-------
<-"•
01
•o
3
i— i
U
e
o
U
Nw'
*
10
H
(0
01
a
o
o
a
•o
c
m
jj
0)
3
oo
o
l—<
o
^5
o
V
2:
Ol
1—4
m
c
o
•ri
4J
(0
K
C
0
•H
M
.,-4
U
0)
a
a
flj
i
(A
01
10
V)
<
1
^j
1)
U
M
U
Ui
•^3
t>
(0
4-1
o
c
CA
0)
o
"O
>»
CO
O
JO
o
J3
4J
o
r:
N
V
in
c
o
O
•J Z
ul
c
3
»
0£
o
o
TS
O
XI
4)
z:
e
o
•H
*
4J
•i-l
{J
la
O)
^3
1
Z
g,
Ol
^4
S
(0
•
«ji
«
J
01
•Sd
ni
|
4J
U)
01
3
i-l
o
u
a.
jj
o
e
M
01
o
*^
4J
c
a;
w
o
a
M
01
01
><
O
•x.
m
o
*
•a
c
in
£
ra
•i^
1—4
I— 1
3
•o
C
0)
V«j
o
t-M
(Jj
U
3
•^3
0)
U
Q\
f*^
ON
M
E
flj
dj
u
^j
u
4)
4_)
(0
^P
01
4.)
Wl
(0
5
VJ
o
(«H
m
IH
O
m
tn
B-39
-------
APPENDIX C
Abstracts of Wetland
Evaluation Methodologies
Reviewed in Lonard
e£ al.. (1981)
-------
Citation:
Brown, A., Kittle, P., Dale, E. E., and Huffman, R. T. 1974. "Rare and
Endangered Species, Unique Ecosystems and Wetlands," Department of Zooiogv
and Department of Botany and Bacteriology. The University of Arkansas
Fayetteville, Ark.
Abstract:
The Arkansas Wetlands Classification System contains a two-part, raulti-
variate approach for evaluating freshwater wetlands for maximum wildlife pro-
Auction and diversity. Initially Arkansas wetlands were qualitatively clas-
sitied as prime or nonprirae wetland habitats according to use by man ' A nu-
merical value for a wetland was determined by calculating a subscore which was
based on the multiplication of a significance coefficient by a determined
weighted value. The values for each variable were summed and a total wetland
quantitative value was obtained for use by decision makers.
Citation:
Dee, N., et al. 1973. "Environraenta-1 Evaluation System for Water Re-
sources Planning," Water Resources Research, Vol 9, No. 3, pp 523-534.
Abstract:
"The EES is a methodology for conducting environmental impact analysis.
It was developed by an interdisciplinary research team and is based on a
hierarchical arrangement of environmental quality indicators, an arrangement
that classifies the major areas of environmental concern into major categories,
components, and ultimately into parameters and measurements of environmental
quality. The EES provides for environmental impact evaluations in four major
categories: ecology, environmental pollution, esthetics, and human interest.
Thess four categories are further broken down into 18 components ax^d finally
into 78 parameters. The EES provides a means for measuring or estimating
selected environmental impacts of large-scale water resource development projects
in commensurate units termed 'environmental impact units' (EIU). Results of
using the EES include a total score in ETC 'with' and 'without' the proposed
project; the difference between the two scores is one measure of environmental
impact. Environmental impact scores developed in the EES are based on the
magnitude of specific environmental impacts and their relative importance.
Another major output from the EES is an indication of major adverse impacts
called 'red flags,' which are of concern of and by themselves. These flags
indicate 'fragile' elements of the environment, which must be studied in more
detail." (Author abstract.)
C-l
-------
Citation:
Fried, E. 1974. "Priority Rating of Wetlands for Acquisition,"
Transactions of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 31,
?p 15-30.
Abstract:
New York State's Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972 provided $5 mil-
lion for inland wetland acquisition, $18 million for tidal wetlands acquisi-
tion, and $4 million for wetlands restoration. A priority rating system,
with particular emphasis on inland wetlands, was developed to guide these
programs. The governing equation was: priority rating = (P + V + A) * 5,
where the priority rating is per-acre desirability for acquisition, P is
biological productivity, V is vulnerability, and A is additional factors.
Both actual and potential conditions could be rated. The rating system was
successfully applied to some 130 inland wetlands. Using a separate equation,
wetland values were related to costs. (Author abstract.)
Citation:
Galloway, G. E. 197S. "Assessing Man's Impact on Wetlands," Sea Grant
Publication No. UNC-SG-78-17 or UMC-WRII-78-136, University of
North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Abstract:
Ths Wetland Evaiuat.i:r. S'/st;T. /TvES) proposed by Galloway emph-sizes a
systems approach to evaluate man's -impact on a wetland ecosystem. Impacts are
determined and compared for "with" and "without" project conditions. The
advice of an interdisciplinary team as well as the input of local elected
officials and laymen are included as part of the WES model. Parameters that
make up a wetland are assessed at the macro-level and the results of the
evaluation are displayed numerically and graphically with computer-assisted
techniques.
Citation:
Golet, F. C. 1973. "Classification and Evaluation of Freshwater
Wetlands as Wildlife Habitat in the Glaciated Northeast," Transactions
of the Northeast Fish and Wildlife Conference, Vol 30, pp 257-279.
Abstract:
''A detailed classification system for freshwater wetlands is presented
along with ten criteria for the evaluation of wetlands as wildlife habitat.
The results are based on a 2-year field study of over 150 wetlands located
throughout the state of Massachusetts. The major components of the classifi-
cation system include wetland classes and subclasses, based on the dominant
life form of vegetation and surface water depth and permanence; size
categories; topographic and hydrologic location; surrounding habita.t types;
proportions and interspersion of cover and water; and vegetative intersper-
sion. These components are combined with wetland juxtaposition and water
C-2
-------
chemistry to produce criteria for a wetland evaluation. Using a system of
specifications and ranks, wetlands can be arrayed according to their
wildlife value for decision-making." (Author abstract.) "At this point, the
system has been used in numerous states on thousands of wetlands; recent re-
visions have resulted in such use." (F. C. Golet)
citation:
Gupta, T. R. , ana Foster, J.H. 1973- "Valuation of Visual-Cultural
Benefits from Freshwater Wetlands in Massachusetts," Journal of the
Northeastern Agricultural Council, Vol 2, No 2, pp 262-273.
Abstract:
The authors suggested an alternative to the "willingness to pay" approaches
fo*- measuring the social "ali'.es of natural open space and rscrsational re-
sources. The method combines an identification and measurement of the physical
qualities of the resource by landscape architects. Measurement values were
expressed in the content of the political system and current public views.
The procedure is demonstrated by its application to freshwater wetlands in
Massachusetts.
Citation:
Kibby, H. V. 197S. "Effects of Wetlands on Water Quality," Proceedings
of the Symposium on Strategies for Protection and Management of Flocdplain
'.-.etiands and Other Riparian £cosysterr.s, General Technical Rerert No. CT3-
WO-12, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D. C.
Abstract:
wetlands potentially ruve significant effects on water quality. Signif-
icant amounts of nitrogen are assimilated during the growing season and then
released in the fall and early spring. Phosphorus, while assimilated by wet-
lands, is also released throughout the year. Some potential management tools
for evaluating the effect of wetlands on water quality are discussed. (Author
abstract.)
Citation:
Larson, J. S. (ed). 1976. "Models for Assessment of Freshwater Wetlands,"
Pub. No 32 Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Mass.
Abstract:
Four submodels for relative and economic evaluation of frtshv-iter wetlands
are presented within a single, three-phase eliminative model. The submodels
treat wildlife, visual-cultural, groundwater, and economic values.
C-3
-------
The wildlife and visual-cultural models are based on physical character-
istics which for the most part can be measured on existing maps and aerial
photographs. Each characteristic is given values by rank and coefficient. A
relative numerical score is calculated for the total wetland characteristics
and used to compare it with a broad range of northeastern wetlands or with
wetlands selected by the user. The groundwater model places wetlands in
classes of probable groundwater yield based on surficial geologic deposits
under the wetland.
The economic submodel suggests values for wildlife, visual-cultural aspects,
groundwater, and flood control. Wildlife values are derived from the records
of state agency purchases of wetlands with sportsmen's dollars for wildlife
management purposes. Visual-cultural economic values are based on the record
of wetland purchases for open space values by municipal conservation commis-
sions. Groundwater values stem from savings realized by selection of a
drilled public water supply over a surface water scurce. Flood control values
are based on U. S. Army Corps of Engineers data on flood control values of the
Charles River, Massachusetts, mainstream wetlands.
The submodels are presented within the framework of an overall three-
phase eliminative model. Phase I identifies outstanding wetlands which should
be protected at all costs. Phase II applies the wildlife, visual-cultural, and
groundwater submodels to those wetlands which do not meet the criteria for
outstanding wetlands Phase III develops the economic values of the wetlands
evaluated in Phase II.
The models are intended to be used by local, regional, and state resource
planners and wetland regulation agencies. (Author abstract.)
Citation:
Reppert, R. T., et ai. 1979. "Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for
Wetlands Evaluation,'1 IWR Research Report 79-R-l. U. S. Army Engineer
Institute for Water Resources,,Fort Belvoir, Virginia.
>tract:
The evaluation of wetlands is based on the analysis of their physical,
biological, and human use ch-ractaristics. The report discusses Lhese func-
tional characteristics zad identifies specific criteria for determining the
efficiency with which the respective functions are performed.
Two potential wetlands evaluation methods are described. One is a non-
quantitative method in which individual wetland areas are evaluated based on
the deductive analysis of their individual functional characteristics. The
other is a semiquantitative method in which the relative values of two or
more site alternatives are established through the mathematical rating and
summation of their functional relationships.
The specific functions and values of wetlands which are covered in this
report are (1) natural biological functions, including food chain productivity
and habitat, (2) tbeir use as sanctuaries, refuges, or scientific study areas,
(3) shoreline protection, (4) groundwater recharge, (5) storage for flood and
storm water, (6) water quality improvement, (7) hydrologic support, and
(8) various cultural values. (Author abstract.)
C-4
-------
Citation;
Schuldiner, P. W. , Cope, D. F. , and Newton, R. B. 1.979. "Ecological
Effects of Highway Fills of Wetlands," Research Report. National Co-
operative Highway Research Program Report No. 21SA, Transportation Re-
search Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C.
and
Schuldiner, P. W., Cope, D. F., and Newton, R. 3. 1979. "Ecological
Effects of Highway. Fills of Wetlands," User's Manual. National Co-
operative Highway Research Program Report No. 218B, Transportation Re-
search Board, National Research Council, Washington, D. C.
Abstract:
The two reports include a Research Report and a User's Manual that were
prepared to provide, in concise format, guidelines and information needed for
the determination of the ecological effects that may result from the place-
ment of highway fills on wetlands and associated floodplains and to suggest
procedures by which deleterious impacts can be minimized or avoided. The
practices that can be used to enhance the positive benefits are also discussed.
Both reports cover the most common physical, chemical, and biological effects
that the highway engineer is likely to encounter when placing fills in wet-
lands and displays the effects and their interactions in a series of flow-
charts and matrices.
Citation:
Stearns, Conrad and Schmidt - Consulting Engineers. 1979. "Analysis of
Selected Functional Characteristics of Wetlands," Contract
No. DACW73-78-R-0017, Reston, Virginia.
Abstract:
The investigation focused on identifying factors and criteria for assessing
the wetland functions of water quality improvement, groundwater rechargs, stona
and floodwater storage, and shoreline protection. Factors and criteria were
identified that could be used to develop procedures to assist Corps personnel
in assessing the value of general wetland types and of specific wetlands in
performing the functions indicated. To the extent possible, procedures were
then outlined that allow the application of these criteria to specific sites.
This procedure involved a three-phase study of functional wetlands at four
selected sites.
Phase I - Nationwide Survey of Material Fluxes Through Wetlands. This
phase would be an extensive short-term data collection effort to obtain infor-
mation on material fluxes through many different types of wetlands under widely
varying conditions.
C-5
-------
Phase II - Model Development and Verification. This phase utilizes the
data base and output from Phase I to formulate and calibrate deterministic
models for the water quality improvement functioning of wetlands.
Phase III - Detailed and Long-Term Field Studies. This phase includes
pure and applied research. The results of Phases I and II will indicate what
factors are useful for predicting the water quality improvement functioning of
wetlands and those factors that seem to be important but need more study to be
fully understood.
Citation:
Smardon, R. C. 1972. "Assessing Visual-Cultural Values on Inland Wetlands
in Massachusetts," Master of Science Thesis. University of Massachusetts.
Amherst, Mass.
Abstract;
This study deals with the incorporation of visual-cultural val»»s of
inland wetlands into the decision-making process of land use allocation of
inland wetlands in Massachusetts. Visual-cultural values of inland wetlands
may be defined as visual, recreational, and educational values of inland wet-
lands to society. The multivariate model is an eliminative and comparative
model which has three levels of evaluation*. The first level identifies those
wetlands which are outstanding natural areas or have regional landscape
value or are large wetland systems. These wetlands have top priority for
preservation. The second level is a rating and ranking system. At this
stage the combined natural resource values of the wetland are evaluated.
Wetlands with high ratings or.rank from this level are eliminated and have
the next highest priority for preservation or some sort of protection.
The third level evaluation considers the cultural values (i.e., accessibility,
location near schools, etc.) of wetlands. The model is designed to be
utilized at many different levels of decision making. For example, it cart be
used by state agencies, town conservation commissions, and conceivably could
be used by other states in Northeastern United States. (Author abstract.)
Citation:
Solomon, R. C., et al. 1977. "Water Resources Assessment Methodology
(WRAM) — Impact Assessment and Alternative Evaluation,'1 Technical Re-
port Y-77-1, Environmental Effects Laboratory, U. S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, CE, Vicksburg, Miss.
Abstract:
The U. S. Army Crops of Engineers has been directed by various legislation,
acts, and regulations to conduct systematic and comprehensive environmental
planning for its activities. The ciirust of this study has been to pull
together the state of the art and to synthesize a VRAM for impact assessment
and alternative evaluation. A review of 54 impact assessment methodologies
revealed that none entirely satisfied the needs or requirements for the Corps'
water resources projects and programs. However, salient features contained
in several of the methodologies were considered pertinent for inclusion in
r.fi
-------
WRAM. One of the features consisted of weighting impacted variables and scal-
ing the impacts of alternatives. The resulting weighted and scaled values are
multiplied to obtain final importance values. The weighted rankings technique
is the basic weighting and scaling tool used in this methodology. It consists
of developing relative importance coefficient values for each variable, as-
signing alternative choice coefficient values to each alternative in relation
to its impact on each variable, and displaying the products in a final coeffi-
cient matrix. Principal components of WRAM include assembling an inter-
disciplinary team; selecting and measuring assessment variables; identifying,
predicting, and evaluating impacts and alternatives; and documenting the
analysis. Although WRAM is presented for use by the Corps in water resources
management, it does' have general applicability to other resource management
agencies.
Citation:
State of Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Undated. ''Environ-
mental Evaluation of Coastal Wetlands (Draft)," Tidal Wetlands Study,
pp 181-208.
Abstract:
The Maryland scheme for the evaluation of coastal wetlands is based on
the recognition of 32 distinct types of vegetation in the marshes and
swamps of tidewater areas of the state.. Rankings of vegetation types were
developed and parameters for the evaluation of specific areas of wetlands were
described. The application of the scheme is explained and demonstrated.
Guidance is provided for the interpretation of results. The application of
the Maryland scheme requires a detailed inventory of the types of vegetation
in the area selected for evaluation.
Citation:
U. S. Army Engineer Division. Lower Mississippi Valley. August 19SO.
"A Habitat Evaluation System for Water Resources Planning,'' U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Lover Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg, Miss.
Abstract:
A methodology is presented for determining the quality of major habitat
typ»s based on the description airi quantification of habitat characteristics.
Values are compared for existing baseline conditions, future conditions with-
out the project, and witn alternative project conditions. Curves, parameter
characteristics, and descriptive information are included in tne appendices.
The Habitat Evaluation System (HES) procedure includes the following steps for
evaluating impacts of a water resource development project. The ste^s include:
(1) obtaining habitat type or land use acreage, (2) deriving Habitat Quality
Index scores, (3) deriving Habitat. Unit Values (4) projecting Habitat Unit
Values for the future with and without project conditions. (5) using Habitat
Unit Values to assess impacts of project alternatives, and (6) determining
mitigation requirements.
C-7
-------
Citation:
U. S. Army Engineer Division, New England. 1972. "Charles River.
Main Report and Attachments," Walthan, Mass.
Abstract:
The study was a long-term project directed by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers to study the resources of the Charles River Watershed in eastern
Massachusetts. It-had an emphasis on how to control flood damages in the
urbanized lower watershed and how to prevent any significant flood damage in
the middle and upper watershed. Seventeen crucial wetlands were identified.
Various aspects of the watersned were studied in an interdisciplinary fashion.
Citation;
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. ''Wetlands Evaluation Criteria-
Water and Related Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Massachusetts,"
Soil Conservation Services, Amherst, Mass. 01002.
Abstract:
A portion of the document (Appendix B) contains criteria used to evaluate
major wetlands in the coastal region of Massachusetts. Each of the 85 wet-
lands which was evaluated was subjected to map study and a field examination.
Ratings were assigned based on point values obtained for various attributes.
A raliunale for each evaluation item was developed to explain the development
of the criteria.
Citation:
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1978. "Wetlands Evaluation Criteria—
Water and Related Land Resources of the Coastal Region, Massachusetts,"
Soil Conservation Service, Amherst, Mass. 01002
Abstract:
The study addresses water resource problems, alternatives, and needs
^lirvUgft 1990. Results will ;e usea to prepare a state water ana ireiaced land
resources plan. Appendix B, Wetland Evaluation Criteria, describes a procedure
used to evaluate 85 wetlands in the coastal region. Point values on 2 1 to
10 (low to high) scale were assigned to seven functional values permitting a
total index value number. The criteria were developed by an interdisciplinary
team of USDA specialists.
C-8
-------
Citation:
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1980. "Habitat Evaluation procedures
(HEP) Manual (102 ESI1)," Washington, D. C.
Abstract:
HEP is a method which can be used to document the quality and quantity
of available habitat for selected wildlife species. HEP provides information
for two general types of wildlife habitat comparisons: (1) the relative value
of different areas at the same point in time; and (2) the relative value of the
same area at future points in time. By combining the two types of comparisons,
the impact of proposed or anticipated land and water changes on wildlife
habitat can be quantified. This document describes HEP, discusses some prob-
able applications, and provides guidance in applying KEP in the field.
Citation:
Virginia Institute cf Marine Science.
Wetlands" (Mimeographed).
Undated. "Evaluation of Virginia
Aastract:
The authors presented a procedure to evaluate the wetlands of Virginia.
Two broau categories of criteria were utilized in evaluating the ecological
significance of wetlands: tr.e interaction of wetlands with the marine environ-
ment and the interaction of the wetland with the terrestrial environment. The
following formula was developed to demonstrate the incorporation of the various
factors into the relative ecological significance values:
Citation;
Winchester, 3. H. , and Harris, L. D. 1979. ''An Approach to Valuation of
Florida Freshwater Wetlands,'1 Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference on
the Restoration and Creation of Wetlands, Tampa, Florida.
Abstract:
A procedure was presented for estimating the relative ecological and func-
tional value of Florida freshwater wetlands. Wetland functions evaluated by
this procedure include water quality enhancement, water detention, vegetative
diversity and productivity, and wildlife habitat value. The field parameters
used in the assessment were wetland size, contiguity, structural vegetative
diversity, and an edge-to-area ratio. The procedure was field tested and was
time- and cost-effective. Allowing flexibility in both the evaluative criteria
used and the relative weight assigned to each criterion, the methodology is
applicable in any Florida region for which basic ecological data are available.
