QH
76.5
.V5
W43
1987
903R87108
DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY REPORT
Suitability of Chincoteague Island for Section 404 Activities
Chincoteague Advanced Identification Study
Prepared by:
Patricia Weber
Project Manager
Wetlands and Marine Policy Section
U.S.E.P.A. Region ITI
-------
US EPA Region HI
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i. Abstract
ii. Contributors
ill. List of Figures
iv. List of Tables
1) Introduction 1
r
2) Environmental Setting 3
3) Characterization and Delineation of
the Wetland Areas on Chincoteague 7
4) Chincoteague Wetlands Functional Assessment .................. 12
5) Wetland Suitability Determinations for
Section 404 Activities 19
References 21
.
Itopoaal Center for Environmental
3 GCO Arch Street (3PM52)
FhilKlsIphia, PA 1910H
-------
ABSTRACT
The Chincoteague advanced identification study was undertaken pursuant
to Section 230.80 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s 404
(b)(l) guidelines ["Advanced identification of disposal areas"] by Region
III EPA and the Norfolk District Army Corps of Engineers. The purpose of
the study is to provide preliminary indications of areas on Chincoteague
Island, Virginia, where it is generally suitable arfd generally unsuitable
for dredge and fill activities to be permitted via the permit process
contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. This information is
intended for public review and consumption and will facilitate the
regulatory processing of 404 permit applications as well as increase
public awareness of the permit program contained in the Clean Water Act
regarding the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the
United States.
Chincoteague Island, Virginia, has many wetland areas which vary in
size, shape and extent. Although historical development and wetlands
filling has reduced the acreage and distribution of the island's original
wetlands resources, there still remains on Chincoteague many viable wet-
land habitats, both palustrine and estuarine, that contribute to the
island's overall environmental quality in a positive manner. The advanced
identification study is based on an accurate documentation of all wetland
areas on Chincoteague and an assessment of the hydrologic and ecologic
functional values possessed by those wetlands.
The results of this study supplied the necessary components that
went into the development of advanced decisions on the designation of
areas that are both suitable and non-suitable for the future disposal of
dredged or fill material. The delineation of wetland areas and the
assessment of wetland functional values provided the framework for the
Chincoteague advanced identification study and are described in this
report.
-------
CONTRIBUTORS
Gene Cocke; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia
Dowlas Davis, "
Jerry Tracy;
William J. Hoffman; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Charles Rhodes, Jr.; " " " • . - -
Karen Wolper; " ....
Jane Rowan; " ....
John R. Pomponio; " ....
William Sipple; " , Washington, D.C,
Robert Zepp; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, Maryland
Douglas Norton; Bionetics Corp., Warrenton, Virginia
William Odum; Dept. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. Location Map, Chincoteague island, Virginia ......... 4
Figure 2. Chincoteague Island, 1949 6
Figure 3. Wetland Areas: Chincoteague, 1985/6 8
Figure 4. Wetland Functional Values Study Sites .., 15
-------
List of Tables
Table 1. Observed Properties In the Assessment of
Wetland Functions 13
Table 2. Wetland Functional Values Matrix ,. 17
-------
1. Introduction
The 1977 Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill
material into the waters of the United States except in compliance with
Section 404 of the Act (Want, 1984). Section 404 sets up the procedures
for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or other permitting authority, to
issue permits specifying discharge sites. The approval of discharges is
based on the Corps of Engineer's Public Intertest Review and the application
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA')'s 404(b)(l) guidelines,
which are the substantive environmental criteria for dredged and fill
material discharges under the Clean Water Act (45 FR 85337, Dec. 24,
1980). The guidelines define the term "waters of the United States" to
include wetlands, generally swamps, marshes and bogs, and other special
aquatic sites. Section 230.80 of EPA's 404(b)(l) guidelines, outline
the general procedures that may be followed to conduct advanced identi-
fications of dredged or fill material disposal sites. The purpose of
advanced identification is to determine the suitability or non-suitability
of an area for the future deposition of dredged or fill material. During
the process all the environmental information that is normally reviewed
during a Section 404 permit application is collected. To conserve resources
and provide permit predictability to the public, advanced identification
is carried out prior to an actual application to conduct the regulated
(dredged/fill material discharge) activities. The advanced identification
process and suitability determinations then follow the environmental
evaluation exercises normally conducted during the proposal/permit
application of an individual project. To conserve resources and provide
permit predictability to the public, advanced identification is carried
out prior to an actual application to conduct the regulated (dredged/fill
material discharge) activities.
