United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9280.0-03
EPA540/R-94/019
PB-94-963242
May 1994
Considering Wetlands At
CERCLA Sites
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
EPA/540/R-94/019
Publication: 9280.0-03
May 1994
Considering Wetlands
At CERCLA Sites
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
CONSIDERING WETLANDS AT CERCLA SITES
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKGROUND 2
2.1 Wetlands Functions and Values 2
2.2 Overview of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program 3
2.3 Overview of CERCLA 4
3.0 THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR REMEDY SELECTION 6
3.1 Potential ARARs 7
3.1.1 Clean Water Act Section 404 7
3.1.2 Water Quality Criteria and Standards 10
3.2 TBCs 11
4.0 CONSIDERING WETLANDS AT CERCLA SITES 13
4.1 Early Identification 13
4.2 Early Notification of Wetlands Staff and Biological Technical
Assistance Groups 14
4.3 Appropriate Levels of Effort to Consider Wetlands 15
4.3.1 Wetlands Characterization 15
4.3.2 Wetlands Delineation 16
4.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment 16
4.3.4 Wetlands Functional Assessment 17
4.4 Potential Impacts from Clean Up Activities 19
5.0 ROLE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES TRUSTEES 22
6.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR COORDINATION 24
6.1 Biological Technical Assistance Groups 24
6.2 Training 25
6.3 Memoranda of Agreement 25
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 27
Appendix 1 - BTAG Coordinators 33
Appendix 2 - Wetlands Coordinators 34
Appendix 3 - Diagrams and Attachments 35
Diagram 1 - Superfund Remedial Process Flow Chart
Diagram 2 - Considering Wetlands During the RI/FS Flow Chart
Attachment - Regional MOU between Waste Management and Water
Management Divisions
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Two issues of considerable importance on the nation's environmental agenda are (1)
loss of wetlands and other aquatic habitat, and (2) the impacts, potential or actual, to human
health and the environment from Superfund sites. Some estimates have indicated that at
least 60% of Superfund sites are located in or near wetlands or other sensitive aquatic
habitat.1 As EPA policy and program emphasis evolves to include a greater concern for
ecological impacts, the impact of contamination from Superfund sites on wetlands values
and functions is receiving greater consideration.
In 1989, the EPA Wetlands Action Plan2 stated the goal of "no overall net loss of the
Nation's remaining wetlands resource base." Since that time, EPA's Wetlands Division in
the Office of Water has incorporated this goal in Division activities, including Superfund.
The goal was adopted by the 11/93 Interagency Wetlands Working Group, convened by the
White House.
EPA approaches wetlands protection within the framework of the Executive Order
for Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990): avoid the long- and short-term adverse impacts
associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and avoid direct or indirect
support of new construction in wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. The
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9280.0-02 of August
1985, Policy on Floodplain and Wetlands Assessments for CERCLA Actions, states:
Under this policy, Superfund actions must meet the substantive requirements of the
Floodplain Management Executive Order (E.O. 11988), and the Protection of
Wetlands Executive Order (E.O. 11990).
As a Federal Agency, EPA must follow executive orders. The effect of citing these
executive orders in CERCLA compliance policy further establishes the expectation that the
Agency will follow the requirements of the two orders in developing CERCLA responses.
This guidance aims to provide Superfund site managers and regional wetlands
program personnel with policy guidance that will be useful when considering potential
impacts of response actions on wetlands at Superfund sites. Successful coordination of the
programs will achieve a greater degree of wetlands protection and a more efficient
response for remediating Superfund site contamination.
'U.S. EPA. 1989. Summary of Ecological Risks, Assessment Methods, and Risk Management Decisions in
Superfund and RCRA. EPA-230-03-89-046.
2 The Action Plan was released under a memorandum from the EPA Administrator dated January 18, 1989.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 1
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND
This section provides general information on wetlands functions and values, and on
relevant regulations and laws. This information should help facilitate relationships based on
a mutual understanding of each program's purpose, laws, and policies. In this section, as
well as the other sections throughout this guidance, reference documents are identified to
help the reader find more information on a particular topic.
2.1 Wetlands Functions and Values
As defined in the Federal Clean Water Act regulations (40 CFR Part 232.2(r))
wetlands are:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands vary across the country due to regional and local differences in vegetation,
hydrology, water chemistry, soils, topography, climate, and other factors. For example,
wetlands include coastal marshes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts; mangrove swamps in
Hawaii and southern Florida; red maple swamps, bogs, and fens in northeastern and north
central States and Alaska; pocosins in North Carolina; pitch-pine lowlands in southern New
Jersey; riparian wetlands of the arid and semiarid West; prairie potholes in Minnesota and
the Dakotas; vernal pools in California; playa lakes in the Southwest; cypress gum swamps
in the South; wet tundra in Alaska, and tropical rain forests in Hawaii. Wetlands found at
Superfund sites may occur naturally or as a result of human influence, such as created
lagoons or depressions on top of landfills that have wetland characteristics.
Wetlands typically provide a number of functions that benefit humans and the
environment. By absorbing, adsorbing, transforming, or retaining natural pollutants and
xenobiotic pollutants which can enter a wetland through runoff, wetlands have a water
quality improvement function. Flood water storage and conveyance functions are provided
by wetlands. Some wetlands serve as recharge or discharge sites for ground water. Due to
the presence of vegetation in these systems, wetlands often provide shoreline and erosion
control.
Many commercial and game fish use headwaters, sloughs and inland wetlands as well
as coastal marshes and estuaries for nursery and/or spawning grounds. Because of their high
productivity, wetlands offer food sources for many species and provide habitat for fish and
wildlife, including certain endangered or threatened species. A number of natural products
also are produced by wetlands including wild rice, timber, and blueberries. Finally, because
of their natural aesthetic value and abundance of bird, waterfowl, and plant species, wetlands
also provide recreation and aesthetic enjoyment.
Wetlands are sensitive ecosystems particularly vulnerable to impacts from
contamination or from response actions that may occur as part of the Superfund process.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Many wetland systems have been used as dumping sites for hazardous and nonhazardous
waste. Because of their relatively low elevation in the landscape, wetlands also may act as a
sink or source for contamination flowing overland via surface water or from groundwater
discharges.
Information on this topic can be found in the following documents:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "An Overview of Major Wetlands Functions and Values", F WS/OBS-84/18,
Sep 1984
U.S. EPA. "America's Wetlands: Our Vital Link Between Land and Water", OPA-87-016, Feb 1988
2.2 Overview of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Program
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. While this guidance is directed at
wetlands, it is important to note that wetlands, like rivers, streams, and interstate lakes, are
"waters of the U.S.," and much of the discussion here can be related to those other waters
(See glossary for definition of "Waters of the U.S.").
The Section 404 program operates independently of the CERCLA program. Much of
the following information about the §404 program, such as the process of obtaining a
permit, is not applicable at a CERCLA site. However, the information may be useful in
applying §404 as an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR), as
discussed further in Section 3.2.
The CWA §404 program is implemented jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and EPA. The COE reviews permit applications and determines whether
to issue or deny a permit. EPA's responsibilities include development and interpretation of
the §404(b)(l) Guidelines, which are the environmental criteria that must be satisfied
before a §404 permit can be issued. Under §404(c), EPA has authority to veto a Corps
decision to issue a permit or to otherwise prohibit or restrict the discharge of dredged or
fill material to wetlands or other waters of the U.S. EPA also has ultimate authority for
determining the geographic scope (extent of Federal jurisdiction) under the CWA; i.e.,
whether an area is a wetlanid or other water of the U.S. EPA and the COE share authority
for enforcing §404 requirements.
Generally, anyone wishing to discharge dredged or fill material to wetlands or other
waters of the U.S. must first obtain authorization from the COE, either through issuance of
an individual permit or pursuant to a general permit. Section 404(e) authorizes general
permits for categories of activities that are similar in nature and will have only a minimal
environmental impact. General permits can be issued on a nationwide, regional, or state
level. Nationwide permits (NWP) #38 (Clean-up of Hazardous and Toxic Waste) and #20
(Oil Spill Clean-up) are intended to cover cleanup activities other than CERCLA activities.
For this reason, and because permits are not required for on-site CERCLA activities, these
NWPs do not apply to response actions at CERCLA sites.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 3
-------
Section 404 regulations define wetlands based on three parameters: vegetation,
soil, and hydrology in the form of flooding or soil saturation. Once an area meets the
three-parameter criteria and is identified as a wetland, it is necessary to determine if it falls
within the geographic scope of the CWA, i.e., whether it is a "water of the U.S." Courts
generally have interpreted the term broadly to include all waters the degradation or
destruction of which could affect interstate commerce. Thus, waters of the U.S. include
wetlands adjacent to interstate lakes, rivers and streams and coastal waters, or isolated
waters and wetlands provided their degradation could affect interstate commerce.
Section 404 regulates "discharges" of "dredged or fill material" to waters of the
United States. Courts have interpreted the term "discharge" to include both additions and
redeposits to the wetland or other water of the United States. Under a revised definition of
"discharge of dredged material," issued August 25, 1993 by EPA and the COE 58 Fed. Reg.
45008, discharges associated with mechanized landclearing, ditching, channelization, and
other excavation activities that destroy or degrade wetlands or other waters of the U.S. are
regulated under §404. This definition specifically excludes from §404 regulation discharge
activities that have only de minimis. or inconsequential, environmental effects. The rule
also provides that placement of pilings to construct structures in waters of the U.S. will be
regulated under §404 when such placement has the effect of a discharge of fill material.
Even though §404 permits are not required for on-site Superfund actions, the
substantive requirements of the §404(b)(l) guidelines may be relevant and appropriate. Any
off-site activity must meet all requirements of §404, including obtaining permits and
compliance with the §404(b)(l) guidelines. See Section 3.2 of this document for
discussion of the substantive requirements.