(Author abstract.)
C-9
-------
APPENDIX D
Additional Studies
reviewed by Lonard et_ auU (1981)
that did not meet screening criteria
-------
Shabraan, L. A., Batie, S. S., and Mabbs-Zeno, C. C. 1979. "The Economics of
Wetlands Preservation in Virginia," Research Report No. A. E. 38, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Silberhorn, G. M. , Down, G. M., and Barnard, T. A., Jr. 1974. "Coastal Wet-
lands of Virginia/Guidelines for Activities Affecting Virginia Wetlands,"
Interim Report No. 3, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
Virginia.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. "Environmental Assessment Procedure,"
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D. C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. "Environmental Assessment Per-
spectives," EPA-600/2-76-069, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Wharton, C. H. 1970. "The Southern River Swamp - A Multiple Use Environment,"
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Georgia State University.
Whitaker, G. A., and McCuen, R. H. 1975. "A Proposed Methodology for Assessing
the Quality of Wildlife Habitat," Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Williams and Works. 1979. "Reuse of Municipal Wastewater by Volunteer Wet-
lands - Interim Report, 1979," Grand Rapids, Michigan.
D-l
-------
Documents That Did Not Satisfy the Screening
Criteria and Evaluation Standards
Bara, M. 0., Tiner, R. W., Jr., and Newkrik, D. C. 1977. "Guidelines for
Evaluating Proposed Wetland Alterations in South Carolina," South Carolina
Wildlife and Marine Resources Department, Columbia, South Carolina.
Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1974. "A Technique for Environmental
Decision Making Using Quantified Social and Aesthetic Values," Publication
No. BNWL-1787, Richland, Washington.
Belknap, R. K., and Furtado, J. G. 1967. "Three Approaches to Environmental
Resource Analysis," The Conservation Foundation, Washington, D. C.
Benson, D., and Perry, R. F. 1965. "An Acre of Marsh is Worth," The Con-
servationist, pp 30-33.
California Coastal Commission. 1979. "Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for
Wetlands and Other Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (Draft),"
San Francisco, California.
Commonwealth of Virginia. 1974. "Vetlands Guidelines," Marine Resources
Commission, Newport News, Virginia.
Coordinating Council on the Restoration of the Kissimmee River Valley and
Taylor Creek-Nubbin Slough Basin. 1978. "Environmental Quality through Wet-
lands Utilization," Proceedings of a Symposium on Freshwater Wetlands, Talla-
hassee, Florida.
Foster, J. H. 1978. "Measuring the Social Value of Wetland Benefits," The
National Symposium on Wetlands, Lake Vista, Florida, University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst, Massachusetts.
Fritz, W. R. 1978. "Tertiary Treatment of Wastewater using Cypress Wetlands;
Summary and Final Report," Boyle Engineering Corporation, Orlando, Florida.
Gosselink, J. G.,, Odum, E. P., and Pope, R. M. 1974. "The Value of the Tidal
Marsh," Publication No. LSU-SG-74-03, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Gupta, T. R. 1972. "Economic Criteria for Decisions on Preservation and Use
of Inland Wetlands in Massachusetts," Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural
Economics Council, Vol 1, No. 1, pp 201-210.
Hill, D. 1976. "A Modeling Approach to Evaluate Tidal Wetlands," Transactions
of the Wildlife Management Institute's Forty-First North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conference, Washington, D. C.
Larson, J. S. 1973. "A Guide to Important Characteristics and Values of
Freshwater Wetlands in the Northeast," No. 31, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Undated. "Fresh-
water Wetland Maps and Classification (Draft)."
D-2
-------
Shabraan, L. A., Batie, S. S., and Mabbs-Zeno, C. C. 1979. "The Economics of
Wetlands Preservation in Virginia," Research Report No. A. E. 38, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Silberhorn, G. M., Down, G. M., and Barnard, T. A., Jr. 1974. "Coastal Wet-
lands of Virginia/Guidelines for Activities Affecting Virginia Wetlands,"
Interim Report No. 3, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point,
Virginia.
U. S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. "Environmental Assessment Procedure,"
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D. C.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. "Environmental Assessment Per-
spectives," EPA-600/2-76-069, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Wharton, C. H. 1970. "The Southern River Swamp - A Multiple Use Environment,"
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Georgia State University.
Whitaker, G. A., and McCuen, R. H. 1975. "A Proposed Methodology for Assessin
the Quality of Wildlife Habitat," Department of Civil Engineering, University
of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
Williams and Works. 1979. "Reuse of Municipal Wastewater by Volunteer Wet-
lands - Interim Report, 1979," Grand Rapids, Michigan.
D-3
-------
APPENDIX E
Scale-weighted Checklists
developed by Nelson et al. (1982)
-------
Classes of
Factors in Level
of Adverse Impact
Individual Factors
for Consideration
Facto rl
Scale
(0-3)
Factor2
Weight
(1-5)
Seal ing-3
Weighting
Product
(0-15)
Water dynamics:
• TOPOGRAPHY OR
BATHYMETRY
• FLOW AND
CIRCULATION
Increased substrate or soil
elevations obstructing or
diverting natural drainage?
Changing currents or stream
flows?
Changing circulation patterns?
Changing water level fluctua-
tions?
GROUND WATER4 Modify water tables or flows?
Disrupt aquifers, springs, or
wells?
Particulates:
• PARTICLE SIZE
AND DENSITY
• SEDIMENTATION
AND TURBIDITY
Similar at extraction and
disposal sites?
Probable sedimentation,
mounding, and substrate
burial?
Probable erosion, sediment
suspension, transport and
turbidity?
SUBTOTALS
1. Level of impact for each factor is scaled insignificant (0), minor (1),
moderate (2), or major (3).
2. Factor weight from low (1) to high (5) is assigned based on relative
importance of each factor.
3. Scale value is multiplied by numerical weight.
4. Not explicitly covered under Section 404 of Clean Water Act.
Appendix Table E-l. Assessment scaling-weighted checklist for physical environ-
mental factors in dredge and fill operations (from Nelson and Associates
Inc. 1981).
E-l
-------
Classes of
Factors in Level
of Adverse Impact
Individual Factors
for Consideration
Scaling-3
Factor1 Factor2 Weighting
Scale Weight Product
(0-3) (1-5) (0-15)
Water Quality:
• SURFACE WATER
GROUND WATER4
Sediments:
• CONTAMINANT
CONCENTRA-
TIONS
Probable decreased dissolved
oxygen or change in pH?
Increased nutrients, promoting
salinization or eutrophication?
Increased bioavailability of
toxic or hazardous substances?
Oxidized contaminants in diked
upland sites, polluting the
return flows?
Oxidized contaminants in diked
upland sites leaching into
aquifers?
Migrating to open water?
Toxic or hazardous contami-
nants potentially present in
dredged or fill material?
At higher concentrations than
at discharge site?
With increased bioavailability?
SUBTOTALS
1. Level of impact for each factor is scaled insignificant (0), minor (1),
moderate (2), or major (3).
2. Factor weight from low (1) to high (5) is assigned based on relative
importance of each factor.
3. Scale value is multiplied by numerical weight.
4. Not explicitly covered under Section 404 of Clean Water Act.
\ppendix Table E-2, Assessment scaling-weighting checklist for chemical environ-
mental factors in dredge and fill operations (from Nelson and Associates
Inc. 1981).
E-2
-------
Classes of
Factors In Level
of Adverse Impact
Individual Factors for Consideration
Scaling-3
Factor1 Factor' Weighting
Scale Weight Product
(0-3) (1-5) (0-15)
Site values:
• ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS
• HABITAT VALUES
• POPULATION VALUES
• SEASONAL EFFECTS
Special resources:
• SPECIAL AQUATIC
SITES
• OTHER PRIME
HABITATS
Short-term disruption or long-term loss of
productivity and diversity?
Smothering of benthic biota without recolo-
nization, or with recolonization where a
system is stable and resilient?
Chronic or acute physiological stress or
bioconcentration from toxic contaminants?
Displacement, conversion or loss of value
of wetlands, lakes and streams, and at
diked upland sites?4
Loss of species abundance and community
productivity and diversity?
Of critical or preferred food sources and
escape cover?
Transmission of disease organisms or para-
sites in dredged or fill material?
Displacement or disruption of migration
routes or wintering sites?
Of spawning, nesting, breeding and rearing
sites?
Displacement, conversion or modification of
productive, sensitive or unique wetlands?
Sand or mud flats or vegetated shallows?
Riffle-and-pool stream segments?
Wildlife sanctuaries or refuges?
Displacement, conversion or modification of
productive, sensitive or unique natural
lakes or ponds?
High value upland sites used for diked
disposal?4
Critical habitat of threatened or
endangered species?
SUBTOTALS
1. Level of impact for each factor is scaled insignificant (0), minor (1), moderate (2), or
major (3).
2. Factor weight from low (1) to high (5) is assigned based on relative importance of each
factor.
3. Scale value is multiplied by numerical weight.
4. Not explicitly covered under Section 404 of Clean Water Act.
Appendix Table E-3, Assessment scaling-weighting checklist for biological and
ecosystem factors in dredge and fill operations (from Nelson and Associates
Inc. 1981). t-3
-------
Classes of
Factors in Level
of Adverse Impact
Individual Factors
for Consideration
Scaling-3
Factor^ Factor? Weighting
Scale Weight Product
(0-3) (1-5) (0-15)
Land and water
use:
• COMPATIBILITY
Special
resources:
• FISHERIES
• WATERFOWL
AND GAME
• UNIQUE SITES
Use of finished disposal or
fill site consistent with
surrounding water and land
use?4
Dependent on water access or
siting?
Identified as suitable or
unsuitable for dredged
material or fill discharge?4
Displacement or disruption of
valuable sport fish popula-
tions?
Commercial fish or shellfish
populations?
Displacement or disruption of
valuable waterfowl populations?
Game bird and mammal popula-
tions?
Displacement or disruption of
valuable landscapes or views?
Historic or archeological
sites?
SUBTOTALS
1. Level of impact for each factor is scaled insignificant (0), minor (1),
moderate (2), or major (3).
2. Factor weight from low (1) to high (5) is assigned based on relative
importance of each factor.
3. Scale value is multiplied by numerical weight.
4. Not explicitly covered under Section 404 of Clean Water Act.
Appendix Table E-4. Assessment scaling-weighting gbecfclist for land or water
use and other cultural factors in dredge and fill operations (from Nelson
and Associates Inc. 1981).
E-4
-------
Classes of
Factors in Level
of Beneficial Impact
Individual Factors for Consideration
Scaling-3
Factor1 Factor2 Weighting
Scale Weight Product
(0-3) (1-5) (0-15)
Available actions
to minimize
adverse effects;5
• STRUCTURAL
FEATURES
t DREDGING4 AND DIS-
CHARGE EQUIPMENT
• MATERIAL PLACEMENT
• OTHER ACTIONS OR
MEASURES
Habitat development:
• NEW HABITAT
• HABITAT
RESTORATION
Piers, culverts or pervious fills to
maintain circulation?
Check dams or current deflectors to control
increased flows?
Bank or dike cover and stabilization to
control scouring and erosion?
Low-impact bucket, draghead or cutterhead
design?
Low-impact discharge pipe design, submerged
diffusers or silt curtains?
Low-ground-pressure vehicles or equipment?
Disposal in coves, depressions or thalweg
to reduce flow obstruction, or in diked
upland sites?4
Retention of fines inside dikes4 with
settling, coagulation, dewatering, filters
and weirs?
Impervious liners and caps to prevent
leaching, or leachate collection and
treatment?
Other materials, equipment, structures,
routes, scheduling, etc.?
Creation of marsh or other wetlands?
Nesting or barrier islands or upland
contained sites?4
Mud flats, sand bars, or vegetated shallows?
Improvement of drainage and circulation?
Improvement of stream riffles and pools?
Improvement of substrate for benthic biota
or fish spawning?
SUBTOTALS
1. Level of impact for each factor is scaled insignificant (0), minor (1), moderate (2), or
major (3).
2. Factor weight from low (1) to high (5) is assigned based on relative importance of each
factor.
3. Scale value is multiplied by numerical weight.
4. Not explicitly covered under Section 404 of Clean Water Act.
5. Alternative discharge sizss require separate assessment.
Appendix Table E-5. Scaling-weighted checklist for enhancement, compensation and
mitigation factors in dredge and fill operations (.from Nelson and Associates
Inc. 1981).
E-5
-------
Seal ing-Weighting Checklists
Weighting
Seal ing-
Weight ing
Product
Subtotals' Subtotals2
Table 6.1-A—Operations type, scale
and timing factors
Table 6.1-5--Physical environmental
factors
Table 6.1-6--Chemical environmental
factors
Table 6.1-7--Biological and ecosystem
factors
Table 6.1-8--Land or water use and
other cultural factors
ADVERSE IMPACT TOTALS-
Table 6.1-9--Enhancement, compensation
and mitigation factors
BENEFICIAL IMPACT TOTALS4
Overall Level
of Adverse
Impacts
Overall Level
of Beneficial
Impact^
1. Add all factor weights in each of six checklists and enter in this column.
2. Add all seal ing-weighting products and enter in this column.
3. Sum the factor weights and products for the five adverse impact checklists
on this line.
4. Sum the factor weights and products for the beneficial impact checklist on
this line.
5. Divide total products by total weights and enter in the box (nearest
tenth); interpret the result using the key below.
Key.
0.0-0.9
1.0-1.7
1.7-2.3
2.4-3.0
"Insignificant"
"Minor"
"Moderate"
"Major"
Appendix Table E-6. Assessment summary for all factors of adverse and beneficial
impact from dredge and fill activities (from Nelson and Associates Inc. 1981).
E-6
-------
APPENDIX F
Example HQI Curves
used by HES (USCOE 1980)
-------
F-l
-------
-------
oo
-------
to
— — -
4--
!
4*T
i
I
T
i
. j
,1
I
' I
-i T
i
i
. !
j
t
I
t
i
1
__^_ \
I
!
^__L
-— *— •»•-
4-
i
i
•
i
i
i
f
U
i
r
-.„
~
-
^—
L
—
/
r
N
/
++,
A
f
N
'
k,
I"!
/
A
f
k»
-
>
f
.
\-
f
**
"1
A
^
J
/
N
>
.
•s
V
S
-
/
<,
/
-
i
r
*s
/
/
*•<
__
f
/
/
^
~l
/
-,
-
-1
>
'
s
-t
t
~\
y
'•
r
./
•
r
H'
-
—<
t
"
— t
/
'^
^
V,
1
-
r
"
-
-
-
-
?
L
~
-
**•
-
^
-
"
~
s
-^
U"~
"~
*^
-t
c;
-
•«,
t
— '
-
••
-
-
-t
'
~
•
-
~
"
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•-
•
-
-
-
-
-
;
-
-
•s
-
-
-
•
•
L
•
•
-
-
-
-
,
r-
u
-
-
-
•
s.
1
-
f"
-
-
-
"
"
•
^
r
-
-
•
-1
i
^
•
•
•
-
h
'
-
-
-
~
U'
"
>
—
•"
-
~
-M
~
'
-
'
'
NM
3
h
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
••
—
-
*-
*•
\-
-
'-
1
-
•
•
-
"*
•H,
r
•
•
-
--
-
._
•
_
—\
-
•*
-
r
'
-
—
"
"
"
~
\~
h
— ,
J
J
-1
J
ss
O 3
o o
V)
O
t/i
1U
eg
Ul
QC
O
o
«0
CO
O
o
o
CO
o
«•)
o
o
OS
C3
F-4
C->4
CD
-------
1
1
1
!
()
^
IU
{^
til
a
>
£
i
•
|
»
<
i
•
i
I
1
. .'
13
i
m
ri
eb
J
MM
L
>
j
r
<
r
i
<
-
j
i
i
•)
n
— ~
9
9
i
<
^f
_
i
•*
?<
Tl
J
T
i
7;
*
^
.
»
/
/
^
^
i-i
/
11
/
/
^
^
'
X
1
/
^
1
!
!
f
L
I
^
i
I
-1
f
9
i
i
^
J
9
I
1
r~
f
9
\
\
f
t
f
L
^
/
^~
^
f
2
.1
rr
^F
\
jjT'
~y
2
_ i
1
•
i- -
i
2
2
2
4- -
— j..-
|
I ;
I
f
t~
~h"
_....
"F
f
"
(H
/
/
i
-
-
-
/
j
;
1
i
1
i
'
i
f'
•*-'
"
-
•
1
-;
— \
-
•
"™
:
*
"
-
-
1
t
— ^
-
_
i
j
i
j
~T
"
1
_!
*
_
•t
•^
t
"t
"
H
~\
-
— t
i
-i
~~
-------
-H- ~r
J4- -
--I 1 t 1
f~ 1 , j
"~^ I
1 . , . L .
l i [ - -
T i | t 1 '
iii
•rr [ —
L .(! -. ~ ^ -t
j
' -A
LI - ~t- .
r 1
I
t
t
.,( „
i t
. __,
!
_
i
t 1
1 i 1
II 1
' 1 i
! I
JJ.I
i r
"T
' 'I 1
tit 1 i
TT"
_ i - _
i
_ L i _,
j T
1
I i
1 '
lit- -t --
1 1
j j ' l
~t | P
-l_ . J ,
T~-
. H_| .. 1
_ i"t~ . .
oX
i
t ' r
"1 j
~" i i 1 1 l
"T P
~l
I ' i
~\ 1 t 1 I
T • iii'
- l ! M J-
-i 1 ' ! I
TjJ M
- 1 : i
' I
1
ri
i '
i i i
:4_:__:rtc:
.. i 11
H T i 1 -H-f4- -
L 1 ,.i
:::±+Ti:
W- =53
L
~f
__J_ __<_ '
__±
i
±±: 4
r i
j L_ .1 .
l
4 i
r
"1 -'-----)
^||
L
j r
r~ I"
i i i
l i
p" i
1 a
4 L _JU_
1 Mi T
1 \
L 'A
i~~- ^ -i-
i L
L _
r
__IJI ...
i
•
i j
i i
i i
"±±ii: ::
I XX . -J
i
1 M i
II!--! 11
HT T
r- !4-4- -- --
r iT T -
i i i
1 i i -i
_ 4_ _ 4_i_, L
t Tt -i
-XITlt. X
111! i
i_.
T ._
MI±. P
j__!_ _ _, -L
f "I f i 1 ; T
i j j |
r j i _4
-4 4-- 4
tl . xt n
1 ' M l
KLJ
tt -
• x
._,_,_: i
1 1 1 l r
! M 1 14
T; T i T T
"U- ! 4
M t • i
M iii
i M i M i _)_
' ' T
III III I
1" -- 1 t
[ M 1 M r-
1 ' i
l II 1 M r
! i 1 1 i !
i r 1 r' r
t i i i i i
hj±i -tz'i't:
l^i -..p±r-.t
T+44 1 f- --L
^rn^tTrT +
• I • ! -Hr r-t -t-
k
>
I
I
,
!
i
]
t-
~p
r
L
>
1
1
t
1
1
1
|
1
1
i
I1
1
l-
i
i
L
\
I
I
1
1
t
1
1
1
J.
•
f-
\-
\
1
1
1
1
1
!
1
\
^
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
'
1
1
1
-4
[
-t
:
k
>
1
i
i
i
i
i
r~
f
I-
— I
k
1
f
1
r
t
—
y
*
i
i
i
i
\
i
i
i
»
T~-
|-
•T
S,
\
1
I
1
1
1
1
|
1
1
1
1
,
1
-1-
-t-
k
1
l_
r
i-
E
i
— r—
p
1
L
s
i
1
i
i i
i
1 1
j i
i ,
,
! i
i
J-
rf
H
T r
IE
n
i
\
\
i
1
i
i
i
i
•
1
t
•-p
_^
T-
_.