On Chincoteague Island, Virginia, there has been an extended period
of public confusion over the regulatory process that oversees dredge and
fill actions in areas that are under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
Often this confusion has resulted in the unauthorized filling of Chincoteague's
wetlands. The longterm and cumulative impacts of widespread wetlands loss
are important issues that may ultimately determine the quality of the human
environment on the island. In order to reduce the public confusion and
simultaneously facilitate the regulatory process, an advanced identification
study was viewed as an appropriate and timely exercise to complete on
Chincoteague Island.
-------
In addition to increasing public awareness of the 404 regulatory
process, the results of the Chincoteague advanced identification study
will inform the public of where permits are required; specifically, of
wetland and aquatic areas under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
Likewise, the public may become informed of the permit decisions that
are likely for all areas under jurisdiction and that have been reviewed
pursuant to advanced identification. By utilizing this information,
potential applicants may avoid costly preconstruction planning time and
investments on areas where denial of a dredge and fill permit is probable.
The public should also enjoy more expeditious permit issuances since
advanced identification decisions rely on previous satisfactory collec-
tions of relevant environmental information. That environmental infor-
mation is the technical basis for the advanced permit decisions. This
report will detail the technical information that was analyzed in support
of the Chincoteague advanced identifcation study.
The Chincoteague advanced identification study established three
broad goals:
Goal #1: identify and document all wetland areas that are in jurisdiction
of the 404 program.
Goal //2: conduct an investigation of the hydrologic and ecologic functions
of the island's wetlands and develop a baseline of relevant envi-
ronmental information;
Goal #3: develop advanced determinations of Section 404 permit decisions
by analysis of the results contained in Goal 1 and 2. Conduct
suitablities analyses on all areas studied regarding potential
impacts from dredged or fill material discharge activities and
their compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
This report will detail the procedures and results that went into
the completion of each stated goal. The report is intended to describe
the 404 permit program, the natural functions and values of wetland
habitats, and explain in detail the results of the Chincoteague advanced
identification study.
-------
2. Environmental Setting
Geological and Physical Description
Chincoteague is located on the Atlantic side of the Delmarva
Peninsula at the northern end of Virginia's Eastern Shore in Accomack
County (Figure 1). It is approximately eight miles long and less than
one mile wide (not Including Piney Island, which is adjacent to Chinco-
teague). Between Chincoteague Island and the Atlantic Ocean is Assateague
Island, a long coastal barrier which hosts Assateague National Seashore
and Chincoteague National Wildlife Refuge.
Geologic studies indicate that Chincoteague Island is less than 2000
years old (Geottle, 1981). Such evidence suggests that Chincoteague has
migrated along with Assateague over a nine mile distance landward from an
origin in the Atlantic Ocean. This migration, coupled with rising sea
levels that occurred during the mid- to late Holocene period may be
responsible for Chincoteague's dominant physical features. Chincoteague
Island exhibits a system of parallel ridges and swales that typify its
coastal barrier island origin. Chincoteague is a topographically low
island with an average elevation of six feet above sea level. This
pattern of longitudinally arranged ridges and swales sweeps the islands
length in a gentle northeast to southeast arc (Figure 2).
By being situated between the Eastern Shore mainland and the Assateague
barrier, Chincoteague is afforded protection from direct ocean wind and
wave energy. The aquatic environment of Chincoteague Island and its
surrounding waterways has been described as a coastal low energy system
(Castagna, pers. comm., 1985). This characteristic exists due to the
restriction of tidal movement and transport through Tom's Cove inlet. The
affect of tidal action is further depleted by dispersal over the broad
and shallow Chincoteague Bay, which receives relatively minor inputs of
riverine or land-based freshwater. The salt concentrations of Chincoteague
Bay may, on occasion, be higher than those of normal seawater- which
illustrates a low energy pattern of water circulation and tidal action (Clark,
1977). The environmental quality of Chincoteague's aquatic areas is in
large part determined by the presence or absence of physical (tides and
weather) Influences. Due to the prevalence of a low energy physical
setting, the effects of environmentally disturbing activites on aquatic
ecosytems may be more pronounced than in a more dynamic, multi-influenced
setting. The moderating processes of high volume tidal flushing or fresh-
water dilution and mixing are not dominant conditions in and around
Chincoteague Island. The ability of the fairly fragile ecosystem to
tolerate negative impacts (e.g., waterways dredging and wetlands filling)
is difficult to predict. This is due to different portions of the ecosy-
stem reacting differently to various types of disturbance (Clark, 1977).