2.3 Overview of CERCLA
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of
1980, (CERCLA, or Superfund), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), gives EPA broad authority to manage cleanup and
enforcement activities at hazardous waste sites. The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) promulgated the National Contingency Plan (NCP) which presents the
guidelines and procedures for implementing the law. Superfund considers wetlands
throughout the response action process. A diagram of the process is shown in Diagram 1 in
Appendix 3.
When sites are considered for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL),
wetlands should be considered during the Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection
(PA/SI) or during an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA), which is conducted
for removal actions. Information gathered during the PA/SI is factored into the Hazard
Ranking System (MRS) score. Wetlands are one of the sensitive environments specifically
addressed in the 1990 Revised MRS. Sites containing wetlands receive points which
contribute to total site score. Sites can be listed based solely on environmental concerns.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Attention to wetlands continues through the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) during the ecological assessment of the site, which is part of the baseline
risk assessment and the feasibility study where the impact of the response actions on the
wetlands shall be considered. If wetlands are found at the site, impacts from contamination
and from potential response actions on these areas must be assessed in the RI/FS. The
RI/FS workplan should provide means to collect data for risk assessment and to evaluate
potential impacts of various remedial alternatives. OSWER's June, 1991 "Role of the
Baseline Risk Assessment" memo further explains why baseline risk assessment must be
conducted to characterize current and potential threats to human health and the
environment. The results of risk assessment and other information collected during the
RI/FS are considered during remedy selection. The decision is documented in the Record
of Decision (ROD). The nine criteria used in remedy selection consider short- and long-
term risks and are outlined below in Figure 1.
It is important to recognize that all nine criteria are analyzed and balanced in the
selection of the remedy. The remedy selected must meet the first two criteria and best
balance the other seven criteria.
Wetlands are considered again during the Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA) phase. Unavoidable impacts to wetlands must be mitigated to comply with
pertinent regulations and executive orders. Examples of mitigation actions are discussed in
Section 3.3.1. Wetlands can also be assessed in the post-remedial monitoring phase.
National policy states that wetlands are valuable natural resources of critical
importance; accordingly, the unnecessary destruction or alteration of wetlands should be
avoided. Laws, regulations, policies, guidelines and executive orders have been developed
to minimize wetland loss and destruction. Statutes and regulations applicable or relevant
and appropriate to wetlands and water resource protection must be complied with (or
waived) under the NCP. The NCP also provides that EPA should consider nonpromulgated
criteria, advisories, guidance and proposed statutes and regulations issued by Federal and
State governments when selecting a remedy. These "applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements" or "ARARs", and "to-be-considered" "TBC" factors are addressed in Sections
3.1 and 3.2, respectively.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
3.0 THRESHOLD CRITERIA FOR REMEDY SELECTION
The NCP sets forth as the national goal of the remedy selection process:
... Remedies that are protective of human health and the environment, that maintain
protection over time, and that minimize untreated wastes. (40 CFR Section
300.430)
Overall protection of human health and the environment and compliance with
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), or invoking a waiver, are the
threshold criteria that must be satisfied for a response action alternative to be eligible for
selection. This Section discusses how wetlands should be considered within the analysis of
alternatives.
FIGURE 1
NINE EVALUATION CRITERIA
(40 CFR 300.430(d))
1) Overall protection of human health and the environment - describes how existing and
potential risks from pathways of concern are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, institutional controls or by a combination of controls.
2) Compliance with ARARs - addresses whether an alternative meets its respective chemical-,
location-, and action-specific requirements or whether EPA can evoke a waiver for an ARAR.
3) Long-term effectiveness and permanence - evaluates performance alternatives in protecting
human health and the environment after response objectives have been met and includes:
! Magnitude of residual risk (untreated waste and treatment residuals)
! Adequacy and reliability of controls (engineering and institutional) used to manage
untreated waste and treatment residuals over time.
4) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment - assesses performance of
alternatives in terms of reduced toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment and whether or
not statutory preference for treatment as a principal element is satisfied.
5) Short-term effectiveness - addresses the impacts of alternatives on human health and the
environment during construction and implementation of the remedy and the length of time until
protection is achieved.
6) Implementability - assesses degree of difficulty and uncertainties with undertaking specific
technical and administrative steps and the availability of various service and materials.
7) Cost - addresses costs of construction (capital) and necessary costs of operation and
maintenance based on OMB Circular A-94.
8) State (support agency) acceptance - evaluates technical and administrative issues and concerns
the support agency may have regarding each of the alternatives.
9) Community acceptance - evaluates issues and concerns the community may have for each
alternatives.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
3.1 Potential ARARs
Compliance with the ARARs of other environmental laws is a cornerstone of
CERCLA. Section 121 (d) of CERCLA requires that on-site response actions attain (or
waive) standards contained in Federal and state environmental or facility siting laws. The
NCP requires compliance with ARARs during remedial actions and at completion. It
compels attainment of ARARs during removal actions to the extent practicable, considering
situation urgencies. One purpose of Section 121 (d) is to avoid displacing contamination at
a site from one medium to another, or creating new environmental harm while remediating
another. Identification of ARARs is a major consideration in setting cleanup goals,
selecting the remedy, and determining how to implement the remedy while assuring
protection of human health and the environment.
Chapter 3 of the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual provides specific
guidance for compliance with CWA requirements. However, the diverse characteristics of
CERCLA sites preclude generic identification of all prescribed ARARs. By necessity,
identification of ARARs is conducted on a site-by-site basis. Refer to documents listed at
the end of this section for detail on policies and procedures for implementing ARARs and
to foster consistent, nationwide application of these policies. Pertinent sections of the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual are included below.
3.1.1 CWA Section 404 as a Potential ARAR
As stated in the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Superfund's
determination to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. should be based
primarily on whether the discharge complies with the CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines,
promulgated as regulations in 40 CFR 230.10. Under the Guidelines, no discharge of
dredged or fill material shall be permitted if a practicable alternative exists to the proposed
discharge that would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, as long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR
230.10(a)).
Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(b), no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
allowed if the discharge:
• Causes or contributes to violations of any applicable State water quality standards;
• Violates any applicable toxic effluent standard or discharge prohibition under CWA
Section 307 (Toxic and Pre-treatment Effluent Standards);
• Jeopardizes endangered or threatened species or their habitat designated as critical
habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (see Volume 2 of CERCLA
Compliance with Other Laws Manual): or
• Violates requirements to protect any marine sanctuary designated under Title III of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.
The Guidelines also prohibit discharge of dredged or fill material that will cause or
contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the U.S. (40 CFR 230.10(c)). Where
a discharge would significantly degrade the waters of the United States, and there are no
practicable alternatives to the discharge, compliance with the Guidelines can be
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 7
-------
achieved generally through the use of appropriate and practicable mitigation measures to
minimize or compensate for potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic
ecosystem (40 CFR 230.10(d)). "Practicable" is defined in 40 CFR 230.3(q) to mean
"available and capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes."
When §404 is an ARAR
When the response action will result in a discharge of dredged or fill material into a
wetland, §404 is applicable and is therefore an ARAR. Examples of such response actions
include, but are not limited to, discharging fill material in the wetland to construct roads or
a well head treatment facility, consolidating contaminated sediments within the wetland,
removing vegetation where the root system seriously disturbs the substrate, or capping a
contaminated wetland. Section 404 applies to wetlands determined to be waters of the U.S.,
and mitigation should be provided in accordance with the §404(b)(l) guidelines. (Consult
the water program for further detail on what constitutes a "Water of the U.S.").
Recent regulations expand the definition of what constitutes a discharge of dredged
or fill material triggering §404. See 58 FR 45037-38 Aug 25, 1993. They address activities
which can affect wetlands significantly through excavation (e.g., dredging), but are designed
to minimize spillage of dredged material, therefore not previously under §404. Under these
regulations, even operations that involve only excavation will trigger §404 unless they have
only de minimis environmental effects. While determinations must be made on a
site-specific basis, this change means that most CERCLA responses involving some
activity in a wetland will make §404 an ARAR.
Questions have arisen as to whether §404 may be relevant and appropriate where it is
not applicable (for example, where fill had been placed in the wetland prior to the cleanup,
but no action is taken in the wetland as part of the CERCLA response). While this decision
must be made on a site-specific basis, the presence of pre-remedial fill generally does not
by itself make §404 relevant and appropriate as a standard for remediating the wetland.
Where action is taken in a wetland to address pre-remedial fill, §404 is applicable, as
described above. In such cases, the extent of the mitigation or other action required is
determined by the extent of the CERCLA action, not the extent of the pre-remedial fill.
Actions beyond those compelled by §404 as an ARAR may be necessary to ensure
that the remedy is protective. In addition, note that authorities other than CERCLA may be
used to compel a responsible party to take action or restore damaged resources. These
include Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (administered by the COE) and
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service), both of which are explained in the SF
Compliance with Other Uws Manual, Vol 1, p.3-30 and Vol 2, p 4-20 respectively. If
pre-response fill was placed on site in violation of §404, the Regional Water Management
Division and the appropriate District Office of the Corps of Engineers (COE) should be
contacted concerning possible CWA enforcement action against the discharger.
Information gathered on pre-response fill should include the date
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 8
-------
of discharge and whether the fill required or received a §404 permit. If either agency
determines that enforcement action and mitigation are appropriate, it may be advantageous
to all parties to have any mitigation actions combined with the restoration, replacement, or
acquisition of habitat (compensation) requested by the natural resource trustees. All
CERCLA compensation for pre-response action fill is the responsibility of the natural
resource trustees.