\
f
1
1
1
!
1
i
i
1
i
t
x.
F
\
i
!
r
P
t
t
!•
f
^
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
I
T-
k
\
i
1
1
i
l
1
i
1
1
i
1
!-
1—
~\~
T
y
^
1
1-
.-
;
H
^
"
r
r
'•
k
1
f-
,
T~
*"
1
I
(
1
i
1
\
r
1
i
1
i
!
i
1
i
1
,
- T~
T
-\ •
^r
1
\
!
I
i
p
t-
r
V.
v
!
"
1
i
t:
/
\
1 -
_
-
1
i
|
[~
t
I
i ^
I
i
1
i
i
i
•|
r
i_
V
1
-
I
[
i.
_
S
^—
r
k
'
'-•
-
—
.._
|
1
1
'
1
|
|
1
1
i
|
•
1
1
I
1
V
^
1
1
1
1
1
j
1
1
*—
U
T-
,
|V
1
i
l
|
r
{-
r
L
L
'-
v
N
<~
f
u—
t
t-
(
^
t,
1
r
1
p-
[S
-
1
1
1
\
!
i
r
-
^ -
V
1>
1
t-
'
r
*~
—
t •
i
1
I
\
r~
|~
h
r
r
(•
\,
u_
».
I
|
I
r
t
I
j
I
I
j
I
i
i
"i
'
i
i
i
ji
A"
^
4-
~r~
-T"
l
1
Jr
n
1
j-
i
r-
"1
-
.'
\
J
4 -
f~
1
1
P
P
h
I
\
q
•o
to
(O
oe
co
tu
i
)
U)
IU
Q£
O
X
UJ
UJ
O
<
CO
F-6
-------
APPENDIX G
FHWA Method - Selected Forms
(Adamus 1982)
-------
Form A
Functional Opportunity and Effectiveness
The 75 questions In this predictor Inventory will
ultimately be used to Indicate whether there Is a
high, moderate, or low likelihood of the area (a)
having a chance to perform each function, and (b)
being effective 1n performing each. When reading
the questions, be sure to review the footnotes
located beneath the question and Indicated with
one or more asterisks. The rationale for each
question is explained In the corresponding num-
bered section of Chapter 3, Volume 1.
If a field visit to the wetland Is Impossible and
no historic field data exist, you may nonetheless
conduct an evaluation by answering questions 1
through 21. and possibly a few others which
follow, in the office. The resulting estimates
will be less accurate. Begin using Form A after
first reviewing the Instructions on the corre-
sponding form, 'Response Sheet Al" (page 51).
A. Office-Type Data
Questions 1-21 below can usually be
before visiting the wetland.
answer ed
1. CONTIGUITY. Does channel flow (braided or
confined) enter or leave the * through a
constricted or unconstrIcted:
1.1 nontidal 1nlet?»*
177 nontidal outlet?**
ITT tidal outlet?
1.3.1 with a freshwater (tidal or
nontidal) Inlet present as well?
GRe, GDe, FSe. SAo. STo, STe. FC, FH. W, AR.
m*»»
*" " as used throughout Form A Indicates that
the question should first be answered by mentally
Inserting the term "basin" and circling the Y or N
response in the "basin" column of Form Al; and
then answered by mentally Inserting the term
"wetland impact area (WIA)" and circling the
response in the "WIA" column of Form Al. For
examole, the WIA in Figure 3 below has an (uncon-
str icted) outlet but no Inlet, whereas the basin
has an inlet but no outlet.
••If the basin or WIA is a cove on nontidal water,
the entrance to the cove should be considered an
"outlet" and "inlet" should be answered affirma-
tively only if a stream enters the cove from
another side.
*-*These abbreviations, as used throughout Form A,
cross-refeience the functions for which the
question is important, and are as follows:
effectiveness, o«opportunity, m»fnitigation of
impact, GR»gr oundwater recharge, GD*groundwater
discharge, SA«shoreline anchoring and dissipation
of erosive forces, FS'flood storage and desyn-
Chroni ration, ST«sediment trapping, MR«nutrient
retention and removal, FC'food chain support,
FH«fishery habitat, W*wi1dlife habitat, AH«active
recreation.
Wetland
•Basin
FIGURE 3. ILLUSTRATION OF WIA AND BASIN
2. CONSTRICTION OF BASIN OR WIA.
2.1 Is the 's Inlet*:
2.1.1 Tacking or constricted?** (-most
basins with predominantly channel
flow Input of surface water)
2.1.2 unconstrIcted?-* (-most
with predominantly Sheet flow
Input of surface water)
2.2 Is the 'S outlet*:
2.2.1 lacking or constricted?** (-most
basins with predominantly channel
flow output of surface water)
2.2.2 unconstricted?** (-most basins
with predominantly sheet flow
output of surface water)
GRe. SDe, FSe. STe, FC, m
•If basin 1s connected only tldally. consider the
connection on the ocean side to be an outlet.
••As a gross guideline, constricted«less than one-
third the maximum width of the _; uncon-
stricted«greater than two-thirds the maximum width
of the . Some Inlets or outlets may be
neither. Measure width in a direction perpendi-
cular to flow.
3. SAPE OF BASIN.
Is the basin generally:
3.1 sinuous or irregularly shaped*, or mostly
surrounds a series of islands?
3.2 rounded or mildly elliptical?**
GffeTUOe, FSe. STe, FC, FH. W. m
•If riverine, sinuosity index should be greater
than about 1.5, if lacustrine or palustrine.
shoreline development index should be greater than
about 8.0.
••If riverine, sinuosity Index should be less than
1.0; if lacustrine or palustrine, shoreline
development index should be less than about 1.5.
If desired, a definition of these indices can be
found in Volume I, Chaoter 3 (p. 53 ).
4. FETCH and EXPOSURE. (Skip question if greater
than 805 of wet land's perimeter abuts open
water.) Is the WH:
4.1 sheltered from most winds and waves?*
JT7 unsheltered7*
SSoTSTo, STe, FC, W, AR, m
•Consider WIA sheltered if: (a) greater than 801
of its perimeter is surrounded by upland or
wetland vegetation outside the WIA, or (b) the
greatest unobstructed ooen water distance, drawn
as a straight line extending outward from the WIA
6
G-l
-------
Form B
Responses to the 77 questions 1n this form will
ultimately be used to Indicate the social signifi-
cance of the evaluated area. All questions may be
answered In the office. For best results, you
should be familiar with economic growth trends and
planning activities In .the vicinity of the vet-
land.
The significance Inventory 1s not derived from the
technical literature, but simply from a considera-
tion of social factors which make wetlands Impor-
tant. No effort 1s made to specify which such
factors are most critical, as this varies greatly
among localities. Because the possibilities for
social Impacts are virtually endless, the ques-
tions presented are merely illustrative of the
many Issues which should be considered in weighing
wetlands significance.
Once questions 1 and 2 have been answered, you may
be selective in which following groups of
questions to answer, depending on which functions
are of greatest interest. Begin using this form
after first reviewing the Instructions on the
corresponding form. Response Sheet 81 (page 54).
When finished with Forms B and Bl you may turn to
Form C (page 46) if you desire Impact Information,
or if not, to section 2.1.2 on page 97.
GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE
1. If the highway were not to be constructed, 1s
the wetland impact area (WIA) within the next
20 years likely to be subjected to any of
the following Impacts which would' result
either from other developments, or from
essentially permanent or long-term natural
processes:
1.1 filling in, drainage, constriction of
flow, or flooding? (e.g.. from agricul-
tural drainage, rapid eutrophication,
blockage of flow by landslides or dams,
flooding by beaver or increased urban
runoff, or removal of vegetation by
fire, harvest. Insects, or larger
herbivores).
1.2 sediment or turbidity Increase of more
than 10X above normal background levels?
(e.g., from increased runoff from
naturally or artificially devegetated
drainage area, introduction of carp, or
geophysical events)
1.3 extensive channelization? (e.g., for
agricultural drainage)
1.4 extensive pavinq (more than 5 1 increase
in paved area?) of suhwater shed? (e.q..
for residential development)
1.5 increased exoosure to wind and sun?
(e.g., resulting from riparian tree
mortality due to harvesting, herbivores,
fire, etc.)
1.6. Increased disturbance of wildlife-.and
fish? (caused by other development or
Increased access)
2. Have substantial private or public expendi-
tures been made for the protection, manage-
ment, or establishment of the VIA? (e.g..
previous costs to resource agencies for
conservation purchase, seeding, fencing.
Stocking, fishway Installation, water quality
Improvement, Improved access. Impoundment,
taxes, legal defense, etc.)
SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO GROUND MATER
RECHARGE
Official Recognition
3. Does the WIA drain directly to or overlay an
aquifer presently designated or under consi-
deration by EPA as a "Sole Source Aquifer"
under the Clean Water Act?
4. Is the WIA located within or drain directly
to, an area mapped, actively managed, or
regulated by USGS. state, or local Interests:
as a "potential ground water recharge area"?
(or similar t»tminology).
Uses (Demand)
5. Will any user depend solely on the WIA's
aquifer for witer supply? (Lacking better
data, assume that areas within 3 miles
downs lope of the wetland will be most depen-
dent on the WIA's contribution to the aqui-
fer.)
6., Will the aquifer be exploited faster by
present or future development than it can be
replenished? (If specific data lacking,
consider whether region generally is expected
to have future ground water deficits.)
7. Will future developments which are expected
to occur above the wetland basin (with or
without the highway) significantly decrease
the recharge capacity of these upland areas
(e.g., by paving), and consequently increase
the relative importance of the wetland basin
for recharge?
Relative Contribution (Supply)
8. Is the unaltered WIA's contribution of water
to the regional aquifer much mote significant*
than the recharge contribution from other
existing or planned recharge sources (e.g.,
other wetlands, terrestrial environment)?
•This may be suggested by the following:
--the unaltered WIA will comprise more than 2
S of the functional watershed
—the soils of the functional watershed will
have rapid runoff (e.g., steeo slopes,
38
G-2
-------
FormC
Responses to the 38 questions 1n this form will
ultimately be used to Indicate, very roughly, the
probability that the highway project will alter
the hydrologlc or biological regime of a wetland.
Most questions may be answered In the office using
basic engineering data for the proposed project,
as well as rudimentary field data on the bio-
logical conmunlties. . The questions are not
specific to any wetland function, since almost any
highway activity can affect any wetland function.
If any question seems Irrelevent to the wetland or
highway project being considered, skip It. Begin
using this form after briefly reviewing Response
Sheet Cl (page 54). After completing Form C, turn
to Section 2.1.2. (page 56).
A. LOCATION
ml. Will the highway be routed (Includes widening
of existing routes):
•1.1 downslope of the basin, on nonwet-
land soil?
•1.2 entirely upslope of the basin
nl.3 within the basin. Us tributaries,or
outlets?
•2. If upslope of the basin, will the highway be
oriented more parallel to the short axis flf
the wetland than to Its long axis? (especial-
ly Important If wetland circulation or water
budget 1s runoff-dominated).
•3. Will the highway be routed mostly:
m3.1 parallel and on or tangential to (within
200 ft) the wetland-upland edge?
•3.1.1 and wetland circulation and water
budget are runoff dominated?
•3.2 parallel and tangential to (within
200 ft) the wetland-deepwater edge?
m3.2.1 and wetland circulation 1s tidally
dominated?
m3.3 across deep water?
m3.3.1 and wetland circulation 1s domi-
nated- by gradient currents or
wind?
m3.4 near the usual windward side of the
basin?
m3.4.1 and circulation 1s wind-dominated
in the basin?
m3.5 at or close to the (freshwater)
Inlet*?
m3.5.1 and wetland circulation 1s domi-
nated by tides or gradient cur-
rents?
m3.6 at or close to the outlet*?
•3.6.1 and wetland circulation 1s domi-
nated by tides or gradient cur-
rent?
m3.7 at or close to the tidal outlet?
m3.7.1 and circulation 1s dominated by
tides?
•for purposes of this analysis, constricted points
In a basin should be considered basin "Inlets' er
•outlets,' and the basin divided by the constric-
tion should be evaluated as two distinct basins.
A "constricted point' nay arbitrarily be defined
•s one with a width of less than 30 percent of the
mean width of the basin (see Glossary, page MS).
•4. M111 the highway cross the basin and Irs
floodplaln In a direction more near'v
perpendicular than parallel to the major fls*.
whether that flow be directed along- shore.
onshore, or offshore, and whether Us energy
source be runoff, wind, ground water, tide or
basin currents?
•5. W111 the highway cross the basin at one of
Us ends or Intermediate constricted points?
B. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
•6. Will the basin be crossed:
•6.1 totally by bridge?
•6.2 totally by culverted fill?
•7. If the basin will be spanned at least partly
by a bridge (if not, don't answer):
•7.1 Will the bridge be high enough above
the water to allow light to ente-
beneath it?
•7.2 W111 the total cross-sectional area
-------
Response Sheet A1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS:
EFFECTIVENESS
FUNCTIONAL OPPORTUNITY AND
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
'he responses to corresponding questions 1n Form1
A A "yes" (Y) or "no" ("0 response wst be
circled for all parts of each question, even when
the response seems obvious. This response sheet
has two major co1u;nns--"WIA" and "BASIN", and
within each of these, three subcolumns entitled x
" "W", and "0", which address, when r el event, the
seasonal changes in some of the predictors, as
follows:
3 column responses are those addressing
either fa) the average annual condition, or
(b) the condition intermediate between the
wettest and driest annual conditions (e.q.,
late June in most Prairie pothole wetlands),
or (c) the condition of maximum annual
star-ding cr 10 of wetland plants, or (d) if
tidal, the average daily mid-tide condition.
W column responses are those addressing what
thia7?a would look like (a) during the
wettest time of an average year, or (b) if
the area is tidal, what it would look like
during an average daily high tide (flooded)
condition.
P column responses are those addressing what
the area would look like during either the
driest time of the year (questions pertaining
to hydrology) or if the question pertains to
vegetation, then during the dormant time of
the year. If the area 1s tidal, "D" refers
to Its daily low tide^ (exposed) condition.
For example, question 2.1.1 should first be asked
and answered in the context of the WIA's (wetland
impact area's) average condition, then in terms of
Its wettest condition, then the basin's average
condition, and finally the basin's wettest condi-
tion. This should then be repeated for question
2.1.2. Because no Y/N choice is given in either
"0" column, the area's dry or dormant condition
need not be evaluated for this question.
Similarly, some questions will require responses
only for the WIA or basin, hut not both.
/^
Q. * x
Office-type
1.1
1.2
1.3
i.l.l
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
Y H
Y N
Y *
Y 1
Y N
Y X
Y N
Y N
WIA
W 0
Data
Y N Y N
Y 1 Y N
Y N Y N
Y 1 Y N
Y N
Y N
Y 1
Y 1
i
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
V
BASIN
W
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
A
0
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
0. 1
X
WIA
W 0
3.'?
4.1
4.2
V *J
Y N
5.1
5.?
6.1
6.2
Y N
Y N
7.1
7.2
8.1
8.2
9.1
9.2
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.'
11.1
11.2
12.1
12.2
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y S
13.1
13.2
14.
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
16.
17.1
J7.2
18.
19.
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
X
BASIN
W 0
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
1 N
Y N
Y N
(
20.
21.1
21.2
21.2
21.4
21.5
21.6
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Field-type Data
22.1
22.1.1
22.1.2
22.1.3
22.1.4
22.1.5
22.2
22.2.1
22.2.2
22.2.3
22.2.4
22.2.5
22.3
22.3.1
22.3.2
22.3.3
22.3.4
22.4
22.4.1
22.4.2
22.5
22.6
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
V N
f N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y H
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
51
G-4
-------
Response Sheet B1
Response Sheet C1
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: SIGNIFICANCE
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions In
Form B. Circle Y (yes) or N (no), being careful
to note that the order of Y and N below frequently
reverses.
1.2
N Y
Shore! Ine
Anchor ing
Nutrient
Retention
wildlife
Habitat
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Y 1
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
N Y
Active
Recreation
THRESHOLD ANALYSIS: IMPACT VECTOR
This sheet 1s the appropriate place for recording
the responses to the corresponding questions 1ft
Form C. Circle Y (yes) or N (no).
•1.1
•1.2
ml. 3
•2.
•3.1
•3.1.1
m3.2
•3.2.1
•3.3
•3.3.1
•3.4
•3.4.1
•3.5
•3.5.1
•3.6
•3.6.1
•3.7
•3.7.1
m4*
m5.
m6.1
m6.2
m7.1
ml. 2
m7.3
m7.4
mS.l
m8.2
n3.3
m8.4
m9.
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y H
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
•10.1
•10.2
•11.
•12.1
•12.2
•13.
•14.
•15.
•16.
•17.
•18.
•19.
•20.
•21.
•22.
•23.
•24.
•25.
•26.1
•26.2
•27.
•28.
•29.
•30.
•31.
m32.
•33.
•34.
•35.
•36.
•37.
•38.
Y N
Y N
V N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
V N
Y N
Y N
Y N
V N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
YN
Y N
Y N
YN
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y H
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Turn to Section 2.1.2 after completing this form
(see p. 56).
N r
Next, turn to Form C (page 46).
6-5
54
-------
Summary Sheet D
This form 1s the appropriate place for recording the ratings that result from use of the Interpreta-
tion procedures and keys 1n Sections 2.1.2, and 2.2.2. As each analysis Is completed, enter Its
rating (high,moderate, or low; or A, B, or C) 1n the relevant box until all boxes for functions of
Interest are filled.
Begin by labeling the context of the analysis (pre- or post- construction, with or without mitigation,
name of basin and WIA). Then enter the data, using the numbered footnotes to help locate the as-
sociated analyses. For the evaluation of each function's Effectiveness, enter whichever rating 1s
higher—That for the basin or that for the WIA. The evaluation of the Impact vector Is optional.
/^RARIN
EVALUATION TIME FRAME (PRE
FUNCTION
GROUND WATER RECHARGE1
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE*
FLOOD STORAGE'
SHORELINE ANCHORING'
SEDIMENT TRAPPING*
NUTRIENT RETENTION
LONG-TERM"
SEASONAL"
FOOD CHAIN SUPPORT
DOWNSTREAM"
IN-BASIN"
FISHERY HABIT AT
WARMWATER"
COLDWATER"
COLDW.RIVERINE"
ANADROMOUSRIV.
sppriFS"
WILDLIFE HABIT AT
GENERAL DIVERSITY"
WATERFOWL GP."
WATERFOWL GP."
sppriFS'i
^ppripcs't
SPECIES"
ACTIVE RECREATION"
SWIMMING
BOAT LAUNCHING
POWER BOATING
CANOEING
SAILING
PASSIVE RECREATION
AND HERITAGE"
IMPACT VECTOR RATING"
W
ypos-n
EFFECTIVENESS1
MA
OPPORTUNITY'
P
.MITIGATION PLAN*
FUNCTIONAL RATING'
arviPCT
SIGNIFICANCE9
A
FUNCTIONAL
SIGNIFICANCE'
FOOTNOTES
These entries will be based on analyses in the following parts of Volume II (numbers correspond to
footnotes above):
^Forms A, Al (p. 6, 51); 2'Section 2.1.2.2. (p. 97); 3p. 84;
19'p. 91;2°-p. 92; 2l'p. 93.
