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

-------