Subpart H of Part of 40 CFR 230 provides a list of possible steps to minimize
adverse impacts. It should be noted that Subpart H is a non-exhaustive list of actions that
could be taken to achieve the more general requirement under 40 CFR 230.10(d) to
"minimize potential adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem." EPA has
wide discretion in determining the precise form of mitigation that may be required at a
particular site under §404.
Mitigation in Accordance with the §404 B(l) Guidelines
The types and levels of mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
CWA Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines are clarified in a Memorandum of Agreement (MO A)
between EPA and the Department of the Army. While this MOA is not a " substantive
requirement" of the CWA, the Guidelines, which serve as the basis for the MOA, are
substantive requirements. Prior to initiating any action which might impact wetlands
Regional wetlands staff or the Wetlands Coordinator (listed in Appendix 2) should be
contacted for advice on §404 compliance.
The Guidelines require a hierarchial approach to mitigation measures:
1. Impact Avoidance - No activity resulting in a discharge shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge that would have less adverse impact to the
aquatic ecosystem, as long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences.
2. Impact Minimization - Once steps have been taken to avoid impacts to the extent
practicable, appropriate and practicable steps to minimize the adverse impacts will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
3. Compensatory Mitigation - Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been attained. Compensatory mitigation actions include restoring existing
degraded wetlands and creating new wetlands. While on-site mitigation is preferred,
site-specific conditions may require the use of off-site mitigation. The EPA regional
wetlands staff can assist in developing or reviewing mitigation measures and can provide
guidance to determine compliance with the substantive requirements of §404 of the CWA.
When the proposed discharge is necessary to avoid environmental harm (e.g. to
protect a natural aquatic community from salt water intrusion, chemical contamination, or
other deleterious physical or chemical impacts), or when the proposed discharge can
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 9
-------
reasonably be expected to result in environmental gain or insignificant environmental
losses, it may be appropriate to deviate from the previous sequence.
The §404 mitigation MOA between EPA and the COE states that enhancement,
restoration, creation or replacement of wetlands should be based on functional equivalence.
Mitigation will be based on an EPA assessment of the values provided by the wetland. The
ratio-of-mitigation area to impacted area may vary for the type and conditions of the
original wetland and type of mitigation action. Superfund policy is to require a minimum of
one acre of wetlands mitigation for each acre of wetland filled.
When response actions are taken in severely degraded wetlands, without affecting
the quantity of wetland, a response action which improves the function and value of the
wetland may qualify as a one-to-one mitigation. The site manager should always consult
with the §404 staff in considering the value of the system and set forth mitigation
requirements accordingly.
A higher ratio may be appropriate when wetlands are being created, rather than
restored, because of uncertainties in the successful creation of new wetlands. In addition to
§404 staff, the natural resource agencies (USFWS, NOAA, states) can be consulted when
determining the appropriate amount of replacement or restored wetlands.
If the appropriate mitigation to meet the ARAR cannot be conducted on-site, off-
site mitigation may be required. At fund-lead sites CERCLA §104(j) permits EPA to
acquire property with Fund money only when the state agrees to accept the transfer of all
property interest following completion of the response action. In addition, the state must
pay 10% of the cost for remedial actions. The 10% requirement does not apply to removal
actions.
3.1.2 Water Quality Criteria and Standards
Section 121 of CERCLA states that hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants left on-site at the conclusion of the response action shall attain Federal water
quality criteria where they are relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of the
release or threatened release. This section also states that remedies must comply with "any
promulgated standard, requirement, criteria, or limitation under a state environmental or
facility siting law that is more stringent than any Federal standard, requirement, or
limitation if applicable or relevant and appropriate to the hazardous substance or release in
question."
Whether a water quality criterion is relevant and appropriate depends on the uses
designated by the state, which are based on existing and attainable uses. In addition, if a
surface water exists, and is impacted at a site, state water quality standards (or federally
promulgated standards) may be applicable or relevant and appropriate for determining
cleanup levels. Water Quality Standards are determined by the State, based on the Federal
Water Quality Criterion and subject to EPA approval. FWQC are generally not relevant and
appropriate if the water body is only used for drinking water. See 56 Fed. Reg. (March 8,
1990.)
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 10
-------
The Water Quality Standards Regulation requires states to adopt: (1) designated
uses, (2) narrative and/or numeric criteria sufficient to protect designated uses, including
narrative biological criteria, and (3) an antidegradation policy and implementation methods
(40 CFR Part 131, 48 FR 51400, November, 8 1983). General state goals that are
contained in a promulgated statute and implemented via specific requirements found in the
statute or in other promulgated regulations are potential ARARs. For example, a state
antidegradation statute which prohibits degradation of surface waters below specific levels
of quality or in ways that preclude certain uses of that water would be a potential ARAR.
Where such promulgated goals are general in scope, e.g., a general prohibition against
discharges to surface waters of "toxic materials in toxic amounts," compliance must be
interpreted within the context of implementing regulations, the specific circumstances at
the site, and the remedial alternatives being considered.
Site managers should note that by the end of FY 1993, states should have established
water quality standards for wetlands. Some states are including hydrologic criteria,
sedimentation/settleable solids criteria, and habitat criteria. Coordination with the wetlands
staff, water quality standards staff, or Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAGs, see
section 4.2) is important to ensure that any applicable water quality standards will be met.
See pages 3-9 through 3-14 of the Compliance With Other Laws Manual for additional
discussion.
Other documents that may be useful include:
U.S. EPA. 1990. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands - National Guidance EPA 440/S-90-011
3.2 TBCs
Many Federal and state environmental and public health agencies develop criteria,
advisories, guidance, and proposed standards that are not legally enforceable but contain
information that would be helpful in carrying out, or in determining the protectiveness level
of, selected remedies. In other words, "to-be-considered" (TBCs) materials are meant to
complement the use of ARARs, not to compete with or replace them. TBCs are not legally
enforceable and therefore are not ARARs. Their identification and use are not mandatory.
In conjunction with completion of the baseline risk assessment, where no ARARs
address a particular situation, or the existing ARARs do not ensure sufficient
protectiveness (e.g., because of cumulative effects due to either multiple pathways for
exposure to a contaminant, or multiple contaminants in a single pathway), TBC advisories,
criteria, or guidelines should be used to set cleanup targets. In such cases, health advisories
or toxicity values, together with standardized exposure assumptions, are used in setting the
preliminary remediation goals.
TBCs also may be invaluable in deciding how to carry out a particular remedy. Many
ARARs have broad performance criteria but do not provide specific instructions for
implementation. Often those instructions are contained in supplemental program guidance.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 11
-------
A partial list of TBCs can be found on page 1 -85 of the Compliance with Other Laws
Manual. Some examples include NPDES, ground water and water quality guidance
documents, policies from the Office of Water, EPA/Army MOAs, and Executive Orders
(EOs). EO 11998, relating to floodplain management and EO 11990, relating to wetlands
protection, are not legally enforceable, so they are TBC rather than ARAR. However, they
differ from other TBCs in that they are orders of the President to all Executive Branch
employees, so that even though they are not ARAR under CERCLA they should be
complied with. General guidance on how EPA should implement EOs 11988 and 11990 is
contained in Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 6; as this is policy, rather than a rule, it similarly
has TBC status. More specific guidance for implementing both the EOs and Appendix A
policy in the Superfund program can be found in OSWER directive No. 9280.0-02 (August
5, 1985).
Other Documents that address these issues include:
! NCP, 40 CFR Section 300.415(i) (55 FR 8666, 8843) and Section 300.435(b)(2) (55 FR 8666, 8852) (March 8,
1990)
! ARARs Q's and A's: Revised NCP, Pub. No. 9234.2-10/FS, May 1992
! US EPA CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual: Parts I and II (OSWER Directives 9234.1 -01 and
9234.1-02)
! Overview of ARARs (Focus on ARAR Waivers) Fact Sheet
December 1989, Pub. No. 9234.2-03/FS
! CERCLA/SARA Environmental Review Manual/Reg II, Jan 1988
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 12
-------
4.0 CONSIDERING WETLANDS AT SUPERFUND SITES
Appropriately considering wetlands at Superfund sites requires early identification
of wetlands on or near the site. During the Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation
(PA/SI), wetland or soil maps may be consulted to help formulate a general picture of
present site conditions. Historical wetlands and soil maps may be used to determine areas
which may have been filled. This may lead to the identification of additional areas of
contamination during the RI. Information regarding the presence of wetlands and other
sensitive areas is factored into the Hazard Ranking Score. This section discusses issues
about which Superfund site managers should be aware during early stages of the Superfund
process such as identification of wetlands, early involvement of wetlands personnel and
Biological Technical Assistance Groups, and other issues to keep in mind during remedy
selection.
4.1 Early Identification
Wetland identification is a descriptive analysis of the environment in question to
determine if wetlands are potentially present. The initial preliminary identification of
wetlands, as well as other sensitive environments, should take place during the PA/SI.
However, to ensure that indicators of wetlands have been considered, the site manager
should determine the likelihood of the presence or absence of wetlands. There are a
number of tools available to help site managers make this determination.
Information contained in site records relating to drainage problems, soil stability
problems, deep organic mats, or certain vegetation types, are indicators that wetlands may
be on the site. Aerial photographs or a site visit are appropriate levels-of-effort to
determine if wetlands are potentially present. Infra-red photography and remote sensing
techniques can also be used to identify areas. In addition, National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) maps are often available for a study area and are a good reference to indicate the
likely presence of wetlands.3 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) can be contacted
regarding availability of that data. These maps are useful and can be adapted for regional or
site specific use. For example, Region 10 has developed a NWI map overlay to map
Superfund sites. Region 2 site managers use a similar technique to map Superfund sites by
overlaying NWI maps on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quad sheets. The NWI
also produces state lists of wetland plants for initial surveys. In addition, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS) produces Soil
Surveys that provide useful soil information.