55
G-6
-------
Ground Water Discharge Key
*. Effectiveness per unit area for discharge
1
The probability that ground water discharged to the basin or wetland exceeds recharge (deep or shallow) to
the ground water on a net annual basis Is:
potentially HIGH 1f: A •» (B or C(l, 2.3.4)) below*
•For the discharge function, use only the Information In the
lacking, use Information in the "W" column or (least priority) *
(office data) (field visit data) (detailed data]
A. either 56 N or
(26.1Y/.9Y/.10Y)
B. most of 39.3Y.
the fol- 61.1Y.62Y
lowing
on
C. most of
the fol-
lowing:
1. any 2.2.2Y,
of the 32. IN,
following 4TT4TT
2. plus (1.2Yor 1.3Y).
3. any 9.2Y.12.1Y,
Of the 29N.
following 65Y
•4
4. most
of the
follow-
ing (3.1Y * 5.2Y),
18 Y.
(2_3._8_N or 32.5Y)
x column of Response Sheet Al; 1f this 1s
D" column.
Summary Description
plezometrlc measurements (no recharge).
permanently flooded.
dam upstream,
chemical and thermal Indicators of discharge
unconstrlcted outlet,
flows removed quickly,
basin not densely vegetated.
outlet present
low in watershed, steep subwatershed,
very stable flow or water level.
porous underlying strata
Hthologlcally diverse subwatershed.
not sllty
potentially LOW 1f: I or II (A . B , C . 0 , E) below
(office data) (field visit data) (detailed data)
I. 56Y
nn
II. most
of the
follow-
ing
A. 1.2N
B. fITF.lY or 32. 1Y or 41. 4Y)
C. 65N
D. 9.1Y
E. most (3.1N+5.1Y), 18N
of the (23.8Y or 32. 1Y)
follow-
ing
Summary Description
recharge measured high
no outlet
flows not rapidly removed
no porous underlying strata
high in watershed
not lithologically diverse
sUty
potentially MODERATE if rated neither HIGH nor LOU above.
b. Opportunity oer unit area for discharge: Opportunity for
V^extensive geologic data.
discharge cannot be predicted without very j
J
59 S-7
-------
^ Harvested Waterfowl : Breeding Habitat Key
Crone Conditions (office diu)
Group 1
Croup 2:
(black duck.
Mod duck)
Grouo 1:
(•ergansers)
Group 4:
(goldeneye.
rlno-iwck)
Groups 5 1 6:
(prtlrle divers)
Grouo 7:
(Canada
goose)
Brouo 9:
(•Milling
ducks)
ill the following
plus iDSt Of
flit following
til the followlno.
plus *ost of
the fol loving
ill the following
plus too of the
following
•11 ttie following
plus three of tne
following
ill the follow-
ing
plus test ef the
following
•11 tne following
plus nost Of
following
•11 We following
15. IN,
(l.W » 1.2N). 6.2Y.
1Q.1H.
(1S.4Y or .7T),
OS.1Y or .21).
(1.1T or 1.2Y),
5. IN, 10. IN,
(15. 1Y or .2Y),
(1.1Y or 1.2Y). 5.2Y,
9.2N,
(15.1.Y or .ZY or
10. IN,
0.1Y or 1.2Y),
6. IN.
S.1N. 15. IN,
(1.1N *!.»),£. 2Y,
5.2Y. 10. IN.
(15.4Y or .7Y),
(15. 4Y or 15. 7Y),
5.1N.
10.11.
(1.1Y »1.2Y), 3.1Y
(V2Y or 11. 3Y).
15.4Y,
(field visit dita) (detilled data)
22. IN. 41. 2Y, 44.2N.
JTTS". J4.4N,
W, M.2Y
49.2Y.
44. 1Y.
J9.6N.
(26.3Y/.4Y/.6Y).
ftf,
(23.3Y/.4Y), 37Y
41.4N. 49. IN.
34. IN, 34 .4N.
5DT~ 51.2N. S8.2N
(22.1Y/.7Y), 37Y.
(4TT7/Tn. 44. 2N,
(26.1Y/.2Y/.8Y).
2*N~TFlIcT onTy)
34JY.
26. 1Y. (41.1Y/.2Y).
37Y.
29N (except hooded)
22. :Y or .5Y). 41. 4N,
(26ilY/i2Y/JY).34.3Y
34JY. 40. IN
41.2Y, 44. 1Y, 49. 2Y. 53Y,
37Y
21JN, M. 3» 41. 2Y
S8.2Y
44. 1Y, 49. 2Y.
39. 6N.
(26.3Y/.4Y).
25T
(2Z.1Y/.4Y).
SOY (jrouo 5 only) or
53. 2Y (grouo 6 only)
22. IN. 41. IN.
(26.IY/.2Y/.RY).
3OT
(22.3Y/.<»i.
4r^T nri».
49. 1Y, 4« ?.2Y
2»N. 37Y, SOY
(rSJY/JY/^ey/JiT).
14. 4N. SOY
^\
not forested; interspersed
Shallow
productive food base
not low order; Inter-
spersed
un forts ted upland, not
farmed
not permanently flooded or
flashy
emeraent. Island
shallow, juxtaposed.
productive food base
forested/scrub. Isolated
Inters oersed
permanently flooded basin
contiguous, not flashy
not small; forested. de*p
permanently flooded, open
continuous, large Island
not low (n watershed or
flashy
forested or ioss
oenunently flooded
juxtaoosed, deep, not low
order
contiguous, juxtaposed.
Interspersed
Island, not small or
flasny
not small or forested;
interspersed, d«eo
food base productivity
large, not low order;
Interspersed
unforested upland, nnt
•arme"
not permanently flooded
or flashy
emernent/aQuatic bed
isolated
plant species desirable
invertebrates not scarce
not forested; open water
not small or shallow;
permanently flooded
not 1st order strum
slow riverine, emergent
aquatic bed. interspersion
island, food, not flasny
farmland, not permanently
flooded
not Keep
preferred foods
81
6-8
-------
Impact Vector Key
Unlike the keys for wetland functions, the Impact key 1s not substantially deri-ved from technical
literature. This 1s because the number of published articles dealing with ecological impacts of
highways, and in particular the highway-related or natural factors which mitigate or aggravate highway
Impacts, is too small. Only for sediment transport has research been sufficient to allow development
of quantitative predictive models. Results of the few available ecological research studies are
presented in Tables 19 and 20 of Volume I.
Thus, the Impact key 1s almost entirely relative, with the "low impact" condition serving as a
benchmark and consisting of the best circumstances possible for a highway-wetland interaction.
Although this presents an extraordinarily difficult standard to achieve, the consequences of not
meeting it are minor In terms of the overall procedure, since the Impact vector rating is merely
advisory. For example, only highways which (a) are downslope from wetlands, or (b) are upslope and
are very well designed, or (c) cross wetlands entirely on tall pilings (bridges), receive a rating of
LOW impact, and then only if the wetland is of a type which 1s not highly sensitive. A rating of HIGH
impact Is automatically assigned if the wetland is crossed entirely on fill, regardless of whether 1t
1s adequately culverted and optimally located. Projects Involving widening of existing roads are
considered equally with projects Involving new rights-of-way, although their ultimate ratings may
differ.
The major purpose of the key 1s to focus attention on factors which might mitigate highway-wetland
impacts. These factors fall under the following categories: design, location, erosion and transport
of sediment to wetland, sediment export from wetland, inherent sensitivity of vegetation and fish,
vegetation and fish community's adaptedness to stress, vegetation and fish recovery capacity, and
presence of multiple stresses to vegetation and fish. All are discussed in Chapter 5 of Volume 1.
'me probability that highway construction will result in measurable long term alteration (either
adverse or beneficial)of the wetland's hydrologic or biological environment over an area at least
double that occupied by the right-of-way is:
potentially LOW if: I or II (Al-3 + Bl-5 + Cl-3) or III (Al-3 * B + C * D)*
•Numbers below with the prefix "m" refer to responses on Response Sheet Cl (page 54); other numbers
refer to responses on Response Sheet Al (page 51 ). For the other numbers, use only the information in
the column of Response Sheet Al which corresponds to the expected season of construction (W«wet,
0*dry, x*intermediate). Also, for the underlined responses, use only the "WIA" responses from Response
Sheet Al to arrive at a rating for the WIA, recording it at the bottom of Summary Sheet D (page 55).
(office data) (field visit data) (detailed data) Summary Description
I. Route is entirely downslope from bastn and:
All of
the fol- ml.lY,m3.7N, downslope, not near outlet, no temporary
lowing diversions,
mil.IN,11.IN gradient not gradual
OR
II. Route is entirely upslope from basin and:
IIA. All of the following (1*2+3) below:
(1.) All m3.1N, location=not parallel and tangential
of the to upland edge,
follow- mllN,ml3N, design=no flow diversions, equipment
in9 out of wetland,
wl4N,ml5.1Y, good sediment control, revegetation,
ml6Y,ml7N, buffer strip, minimize bare earth
mlSN.mZON seasonal scheduling, wetland not used
for storm water
(•good mitigation of primary runoff
factor Q A
93 6-9
-------
l»p«ct Vector Key (continued)
(2.)plus 11.2Y or
17. IH
(3.)p1us m2Y,11.2Y.
most* 12.1Y,17.IN, 39.IN,
40Y
•Ignore this series If basin has no Inlet.
54.lfi.66.2Y.
gently sloped subwatershed
Mils not highly erodible
(•erosion * transport: primary factors
that reduce loading)
parallels short axis, gently sloping
subwatershed,
tribs. gently sloped, not channelized.
Impervious soils,
pool-riffle ratio good upstream,
not scavenging sediment, Impervious soils,
(•erosion + transport: secondary factors
that reduce loading)
IIB. Plus all of the following:
(1) all (1.2Y/.3Y). 32.IN.
(2) either
(3)
(4)most 2.2.IN.
of the
follow- 3.IN,
Ing 4.1N.8.1Y,
10.3Y.13.1N,
22.3N or (22.3Y •
m23N
m24Y),
57. IN.
59. IN, 59. 2N,
.m29Y
23.8N.29Y,
30.2Y,
31.2Y
43N.
(21.1N/.2N), 45.1Y,
(5)most of
the fol-
lowing
26.1Y.29Y.
4172T.52.1N.59.1N,
(24.IY or 24.5Y)
57. 2N,
67. IN. "75. IN"
m24Y,m25N,
m26.1Y,
"75. IY"
"72. IY"
outlet, not stagnant, not anoxlc
flushing consequences minor downstream
not aquatic bed or If so,
species are sediment-tolerant,
plant "adaptedness" (TSS not low).
nutrients not too great or little.
no response to analogous alteration,
unconstrlcted outlet, substrate coarse,
flashy,
basin not sinuous, big tidal range.
unsheltered, big subwatershed. scoured,
large stream order, steep basin, not
sheet flow,
not lacustrine/palustrlne, steep edge.
not turbid,
output exceeds input, not a sediment trap
(•sediment export: secondary factors
that reduce loading)
plants are sediment-tolerant, not near depth
(light) threshold,
plants are not flood-sensitive,
permanently flooded, flashy,
diverse plant forms, not oligotrophic,
sediments accumulate
(•good plant recovery capacity /adaptedness
to stress).
salinity not stressing,
erosion not stressing
(•lessened multiple stresses)
I!C. Plus all of the following (answer only if impact on freshwater fish needs to be determined).
m30Y,m31N,
m32N,
(1) most
of the
follow-
ing
22. 8Y,
32.1Y.
~
23"7TY,29Y,
64N),
"75. IY"
m34Y
fish sediment-tolerant, not geographically
peripheral ,
fish do not require currents,
(•fish not inherently sensitive)
substrate is mid/organic,
stagnant,
anoxic sediments,
flashy basin, basin is sediment trap,
historical resistance to stress,
(«fish nav 'ie "adapted" to stress^
94 G-10
-------
Impact Vector Key (continued)
4-
(2)plus (1.1Y/.2Y/.3Y).
all of Ifltni. 26.1Y.
the fol-
lowing 39.5N,
Di38,
60. IN
(3)plus 5.2Y.9.2Y.
most of 10.3Y,
the fol-
lowing
40.2Y,
36Y,
46.IN.
64Y,
60.2N.60.3N,
m35N
m36Y.m37N,
basin has outlet or Inlet.
not a headwater stream, basin permanently
flooded.
no barriers to fish movement, stocking
conducted.
no fish kills
(•good recolonlzatlon potential:
primary factors)
large basin, low In watershed,
stream order Is 4+, good pool-riffle ratio,
(•good recolonlzatlon, potential:
secondary factors)
no anoxia problems,
no algal blooms, no 1ce cover,
not unshaded,
depth distribution will change little,
fish not near salinity or temperaure thresh.
(•lessened multiple stress)
OR
III. One part of route 1s upslope from basin, and another part crosses 1t entirely by bridge (I.e.,
no fill used within basin or floodplaln) and: A (1+2+3) + B + C + 0
fewest possible pilings,
minimal flow diversions during construction,
equipment kept out of wetland
(•good primary design factors)
m7.2Y,mllN or
of the (ml2.1+2Y)
fol low-
ing
(2)none
of the
follow-
ing
mS.l.lY,
m3.2.1Y,
m3.4.1Y,
m3.5.1Y.m3.6.1Y',
m3.7.1Y,
(3)most m4N,m5N,
of the
fol- m7.1Y,m7.3Y,
lowing m7.4Y.ml2.1Y,
ml2.2Y
If runoff-dominated, route not tangential to
upland edge
1f tidal, not tangential to open water edge
1f wind dominated, not on windy side
if current-dominated, not near Inlet or outle
If tides dominate, not near pass
(•minimize flow regime Interference)
highway routing parallels flow,
no crossing at constriction,
minimal shading, streamlined pilings,
cross-sec, area maintained, minimal
flow diversion
(•minimal flow and light interference)
3.+ conditions in Part I IB above are met
C.* conditions in Part IIC above are met (if knowledge of impact on freshwater fish 1s desired)
D.+ conditions in Part IIA above are met
potentially MODERATE if: I or II(A or B) or III {A or (B + C)) or IV (A + B + C (1-3)) below
I. Route is entirely downslope from basin and:11.2Y (-downslope gradient 1s gradual).
OR
II. Route is entirely upslope from basin and:
A. conditions in Part IIA above are met
95
-------
Impact Vector Key (continued)
OR
8. conditions 1n Part IIB and (1f knowledge of Impact on freshwater fish 1s desired) conditions 1n
IIC are met
OR
III. Route 1s both upslope from wetland and crosses It entirely by bridge and: (A or 8) + C below)
A. conditions in Part IIA above are met
OR
8. conditions In Part IIB and (if knowledge of freshwater fish Impact 1s desired) conditions in
IIC above are met
C. conditions in Part IIIA above are met
OR
IV. Route is both upslope from wetland and crosses 1t by a combination of bridge and fill (in any
ratio) and: (A + 8 + C below)
All of the following:
A. conditions in Part IIA above are met
3. conditions in Part 113 and (if knowledge of impact on fish 1s desired) IIC above are met
+
C. All of the following:
(1) all of Vie following:
mS.lY.mS.ZY,
m9N,(mllNor
mllY+ml2.1Y.
ml2.2Y),ml3N,
(2) most of the following:
m7.1Y,m7.3Y,
m8.3Y,,Ti8.4
(3) none of the following:
m3.1.1Y,
m3.2.1Y.
m3.4.1Y,
m3.5.1Y.
m3.7.1Y
adequate culverting, no mud waves,
no access canals,
minimize damage from channel diversion,
equipment kept out of wetland
fill design: secondary factors
If runoff-dominated, highway tangential
to upland edge,
if tidal, tangential to open water edge,
if wind-dominated, not on windy side,
if cuirents dominate, not neat inlet
or outlet
1f tides dominate, near pass
potentially HIGH impact if:
I. Wetland or flood plain is crossed entirely on fill
OR
II. Probability of wetland impact is rated neither LOW nor MODERATE above
96
G-12
-------
APPENDIX H
QUANTITATIVE METHODS FOR DETERMINING WETLAND VALUES
(from Ludwig and Apfelbaum unpublished).
-------
Table Methods of measuring, categorizing, and
valuing of wetland resources.
Plant Diversity
By thorough species inventory work, determine the presence and dominance
of species in the plant communities. Wetlands should be mapped under
the dominant species concept of Whittaker (1975), and species richness
measured two ways—as r.ean diversity per sampled quadrat and as total
species found in the wetland. These diversity numbers and species are
to be referenced against the total number of species possible in the
particular wetland as determined by literature search or competent
botanists knowledgeable about the particular wetlands under study.
Numerical Score: 1 to -4-20.
Plant Productivity
By measuring the annual rate of primary production in the wetland as grams
of carbon fixed per square meter per year, the actual primary production
of the wetland community can.be measured against other wetlands, drylands,
and agricultural lands, -and the projected impact of the proposed use
assessed. If possible, the four most significant primary producers should
be measured independently. Numerical Score: 1 to +20. Primary production
less than 500g/m /y should be scored +1. Production at or above
3000/nrVy'1 scored +20.
Plant Communities
Determine the size, extent and spatial distribution of the plant communities
by careful mapping. Wetlands with a single plant community should be rated
+1, with 10 or more distinct communities rated +20. Follow the methods of
Whittaker (1975) in determination of community type. Changes in plant com-
munities can be monitored over a long period to measure ecosystem changes.
Animal Diversity
By a thorough inventory of all vertebrates and the most important invertebrates
using the area, the animal species richness should be measured. Emphasis
should be placed on aquatic (associated) species, such as molluscs, fish,
amphibians, rails, beavers, etc. Standard methods such as fish seining or
shocking, maTrjnal trapping on grid, a breeding bird census, etc., should be
used. Numerical Score: 1 to +30. In order to score highly, species
diversity should be high in all taxa.
H-l
-------
Table Methods of measuring, categorizing, and
valuing of wetland resources (concluded).
E. Animal .Productivity
For each animal species breeding in the witland, the size of the population
on a number per hectare basis should be estimated. Emphasis should be
placed on such species that must use the wetland for reproduction, e.g.,
smallmouth bass, sora rail, beaver, although all breeding species should be
estimated. These estimates should be referenced to other wetland areas and
tothe bodies of water to which aquatic species move (Example: Marshland
raised fish moving to a lake for adult life.). Numerical Score: 0 to +20.
To score highly, the wetland should have high local and regional significance.
F. Migratory Species Habitat and Cover Provided to Local Non-Wetland Requiring
Species
Many animals use certain wetlands casually for cover, (e.g., deer), may—but
do not have to—breed there, (e.g., Red-winged Blackbird), or as a migratory
stop-over (e.g., Sandhill Cranes). The importance of the particular wetland
for the welfare of these species should be measured by systematic observations.
Mark-recapture studies may be needed to separate some resident from transient
species. Numerical Score: 1 to +15, partly subjective. To score highly the
wetland should provide a significant volume of habitat for these species.
G. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species
The preservation of these species is required under Michigan and Federal law.
The presence of an endangered species can stop any proposal to
use wetlands. The presence of rare or threatened species may require special
studies or efforts to transplant and reestablish potentially impacted species
elsewhere. Credit for providing habitat for such fragile species should be
given to proposals if such mitigation is possible. Numerical Score: 1 to +30.
One or more endangered species = +30; +15 for each threatened species present;
.+5 for each rare species present.
H. Critical Habitat (s) Ratings
Some wetland types are abundant locally, but rare statewide. Essential
habitat for certain species (e.g., Double-crested Cormorant, Forester's Tern)
may be common locally (e.g., Great Lakes islands), but exceedingly rare state-
wide. This critical habitat and potential critical habitat should be referenced
to rare, threatened and endangered species on a statewide basis. Potential
critical habitat development for these species should be'credited to the
proposed development if an applicant can demonstrate this to be a likely result
of implementing the proposed development. Numerical Score: 1 to +20.
