Wetlands Conservation Plan
The tribe is inventorying existing wetlands, identifying
functions and values, refining tribal monitoring and
enforcement programs, and consolidating existing
tribal laws affecting wetlands. These activities will
provide the basis for the development of a wetlands
conservation programs for the reservation.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA). 19941). State/Tribal Wetlands Grant Catalog.
5th ed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office
of Water, Washington, DC.
F-50
EPA 841 -B-05-003 July
------- |