If the NWI or Soil Survey indicate that wetlands or hydric soil are present on or
adjacent to the site, it is likely that wetlands will be there. A field wetlands determination
should then be scheduled as part of the RI to determine more accurately the size, location
and function of the wetlands. However, a negative determination of wetlands presence by
NWI or the Soil Survey does not necessarily mean wetlands will not be located on or
adjacent to the site. Careful attention should be given to ensure
3Wetland Inventory Maps are available from the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service or by calling
1-800-USA-MAPS.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 13
-------
that the study does not exclude hard-to-identify or recently established wetlands. Many
Superfund sites, being altered environments, create conditions favorable for newly
established wetlands that would not ordinarily be identified by the above sources. A positive
field determination will still be required. If it is determined that no wetlands are present on
or hydrologically connected to the site, the RI report should state this.
Other sources that may be useful for early identification of wetlands include: EPA
Wetlands staff, Army Corps of Engineers (COE) project reports or delineation surveys,
field indicators discussed in the COE Wetland Delineation Manual (part 3), soil surveys
from the USDA SCS, Environmental Photo Interpretation Center (EPIC) or Environmental
Monitoring Surveillance Lab (EMSL) documentation, as well as state and local wetland
maps. Local, Federal and state sources who are especially knowledgeable include: FWS
Regional and Field Offices, National Marine Fisheries Service Offices, Coastal Zone
Management Offices, COE District Offices, US Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation State Conservationist, US Forest Service Offices, Federal Emergency
Management Agency Insurance and Mitigation Branch, and various state agencies, local
planning agencies and commissions.
4.2 Early Notification of Wetlands Staff and Biological Technical Assistance
Groups
Once the site manager has determined that wetlands are potentially present on or
near the site, the regional wetlands program staff should be contacted. The wetlands
program staff has expertise to assist the site manager in determining if there are wetlands
on the site. In many cases, the wetlands personnel can assist with actual field level
determinations or evaluation of the ecological impacts. However, to ensure a cooperative
effort, an understanding of the expected roles of each program should be discussed at the
beginning of the process.
The site manager's use of the Regional Biological Technical Assistance Group
(BTAG) is another important part of the process. The regional BTAG, which may go by
various names (e.g., Ecological Technical Assistance Group or Site Ecological Assessment
Team), is a group of scientists from EPA and other Federal and state agencies that helps
with ecological studies and ecological risk assessment at Superfund sites. Members of the
group can also provide advice throughout the RI/FS process on issues such as sampling
design, monitoring programs, goals and methods. Their role is to promote coordination,
consultation and information sharing. BTAGs were established, in part, in response to
Superfund Office Directors instructing the Regions to conduct more thorough and
consistent environmental evaluations at Superfund sites. Some BTAGs include
representatives of the wetlands program who may serve as contacts for coordination and
identification of relevant issues throughout the remedial process. See Section 6.1 for
examples of such coordination. It should be noted that contacting a Regional BTAG does
not relieve the site manager's obligation under the NCP to contact the Natural Resource
Trustees. Early contact with the Trustees is also encouraged.
Details on BTAG membership, support services the BTAG can provide, and how to
access these services are discussed in the ECO Updates listed in Section 6.1. Each Region
has a BTAG coordinator who can be contacted for additional information. (See Appendix 2
for a list of BTAG Coordinators.)
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 14
-------
Other documents that address these include:
! US EPA. "The Role of BTAGs in Ecological Assessment", ECO Update Volume 1, Number 1; Pub. No.
9345.0-051
! See Section 6.1 of this guidance
4.3 Appropriate Levels of Effort to Consider Wetlands
When beginning the on-site investigation during the RI/FS, the site manager should
consider potential wetlands impacts from the response action both on-site and off-site.
During this stage, determinations are made about the characteristics of the site, the wastes
involved, alternative remedies, projected costs, relative risks, and potential pathways to
off-site wetlands. When assessing the protectiveness of the remedy (NCP, first of the nine
criteria), Executive Orders and Agency policy require the evaluation of impacts of the
action on the wetland.
Wetlands can be identified, characterized, or assessed a number of different ways,
depending on the situation. Investigative and analytical wetlands assessments and studies
conducted during the RI/FS should be tailored to site circumstances to ensure that the
scope and detail of analysis is appropriate in relation to the complexity or nature of site
problems. Wetlands analysis may include any or all of the following: wetlands
characterization, a wetlands delineation, an assessment of wetlands function, and an
assessment of the ecological risk, (see Diagram 2). This section provides an overview of
these various approaches available to RPMs with a discussion of when a particular approach
may be appropriate. Wetlands staff or the BTAG should be consulted for the particular site
in question.
4.3.1 Wetlands Characterization
A wetlands characterization should be undertaken if wetlands have been or will be
affected by the contaminant release or impacted by implementing the remedy. Wetlands
characterization involves evaluating the ecological structure, hydrology, soil, and
conditions of the site. The site's ecological structure should provide information on the
vegetation present (emergent, scrub-shrub, tree canopy with scrub-shrub and emergent
strata, etc.) as well as the fauna of the area. Information on the cover density of the strata
present may also be appropriate. Information on the hydrology of a wetland may include the
source of water, the conditions that make the area "wet," and other site characteristics that
contribute to the wetlands hydrology. Soil information is often available from USDA SCS
soil surveys. Data in these surveys are reliable because the data are extensively field
checked prior to publication. If no published survey is available, the site manager should
determine whether the SCS has unpublished information available. Factors that affect the
condition of a site may include the presence of fine-grained sediment that may precipitate
from acid mine drainage after oxidation, or high concentrations of pollutants in the soils.
Results of preliminary field samples or direct observation may provide additional data
describing on-site conditions.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 15
-------
4.3.2 Wetlands Delineation
The term "delineation" normally refers to on-the-ground identification of the limits
of jurisdiction of the CWA §404 regulatory program. EPA and the Corps of Engineers
standard for delineation for Superfund sites is the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual developed by the COE.
Despite the natural variability of wetland plant and animal communities, wetlands
generally possess three characteristics: hydric (wet) soils, hydrophytic (wetlands)
vegetation, and hydrology, in the form of flooding or soil saturation. Section 404 uses
these criteria when it defines wetlands as "areas that are inundated or saturated with surface
or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions." Wetlands are commonly known as bottomlands, bogs, fens, marshes,
sloughs and swamps. Areas described by these terms should be thoroughly investigated for
their status as jurisdictional wetlands, although the exact use of these terms varies
throughout the US.
• A delineation should be performed at the RI/FS stage whenever the response action
may adversely impact the wetlands. Delineation may be appropriate also during the
pre-remedial design phase. Potential impacts to wetlands from response actions must be
determined in order to comply with CWA ARARs (§101, §507). In addition, the extent of
wetlands impacts and ecological structure of the impacted wetlands must be known when
proposing and evaluating mitigation measures for wetlands impacts.
4.3.3 Ecological Risk Assessment
Assessing impacts from contaminants in any ecosystem is a complex and technical
process; therefore, only a brief overview can be provided here. The goals of the ecological
risk assessment are to:
1) identify and evaluate any ecological impacts, actual or potential, from the
release or potential release;
2) establish clean-up goals that are protective; and,
3) determine the appropriateness of potential remedies.
Since much of the impact to wetlands at Superfund sites occurs as a result of
hydrologic impacts (i.e., pathways involving contaminated leachate movement), the
assessment of contaminant levels in surface and ground water is a key part of ecological
assessment procedures. A number of factors determine the type of studies that should be
conducted at a site, including the type of wetland and natural resources potentially
impacted, the ecotoxicological properties of the site contaminants, the environmental
media that are contaminated, and the areal extent and level of contamination. These factors
must all be taken into consideration when any ecological assessment is being planned. The
results of the ecological risk assessment should be incorporated into the baseline risk
assessment. The wetlands staff, BTAG, or Trustees can provide technical advice on sample
design and implementation of assessment procedures.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 16
-------
Both the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) and the Natural Resources Damage
Assessment (NRDA) may include ecological studies on the effects of hazardous substances
on the environment. However, the goals behind these processes are different. The ERA
provides information for the remedial decision (nature and extent of contamination). The
NRDA is performed by the Trustees to determine injury for calculation of damages. While
some of the data collected may be useful to both EPA and the Trustees, the target and
method of investigation will differ in some cases because their purposes are different.
Other documents which address this subject in more detail include:
! US EPA. Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference,
EPA/600/3-89/013
! US EPA. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume II: Environmental Evaluation Manual
EPA/540/1-89/001
! US EPA. Evaluation of Terrestrial Indicators for Use in Ecological Assessments at Hazardous Waste Sites.
EPA/600/R-92/183.
! ECO Update, a series of intermittent bulletins published by the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response on ecological assessments which supplement Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund. Volume II.
! US EPA. Ecological Assessment of Superfund Sites: An Overview. Vol. 1 No. 2; Pub. No. 9345.0-051 (Dec.
1991)
! US EPA. Developing a Work Scope for Ecological Assessments. Vol. 1 No. 4; Pub. No. 9345.0-051 (May
1992)
4.3.4 Wetland Functional Assessment
A wetland functional assessment evaluates and describes the functions of a wetland,
which may include wildlife and waterfowl habitat, water quality improvement, ground water
discharge, and other wetland functions and values discussed in Section 2.0. In general, only
qualitative methods for the evaluation of these functions exist for wetlands (such as the
Wetland Evaluation Technique, also known as WET). The one exception is for the
evaluation of wildlife habitat where the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) provides
semi-quantitative data.
Information gathered during the wetland functional assessment is important to
support the overall ecological assessment at the site. In particular, the wetland functional
assessment can provide important data to evaluate the potential ecological effects of the
response action on the wetland. Data collected during this assessment may be factored into
the ecological risk assessment and the development of proposed mitigative measures, when
necessary.