I. Ecosystem Wholeness Rating
Few surviving wetlands support the full complement of plants and animals that
they once did. Others are widely invaded by a Eurasian flora which has altered
their character. This rating is a partly subjective rating developed by a
qualified ecologist from parameters A-G (above) on the biological completeness
and stability of the specific vetland in. question: This is the holistic
judgment of the ecosystem's completeness and overall health in its present
condition, under present trends of use and protection. Numerical Score:
1 to +20.
H-2
-------
Table Summary of biological parameters weighting system.
Kiaiauni Score Maxir.un Score
Plane Diversity + 1 +30
Plant Productivity + 1 +20
Plane Communities + 1 +20
Aninal Diversity + 1 +30
Aniaal Productivity + 1 +20
Migratory & Local Species Cover + 1 +15
Habitats
Rare, Threatened & Endangered Species + 1 +30
Critical Habitat(s) Ratings + 1 +20
Ecosystem Wholeness Rating +1 +20
Total Range of Scores + 9 +205
H-3
-------
Table Hydrological parameters.
A. Physical and Configurationa! Attributes
1. Flood Amelioration Function
Determine the specific flood control role and function of the wetland in
question.a* Determine the temporal storage capacities together with
effects on downstream watersheds and discharge volumes (MOTE: Such
estimates are often required in permit applications as part of Flood
Plain Zoning or delineation.). Numerical Rating: 1 to +20. Give the
wetland a rating of +20 if it can store 50% or more of a 10-year flood
in its watershed for 24 hours, or a proportionately lower score to +1
as this capacity decreases to 1% of 10-year flood.
2. Sediment Trap Function
Through field measurements of total suspended solids or turbidity, estimate
the annual sediiu^nt load input and output of the specific wetland in
question. Relate these data to upstream watershed size and estimate
importance of specific wetland as sediment trap. If >75% of sediment load
is captured give the wetland a perfect score of +20, scaling the score
downward to 0 if no sediment trap function is measurable.
3. Surface Water Storage Function
Measure the normal capacity of the wetland to store surface water as acre
foot per acre of wetland surface. Determine normal rates of evapotrans-
piration on a seasonal basis to determine effects on downstream watershed
flows if any. Measure this function against the size of the upstream
watershed. If 75% of water provided by the upstream watershed is stored
less evapotranspiration, give the wetland a rating of +15 with a propor-
tionately lower score down to +1 to 5% or less water storage capacity
less evapotranspiration with reference to the upstream watershed.
4. Groundwater Recharge Function
Determine the areal extent of the wetland. Measure its function as a
recharge area for the uppermost aquifer through determination of its
capacity to infiltrate waters from the upstream watershed into the first
subsurface aquifer. Measure by means of soil permeabilities above the
first clay or fragiopan layer immediately below the wetland's own bottom
seal. Relate this recharge rate to the amount of water available for
infiltration from the upstream watershed. If 10% of annual watershed
volume infiltrates in wetland, rate at +20, less so as groundwater
recharge function decreases to zero with reference to the watershed.
**An example of an accepted standardized manual for such estimates is
Conger (1971), "Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Wisconsin",
which is applicable in Wisconsin.
H-4
-------
Table Hydrological parameters (continued).
A. Physical and Configurational Attributes
1. Flood Amelioration Function
Determine the specific flood control role and function of the wetland in
question.3* Determine the temporal storage capacities together with
effects on downstream watersheds and discharge volumes (NOTE: Such
estimates are often required in permit applications as part of Flood
Plain Zoning or delineation.). Numerical Rating: 1 to +20. Give the
wetland a rating of +20 if it can store 50% or more of a 10-year flood
in its watershed for 24 hours, or a proportionately lower score to +1
as this capacity decreases to 1/Z of 10-year flood.
2. Sediment Trap Function
Through field measurements of total suspended solids or turbidity, estimate
the annual sediniar.t lead input and output of the specific wetland in
question. Relate these data to upstream watershed size and estimate
importance of specific wetland as sediment trap. If >75% of sediment load
is captured give the wetland a perfect score of +20, scaling the score
downward to 0 if no sediment trap function is measurable.
3. Surface Water Storage Function
Measure the normal capacity of the wetland to store surface water as acre
foot per acre of wetland surface. Determine normal rates of evapotrans-
piration on a seasonal basis to determine effects on downstream watershed
flows if any. Measure this function against the size of the upstream
watershed. If 75% of water provided by the upstream watershed is stored
less evapotranspiration, give the wetland a rating of +15 with a propor-
tionately lower score down to +1 to 5% or less water storage capacity
less evapotranspiration with reference to the upstream watershed.
4. Groundwater Recharge Function
Determine the areal extent of the wetland. Measure its function as a
recharge area for the uppermost aquifer through determination of its
capacity to infiltrate waters from the upstream watershed into the first
subsurface aquifer. Measure by means of soil permeabilities above the
first clay or fragiopan layer immediately below the wetland's own bottom
seal. Relate this recharge rate to the amount of water available for
infiltration from the upstream watershed. If-10% of annual watershed
volume infiltrates in wetland, rate at +20, less so as groundwater
recharge function decreases to zero with reference to the watershed.
"An example of an accepted standardized manual for such estimates is
Conger (1971), "Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in Wisconsin",
which is applicable in Wisconsin.
H-5
-------
Table Hydrological parameters (concluded).
5. aiotnass Sink and Storaee Function
Normally weelands accumulate organic matter due co higher priaary
production than export and decomposition. Accumulated organic peats
have important effects on water storage volumes and influence water
quality treatment or degradation of output waters. Measure Che rate
of accumulation by coring the sediments; measure the organic matter
content water holding capacity and classify the peats/soils with
standard sapric-humic soils methods. If peats-organics are present
in a voluae>50& o£ the water volume stored, race as +10, less so if
lesser amounts of organics are found.
6. Watershed Importance Rating
Determine the size of the wetland and its upstream watershed; if Che
sum of both is greater Chan 5000 hectares,rate ac +25; if of lesser
size, down to 100 hectares, rate downward to +1 in proportion co Che
5000 hectares standard. This arbitrary size-dependent rating which
includes the upstream watershed insures that river and most lake
margin marsh lands receive higher racings Chan small perched water-
table wetlands.
3. Physio-Chemical Attributes
1. Water Quality Functions
Measure the standard parameters of bacteria, BOD/COD, nutrients, pH,
heavy metals, IDS, TSS of inlet and outlet water seasonally at peak,
normal and low flow periods. Rate improvement or lowering of water
quality on an annual basis with a -20 co +20 scale paying greatest
attention Co nutrients, heavy mecals and oxygen demand. Numerical
Rating: -20 to +20. NOTE: This is a measure of the pocencial for
cost-free natural water treatment service. If the absolute value of
this potential service - $2,000/hectare/year, rate as +20, with lesser
racings assigned co lesser dollar values downward co -20 for water
quality degradation equal Co a cose of $2,000/hectare/year if che water
were treated to bring it up to EPA standards.
2. Cation Exchange .and Storage Capacities
Measure wetland cation exchange capacity, ion storage capacity, buffer
capacity and adsorption-chelation capacities under both aerobic and
anaerobic conditions. Determine the loading factors (capacities) that
the wetland can absorb without significant loss of its essential bio-
logical functions. Numerical Rating: 1 to +20. Measure against che
size of the upstream watershed and its water quality. NOTE: This is a
measure of the potential for cost-free natural water treatment service.
If the absolute value of this potential service « $2,000/hectare/year,
rate as +20, with lesser ratings assigned to lesser dollar values down-
ward to +1 for no measurable exchange function.
H-6
-------
Table
Summary of hydrological weighting system parameters.
Functional Category
Flood Amelioration
Sedi-ent Trap
Surface Water Storage
Groundwater Recharge
Biotaass Storage
Watershed Importance
Water Quality
Exchange Capacity
local Range of Values
Sinisur. Score
+ 1
0
•*• 1
+ 1
+ 1
* 1
-20
•i- 1
-13
Stexi-ua Score
•h 20
+ 20
-r-15
•*- 20
+ 10
+ 25
+ 20
•t- 20
•t-150
H-7
-------
Table Human use parameters.
A. Aesthetic Values
Generate a subjective judgment of the overall aesthetic value of the vetlands
systeia in question. Consider size, biological diversity, setting and hunan
use potential in this rating. Defend the subjective judg-.ent with expository
material prepared with reference to the measurable parameters. Range: 1-30.
B. Present Value of Wetland Products and Services
Calculate Che present value of the wetland in .question on both a short (0-50
years) and long tern basis (50-500 years). Consider the real dollar value
of each of the products (e.g., waterfowl, fish production, natural plant
foods) of the wetland plus the value of whatever services (e.g., sedicent
trap, water quality improvement, etc.) to environmental quality are provided.
Rate the value on a 1-30 basis with -K2G equal to a value in 1973 dollars of
$3,000. per acre, anc-rl equal to $100. or less per acre.
C. Rate the Potential Zcor.o-jc Value of Various Potentially Competitive Uses of
the Wetland in Question
Include the following uses at" ainiauia over a short terr.3<50 years,snd long
tera basis, 50-500 years: a.) Existing wetlands function and use; b.)
Most likely wetlands function, and use given existing development (or non-
developceat) crsr.cs in its watershed; c.) If converted to agricultural uses;
d.) If used for proposed development purposes. Maka a short terti and a long
tera projection of the econosic returns to society for the wetland in question.
under the four options above. Numerical value: 1-30 with 1 an overall value
equal to the wetland's intrinsic value if left alone. To earn a -r-30 rating,
the proposed use must return to society* five ti:zes the intrinsic value of the
wetland over the long tera perspective (500 years). Schedule ratings in pro-
portion to the five tires x 500-year standard; these ratings can be deter-
mined on a 50 x 5C-y=.= r projection as vail.
D. Recreation Values
Measure recreational values of the wetland under study by examining existing
and potential hunting, fishing and boating uses including indirect effects
such as value as a rearing area for sport fish and game species. Consider
all possible uses of the existing wetland, and those most likely to be
developed, used and preserved. Rate values fro- 1 to +30. Measure this
service in terms of +1 for so measurable recreational value to -*-33 for 60
person-days of recreational use per hectare of wetland per year.
*j;07E: The intent is to insure that what is zaasured is the long tens economic
value which accrues to society in exchange for the loss of cost-free services (3)
and noc sisply the short tert; return on investment to the proposer.
H-8
-------
Table Human use parameters (concluded) .
E. Rareness of the We eland Resource
Determine the rareness of the specific wetland type and biological
resources under study on a local and statewide basis. If the wetland
is unique, rate it +30, if abundant, +5. Rareness should be referenced
to hydrology, species present, and the specific biological conssunities
present. Unique » +30; Very Rare - +25; Rare - +20; Uncommon -
Common - +10; and Abundant » +5.
7. Management
Determine whether it is possible to maintain the wetland in its present
form given available, realistic management options and existing develop-
ment trends. ?or example, if a high value vetland of small size will
certainly be encircled and its watershed afflicted with high density
urbanized land uses in the short term, zany desirable sanag-eiaent options
and wildlife species will be irrevocably lost regardless of what occurs
in the wetland in cues ti on, Rating from 0 to -20, with 0 if the wetland
can. be maintained substantially as is for ^50 years, and -20 if other
development actions in the short ( < 50 years) will do severe damage to
the wetland regardless of specific actions taken in the wetland. ("Severe
damage" is defined here as a 50% loss of baseline wetland values.).
Include in this rating a consideration of cost to maintain the system as
is given the development trends in the wetland1 s watershed.
6. Holistic Ecosystem Importance Rating
Develop an holistic ecosystan importance rating that is the weighted sum.
of plant diversity, animal diversity, critical habitat rating, watershed
importance rating, aesthetic value rating, and economic value rating
divided by n-l=5. Ecosystems are known to consist of the species present,
their environment plus their symbioses and interactions. Only in a high
quality wetland will all six of these factors be high and, hence,
symbioses high. Rating Valua; 1-27. __ _____ _ _
IV. OVERALL SYSTEM RESILIENCE TO DISTURBANCE
Overall ecosystem resilience to natural and human disturbance is basically a
measure of the fragility of the wetland system in question. Some systems
(e.g., the acid bog lake or the alkaline fen) are exceedingly fragile systems
that can be destroyed by a significant change in just one factor (pH) . Other
systems, such as mature marshlands with significant peat accumulations, can
absorb many environmental insults and still retain much of their essential
character through time. Rate as 4-50 a system that can tolerate or resist
deleterious fire, watershed alteration, and various pollutants and +1 a system
that virtually any natural disaster of human pollution will surely destroy.
This is basically a measurement of a wetland 's ability to persist. This is
partly a subjective rating that must be done by a qualified ecologist on an
holistic basis based on the observations made in categories I-III above, a
review of relevant ecological literature (e.g., van der Valk and Davis, 1978)
and experience with wetlands.
H-9
-------
Table
Summary of human use parameters weighting system.
Human Use Paranarer
Aesthetic Values
Economic Values
Value of Conpetirive Uses
Recreational Values
Resource Rareness
Management Potential
Holistic Ecosystem Values
Total Range of Values
Minimum Value
* I
•r 1
+ 1
+ 1
•i- 5
-20
+ I
-10
Table Summary of parameter weighting for major categories.
I. Biological Parameters
II. Hydrological Parameters
III. Huaan Use Parameters
*V. Wetland s.asiliar.ci Rcti-.'.g
Total Range o£ Values Possible
Range of Values
9
13
10
to
to
to
zo
+205
+150
+177
T 50
CO
•K532
H-10
-------
APPENDIX I
Pollution Coefficients from Zimmerman (1974)
-------
Industrial Pollution Coefficients
An approach for estimating direct industrial pollution for air, water,
and solid wastes is outlined in the summary matrix below.
Direct industrial wastewater coefficients for estimating potential
pollution from process water are given for a selected set of 40 industries
in Tables C-4 through C-7 in Appendix C from Zimmerman (1973). These
industries are generally considered the largest generators of wastewater
and water pollutants of all industries. Table C-4 gives coefficients for
wastewater volumes by industry. Table C-5 compares wastewater volumes from
literature sources to actual reported wastewater discharge figures in
permits required under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). A fairly
good correspondence is noted. Table C-6 gives water pollutants in terms of
concentrations and Table C-7 gives them in terms of pounds per pound of
industrial output. The code for data quality in these tables is:
Data Reliability Index
1 = Data represent the convergence of many independent inven-
tories, each consisting of a large sample taken over rela-
tively long periods of time and at frequent intervals.
2 - One or two inventories with a large number of samples.
3 * Plant operating experience for several plants consisting of
24-hour composite samples taken at frequent intervals.
4 *• Plant operating experience for only a few plants, consisting
of 24-hour composite samples over a limited range of time,
or an estimate based on national averages.
5 * Data based upon grab samples only.
1-1
-------
a
cu
o
CO
CO
oo
CU
o
o
u
PL,
oo
co
CU
o
o
o
.a
d
d
o
cd
M
0)
d
M
CU -H
rH >»
Cd M
d
o
•rl
4J
cd
I
3
•o
c
•a
T-l
2
I W
cd d
«
r
o
p*
t
w
CO
d
.. o
CU "H
0) 4J
CO cd
M
cd «
rH (X
a1
CO
o
cd •• •
O * fO
32s
4J
O
CU
CO
60 I 4J
d cu d
-!-l 4J 0) >~
>> 00 iH 4J
d (d o i-i
cd 9 IH o
(X >4-l >4-l
0)
.c
CU
4J
co
oo
V
o
o
oo
oo
V
o
o
M
O O CU
O >W O
O CJ O
Cd 00 43
cu u cd
CU rH CU
o d
4-1 M CU
cd co cx
09 4J
rH
CX
ndards ;
cd
09
CU
o
u
3
o
co
rH
cd
•H
CU
4-1
a
cu
CJ
3
•d
cu
M
M
O
(0
emission
•d
•H
4-1
g
^J
O
tv
1
|H|
CU
4J
i-H
cd
43
d
0
•H
4-1
3
rH
rH
a
•d
cu
$
o
0
4J
§
CO
rH
cd
iH
M
V
4J
A
co
cu
60
centa
^J
cx
cu
>
•H
4J
CO
•d
M
cd
•d
d
cd
4J
CO
^
n
.
th?
ON
ON
1
0
oo
g
1,^
4-1
60
d
•H
60
Q
2
cu
CJ
•H
O
CU
4-1
00
00
CU
•H
rH
a
cx
§
cd
•H
CU
4J
§
60
d
packagi
cu
i
CJ
d
,^1
^
M
4J
3
•d
d
•H
g
CO
0)
4-1
CO
(rt
?
•d
•H
rH
0
CO
00
co
cu
0
o
cx
o
organic waste, cans), construction and
and cinder from onsite power facilities,
M
0)
a,
2.
oT
cu
H
4J
y_^
co
cu
4J
CO
§
7
cd
iH
M
CU
4J
CU
MH
cd
^
^J
$J
cd
"2
cd
CJ
1
<0
jj
a
cd
4=
00
rH
M-l
00*
CU
iH
4J
•H
•rl
O
cd
<4H
w^
^*
cd
4J
T-(
a
cd
n
g
4-1
cu
»J
BO
CO*
9
CO
cu
AJ
«
7
d
o
•H
4-1
•H
rH
O
a\
•
•s
co
3
*-M
S5 CX "O -H
*
1-2
-------
Potential water pollutants can be reduced to actual pollutants by: 1)
substituting effluent guidelines where they exist and 2) reducing them by
the percentage of known removal efficiencies of various wastewater treat-
ment systems.
Indirect water coefficients can be calculated in a manner similar to
that suggested for residential and commercial development in the next
section.
Residential/Commercial Pollution Coefficients
Direct water pollution from residential and commercial facilities is
generally averaged for combined residential and commercial development at
approximately 150 gallons per capita per day of wastewater and at about .08
to .14 pounds per capita per day for biological oxygen demand.
Direct air pollution is estimated almost exclusively as fuel usage and
coefficients for various kinds of fuel are given in the Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors.
Direct air pollution from residential and commercial activity in
addition to resulting from fuel usage consists of air pollutants generated
during solid waste disposal. Particulate emissions for alternative methods
of disposal are:
Open burning 50-100 Ib/ton
Poor apartment house incineration about 50 Ib/ton
Good apartment house incineration 10-20 Ib/ton
Average municipal incineration 20-30 Ib/ton
Good municipal incineration 10-20 Ib/ton
(Regional Plan Association, 1968, p. 93.)
Preliminary solid waste coefficients, based upon the New York
Metropolitan area figures are .51 to .68 tons per capita per year for
residential solid wastes and .75 to 1.75 tons per employee per year for
business solid wastes, which includes light industry and commercial wastes
(Regional Plan Association, 1968, p. 91).
1-3
-------
The increase In indirect potential water pollution generation takes
the form of increased runoff from impervious surface created by new devel-
opment. Runoff is a function of the intensity of rainfall, the slope of
the land, land cover, and the size of the drainage area. The general
formula for computing runoff is:
R - CIA
where C is the coefficient of runoff, I the intensity of rainfall, and A
the size of the drainage area in acres. Some of the values of the terms
for specific types of development are given in Table 1 below.
The runoff equation only estimates the volume of water that will run
over the land instead of being absorbed by it given a certain level of
development. The impact of the development really has to be expressed as
the difference between the amount of runoff that would occur were the
development not to take place and if it does take place. Furthermore, the
runoff equation does not give the amount of water pollutants carried by the
water runoff. A number of studies have been done to measure the pollutant
content of runoff, and coefficients can be developed from those studies
done in areas analogous to the area to be studied.
These potential pollutant figures could be transformed into actual
figures using the degree of treatment generally accomplished for storm
water runoff.
A (Drainage Area)
Drainage areas can be identified and measured from a USGS topographic
map, or from engineering studies if these are available.
The amount of acreage and impervious surface generated by residential
development that results from population growth has to be determined before
the runoff equation can be applied to estimate indirect water pollution.
Acreage can be estimated from zoning maps or from coefficients of space use
per housing unit by housing type.
1-4
-------
Table 1
Estimated Values for Terms In the Runoff Equation*
C (Coefficient of Runoff)
Residential Development C
10 families per acre 0.3-0.5
40 families per acre 0.5-0.7
More than 40 families per acre 0.7-0.9
Commercial Development0 0.9
d
Open areas
"Macadam, compacted earth and 0.7
gravel, without plant growth
Impervious soil, with plant cover 0.5
Lawns and planted areas, with normal 0.2
soil
Woods" 0.1
I (Intensity of rainfall)
I - K/t+b
where I = rainfall in inches per hour, t * average duration of storms
in minutes, and K and b are coefficients assuming the following
values:
Residential development in New Jersey (based on 5 and 10 year
storms which Lynch recommends for these areas):
K - 131-170
b - 17-19
Commercial development (based on 25 and 50 year storms which
Lynch recommends for these areas):
K - 230-250
b = 24-27
Source: K. Lynch, 1962, p. 173-175.
Included impervious areas, lawns, etc.
cAssumes that commercial development is entirely impervious and has a
zero slope. Includes parking lots, access roads, and roofs.
Assumes a zero slope. For slopes, coefficient should be increased.
1-5
-------
Extent of Impervious surface for the area has to be estimated by
population density and housing type.
In order to apply the runoff equation to commercial development, the
extent of commercial development in acreage that will accompany population
growth has to be estimated. This can be estimated in the following ways:
(1) From zoning maps: commercially zoned land can be measured.
(2) From modifications of coefficients such as the following for
shopping centers:
Population Served Selling Area
Neighborhood Center (10,000) 40,000 sq. ft.
Community Center (20,000-100,000) 100,000-300,000 sq. ft.
Regional Center 50, 75 or 125 acres
(depend of amount of
expansion planned)
Source: Lynch, 1962, p. 327-328.
Once acreage is determined, the amount of impervious surface has to be
estimated in order to obtain a value of C for the runoff equation. It must
be remembered that the degree of impervious surface for commercial develop-
ments depends upon the layout of the development.
Another indirect form of pollution from residential, commercial or any
other kind of development is the loss of soil or erosion caused by the
action of water on land exposed during construction, or whose capacity to
resist water movement has been reduced because of changes in slope or cover
of the land. The amount of soil lost per acre of exposed land during a
given storm period can be estimated from an equation, called the Universal
Soil Loss Equation, originally developed by the Agricultural Research
Service for erosion from agricultural activity. The general form of the
equation is as follows:
Soil loss =RxKxSLxC
1-6
-------
where,
R = rainfall intensity or the average annual rainfall index
for the area
K - a scale factor for soil erodability
SL - slope length and the angle of the slope
C - soil cover
Details on the precise application of the equation can be
obtained from the US Department of Agriculture's Soil Conserva-
tion Service.
1-7
-------
APPENDIX J
New Jersey (1975) indirect impact Analysis Methodology.
-------
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING SECONDARY IMPACTS
OF REGIONAL SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
The environmental assessment which accompanies each facilities plan must include a discussion of
the secondary impacts of the proposed facility. According to federal regulations, secondary impacts
include changes in the intensity and distribution of the population, and changes in the human use
of the land. Because secondary impacts are a measure of long-range and lasting effects of a project.
analysis of secondary impact should be at least as lengthly and detailed as that for primary impacts.
The following guidelines .are offered to assist in addressing this question.
1. Growth Experience of the Service Area
A. . Describe the growth experience of each municipality and the whole study area since
1960. including changes in size of-population, types of residential development, types
of industrial and commercial development, and changes in other major uses of land.
such as farming. Map this information.
B. How does this growth experience in the service area compare with the rest of the
county and with the state as a whole in terms of population, employment, building
permits granted, industrial development?
C. Rank in order of importance the major factors influencing growth in the area and give
rationale behind choices; for example:
proximity to metropolitan areas
accessibility — highways, public transport
natural resources — water supply, aquifers,, prime farmlands
natural features — mountains, stceams. ocean
inexpensive land
buildable land
public facilities
etc.
D. Determine the degree of development activity in each municipality in the sewer service
area by .showing how much development by type — commercial, single family residential,
apartments, PUOs, industrial, etc., has been approved in the past two years. Look also
outside the specific service area for indications of development pressure in the region
including planned capital facilities.
1. Based on recently proposed subdivisions and building permit applications,
estimate the amount of residential development that is likely to be con-
structed in the next few years. Determine the number of potential dwelling
units which will probably be built without the proposed project.
2. Indicate lands which are known to be held by speculators and developers. In
New Jersey a copy of every deed recorded with the County Clerk's Office is
sent back to the municipality. So information relating to changes in ownership
should be available at municipal offices. The county agricultural agent will be a
useful source of information in this regard
II. Existing Land Use
A. On map or photo quad of the service area at U.S.G.S. scale, map publicly owned
lands, floodplains, wetlands, etc.
8. Map undeveloped lands and determine the number of vacant acres. Subtract publicly
owned lands, flocdplains, wetlands, slopes exceeding 15%. etc. to determine the number
of vacant, developable acres in each municipality and in service area.
0-1
-------
C. List any major deterrents to growth, both natural and other, e.g., lack of water supply,
lack of sewers, bad drainage, difficult terrain, stream loading limitations, etc.
(This information will have already been obtained for the inventory of natural resources
required in the preparation of a facilities plan.)
D. At same scale as above, preferably as an overlay, map current zoned densities, taking
these from each municipality's zoning map and ordinance. Deduce from this current
zoned capacity of the service area.
III. Relationship to Future Plans
A. Study future land use plans where they exist of each municipality in the service area.
Indicate the status of these plans. Are they official, adopted plans? When were they
prepared and adopted? If no plans exist, review the zoning ordinance. If neither exists,
so note.
B. Describe all other applicable planning for the service area, including regional and county
future land use plans, state highway plans, state open space plans, plans for environment-
ally critical areas, i.e., floodplains, wetlands, coastal zones, etc. Confer particularly with
county planners for this overview. Are local plans consistent with these county, regional
and State plans? Point out major discrepancies. Separate planned expenditures from
general plans.
C. How does the provision of the proposed facility relate to the above plans7 Does it
propose sewers in areas designated for conservation, open space, recreation or in environ-
mentally critical areas? Where conflicts exist, how is the system designed to deal with
them?
IV. Status of Planning in Each Municipality
A. What is the attitude toward growth in each of the participating municipalities? Determine
this by examining municipal records, interviewing public officials, planning consultants,
citizens, and reviewing area newspapers.
B. How much has each municipality in the service area spent on planning in each of the
last five years? Show the relationship between the amount of vacant, developable land
they have and the amount of money they spend for planning.
C. Describe the degree to which each municipality hai dealt with the following checklist
of basic planning elements:
1. Inventory of natural resources, including geology, soils, topography, water quality.
water supply.
2. Open Space Needs Study and Open Space Plan.
3. Housing Needs Study and Housing Plan.
4. Collector Sewer Master Plan.
5. Adopted Master Plan which encompasses the above elements.
6. Provisions in zoning ordinance providing for "timing of development." clustering,
PUD and PURD.
7. A six year capital program.
8. Describe municipalities' current debt status and capacity.
D. Evaluate the consistency of the municipalities' land use ordinances and their plan.
(Note inconsistencies in terms of impact on system design.)
E. Examine the records of the Zoning Boards of Adjustment for the past five (5) years
in the service area.
J-2
-------
1. What is the frequency of use or "d" variances?
2. To what extent are they a departure from the plans and adopted land use regula-
tions, note especially:
a. changes in density
b. marked changes in type of use
c. marked changes in waste discharge characteristics of permitted uses
3. Discuss the potential impact on system design where significant Zoning Board
activity has been occurring.
V. Estimating Growth
The Environmental Assessment must take into account the assumption that putting through
sewer interceptors will stimulate pressures for development. The growth which will follow
the construction of the project must be estimated in order to deduce the potential impacts
on natural resources, public services, fiscal policy and the character of the area.
A. For each alternative indicate on a map of the service area (no smaller than U.S.G.S.
scale) the location and size of proposed sewer lines and treatment plants. Aerial
photographs available at U.S.C.S. scale, 24,000:1, is a useful base on which to lay
out proposed systems.
In light of municipal policies, proposed developments, and amount of development
pressure discussed above and with careful analysis of the vacant, developable land
which will be served by the proposed system, estimate the population which will
occur in the service area within the 10 years following the construction of the pro-
posed project. This could be a range rather than a single figure. It will be necessary
to estimate the spatial pattern, density and general housing types which will probably
occur. Where assumptions are made, they should be clearly stated and justified.
B. For purposes of comparison, also estimate an ultimate population for the service area
based on the design size of the pipes, assuming full capacity use. Evaluate the engineer's
assumptions about per capita use and peak flows as well as his methods for computing
pipe sizes.
C. Under current state and local policies toward zoning, floodplains, critical areas, septic
tanks and package treatment, what growth would occur if the project were not con-
structed using the 10 year time frame.
VI. Measuring Potential Impact of the Proposed Facility (and Alternatives).
Using growth estimates from Section V. A., determine the potential impacts of development
on: regional economic patterns, transportation, local sewer collector systems, health services,
solid waste disposal, schools, municipal fiscal structure, air quality, water supply, flooding,
water quality downstream effects and the character of the region.
A. The impact of each of these should be analyzed for each municipality in the service
area using referenced standards.
1. Regional economic patterns. What will be the impact (positive and negative) of
growth on the following economic activities: agriculture, industrial development,
retail business and services? This analysis should include geographic as well as
measured aspects.
2. Transportation. How many additional cars for residents, commuting-in traffic and
service vehicles will be generated7 What new roads and road widenings will be
necessary to serve this additional traffic7 Estimated pattern of development under
Section V.A. of these Guidelines will be useful here. Approximate costs. How will
the burden be divided up between federal, state, county and local government?
J-3
-------
Will a public transportation system be possible within the region if it doesn't
exist now?
3. Local sewer collector systems. How much sewerage will have to be constructed
by each municipality7 Estimate costs. Add costs of local system to costs of
regional system to produce estimated total cost to users 10 years after construc-
tion of regional project. Is the cost high enough to create pressure for mora
users?
4. Health Services, Estimate demand for hospital beds, nursing home beds, and other
services as identified by the State Comprehensive Health Planning Agency.
5. Solid waste disposal. Estimate the amount of solid waste (tons per month) which
will have to be collected and disposed of. Ars there plans for dealing with this?
Have sites been chosen? What will be aporoximate yearly costs for facilities and
operations? Are there available approved disposal areas in the area?
6. Schools. How many additional school children can be anticipated? Using the
estimated number of additional housing units in V.A. and accepted standards for
the number of school children per unit.' Based on current cost per school child
per year in each municipality, estimate future annual operatmg and construction
costs. Relate the latter to debt section below.
7. Municipal fiscal structure. What are the anticipated effects of increased population
on the fiscal position and tax rates of each municipality. Indicate whether or not
there might be an increased financial burden on residents and if so, to what de-
gree. (Again, it may be necessary to discuss this in terms of a range of possibili-
ties.)^ What are the capabilities of the towns with respect to their current and
future debt capacity characteristics7
8. Clean air. -What is existing air quality in the region based on current readings for
particulates, photo chemical oxidants and sulphur oxides? With anticipated growth
what would ba the projected amount of deterioration in air quality in regard to
these three parameters7 Is this within the bounds of the EPA air quality incre-
ment standards7
9. Water supply. What are the current sources of potable water and what is the
adequacy of such sources for meeting estimated future population needs? Deter-
mine what other sources might bs available, how they might be brought into
use and the aporoximate cost involved. Is depletion of streams or wastewater
loading a concern in planning for future water supply?
10. Flooding. To what extent will the amount and speed of run-off be increased by
estimated changes in land use, and what effect will this increased run-off have
on frequency and magnitude of floods for 25-year storm, for 50-year storm?"*
11. Water quality. What are the anticipated effects on stream quality and underground
water quality of the run-off and increased wasteload resulting from the estimated
development?
12. Character of the region. Would there be any significant changes in the appearance
or functioning of the region which should be documented?
B. What are the most significant problems which can be foreseen as the result of the
above described impacts of growth7 Describe them at length.
1. See Explanatory Notes at end of guidelines.
2. See Explanatory Notes at end of guidelines.
3. See Explanatory Notes at end of guidelines.
J-4
-------
C. Is the design and construction schedule of the proposed facility compatible with phasing
of growth in the individual municipalities and in the region, or will large areas be opened
up all at once?
VII. Weighing Alternatives
A. Which of the alternative proposals best minimizes adverse secondary impacts while
providing an adequate solution to the water quality problems of the area?
B. It is possible that each of the proposed alternatives represents too large a solution
in relation to existing problems, thus threatening the area with unnecessary secondary
impacts. If this is the case, indicate ways in which you feel the project might be
revised, scaled down or staged and still solve the water quality problems of the area.
VII. Qualifications of Consultants
A. It is apparent that preparation of an analysis of secondary impacts should be a team
effort. Identify persons who prepared the statement and their qualifications in the
fields of planning, traffic engineering, economics, hydrology, sanitary engineering, etc.
J-5
-------
APPENDIX K
Procedure recommended by USCOE
to evaluate dredge and fill sites
(from Nelson et al. 1982)
-------
Determine if advanced
identification of sites suitable
or unsuitable for discharge is
applicable (§230SO(a) I
Determine if a General Permit is applicable
under §404(b)(1) or if Best Management
Practices (BMP's) apply under §208(bj(4) of the
Clean Water Act [§230 5(b||
I
fljDetermine potential overall level of impact and
appropriate level of effort and clan for
assessment, based on project significance and
complexity (§230 6(b)]
Determine relevance of the
various guidelines and
whether to curtail or
abbreviate the evaluation
[§230 6(c)]
(2)Examme practicable alternatives having
potentially less damaging conseauences to the
aduatic ecosystem [ §230 5(c)j
PREASSESSMENT PHASE: STEP 1
K-l
-------
K-2
-------
~1
I (IjDetermine potential overall level of impact and
I appropriate level of effort and plan for i
I assessment, based on project significance and I
i complexity !§ 230 6(b|] i
Discharge prohibited where
alternative with less impact is
available, considering cost.
technology and logistics
(§230 I0(a>]
Smallest practicable mixing
zone is required, consistent
with type and amount of
material, method and rate of
discharge, depth and current,
etc. [§230 11 (()]
Biological components to
consider are threatened and
endangered species, fish.
crustaceans ana moilusks
food chain organisms
mammals, birds reptiles.
amphibians [ §230 30- 32]
©Examine practicable alternatives having
potentially less damaging consequences to the
aquatic ecosystem [§230 5(c)]
^Delineate candidate discharge site(s)
consistent with oreliminary mixing zone
determination (§230.5(d||
©
4}Evaluate potential impacts on physical and
chemical components of the aquatic ecosystem
at candidate siteis) ( §230 5(e)|
(^Identify and evaluate potential impacts on
cntical biolpgical characteristics special aquatic
sites, and human use of the aquatic ecosystem
at candicate siteis) [ §230 5(0]
Discharge effectively
prohibited where associated
use in a special aquatic site
is not water dependent
§230
Components to consider are
physical substrate.
suspended oarticulates,
water quality, water
circulation and levels
(§230 20- 24]
Special aquatic sites to
consider are sanctuaries and
refuges, wetlands, mud flats.
vegetated shallows, stream
riffles and pools [ §230 40- 45]
Human uses to consider are recreational and
commercial fisheries and water-related
recreation, esthetic resources parKs and
preserves [§230 51- 54]
ASSESSMENT PHASE: STEPS 2-5
K-3
-------
^'Identify and evaluate potential impacts on
critical biological characteristics, special aquatic ,
sites, and human use of the aquatic ecosystem I
at candidate siteis) [ § 230 5(f)J
Factual determinations cover
physical substrate, water
circulation and levels.
suspended particulates.
chemical contaminants.
aquatic organisms, cumulative
and secondary effects
(§230.11]
(6)Review sufficiency of proiect information
needed to document factual determinations and
perform pre-tesnng evaluation [§230 5(g)|
(i/Conduct pre-testing evaluation of materials to
be discharged for potential physical
incompatibility and chemical contamination using
pollution records, previous test results, and
"reason to believe' test; assign a category for
testing [§230 5(h).§.230 62(al]
Pre-testing evaluation covers
extraction site pollution
pathways, including runoff.
percolation or spills of toxic
or hazardous substances.
and point-source discharge
(§230 61 (a)l
1
j ^/v^onouctF appropnate chemical-biological 'ests if i
chemical contamination is a reasonable
I probability (§230 5(0] '
ASSESSMENT PHASE: STEPS 6-7
K-4
-------
Category 1 dredged material
and Category 5 fill with no
contaminant concentrations
above background level
require no testing
(§23062(0), §23063(a)l
Category 2 dredged material
with concentrations above
background but no more
available than at discharge
site requires sediment and
water column chemical tests
[§230.62(c) d). (2)]; mixing
zone calculation required
[§23064(a)]
^/Conduct pre-testing evaluation of matenals to
be discharged for potential physical .
incompatibility and chemical contamination, using I
pollution records, previous test results, and
"reason to believe ' test: assign a category for |
testing [§230 5(h), §230.62(3)] ,
(8)conduct appropriate chemical-biological tests if
chemical contamination is a reasonable
probability (§230 5(0]
1
r
n
Category 4 dredged material with bioavailable
contaminants in potentially harmful
concentrations requires water column and
sediment bioassays with optional
bioaccumulation test [ §230 62!e)(1 ).(2)]: mixing
zone calculation required for water column
taoassay ( §230 64(a)|
Category 3 contained
dredged material with
concentrations in return water
above background requires
water column chemical tests
with mixing zone
[§230 62(d) (1). §230.64(a)]
Category 6 fill material with
concentrations above
background and potential
leaching requires water
leachate chemical test
(§23063fbM1)]
TESTING PHASE; STEP 8
K-5
-------
Physical-chemical actions to
consider are limiting location.
type, volume, rate, timing,
depth, mounding or
dispersion of discharge.
."1
(8)conduct appropriate chemical-biological tests if
chemical contamination is a reasonable <
probability i §230 5(0] I
using submerged diffusers
and silt screens in open
water.
-I l
diking, lining, capping, and
planting contained sites etc
(§230.70- 74]
(9)ldentify appropriate, practicable actions or
changes to the project plan to minimize adverse
effects of discharge (§230.50)]
n
Biological actions to consider
are avoiding unique or critical
habitats, including special
aquatic sites:
(lO)Make and document factual determinations.
including the kind, degree and duration of
physical chemical and biological effects
(§2305(k)
avoiding sensitive seasons of
life cycle stages or fishing,
hunting and trapping;
restoring or developing mud
flat, marsh, island or other
habitats: etc
(§230.75- 77]
Physical substrate composition and contours
[ §230.11(3)].
water levels and circulation and other hydrolic
factors (§230 1Kb)].
characteristics of suspended particulates and
turbidity [§230.11(0],
chemical concentration, bioavailability and
toxicity. including final mixing zone [ §230 11 (d). (f)J,
survival or recolonization of indigenous biota, and
change of ecosystem structure or function
I §230.11(6)]:
cumulative effects from a number of similar or
nearby discharges (§230 11(g)J;
secondary effects induced by change in land and
water use, etc (§230 H(h)j
DETERMINATION PHASE: STEPS 9-10
K-6
-------
Discharge prohibited where
alternative with less impact is
available, considering cost.
technology and logistics
(§230.10(3))
Discharge prohibited if water
quality limits exceeded
beyond mixing zone or for
toxic substances, or if
threatened or endangered
species jeopardized
[§230
10)MaKe and document factual determination*.
including the kind, degree and duration ol
physical, chemical and biological •fleets
[§ 230.51k)]
IjMake and document findings of compliance or
non-compliance by comparing factual
determinations with restrictions on discharge
(§230.5(1)]
,12) Certify unconditional compliance or specify
appropriate, practicable conditions to mwwrize
adverse effects, or specify reasons for non-
compliance — not meeting one or more
restrictions on discharge, or insufficient
information to judge compliance |§ 230 12(al|
Discharge prohibited if
aquatic ecosystem degraded
through persistent or
permanent effects on
valuable biota, special aquatic
sites, fishing and hunting.
and ecosystem diversity.
productivity, etc.