The wetland functional assessment also may assist in determining the significance
or uniqueness of the area. Some wetlands provide habitat opportunities for threatened or
endangered species of plants and animals and are designated as State Outstanding Natural
Resource Waters. These concerns should be identified at the beginning of the
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 17
-------
ecological assessment. In addition to wetlands functions and values discussed earlier,
ecological experts ascribe special significance to wetlands because they:
- Contain or support an unusually large number of species or individuals;
- Are extremely productive (such as an important fishery);
- Contain species considered rare in the area;
- Are rare or unusually large;
- Protect water quality in important adjacent or downstream waters;
- Perform important landscape level functions (e.g. migratory corridors).
The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund — Volume II Environmental Evaluation
Manual and ECO Updates provide additional guidance on this topic.
The site manager should also define and identify sensitive environments based on a
site- and area-specific analysis, keeping in mind the ecological connections between the
site and nearby habitats. The BTAG, EPA regional wetlands staff or Natural Resource
Trustees can provide valuable technical assistance for this analysis and for the wetland
functional assessment.
Documents that can provide additional information include:
! Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, Jr., R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. "Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET);
Vol. II Methodology." Tech. Rep. Y-87. Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS
! Leibowitz, S.G., B. Abbruzzese, P.R. Adamus, L.E. Hughes, J.T. Irish. 1992. "A Synoptic Approach to
Cumulative Impact Assessment—A Proposed Methodology." U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, EPA/600/R-92/167
! Simenstead, CA., C.D. Tanner, T.M. Thorn and L.L. Conquest. 1991. "Estuarine Habitat Assessment
Protocol." EPA 910/9-91-037. Prepared for EPA Region 10, Puget Sound Estuary Program.
! U.S. EPA. 1989. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume II — Environmental Evaluation Manual."
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/001
! U.S. EPA. 1989. "Ecological Assessment of Hazardous Waste Sites." Office of Research and Development.
EPA 600/3-89/013
! U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. "Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) Manual." Washington, DC
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 18
-------
4.4 Potential Impacts from Response Actions
Site managers should consider the wetland data and analysis gathered during the
RI when selecting a remedy. Site managers should also consider the potential impacts of
the proposed remedy to on-site and adjacent wetland resources. Impacts may include the
loss of vegetation, removal of soil or sediment, capping of the site, disruption of surface
and/or groundwater flow(s), filling of a wetland to construct an access road, draining, and
the like (see Table 1 below). Some of these impacts are temporary while others represent a
permanent loss of the wetland resource and its functions. Wetland coordinators and BTAG
staff can assist in clarifying how these activities may affect wetland functions. Impacts can
be either direct to wetlands due to activities in the wetland or indirect due to activities
outside of the wetland that affect the wetland secondarily. An OSWER fact sheet entitled
"Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around Wetlands" addresses
various technical aspects of this issue. (See citation at the end of this Section).
Table 1
Potential Wetland Impacts Caused By Remedial Alternatives
Response Action Activity
Capping
Grading
Revegetation
Diversion & Collection System
Containment Barrier
Groundwater Pumping
Subsurface Drains
Excavation & Removal
On-site Land Disposal
Sediment Removal
Containment & Turbidity Control
In-Situ Methods
Change
Wetland
Hydrology
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impact
Water
Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impact
Habitat
Quality
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Impact
Vegetative
Community
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Areas that will experience temporary impacts should be identified. Even though
temporary impacts are generally less severe than permanent ones, the loss of only a few
breeding seasons for an endangered species, for example, can be significant. The impact of
temporary disturbances can be evaluated based on general area information, the
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 19
-------
wetlands assessment results, and with the aid of the BTAG, regional wetlands staff, or
Natural Resource Trustees. Whether the impacts are temporary or permanent, plans should
be made to fully mitigate or compensate for lost functions by conclusion of remediation.
Direct impacts involving a permanent loss of wetlands, or of certain wetland
functions, should be clearly identified. In the case of the direct loss of wetlands, the impact
will be measured, most simply, on an acreage basis. Results of the functional assessment
will be used to evaluate affected functions. To evaluate the loss of any area, the results
should be factored into goals for mitigation.
Indirect impacts to wetlands can sometimes result from a response action that is not
necessarily located in the wetland itself. For example, actions that result in a surface or
subsurface reconfiguration of a site (i.e., changes in upland slope as a result of excavation)
can alter the hydrology of an area and result in physical, chemical and subsequently
biological changes to nearby wetlands. Other types of actions that can lead to indirect
impacts include ground water pumping and treating, and installation of subsurface drains.
See OSWER Fact Sheet "Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities In or Around
Wetlands" for additional discussion. The permanent and temporary effects of secondary
impacts should be considered when selecting the appropriate response action. Protective
measures such as Agency policy and 40 CFR Part 6 Appendix A to implement E.O. 11990
as described in OSWER Directive 9280.0-02 should be considered.
Often as remediation activities are being completed, soil or fill will be placed or
vegetation replanted in the impacted wetland areas. Care should be taken to ensure that the
proper materials are used and sound management practices followed to encourage and
enhance, rather than impede, natural recovery of wetland functions similar to those which
originally existed. Examples of materials and practices include: use of clean and
appropriate fill, installation of silt barriers, use of soil similar to that of the damaged or
destroyed wetland area, and revegetation using native or desired wetland plants. The BTAG,
regional wetlands staff, and Trustees can provide additional technical assistance to address
these concerns. In addition, as noted earlier, §404 is an ARAR when a response action
involves placing fill into a wetland.
The ROD should address the impacts to on-site and off-site wetlands resulting from
current or potential releases of hazardous substances and impacts from implementation of
the selected response action. Information regarding wetlands impacts should be addressed
in both the ROD Declaration and Decision Summary sections. The Declaration should
include discussion of the major components of the selected remedy that address
contaminated wetlands. The Decision Summary should include wetlands discussions where
appropriate in the following sections:
• Site History - should include past disposal practices in or affecting on-site and
off-site wetlands.
• Summary of Site Characterization - should include summaries of:
S Wetland(s) acreage and proximity to the site
S Wetlands delineation
S Applicable state and Federal wetlands classification
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 20
-------
Surface water drainage patterns and possible discharges from the site, including
storm water runoff, leachate seeps, and contaminated shallow ground water, that may
affect wetlands
Occurrences and concentrations of contaminants detected in wetlands sediments and
surface water.
• Summary of Site Risks - should include a summary of:
The ecological risk assessment, including identification of contaminants of concern,
exposure assessment, ecological effects assessments, and risk characterization
Any wetlands evaluation studies conducted to determine potential wetlands losses
and mitigation activities associated with site response action activities.
• Description of Alternatives - should discuss how each alternative remedy addresses the
environmental risks associated with the wetlands areas and/or the extent to which that
alternative complies with state and Federal ARARs regarding wetlands protection standards.
• Selected Remedy - should include:
Major components of the selected remedy that address contaminated wetlands
Reasons the selected remedy is located in or affects wetlands
A list of significant facts considered in making the decision to locate in or affect
wetlands, including alternative locations and actions.
A list of mitigation actions to be taken in response to §404 or other ARARs and
TBCs.
• Statutory Determinations - should include:
A statement indicating how the selected response action affects or protects the
natural or beneficial values of the wetlands
A description of the steps taken to design or modify the selected response action to
minimize potential harm to affected wetlands.
The Proposed Plan also should include discussions of wetlands. In general, these brief discussions
should appear in the same section as those addressed above for the ROD. Because the Proposed
Plan is designed to facilitate and solicit public involvement in the remedy-selection process, it is
important to include a discussion of the wetlands implications associated with each response
action alternative considered as well as the preferred alternative.
Documents that can provide additional information include:
! EPA OSWER Fact Sheet: "Controlling the Impacts of Remediation Activities in or Around Wetlands". EPA
530-F-93-0202.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 21
-------
5.0 ROLE OF THE NATURAL RESOURCES TRUSTEES
EPA is not a Natural Resource Trustee. The Trustees are designated as the Secretary of
Commerce, Secretary of the Interior, Secretaries for land managing agencies (e.g. Department of
Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy), state
trustees as designated by the Governor of each state, and Indian Tribal chairperson. Trustees are
responsible for assessing damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources. The
Trustees should be involved at the site as early as possible. Participation of the Trustees is
important at sites where wetlands are located where the wetlands may have been impacted by the
release of hazardous substances or may be affected by the response action.
Although wetlands are not specifically identified as "natural resources" in CERCLA Section
101(16), the individual elements of wetlands: "land, fish, wildlife, biota,... water, ground water...
and other such resources..." are included in the definition. Damages to these specific resources,
and therefore wetlands, can provide the basis for a Natural Resource Damage claim by Trustees
under Section 107(f)(l).
It is important to recognize the different roles and responsibilities of EPA and the Trustees
under CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP). EPA (or at Federal Facilities another
Federal agency) is responsible for the assessment of the risk a site (e.g., release of hazardous
substance) poses to public health, welfare and the environment. This is a significant factor in
determining the extent and degree of site response actions. EPA is also responsible for taking
response actions to address the release or potential release of hazardous substances. Remedial
action is defined in CERCLA Section 101 (24) and is, either directly or through oversight, an EPA
(or another Federal agency) responsibility. On the other hand, when the Trustees have determined
that the resources under their trust have been injured and require restoration, these activities
become the responsibility of the Trustees. CERCLA, as amended by SARA Section 517, places
restrictions on the use of Fund monies for natural resource damage assessment or restoration
activities.
The roles and responsibilities of Trustees are outlined in CERCLA Section 107(f)(2) and
NCP Subpart G. Section 104 (b)(2) of CERCLA requires that Trustees be "promptly" notified of
releases that have, or may have the potential to, impact natural resources. In addition this section
requires that "assessments, investigations, and planning" shall be coordinated with Trustees.
Trustees should be asked to participate in developing the scope of work for the RI and in
negotiations with the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) for conducting the RI. Should the
Trustee require data beyond that which EPA requires for the RI, it is the Trustee's responsibility to
negotiate with the PRPs for either collection of the data, or for funding to support data collection.
Trustees may also collect data themselves and attempt to recover these costs from the PRPs.
Trustees have a significant role in the settlement process. Section 122(j) requires that
Trustees be notified of, and encouraged to participate in, negotiations with the PRPs. Trustees may
grant a Covenant-Not-to-Sue for natural resource damages. EPA does not have the authority or
responsibility to negotiate on behalf of Trustees. Trustees may agree to a
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 22
-------
Covenant-Not-to-Sue where the PRPs agree to undertake "...appropriate actions necessary to
protect and restore the natural resources damaged..." by the release. At most sites, it is more
efficient and cost effective for the PRPs to conduct restoration or other actions in concert with
the response action. PRPs may also be interested in resolving all of their CERCLA liabilities in a
single consent decree. Early involvement of Trustees is important to minimize delays in the
clean-up process.
It is also the responsibility of Trustees to determine the need for, type of, amount of, and
appropriate location of, any "restoration, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent resources"
(restoration actions) to be carried out by the PRPs. Trustees also must be prepared to participate
in the settlement negotiations with PRPs to achieve the implementation, including the operation
and maintenance, of restoration actions.
Where no PRPs have been identified and the Superfund-conducted Response action (RA)
will impact wetlands, Trustees, along with the BTAG and Regional Wetlands Staff, should be
consulted for their technical knowledge as to potential means of mitigating the impacts of the RA.
Mitigation is necessary to satisfy provisions of the CWA Section 404 and related regulations
which are generally ARAR.
As was mentioned, CERCLA Section 104(j)(2), Section 517(c) and Section 11 l(a) and (b)
place certain limitations on the restoration, rehabilitation, and acquisition of property using Fund
monies. SARA Section 517 and Sections 11 l(a)(3) and (b)(l) state that Fund money cannot be
used for claims resulting from a release or threat of release of a hazardous substance from a
vessel or a facility for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources including cost for
damage assessment.
Other documents that address this issue include:
! NCP, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Subpart G
! US EPA - Region 10. Superfund Natural Resource Trustee Notification and Coordination Manual
! The Role of the Natural Resource Trustees in the Superfund Process, Vol. 1 No. 3, Pub. No. 9345.0-051, Mar 1992
! MOU between EPA and NOAA, OSWER Dir. No. 9295.0-02
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 23
-------
6.0 OPPORTUNITIES FOR COORDINATION
There are various opportunities for coordinating wetland and Superfund programs to better
address wetlands at Superfund sites. They include Biological Technical Assistance Groups,
memoranda of agreement, and training in wetland issues.
6.1 Biological Technical Assistance Groups (BTAGs)
The BTAG is an important mechanism for coordinating activities affecting wetlands at
Superfund sites. As previously discussed, these groups exist in all EPA Regions and usually
include representatives from different EPA program offices (i.e., wetlands, ESD, groundwater,
water quality, etc.) as well as from Federal agencies outside EPA such as the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Some BTAGs also
include representatives from state agencies. This interagency group provides input on ecological
and biological issues to RPMs during the CERCLA process and activities. See Section 4.2 for
further discussion.
The Regional structure and operation of the BTAG may vary. For example, individual
members of the BTAG may be assigned to individual Superfund sites. The BTAG may have its own
budget for ecological risk assessments as well as an inter-agency agreement (IAG) with other
Federal agencies such as the FWS or the COE.
In some Regions, BTAG review of the ecological risk assessment is mandatory and the
BTAG meets at least once a month to discuss the sites and review documents. For instance, the
Region 2 BTAG provides input throughout the process, from work plans for RI/FS through signing
of the ROD. One site where the BTAG provided assistance was in central New Jersey. A wetland
area adjacent to the site had the potential to be affected by pump-and-treat remediation. The BTAG
helped develop a monitoring plan in which an off-site reference wetland with similar habitat
conditions would be monitored to determine if changes in the wetland closer to the site were a
result of Superfund activities or seasonal fluxes. BTAGs routinely provide recommendations and
guidance on ecological issues at Enforcement and Fund lead sites as well as Federal facilities that
are being cleaned up.
ECO Updates, a series of bulletins produced by the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, provide
additional guidance on BTAG coordination and on ecological assessment. The following can be referenced for additional
information:
• The Role of the BTAGs in Ecological Assessment. Vol. 1 No. 1,
Pub. No. 9345.051, Sept 1991
• Briefing the BTAG: Initial Description of the Setting, History, and Ecology of a Site.
Vol. 1, No. 5, Pub. No. 9345.0-051, Aug 1992
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 24
-------
6.2 Training
Professionals in both the Superfund and wetlands programs should rely on one another for
respective expertise. This can include training with each program office providing programs to
increase understanding.
For example, Region 10 has offered in-house training on wetlands issues for Superfund
personnel. The training included a course on wetlands delineation and one on Section 404(b)(l)
guidelines. Region 2 has a training course entitled "CERCLA/SARA Environmental Review
Procedures," which includes sections on wetlands, BTAGs, and Natural Resource Trustee issues.
To date, more than 35 sessions of this course have been presented to EPA regional offices,
headquarters, the OSC/RPM Academy, states, Federal agencies, and contractors.
Other training programs on wetland issues are available from a variety of groups:
• EPA offers a Wetlands Delineation Course through the COE. This week-long course
concentrates on the Delineation Manual used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
other Federal agencies. Contact the Wetlands Coordinator in your EPA Regional Office for
more information (see Appendix 2). Other public and private institutions offer similar
courses.
• Courses on wetlands laws and regulations are offered by universities and other public and
private organizations.
• Training on wetland function and value assessment, wetland creation and restoration,
wetland hydrology and wetland vegetation is offered through local colleges and
universities, government agencies, non-profit organizations and private training institutes.
6.3 Memoranda of Agreement
A memorandum of agreement (MOA) or understanding (MOU) between wetland and
Superfund programs can be useful in establishing or clarifying procedures and practices for
considering wetlands and ecological issues at Superfund sites.
In Region 5 the Waste Management Division and Water Division developed an MOA that
establishes principles and procedures to provide appropriate coordination between the Superfund
and Water Division programs. The MOA governs CERCLA response actions that affect the water
media. It provides for notification to the Superfund program by the Water Division of situations
that may require a CERCLA response. Major features include:
1) Early involvement - Triggered by the Waste Management Division, it gives the Water Division
opportunity to review action memoranda for removal actions and provides access to National
Priority List-candidate packages and initial RI workplans;
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 25
-------
2) Articulation of interest areas by Water Division - Interest areas described include projects that
potentially impact or involve drinking water; interpretations of maximum contaminant levels and
their health effects; treatment requirements for discharges to surface waters; information on the
discharge of dredge or fill material to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., and insights on
precedent-setting groundwater and underground injection policy issues;
3) Timely consultation and training by Water Division regarding program requirements;
4) Review of CERCLA program guidance by Water Division;
5) Time frames for Water Division reviews of documents;
6) Specific identification by Waste Management Division to the Regional Administrator of
actions that would lead to non-compliance with substantive Water Division program provisions;
7) Coordination with state counterparts.
This MO A is entitled "Principles of Waste Management Division/Water Division Coordination for
CERCLA Removal and Remedial Actions", July 9, 1991 revision and a copy is provided in
Appendix 3.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 26
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Administrative Requirements
Those mechanisms that facilitate the implementation of the substantive requirements of a
statute or regulation. Administrative requirements include the approval of or consultation
with administrative bodies, issuance of permits, documentation, reporting, record keeping,
and enforcement.
ARAR (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement)
Applicable requirements means those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated
under Federal environment or state environmental or facility siting laws that specifically
address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance at a CERCLA site.
Relevant and appropriate requirements means those cleanup standards, standards of control,
and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that,
while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, response action,
location or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is well suited to
the particular site. In some circumstances, a requirement may be relevant but not
appropriate for the site-specific situation.
STAG (Biological Technical Assistance Group)
A group that provides comment and expertise on ecological issues at Superfund sites. This
group often consists of representatives from appropriate EPA program offices as well as
from other Federal and state agencies. Some Regions use a different name such as
Ecological Technical Assistance Group (ETAG), Peer Review Group, or Superfund
Ecological Assessment Team (SEAT).
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as
amended: 42 U.S.C. §§9601 - 9657)
The legal basis for the Superfund program. Under CERCLA, the Federal government has
authority and funds to respond to uncontrolled hazardous substance sites and releases and
potential releases. CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthonzation Act (SARA) in 1986.
Covenant Not to Sue (CERCLA § 122(j)(2)
A promise by a party not to bring future legal action against another party. The Natural
Resource Trustee(s) may agree to a covenant-not-to-sue (an agreement not to pursue
damage claims) if "the potentially responsible party [PRP] agrees to undertake appropriate
actions necessary to protect and restore the natural resources damaged by ... the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances."
CWA (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.A §§ 1251 - 1387)
The goal of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 27
-------
CWA Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230)
Regulations setting forth environmental criteria that must be satisfied before a Section 404
permit can be issued.
Delineation
see Wetland Delineation
Discharge of Dredged Material
Any addition of dredged material into navigable waters including, without limitation, any
addition or redeposit of dredged material, including excavated material, into navigable
waters which is incidental to any activity, including mechanized landclearing, ditching,
channelization, or other excavation that has or would have the effect of destroying or
degrading any area of navigable waters (40 CFR 232.2).
Discharge of Fill Material
Any addition or redeposit of fill material into navigable waters, including the placement of
pilings in navigable waters when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge
of fill material (40 CFR 232.2).