(S 230 10lcll
Discharge prohibited unless
at practicable, appropriate
steps taken to minimize
adverse effects (S 230 iO(di]
Document factual determinations and adaptation
of guidelines to the protect evaluated
(§230
DECISION PHASE: STEPS 11-12
K-7
-------
SECTION 10/404 PERMIT APPLICATION FIELD REPORT
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Date of Inspection
Reporting Biologist_
Public Notice No. , (dated)
Investigation Type: Section 10 404
Applicant's Name and Address:
Waterbody and Location of Work:
Purpose of Work (describe):
Water-Dependent: Yes No
Public Benefit: Yes No"
Description of Proposed Project (append maps depicting habitat types and copy
of project plans):
Percent of work completed (if any)
Fill or Spoil Area:
Dimensions
Total Acreage_
Acreage above m.h.w._
Acreage belov/ m.h.w."
Method(s) to retain materials
Method(s) to prevent erosion
Intended use of filled area
Dredge or Borrow Area:
Dimensions
Total Acreaae
Acreage above m.h.w.
Acreace below m.h.w.
Necessity for particular depth and/or width_
Type of materials to be excavated
Quantity of materials to be excavated (cubic yards)
Quality of materials to be excavated (polluted) (non-polluted)
Type of pollutant_
K-8
-------
Intended use of excavated area_
Method(sj of excavation
fype(s) of equipment to be used_
List of private, state and federal fish, wildlife and recreation lands in area
of project influence:
List of existing industrial, residential or other developments in area of
project influence:
Extent of development on adjoining properties (i.e., bulkheading, filling,
etc.):
Habitat Description Within Work Area:
A.
Vegetated Wetlands
(Habitat type )**
1. Predominant Emergent Plant Species
Acreage'
(%) Dredged Filled Other
2. Predominant Non-Emergent Plant
Species
B. Non-Vegetated Wetlands
(Habitat type )
C. Bottom type (i.e., sand, gravel, mud, shell, etc.), including depth and
value as habitat:
^Sources of data (i.e., estimate, planimeter, etc.)
Use type in accordance with Circular 39, "Wetlands of the United States."
K-9
-------
Environmental Alterations Which Would Result from Work:
Significant Insignificant None
1. Filled waterway or marshes
2. Deepening
3. Obstructing
4. Shoaling
5. Segmentation
6. Habitat isolation
7. Draining wetland
8. Flooding wetland
9. Bulkhead, dike, levees
10. Diversion of freshwater sources
11. Modification of tidal intrusion
12. Modification of water circulation
13. Increased fertility
14. Reduced fertility
15. Increased turbidity
16. Noxious odor
17. Tributary flow control
18. Saltwater barrier
19. Convert to fresh water
20. Modification of substrata
21. Pollution (specify type)
22. Shoreline erosion
23. Other
K-10
-------
Fish and Wildlife Resources Within Project Area (list important species and
identify primary habitat use as to (F)-feeding, (S)-spawning, (M)-migration,
(N)-nursery, (R)-resting, or (W)-wintering):
Fish Shellfish
Waterfowl Shore and Wading Birds
Mammals Rare and Endangered Species
Others
K-ll
-------
Utilization of Fish and Wildlife Resources in Work Area* (describe and
quantify, if possible, use of important species):
Harvest
Sport fishing
Commercial fishing
Hunting
Trapping
Non-Consumptive Uses
Wildlife observation
Photography
Research
Education
Special Uses
Aquaculture
Shell collecting
Sanctuary
Other
Project Effect on Public Use in Area (i.e., access, esthetics, etc.):
Biological Significance of Area (describe briefly the importance or relation-
snip of proposed work to fish and wildlife in area of influence, including any
existing fish and wildlife management areas or plans for such developments):
Sources of data
K-12
-------
Potential Direct or Indirect Effect of Environmental Alterations on Fish and
Wildlife Resources and Their Use:
Conclusion(s):
Permit application should be:
1. Denied (summarize reasons).
2. Denied pending preparation and review of EIS (summarize reasons)
3. Modified (specify conditions and summarize reasons)
4. Issued as proposed (summarize reasons).
K-13
-------
Field Reconnaissance Data:
Investigator(s) Agency
Date(s) of Investigation Times of Investigation
Method(s) of Investigation (boat, aerial, motor vehicle, on foot, etc.)
Field Conditions in Project Area
Sky cover: ( ) clear ( ) overcast ( ) cloudy
Wind: direction speed (.Ti.p.h.)
Temperature: air (°F)(°C)
water (°F)(°C)
Sa 1 i n i ty pp t
Other water analyses
Tidal stage
Water condition (clear, turbid, stained, etc.)_
Sampling results (append data sheet, if any)
Photo information (attach photos)
K-14
-------
APPENDIX L
Ontario Government
Biological Method
-------
THE EVALUATION OF WETLAND VALUES
In this evaluation, wetland values are grouped into four
separate components. These are biological, social, hydrological and
special features. Each component is evaluated individually and
separately from the others. The biological, social and hydrological
components may each generate a total of 250 points. The special features
component may generate extremely high scores (i.e. in excess of 1,000)
but the likelihood of such high scores is extremely low.
With 250 possible points for each component one can develop a
more sensitive point spread within "subcomponents" than if a lower
maximum number had been chosen. The adoption of the high maximum total
also permits "minor" values (ones to which only few points are allotted)
to be more accurately included in the evaluation.
Within each component, subcomponent values have been weighted to
reflect their relative importance (relative to each other). Some values
are widely considered to be of major importance as for example, breeding
habitat for an endangered species. At the other end of the scale are
what might be termed as '"minor" values, that is, ones which in any total
point scale should properly be allocated only a few points. This
evaluation takes the position that even "very minor" wetland values
should be evaluated and included in the overall assessment because the
evaluation seeks to be comprehensive. To avoid the measurement of known
values (assuming, of course, that the information is practicable to
collect) would appear to be contrary to the need to optimize accuracy.
In no case was the number (value) that was assigned to a
variable arrived at lightly. The weighted values are the end product of
a process involving numerous reviews and adjustments over a 2 year period
made under the guidance of tne Canada/Ontario Steering Corcnittae on
Wetland Evaluation. There was much field testing, consultation with
outside "experts", and consiaeraoie deliberation. Thus, experience and
calculated judgement about the relative importance of the accepted
variables is the basis for the credibility of the numbers.
1.0. BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
The biological component is evaluated under three major
subcomponents, namely productivity, diversity and size. Productivity is
evaluated by examining 5 interrelated values, namely growing degree days,
wetland soils, kind of wetland types, site, and nutrient status of
surface water. Diversity is evaluated by studying 6 characteristics:
L-l
-------
- 8 -
number of wetland cypes, vegetation communities, diversity of surrounding
habicat, proximity Co other wetlands, interspersion and open water
types. Size is evaluated by tying its value closely to wetland quality.
1.1. PRODUCTIVITY VALUES
Biological productivity provides a measure of the ability of a
certain area to produce a crop of living organisms. Siological
productivity may be either primary (if produced by chlorophyll-bearing
organisms) or secondary or tertiary (if produced by non-chlorophyll
bearing organisms). The form of "wetland energy" that is available to
wildlife is that derived from primary productivity. Herbivorous wildlife
(plant eaters; secondary productivity) consume this plant matter and are
eventually themselves consumed by carnivorous wildlife (meat eaters;
tertiary productivity). For this reason, primary production is a. good
indicator of the overall biological productivity; tLj more energy
available, the more consumers the ecosystem can support. Because primary
productivity provides a good general approximation of both secondary and
tertiary productivity and because with certain exceptions (see 4.2) the
evaluation of secondary and tertiary productivity would be a complex and
time-consuming matter, only primary productivity is measured in the
Biological Component.
1.1.1. Growing Degree-Days
Broadly speaking, the greater the amount of organic material or
"biomass" that a community of plants can produce, the more becomes
available for the use of man and of'all forms of life that depend
directly or indirectly on plants for food. The single most important
factor contributing to the production of biomass is temperature (Lieth
and Whittaker 1975; Edey 1977). Thus, in southern Ontario, most species
of plants growing in their natural environment will produce more biomass
at say 15° Celsius than they would at 10°C. As well, in areas of
Ontario where average daily temperature is higher and the frost free.
season is longer, a greater diversity of plant species can also be
found. This means that, in general, more species of animals can be
sustained by those wetland plant communities that grow in areas with more
favourable temperature regimes. An index which shows the contribution of
warmer temperatures to plant growth has been created (Brown, McKay and
Chapmen 1963; Edey 1977) by recording the seasonal accumulation of
"Growi ig Degree Days" (GDDs). The reason that this base temperature is
chosen for the index is because in temperate climates plant growth
essentially stops at lower temperatures.
The concept of growing degree days assumes that plant growth is
related directly to the average daily temperature. It ignores soil
L-2
-------
- 9 -
temperature, differences in the pattern of night and day temperature and
other variations causea by the stage of growtn. The degree days for each
day are added together, or accumulated, throughout the growing season
(Edey 1977).
Thus we can say that the higher the number of GOOs the greater
is the amount of biomass that plants in an area can produce by
photosynthesis. Of course, other factors can severely influence the
responses of various plant species in any particular wetland. For
example, the availability of water, nutrients, light, water body
morphology, rate of grazing or harvesting, nature of drainage, kinds of
life forms present, and so on. But as a general rule the direct
correlation between GDDs and plant biomass production is a positive one.
The number of GDDs across the landscape of southern Ontario is
known (Brown, McKay and Chapman 1968). This means that GDDs can be
correlated with geographical position of each wetland and it is for this
reason that the GDD index is considered to be a generally applicable
attribute to wetland evaluation in the province.
The geographical variation in GDDs in southern Ontario is mapped
in Figure 1. The figure shows the lowest means are found in more
northern and interior upland regions while the highest are found on Pelee
Is land.
Evaluation:
Growing Degree Days
2800 to 3200
3200 to 3600
>3600
« 14
» 20
(Maximum possible « 20)
Wetland complexes should be evaluated by determining the
GDD1s at the approximate centre of the complex.
1.1.2. Soils
The contribution of soil type to productivity is well
established both in agriculture and forestry. The inclusion of soils
in the determination of wetland productivity is based on the
L-3
-------
- 10 -
assumption that in weelands higher biological productivity would
result when certain soil capability groups are present. Mineral soils
are considered to be more valuable to productivity than organic soils
even though it was the presence of a wetland environment that created
the organic soils in the first place.
Evaluation:
Clays, loams or silts
Organic
Undesignated
Z of area x 10
Z of area x 6
Z of area x 0
(Maximum possible • 10)
In wetland complexes the evaluator should aim at determining
the fraction of area occupied by the 3 categories fp- the complex as a
whole.
1.1.3. Type of Wetland
Wetlands may be comprised of different kinds of ecosystems
such as marshes, swamps, bogs or fens. These are known as wetland
types. The types are defined in the Procedures Manual (Part II).
Type of wetland provides one of the best measures of primary
productivity. It is well established that different ecosystems have
different rates of productivity (Leith and Whittaker 1975) and
wetlands are no exception (Greeson, Clark and Clark, 1979; Richardson
1979). Richardson (1979) studied th'e net primary productivity of a
variety of wetland types and derived the following average figures:
cattail marshes 24.7 metric tonnes per hectare per year (m.t./ha/yr.);
sedge marshes 21.0 m.t./ha/yr; swamp forests 10.4 m.t./ha/yr., and
bogs, fens and muskegs 9.3 m.t./ha/yr.
In this evaluation we recognize marshes, swamps, carrs, fens
and bogs. Definitions of these wetland types are given in Part II as
modified from Zoltai (1975) and others. Percent cover (of area) of
each wetland type in'the wetland is to be determined as this will
provide a more accurate assessment of productivity.
Evaluation:
Bog
Fen
Carr
Swamp
Marsh
Z of area x 4
Z of area x 6
Z of area x 10
Z of area x 12
Z of area x 20
(Maximum possible * 20)
L-4
-------
- 11 -
In wee Land complexes the percent of area occupied by each
wecland cype (in all individual wetlands of the complex) should be the
basis for the evaluation of type of wetland.
1.1.4. Site
The physiographic position of a wetland in the landscape
defines its site. Four site locations are defined in this
Evaluation. These are Lacustrinej Riverine, Palustrine and Isolated.
Wetland scientists aiffer somewhat in precisely how each of these four
terms are defined (Cowardin et. al. 1979; Reid and Wood, 1976). The
definitions used in this Evaluation are presented in Part II. As
well, the four site locations are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5
in jPart II.
The contribution of site to primary productivity is derived
from the following considerations. The rate of flow of water is
greater in Riverine wetlands and therefore more nutrients can flow
through and be in contact with vegetation than in Isolated or
Lacustrine wetlands. Thus more plant material can be produced in
Riverine wetlands, particularly near river-mouths than in wetlands
having a more limited nutrient source. The further downstream, the
richer the nutrient concentration (Hynes, 1970). Many Lacustrine
marshes, depending on location in the lake, are also very productive
due to Che local accumulation of nutrients.
Evaluation:
- Isolated % of area x 2
- Paluscrine with intermittent outflow % of area x 4
- Palustrine with permanent outflow Z of area x 4
- Riverine (near headwaters) Z of area x 6
- Riverine (mid-river) Z of area x 8
- Riverine (.near tnouch) Z of area x 10
- Lacustrine (at river mouth) Z of area x 10
- Lacustrine (on enclosed bay) Z of area x 6
- Lacustrine (exposed to lake) Z of area x 4
(Maximum possible a 10)
In evaluating wetland complexes for site, che same
considerations apply as in 1.1.3. above.
1.1.5. Nutrient Status of Surface Water
Water that is more charged with dissolved solids and
nutrients can produce more biomass than uacer wich fewer nutrients.
L-5
-------
- 12 -
Water quality provides an indication of Che habitat suitability of a
wetland for certain plants, aquatic invertebrates, fish and wildlife.
Measurement of total dissolved solids (T.D.S.) by means of specific
conductance can be used to detect man-induced changes in wetlands.
Conductivity measurements are interpreted as a measure of the
fertility of the water and have become a standard, reliable method of
measurement.
Other means of measuring the nutrient status of water in a
wetland have been extensively utilized, such as pH; total alkalinity;
dissolved oxygen; transparency and turbidity, along with T.D.S. and
specific conductance, as well as direct measures of phosphates,
nitrates, etc. However these measurements would be too time consuming
for use in this evaluation.
Evaluation;
Total Dissolved Solids (T.D.S.) after temperature conversion
(mg./l).
<100 mg/1 » 0
100 to 500 rag/1 - 20
501 to 1,500 mg/1 - 10
>1,500 mg/1 - 0
(Maximum possible for Nutrient Status of Surficial Water « 20)
(Maximum possible for 1.1, PRODUCTIVITY VALUES » 80)
1.2. DIVERSITY VALUES
Wetlands which contain many kinds of aquatic and terrestrial
habitat together with a relatively large number of wetland plant
species will invariably also attract far more animal species than
wetlands containing more uniform environments and monocultures of
plants (Qreeson et. al. 1978). Wetlands with greater diversity meet
the living requirements of more species. They provide alternate food
sources for host and prey, parasites and predators and more readily
permit either the temporary or permanent survival of many species. In
short, whatever are the causes or the benefits of diversity it is
considered to be of paramount value because more wildlife species,
often in great abundance, can be found in diverse environments.
L-6
-------
- 13 -
Diversity values of a wetland are evaluated under six
different categories: number of wetland types, vegetation
communities, diversity of surrounding habitat, proximity to other
wetlands, interspersion and open water types.
1.2.1. Number of Wetland Types
The more wetland types that are present within a single
wetland, the more diverse the habitat available for wildlife. Hence,
the greater the diversity of wildlife species in the wetland as a
whole. Golet (1976) considered a number of wetland types to be a very
important contributor to total diversity. A wetland containing more
than one wetland type should not be confused with a wetland complex;
the latter may or may not be comprised of different wetland types but
Che individual wetlands are always separated by non-wetland
environments.
Evaluation:
Number of Types
One - 3
Two - 6
Three » 9
Four or Five » 12
(Maximum possible * 12)
1.2.2. Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities are the most important measure of
diversity. This is because more than any other factor, plants can
satisfy every major requirement of wildlife except water. Vegetation
provides nesting materials and sites, protection from predators, food,
places to roost, loaf, isolation during the breeding season, etc. The
more kinds of vegetation communities present, and the greater the
number of vegetation strata, the more valuable is the wetland. Many
studies have shown that for the large majority of species, differences
in vegetation are more important to quality wildlife habitat than
differences in individual plant species making up the plant
communities. Most wildlife species are adapted primarily to one or a
1-7
-------
- 14 -
complex of Life forms and, as a result, wildlife diversity in any area
is closely related to life form diversity which in this evaluation is
measured through vegetation communities.
Evaluation;
Give two points for each single strata subform, three for
each double strata community and four for each triple strata community
present in the wetland.
In wetland complexes, each wetland in the complex should be
napped for its vegetation communities. In other words all the
wetlands in the complex should be treated as one for purposes of
evaluating vegetation communities.
(Maximum allovable • 30)
1.2.3. Diversicy of Surrounding Habitat
Wetlands cannot be evaluated in isolation from surrounding
habitat since not only do many wetland spe'cies need certain kinds of
upland habitat during some periods in their life cycle but many upland
species make use of the wetland either daily or at certain times of
the year. In general, the greater Che diversity of habitat
immediately surrounding the wetland the greater will be the wildlife
value of the wetland. Highly diverge upland habitat may include a
mixture of agricultural fields, both pastured and cultivated, fence
rows or shelterbelts with protective cover, forests, abandoned
farmland, lakes, creeks or ponds, and an undulating terrain. Intense
human activity adjacent to a wetland may deter many species from ever
utilizing the wetland. Surrounding natural habitat may serve as a
"buffer", reducing disturbance of wildlife and satisfying s.ome of
their requirements. Many animals may use wetlands for a specific
period in their life cycle and unless the wetland is easily accessible
to them, it serves them little purpose.
Evaluation:
- Ten or more kinds of surrounding habitat
including forested land 10
- Six to nine kinds of surrounding habitat
including forested land 7
L-8
-------
- 15 -
- Two Co five kinds of surrounding habicat
including forested land 4
- Surrounding habicaC made up of row crop
agriculture I
In the case of individual wetlands this variable pertains to
all uplands within 1.5 km of the wetland; in wetland complexes,
surrounding habitat pertains to uplands between and among the
different wetlands of the complex as well as lands up to 1.5 km from
the edge of any wetland of the complex.
(Maximum possible » 10)
1.2.4. Proximity to Other Wetlands
Where wetlands are located so near to each other that
wildlife can cove from one to another to take advantage from time to
time of more favourable habitat, food suppply, etc. then the value of
a wetland is enhanced (Golet 1976). Wetlands connected hydrologically
by surface water are the most valuable. Obviously, wetlands within a
defined wetland complex are all proximal to each other.
Evaluation:
In the case of individual wetlands this variable pertains to
all wetlands within l.S km; in the case of wetland complexes proximity
pertains to wetlands within the complex.