Dredged Material
Material excavated or dredged from waters of the United States. (40 CFR 232.2(g).
Ecological Risk Assessment
The measure of contaminant effects on an ecosystem. In the Superfund process, it is used
to provide information on ecological impacts that can be used in making remedial
decisions.
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
An analysis of removal alternatives for non-time critical removal actions. (NCP Section
300.415).
Fill Material
Any "pollutant" which replaces portions of the waters of the United States with dry land or
which changes the bottom elevation of a water body for any purpose. (40 CFR 232.2(i)).
Habitat Restoration Plan
See Subpart G - A comprehensive plan for restoration, replacement and compensation of
equivalent resources.
HEP (Habitat Evaluation Procedure)
Developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, HEP evaluates the suitability of a given
area to provide habitat for wildlife through the use of "evaluation species". HEP also can
give an indication of the potential for proposed mitigation areas to provide habitat for
wildlife through the use of "target species". HEP generally provides semi-quantitative
results. Some site-specific information is necessary to apply HEP, such as vegetative types
to determine the "cover types" of the area. HEP results are greatly influenced by the
selection of evaluation species and target species.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 28
-------
HRS (Hazard Ranking System)
A model used to assess the relative risk at sites; sites that score 28.5 or greater are placed
on the National Priority List.
Jurisdictional Determination
Ascertaining the geographic scope of a wetland using the three-parameter approach of
vegetation, soils and hydrology as specified in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual. A wetland delineation may be used in making a Jurisdictional
determination.
Mitigation
A February 6, 1990, Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Department of the
Army and EPA articulates policy and procedures to determine the type and level of
mitigation necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act §04(b)(l)
Guidelines. The MOA provides that the Army Corps of Engineers evaluate projects to
ensure that mitigation occurs in the following sequence:
1) avoidance of wetland impacts to the maximum extent practicable through the evaluation
of alternatives;
2) minimization of impacts by sighting project features such that impacts to aquatic
resources are further reduced; and
3) compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts through creation or mitigation.
Natural Resource Damages
Damages for injury or loss of natural resources as set forth in 42 U.S.C.A. § 9607.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment
A damage assessment conducted by the Natural Resource Trustee for injury to, destruction
of, or loss of those natural resources held by the Natural Resource Trustees; such an
assessment is required under CERCLA § 107(f)(2).
Natural Resource Trustees
As defined by CERCLA, trustees are responsible for assessing damages for injury to,
destruction of, or loss of natural resources. Trustees include agencies such as the US Fish
and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service (see Subpart G of NCP).
NCP (National Contingency Plan; 40 CFR Part 300)
The regulations implementing CERCLA.
Non-Time Critical Removal
A removal action taken after a 6-month planning period and the completion of an EE/CA or
equivalent, after the lead agency has determined, based on site conditions, that the removal
action is appropriate.
NPL (National Priority List; 40 CFR Part 300 Appendix B)
A list of releases or threatened releases to which EPA gives highest priority for further
response under CERCLA. The list is an end result of a Hazard Ranking System (HRS) that
numerically scores uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Sites that are not on the list
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 29
-------
may still be addressed, but fund monies may not be used for response action at such sites
unless an appropriate determination of imminent and substantial endangerment can be made
in order to take a response action under § 104(a) of CERCLA.
PA/SI (Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation)
The PA is generally a low-cost initial evaluation intended to give as full and complete a
picture of the site as possible. The SI is to better characterize the problems at the site,
determine if further actions are required and if the site should be included on the NPL.
PA/SI occurs before the MRS.
PRP (Potentially Responsible Party)
Those identified by EPA as potentially liable under §107(A) of CERCLA for cleanup
costs. A PRP may be a past or present property owner, generator or transporter of
hazardous substances, or one who arranges for disposal.
RD/RA (Remedial Design/Remedial Action)
The RD is the preparation of plans and specifications to accomplish the remedial action;
the RA is the implementation of the remedy itself. RD and RA occur after the ROD.
Response Action
A response action under CERCLA may be a remedial action which is a longer-term action
consistent with a permanent remedy or a removal action which is generally a short-term
action (less than 2 years) that removes an immediate threat to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Response actions address releases or threats of release.
RI/FS (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study)
The RI/FS provides information about the site that will be considered in the ROD. The RI
includes data collection and site characterization; the FS focuses on the development of
specific remedial alternatives, based in part on the information contained in the RI.
RPM (Remedial Project Manager)
The individual, generally designated by the EPA region, who directs remedial actions and
coordinates all other actions at the site.
ROD (Record of Decision)
The ROD documents the remedy selected for a remedial response, states the rationale for
the remedy, and states that requirements of the National Contingency Plan are met. The
ROD is published after the completion of the RI/FS.
SARA (Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act of 1986; 42 U.S.C.A.
§11001 et. seq.) Amendments to CERCLA adopted in 1986 containing a variety of
provisions to further implement the Superfund program.
Substantive Requirements
Those requirements that pertain directly to actions or conditions in the environment.
Examples include quantitative health- or risk-based restrictions upon exposure to types of
hazardous substances and restrictions on activities in certain special locations.
Superfund (Oil and Hazardous Materials Trust Fund)
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 30
-------
A trust fund established under CERCLA, which is financed by a special tax on
petroleum and chemical industries authorized by CERCLA. The fund is available for
site clean up when no viable responsible parties are found or when responsible
parties fail to take the necessary response actions.
Time Critical Removal
A removal action completed within 6 months and after the lead agency has
determined, based on site conditions, that the removal action was appropriate.
TBCs (To-Be-Considered)
Non-promulgated advisories or guidance issued by Federal or state government that
are not legally binding and do not have the status of potential ARARs, but are to be
considered in selecting the remedy.
Waters of the United States
This term is defined broadly and includes wetlands adjacent to waters of the U.S. and
all other wetlands and waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and the like,
the use, degradation or destruction of which would or could affect interstate or
foreign commerce. For a complete definition, see 40 C.F.R. 232.2(q)(l)-(7).
WET (Wetland Evaluation Technique)
A widely used methodology for evaluation of wetland functions developed by
Adamus et. al., 1987, initially for the Federal Highway Administration and later
revised by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wet assesses the potential of a wetland to
carry out wetland functions and the value of those functions. Each function is
considered in terms of its social significance, effectiveness of the wetland in
performing the function, and opportunity for performance of that function. WET can
also be applied to any of three levels depending on the information available and the
time available for the analysis.
Wetlands
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
Wetlands Assessment
An evaluation of the various functions of a wetland. At Superfund sites, this activity
may also include an ecological risk assessment which evaluates contaminant impacts
on wetlands.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 31
-------
Wetland Characterization
The inventory or description of the ecological structure, hydrology, soils and
conditions of the site.
Wetlands Delineation
The on-the-ground determination of the boundary between wetland and upland. This
information is often used in making a jurisdictional determination of the limits of
the Clean Water Act §404 jurisdiction.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy 32
-------
Appendix 1 - BTAG Coordinators
Region 1:
Susan Svirsky
Waste Management Division
USEPA - Region I (HSS-CAN7)
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)573-9649
Region 2:
Shari Stevens
Surveillance Monitoring Branch
USEPA - Region 2 (MS-220)
Woodbrige Avenue
Raritan Depot Building 209
Edison, NJ 08837
(908) 906-6994
Region 3:
Robert Davis
Technical Support Section
USEPA - Region 3 (3HW15)
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-3155
Region 4:
Lynn Wellman
WD/OHA
USEPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404)347-1586
Region 5:
Steve Ostroka
USEPA Region 5 (5HSM-TUB7)
230 South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60604-1602
(312)886-5902
Region 6:
Jon Rauscher
Susan Swenson Roddy
USEPA - Region 6
First Interstate Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)655-8513
Region 7:
Bob Koke
SPFD-REML
USEPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 660101
(913)551-7468
Region 8:
Gerry Henningsen
USEPA - Region 8
Denver Place, Suite 500
999 18th Street
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303)294-7656
Region 9:
Doug Steele
Clarence Callahan
USEPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1916
Region 10:
Bruce Duncan
USEPA Region 10 (ES-098)
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-8086
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
33
-------
Appendix 2 - Wetland Coordinators
Region 1
Doug Thompson, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section
EPA, Region 1
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
(617)565-4421
Region 2
Daniel Montella, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section
EPA, Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
(212)264-5170
Region 3
Barbara DAngelo, Chief
Wetlands & Marine Policy Section
EPA, Region 3
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215)597-9301
Region 4
Tom Welborn, Chief
Wetlands Regulatory Section
EPA, Region 4
345 Courtland Stree, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404)347-4015
Region 5
Sue Elston, Chief
Wetlands Planning Unit
EPA, Region 5 (WQW-16-J)
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312)353-2308
Region 6
Beverly Ethridge, Chief
ESD Technical Assistance Section
EPA, Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214)655-2263
Region 7
Diana Hershberger, Chief
Wetlands Section
EPA, Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
(913)551-7573
Region 8
Gene Reetz, Chief
Water Quality Section
EPA, Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303)293-1568
Region 9
Phil Oshida, Chief
Wetlands Section
EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street (W-7-40)
San Francisco, California 94105
(415)744-1972
Region 10
William Riley
Wetlands Section
EPA, Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206)553-1412
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
34
-------
Guidance on Wetlands at CERCLA Sites Directive #9280-03
Appendix 3 - Diagrams
March 1994 35
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Diagram 1
INTEGRATED REMEDIAL/ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS
Site
Discovery
Preliminary
Assesment
(PA) |
Site Investigation
(SI)
Initial PRP Search
Record o' Decision
(ROD)
Remedial investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
« I
Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Negotiation
1
NPL Listing
I Remedial Design/
Remedial Action (RD/RA)
Negotiation
Remedial Design
(RD)
Remedial Action
(RA)
Long-Term Response
Action (LIRA) /
Operation and
Maintenance (O&M)
I
Deletion from NPL
r-9a
8
I
ce
I
s
oj
GO
"S
I
-------
- Guidance on Wetlands at CERCLA Sites
Diagram 2 • Considering Wetlands During RI/FS
Does site or areas adjacent to site contain wetlands or indicators or wetlands, such
as: drainage problems, soil suitability, deep organic mats, certain vegetation, etc?