(a) Wetland Complexes 10
(b) Single Wetlands
- hydrologically connected by surface water to
other wetlands (diff. dominant type) or open
water within 1.5 km.
OR
- hydrologically connected by surface water to
other wetlands (same dominant type) within .5 km. 10
- hydrologicalLy connected by surface water to
other wetlands (diff. dominant type) or open
water body from 1.5 to 4 km away;
OR
- hydrologically connected by surface water to
other wetlands (same dominant type) from
.5 to 1.5 km away;
OR
L-9
-------
- 16 -
- Within .75 km of other wetlands (diff. dominant type) or open
water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface
water. 6
- Within 1 km of other wetlands, but not
hydrologically connected by surface water. 2
- No wetland within 1.5 km. 0
(Maximum possible • 10)
1.2.5. Interspersion
Interspersion is an expression of the araout.c of "edge"
available to wildlife. Edge is defined as the rather abrupt
transition zone or ecotone between any two vegetation forms or
subforms as for example, the area where floating vegetation contacts
eraergents, emergents contact shrubs or trees, etc. Host wildlife
species depend upon more than one habitat type and often prefer the
"edge" areas between different habitat types. Often, the number of
species and the population density of some of the species are greater
in the ecotone than in the communities flanking it (Odutn, 1971). As
the irxterspersion of wetland vegetation increases, diversity of
habitat is enhanced.
Evaluation:
Type 1-6
Type 2-12
Type 3-20
Type 4-28
In evaluating wetland complexes for interspersion one should
examine the degree of interspersion in each wetland in the complex,
then draw a conclusion as to which interspersion type might best
describe the complex as a whole. A subjective decision is required.
(Maximum oossible * 28)
1.2.6. Open Water Types
This index describes another facet of the edge effect - Che
relative proportion and areal configuration of open water to vegetated
areas. This may be critical to the survival of certain wildlife
L-10
-------
- 17 -
species, especially waterfowl chac chrive best when there is dense
cover for nesting and open water for feeding, a cover-to-water ratio
approaching 1:1 is optimal (Golet, 1976).
Evaluation:
No open Water
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
Type 5
Type 6
Type 7
Type 8
-
m
•
«
m
m
»
*
m
0
8
8
14
20
30
8
14
3
(Maximum possible » 30)
(Maximum possible for 1.2. DIVERSITY VALUES » 120)
1.3. SIZE (Biological Component)
Wetlands are often valued for their size, since Che larger a
weeland cne more likely it will contain various valuable features or
expressions. In this evaluation the value given to a particular
wetland for its size is always closely tied to quality of the wetland
and Che besc measure of wetland quality is considered to be
diversity. In contrast, the use of primary productivity variables
appear to be irrelevant or misleading. Thus a large "poor quality"
wetland made up of only cattail mats is considered to be considerably
less valuable than another of the same size which contains abundant
open water, is highly interspersed and provides a stopover place for
migrating waterfowl, for example. The value of size is therefore
closely correlated with diversity, all of whose component values are
"size dependent". Thus, diversity when coupled with size appears to
provide an excellent indicator of the "biological" value of a
wetland. In the evaluation, a special table has been prepared aimed
at quantifying the value of size as a function of diversity. The
relation between size and the size-dependent diversity score is not
linear; adjustments have been made in the table to ensure that large
but low diversity wetlands do not receive high scores for size and
also to ensure that small, highly diverse wetlands receive extra size
points. Making size a function of diversity would appear to optimize
the accuracy of the size values.
L-ll
-------
-IS-
SUE (BIOLOGIAL COMPONENT) EVALUATION TABLE
No. of
Hectares* 11-20 21-30
<2
2
4
8
12
17
23
28
37
49
62
81
105
137
178
233
302
393
511
665
863
1,123
1,460
1,398
>2
- 4
- 8
- 12
- 17
- 23
- 28
- 37
- 49
- 62
- 81
- 105
- 137
- 178
- 233
- 302
- 393
- 511
- 665
- 863
- 1,123
- 1,460
- 1,898
- 2,467
,467
4
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
3
9
9
10
10
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
14
14
15
17
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
15
16
17
13
IS
19
19
20
20
21
21
22
22
23
24
25
(Maximum
* Intervals for
Tocal Diversity Score
31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70
10
12
13
15
16
IS
19
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
35
36
37
39
40
possible
size were arrived at
category is less Chan
che
Che
4ch adds
previous
groupings Co
be
identical
4 (i.e.
maximum
2 hectares,
8 co
16
17
21
22
23
24
26
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
41
43
45
46
47
48
43
49
49
50
50
for 1.3
in che
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
41
43
45
46
47
43
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
, SIZE
35
38
40
42
44
46
48
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
71-80 81-90 91-120
42
44
46
48
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
48
49
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
(Biological ComoonenC
following manner: Che firsc
Che second adds 2,
12). Thereafter
number x a factor of
be created.
for coraparac
Wetlands
larger
, all
1.3.
Chan 2
Che Chird
intervals are
This
,467
permitted
hectares
adds 3,
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
) - 50)
size
and
a product of
25 size
are deemed Co
ive purposes.
(Maximun ooss
ible for
1.0,
BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT =
250)
L-12
-------
APPENDIX M
Ontario Government Checklist
-------
AH EVALUATION SYSTEM
FOR
WETLANDS OF ONTARIO
SOUTH OF THE FRECAMBRIAN SHIELD
FIRST EDITION
PART III. WETLAND DATA RECORD
WILDLIFE BRANCH
OUTDOOR RECREATION GROUP
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AND
CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE, ONTARIO REGION
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION SERVICE
ENVIRONMENT CANADA
MARCH 1983
Disponible ggalemenc enfrancais
M-l
-------
(i).
(ii).
(iv).
(v).
(vi).
WETLAND DATA RECORD
WETLAND NAME AND/OR NUMBER
ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
, AND DISTRICT
OF ONTARIO MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(iii). CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTION
If not 'within a designated Conservation Authority, check here
COUNTY AND REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY
TOWNSHIP
LOTS AND CONCESSIONS
(vii). MAP AND AIR PHOTO REFERENCES
(a) Longitude and Latitude
(b) U.T.M. Grid Reference Zone:
Grid:
(c) National Topographic Series Scale and Map Number(s) & Name
(d)
Air Photos
(1) Date photo taken
(2) Scale of air photos
(3) Flight and plate numbers
(viii). WETLAND SIZE AND BOUNDARIES
(a) Single contiguous wetland area:
OR
(b) "Wetland Complex" comprised of
Wetland Number (for
reference purposes)
Wetland No. 1
Wetland No. 2
Wetland No. 3 [
Wetland No. <+
Wetland No. 5
Wetland No. 6
Total size of
wetland complex:
hectares
individual wetlands as follows:
Size of each wetland
in the complex
hectares
it
it
M-2
-------
- 2 -
1.0. BIOLOGICAL COMPONENT
1.1. PRODUCTIVITY VALUES
1.1.1. Growing Degree-Days
Number of accumulated growing degree days (check one)
<2800
2800 - 3200
3200 - 3600
>3600
1.1.2. Soils Estimated Z of Area
- Loams, clays or silts (mineral)
- Organic ____________
- (fades ignated ._
1.1.3. Type of Wetland
(check one or wore) Estimated Z of Area
Fen
Carr
Swamp
Harsh
1.1.4. Site
(check one or more) Estimated Z of Area
Isolated
_^_____ Palustrine with intermittent outflow ____________
_^____ Palustrine with permanent outflow
_______ Riverine (near headwaters) ___________
_______ Riverine (mid-river)
Riverine (near mouth)
Lacustrine (at rivermouth)
________ Lacustrine (on enclosed bay) __________
Lacustrine (exposed to lake)
M-3
-------
- 3 -
L.1.5. Nutrient Status of Surface Water
Write conductivity bridge reading and calculate T.D.S. at 25o
as per tables in Appendix VI of l.L.5. in the Procedures Manual.
Initial Specific conductance Total Dissolved Solids
Micromhos/cm T.D.S. Temperature Conversion
(umhos/cm) (mg/1)
1.2. DIVERSITY VALUES
1.2.1. Number of Wetland Types
_______ one
cwo
three
four
five
1.2.2. Vegetation Communities
(a) Single Stratum Subforms (check) Dominant Species
^^^^ Deciduous Trees
_ Coniferous Trees
______ Dead Trees
Tall Shrubs
______ Low Shrub's _________________
Herbs
Mosses
______ Robust Emergents
<^____ Narrow-leaved Eraergents ____________________________
______ Broad-leaved Emergents
^_^___ Floating Planes ___________________
Free-floating Plants _
Submergents
(b) Double Strata Subforms (list)
Upper Stratum Lower Stratum
M-4
-------
- 4 -
(c) Triple Strata Sub forms (list)
Upper Stratum Middle Stratum Lower Stratum
1.2.3". Diversity of. Surrounding Habitat
(check all appropriate items)
_______ row crops
pasture
abandoned agricultural land
^^^^ deciduous forest
______ coniferous forest
^^^^ urban or cottage development
^__^ pits, quarries or mining waste disposal
open lake or deep river
_______ fence rows with cover, or shelterbelts
terraine undulating or hilly with ravines
creek(s)
1.2.4. Proximity to Other Wetlands
(check one or more)
____ hydro logically connected by surface water to other wetlands
(diff. dominant type) or open water within 1.5 km.
OR
_____ hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands
(same dominant type) within .5 km.
hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands
(diff. dominant type) or open water body from 1.5 to 4 km
away;
OR
^^ hydrologically connected by surface water to other wetlands
(same dominant type) from .5 to 1.5 km away;
OR
Within .75 km of other wetlands (diff. dominant type) or
open water body, but not hydrologically connected by surface
water;
_____ Within 1 km of other wetlands, but not hydrologically
connected by surface water.
no wetland within 1.5 km.
M-5
-------
- 5 -
1.2.5. Interspersion
(check one)
Type L Type 3
Type 2 Type 4
1.2.6. Wetland Open Water Types
(check, one)
Enter type as per map in Figure 10
_____ Ho open water
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Type 4
1.3. SIZE (Biological Component)
(refer to viii)
hectares
2.0. SOCIAL COMPONENT
2.1. RESOURCE PRODUCTS WITH CASH VALUE
2.1.1. Timber
51 to IOOZ of the wetland is a swamp with many mature
trees (over 10 m. tall).
10 to 50% of the wetland is a swamp as above
wetland has few, small or no trees
Source of information:
2.1.2. Wild Rice
wild rice present in the wetland
wild rice not present
Source of Information:
2.1.3. Commercial Fish (Bait Fish and/or Coarse Fish)
fish harvested from the wetland (as per MNR)
abundant during at least part of the year
______ not abundant or only occasional
habitat not suitable for fish
Source of Information:
M-6
-------
- 6 -
2.1.4. Bullfrogs
Present
Absent
Source of Information:
2.1.5. Snapping Turtles
Present
Absent
Source of Information:
2.1.6. Fur Bearers (check if present)
_____ muskrat . mink
raccoon ______ ocner
beaver
Source of Information:
2.2. RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES (check appropriate column)
Tyoe of Wetland Associated Use
Hunting Nature Fishing Canoeing/Boating
Appreciation
Intensity of Use or Study
aigh
Moderate
Low
None Known
Not Possible
2.3. AESTHETICS
2.3.1. Landscape Distinctness
clearly distinct
indistinct
M-7
-------
2.3.2. Absence of Human Disturbances
2.3.2.1. Level of Disturbance
human disturbances absent or nearly so;
one or several singular or localized disturbances;
moderate disturbance or localized water pollution;
impairment of natural quality intense in some areas
or severe localized water pollution;
extremely intense disturbance or water pollution
severe and widespread.
2.3.2.2. Types of Disturbances
_______ roads
utility corridor
buildings
channelization
drainage
filling
water pollution
other:
2.4. EDUCATION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
2.4.1. Educational Uses
Frequent - an average of 2 or more visits per year by
one or more school groups, local clubs for
the purpose of studying the animals,
plants, environment, etc.
Infrequent - use by organized groups (one visit or less
per
year or only casual visits)
No known visits
List groups utilizing the wetland
Name of Group Source of Information
(a)
(b)
2.4.2. Facilities and Programs (check one)
staffed interpretation center with shelters, trails,
literature
________ no interpretation center or staff, but a system of
self-guiding trails and observation points; brochures may
be available
no facilities or programs
M-8
-------
- 8 -
2.4.3. Research and Studies (check one)
one or more wetland-related scientific research papers
published in a scientific journal;
one or more reports written outlining some aspect of the
wet land's natural resources;
no reports or papers.
List scientific papers, reports, ec.
(a)
M ZZZHZZIIIZIZIIZIZ
(c)
2.5. PROXIMITY TO URBAN AREAS (check one)
_______ in an urban or suburban area
_______ <10 km from a population center greater than 10,000
______ 10 to 60 km from a population center greater than 10,000
isolated or relatively remote
2.6. OWNERSHIP/ACCESSIBILITY
2.6.1. Ownership
Z of Area (estimate)
___________ public land with unrestricted access
public land with restricted access
private, but open to the public for limited activities
___________ private club, closed to public
________ private and restricted
2.6.2. Accessibility (check one)
____________ easily accessible at most times by road or waterway
___________ easily accessible only at certain times of the year
__________ limited accessibility and moderate effort required
access difficult
2.7. Size (Social Component)
hectares (refer to viii)
M-9
-------
- 9 -
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL COMPONENT
3.1. FLOW STABILIZATION
3.1.1. Detention Due Co Surface Area
3.1.1.1. Size of catchment basin above wetland outflow in relation to
total size of all wetlands, reservoirs and lakes above the
wetland.
Catchment Basin Size sq. km.
3.1.1.2. Total Size of all Detention Areas (Lakes, Reservoirs and
Wetlands) Draining into Che Wetland (in sq. km.)
List Detention Areas Size
Total sq. km.
3.1.1.3. Size of Adjoining Lake (Lacustrine wetlands only)
hectares or sq. km.
3.1.1.4. Size of Adjoining River (Riverine Wetlands only) (check one)
Wetland located on the Ottawa, St. Lawrence, Niagara,
Detroit or St. Clair Rivers.
Wetland not on any of the above rivers.
3.1.1.5. Location and size of detention areas (lakes, reservoirs and
wetlands) within 30 km above and below the wetland.
M-10
-------
- 10 -
(a) Detention areas above Che wetland (Within 30 km.)
Name and/or Number Distance upstream Size Cumulative Size
of Detention Area from wetland (in km.)
(b) Detention, areas below the wetland (Within 30 km.)
Name and/or Number Distance downstream Size Cumulative Size
of Detention Area from wetland (in km.)
3.1.1.6. Land use along river or stream shoreline for 20 km below the
wetland (for Palustrine and all Riverine Wetlands except those
located along Che 5 Large rivers).
km. village, town or urban
" actively farmed agricultural
" forested
^^^^^ " abandoned by agriculture
" other (state)
40 " » Total in km. (i.e. 20 km on each side of the
river or stream)
3.1.1.7. Size (Hydrological Component) (see viii) hectares
3.1.2. Flow Augmentation
Wetland Catchment basin sq. km. (See 3.1.1.1.)
Wetland Area as a 2 of Catchment Basin Size 7,
ui n
-------
- 11 -
3.2. WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
3.2.1. Short Term Removal of Nucriencs from Surface Water
3.2.1.1. Site Type (see 1.1.4. and check one)
Isolated
__________ Palustrine with intermittent outflow
______^ Palustrine with permanent outflow
_________ Riverine (near headwaters)
________ Riverine (mid-river)
__________ Riverine (near mouth)
Lacustrine (at rivennouth)
Lacustrine (on enclosed bay)
Lacustrine (exposed to lake)
3.2.1.2. Actual Wetland Area with Robust Emergents and Submergents
(check one)
0 or <5
5 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 250
251 - 500
501 - 1000
>1000 hectares
3.2.1.3. Land Use in Catchment Basin (check one)
_________ mainly agriculture and/or urban
^^^^^ roughly 40-60% agriculture; remainder forested or
or abandoned agriculture
mainly forested
3.2.2. Long Term Nutrient Trap (check one)
wetland Located on an active delta
_________ wetland lacustrine - rivennouth but without
obvious delta
________ wetland with organic soils occupying 50% or more
of the area
wetland with organic soils occupying less than
50% of the area
M-12
-------
- 12 -
3.3. EROSION CONTROL
3.3.1. Erosion Buffer
3.3.1.1. Riverine Wetlands (check principal vegetation form)
________ Trees or Shrubs
Emergents
________ Submergents and Floating
Non-vegetated or nearly so
3.3.1.2. Lacustrine Wetlands (check principal vegetation form)
________ Forest or Shrubs
________ Emergents
________ Submergents and Floating
_________ Non-vegetated or nearly so
3.3.1.3. Fetch (Lacustine Wetlands and/or Riverine wetlands on
any of the 5 large rivers)
Maximum distance
<2 km
2-8 km
>8 km
barrier beach present
3.3.2 Sheet Erosion
For all except Lacustrine wetlands
(check the appropriate square)
& Factor Value
Wetland Size
sq. km. <50 51-75
100
1-5
6-10
11-15
16-20
>20
M-13
-------
- 13 -
4.0. SPECIAL FEATURES COMPONENT
4.1 RARITY AND/OR SCARCITY
4.1.1. Individual Wetlands
Name of physiographic unic: _____________
Number of unit:
4.1.2. Wetland Type Representation (check one or more)
marsh
swamp and/or carr
fen
bog _______
4.1.3. Individual Species
4.1.3.1. Breeding habitat for an endangered animal or plant species:
Name of Species Source of Information
(1)
(2)
4.1.3.2. Traditional migration or feeding habitat for an endangered
animal species:
Name of Species Source of Information
(1)
(2)
4.1.3.3. Breeding or feeding habitat for a provincially significant
animal species:
Name of Species Source of Information
(1)
(2)
4.1.3.4. Provincially significant plant species:
Name of Species Source of Information
(i) —ZZZZZZZZZZZl
(2)
M-14
-------
- 14 -
4.1.3.5. Regionally significant species:
Name of Soecies Source of Information
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
4.2. SIGNIFICANT FEATURES AND/OR FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
4.2.1. Nesting of Colonial Wacerbirds (check one)
__________ currently nesting; species narae(s)
known Co have nested within past 5 years;
species name(s)
active feeding area
none known
Source of Information:
4.2.2. Winter Cover for Wildlife (check only highest level of significance)
____________ Provincially signficant for Deer , Moose
Regionally significant for Deer , Moose
__________ Locally significant for Deer , Moose ______
Good winter cover for other species(list):
Poor winter cover
Source of Information:
4.2.3. Waterfowl Staging (check only highest level of significance)
. Canadian significance
Provincial significance
Regional signficance
Little or no significance
Source of Information:
4.2.4. Waterfowl Production (check only highest level of significance)
Provincial significance
Regional significance
_________ Local significance
Source of Information:
4.2.5. Migratory Passerine Stopover Area (check one)
Highly significant
__________ not singularly significant
Source of Information:
M-15
-------
- L5 -
4.2.6. Significance for Fish Spawning and Rearing (check one)
____________ Regional Significance
_____________ Present
______________ Unknown
Not possible
Species and Source of Information:
4.2.7. Unusual Geological or other Surficial Features
Feature Source of Information
(1)
(2)
4.3. ECOLOGICAL AGE
Type of Wetland Z Area
____________ Bog
Fen
_________ Swamp/ Carr
Marsh
INVESTIGATORS
(a)
(b)
(c)
AFFILIATION
DATE
ESTIMATED TIME DEVOTED TO COMPLETING THE FIELD SURVEY IN "PERSON HOURS"
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984-756-884/437
M-16
-------