Confirm by site visit.
YES
Are wetlands or surface waters on-site,
hydrologically connected to site; or are
they off-site but possibly affected by site
and site activities?
NO
NO
Report this fact in the RI.
No further analysis required.
Notify and work with:
• BTAGs,
• Regional Wetlands Staff,
• Natural Resource Trustees.
Do current conditions or future activities
impact wetlands on site or adjacent to site?
YES
NO
RI should discuss basis for determination.
No additional effort required unless site
conditions change.
1
To adequately assess impacts, determine type of wetland information required:
Vegetation, Soil
Types, Hydrology
Perform a Wetland
Characterization.
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Function
i
Perform a Delineation
Perform a Wetland
Functional Assessment
(e.g. WET, HEP).
Factor wetlands information into ecological risk
assessment and into feasibility study.
Impacts from
Contamination
±
Perform an Ecological
Risk Assessment.
Additional Information Needed?
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
SUBJECT : wa*ta itaapwwTt Division/Wat«r Division Qoacdinatian for
Qaspe«b*rmtw Bwtroraiental Raatpono*, oanfMnMtion and T li
Act (OSK2A) HBnovaJ. and BeMdjjjjI Actions
.*.
noes xn*l» s, Sacy»ofi£**M61*^' and David A. UUrich, Dij
Wat«r Division / Wswte Managetiwnt Oiviaion
r
Sen Balow
Attached are the revised "Principles of Waste Management
Division/Water Division Coordination for CERCLA Removal and Remedial
Actions". The Divisions have agreed to these Principles to ensure
that appropriate coordination takes place between the Divisions early
in each action and to identify water program concerns affecting or
affected by these actions.
These Principles are effective immediately. Please read them
carefully. If you have any questions, please raise them now for
prompt resolution.
Attachment
Addressees:
Norman Neidetgang, Office of Superfund
Robert Bowden, Emergency Response Branch
John Kelley, Remedial Response Branch
Jo Lynn Traub, Superfund Program Management Branch
Kenneth Ferner, Water Quality Branch
Todd Gayer, Water Compliance Branch
Edward Watters, Safe Drinking Water Branch
Jerri Anne Garl, Ground Water Protection Branch
cc: Ralph Bauer, Deputy Regional
Robert Springer, Planning and Management Division
Phyllis Reed, Environmental Sciences Division
Christopher Grundler, Great Lakes National Program Office
Gail C. Ginsburg, Office of Regional Counsel
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
PRINCIPLES OF WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION / WATER
DIVISION COORDINATION FOR CERCLA REMOVAL AND
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Objective
The objective of this document is to establish principles that will ensure appropriate coordination
between the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
program and the Water Division (WD) for (1) CERCLA removal and remedial actions that affect the
water media and (2) alerting the CERCLA program of situations discovered by WD programs that may
require a CERCLA response.
Responsibilities
The WD is responsible for advising the Waste Management Division (WMD) of the requirements of the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act applicable to CERCLA projects. The WD is also
responsible for providing advice and assistance to the WMD on drinking water criteria and general
water quality protection. When WD program staff discover sources that may be contaminating drinking
water or resulting in water pollution, they will be responsible for notifying the CERCLA program for
potential CERCLA response. The WD is responsible for providing the WMD with sufficient
information to enable WMD to provide an adequate investigation and development of an appropriate
response.
The WD will refer to WMD all instances of water contamination considered by WD to warrant
CERCLA response. These sites will be evaluated by WMD for (1) potential removal activity or (2)
prioritization with existing preliminary assessment (PA)/site inspection (SI) workloads associated with
National Priority List (NPL) candidacy and qualifications for remedial action. The WMD will advise
WD of the initial disposition of all WD referrals within 15 working days and will meet to discuss any site
referred if the MD so requests.
The WMD will keep the WD informed of actions taken in response to WD advice and comment.
It is the joint responsibility of the WD and WMD staff to ensure that adequate and timely coordination
occurs on all projects. Wherever agreement cannot be reached under the principles of this document,
the issues should be raised to higher level supervision. The WD Safe Drinking Water Branch Chief and
the WMD Office of Superfund Associate Division Director are responsible for ensuring that the above
responsibilities are effectively carried out.
Early Involvement
The WMD and WD will ensure early cooperation on CERCLA projects to identify and resolve issues
without unnecessarily delaying needed response actions. To that end, WMD will provide copies of
action memoranda for removal actions to WD. The WMD On-Scene
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Coordinator (OSC) shall consult with WD representatives during the development of Removal action
memoranda wherever there is a question as to the need for, or extent of responses relating to drinking
water in specific, or ground or surface water in general.
The WMD will allow WD staff access to National Priority List (NPL) candidate packages and provide
copies of the initial Remedial Investigation workplans to WD for review. This will provide WD with
early notice of probable Remedial Action and allow WD to advise WMD of any interest in participation
in future activities. Many controversial issues are related to the ecological impacts of a given CERCLA
site. Since all CERCLA sites have important human health risks, or at a minimum have the potential to
impact human health, it is reasonable to assume that all sites will require some level of Water Division
review.
Under the procedures described in this section, WD will have the opportunity to surface any sites about
which it is aware and to be advised of WMD actions at both removal and remedial sites. The WMD
will provide reports and notices of meetings to the WD in time to allow effective WD participation in
these projects. The WD will define as early as possible the point and level of involvement it requires in
these projects in order to carry out its responsibilities.
Areas of Interest
As a result of the responsibilities noted herein, the WD may participate in the following:
! Projects affecting or potentially affecting the quality of public or private drinking water supplies.
! The interpretation of drinking water health effects information and Safe Drinking Water Act
maximum contaminant levels.
! Projects involving or potentially involving the discharge of water to surface waters from point
and non-point sources and the establishment of treatment requirements on such projects to
comply with water quality standards.
! Projects that involve or potentially involve dredging or filling of wetlands or navigable waters.
! Projects involving precedential ground water policy issues that may be subject to review by the
Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee.
! Projects involving or potentially involving underground injection of waste or reinjection of
treated (remediated) ground water.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
WMD is interested in reviewing all projects viewed by WD as having a potential for CERCLA
response. This effort will be greatly expanded as Remedial Action Plans for the Great Lakes Area of
Concern as well as other Regional initiatives become more fully developed.
Consultation
The WD staff will be available to consult with WMD staff on any aspect of a CERCLA project. The
WD staff will be responsible for providing timely and complete consultation consistent with WD policy.
All consultation should be documented by WD staff with copies provided to both Divisions.
Consultation may take place at a variety of times during the development and/or implementation of a
project.
Guidance
The WMD has and will continue to provide WD with CERCLA program guidance for review and
comment. WD will identify all provisions of CERCLA guidance that conflict with its policies and
procedures. If possible, a generic resolution of these differences will be agreed to.
The WD will support WMD internal training initiatives by providing regulation summaries as they
become available, and will provide speakers to instruct WMD staff of WD regulations, policies and
initiatives having potential effects on CERCLA activities. Training sessions will be coordinated by
WMD and attendance will be encouraged by both Divisions.
Distribution of Documents
The Safe Drinking Water Branch has the responsibility of coordination within the Water Division. For
projects requiring WD involvement as identified above, the WMD will routinely provide the following
documents, Attention: Safe Drinking Water Branch, as they are completed:
WD Site Referred To WMD
REMOVAL ACTIONS
NPL CANDIDATES
FINALIZED NPL SITES
Action Memo (or whatever is available)
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
Quarterly Summary Report of Site Status
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
All Sites
GENERAL
STATUS/PLANNING
REMOVAL ACTIONS
NPL CANDIDATES
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishment Plan (1 copy)
Action Memo (4 copies)
On-Site Coordinater's Report (1 copy)
Access to completed Hazard Ranking System packages
Draft and Final Remedial Investigation Scope of Work for
NPL Sites (4 copies)
Draft Remedial Investigation/Feasability Study, including
Applicable or Relevent and Appropriate Requirments (ARAR)
(4 copies)
Proposed Place (4 copies)
Draft Record of Decision (ROD)/Enforcement Decision
Document (EDD) (4 copies)
Final ROD/EDO (1 copy)
Meeting Notices
The WMD will routinely inform the WD Safe Drinking Water Branch as early as possible of pre-action
strategy meetings or scoping meetings for all sites identified by WD as warranting WD participation.
The WD will be notified of all pre-ROD/EDD meetings, and ROD briefings for the Regional
Administrator. The WD will attend these meetings if appropriate.
Comments
The WD Safe Drinking Water Branch Chief will provide written comments to the Associate Division
Director, Office of Superfund, on documents provided by the WMD within 15 working days of receipt
or less if possible. If WMD needs WD comments in less than 15 working days, a shorter review time
will be attempted.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
-------
Disposition of Comments
The WMD will inform the WD of the disposition of WD comments either in the final decision
documents or by other means agreeable to both Divisions (e.g., providing a copy to WD of comments
made to CERCLA contractors). The WMD will identify to the Regional Administrator all
recommendations for action that would lead to noncompliance with the substantive requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act or the Clean Water Act in the ROD/Negotiated Decision Document/EDD.
Coordination With State Programs
The WD will coordinate its review of CERCLA projects with its counterpart State water programs.
The WMD will encourage State CERCLA program counterparts to coordinate with their State water
programs as well.
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy
------- |