-------
-------
An analysis of current ecosystem function and "health" can partially
predict the potential tolerances of the environment to withstand stress.
Wetland" habitats are widely recognized for their natural values in enhancing
the quality of the environment. Chincoteague's extensive wetland resources
may be an important asset by their potential contributions in maintaining
water quality and aquatic resources. The hydrologic and ecologic functions
of Chincotegue's freshwater and saltwater wetlands is investigated at
more depth later in this report.
Human Settlement and Development History
Chincoteague was settled in the early 17th century, two years after Jamestown,
Virginia. Residents traditionally earned their living from fishing and aqau-
culture which was supplemented with agricultural (primarily poultry) oper-
ations. The causeway from the Eastern Shore mainland was built In the 1920's;
however, in 1963, the bridge constructed between Assateague Island and
Chincoteague had a more pronounced effect on the island's people. Since that
time, the tourism trade has largely supplanted the seafood industry as
the major economic activity. The proliferation of motels, campgrounds
and trailer parks exists to accomodate the seasonal visitors that, in
growing numbers, travel to the nearby beaches, nature trails and fishing
spots. In July of each year , the annual penning and auction of ponies
can attract up to 30,000 people.
Chincoteague has approximately 4500 year-round residents which can,
on average, increase to 15,000 during the summer tourist season (Battiata,
1984). Local political oversight Is divided on Chincoteague. Within the
Island are the limits of the Town of Chincoteague which is governed by a
mayor and town council. The rest of the island is overseen by the County
of Accomack. While there Is an apparent lack of a comprehensive land use
plan, the pressure to develop second homes, retirement communities and
additional tourist facilities persists. The limited availability of
developable upland has caused the widespread conversion of wetland habitats
to uplands throughout Chincoteague Island.
Added to the scarcity of available upland is the island's problem of
wastewater treatment. All of Chincoteague's residential and commercial
dwellings are serviced by septic systems. The ability of septic systems
to adequately treat sewage waste depends on proper Installation in
suitable soils at a sufficient distance from open water. Chincoteague is
a low-lying island composed primarily of sand/sandy loam soils and has a
naturally occurring high water table (SWCB,1975). The septic systems on
Chincoteague Island are often not properly installed which can allow for
inadequately treated wastes to saturate the soils and water table and
ultimately, the coastal watercourses. Serious water pollution and con-
tamination of seafood can create the potential for public health hazards.
Chincoteague Island's vegetated wetlands may be treating septic system
wastes through sediment retention, nutrient cycling and chemical adsorption.
The need for improved sewage treatment was investigated by the town in
1975. The recommendation of that Investigation was for no action to be
taken due to the lack of a suitable sewage effluent discharge site. The
Chincoteague advanced identification study did not include a chemical nor
biological testing of the wetlands' wastewater treatment ability; that
function numbers among others wetland functions in the functional assessment
portion of this study.
-------
^^SiiS^^^^i^^^^S^Sfe
•*".'•:«..•,-,• •--^•"•-X't f -"•, ,' •--.- . ..'.
-''"•-•:«- ,-,*•-•• t ,:•-;•-,* ;, > - ,-„ '-
.•w;',.-.;—--.-.^./ :.;-\\* ? A,--.-.;• f.-?.'i.
^^^€^^^CAA'
/*f**i, ' JkTfc,'JV<> •" J ££•*'••
-^R
•A^^'A^Vi^vV;*#••• ;;^;.^'^\^-;--^H:>K^^4^^>^^^;-' •' "^^^'^'^
^Vr^^/T^^^fv ^•r^^'^v^.i'^
-------
3. Characterization and Delineation of Chincoteague's
Wetland Areas
The purpose of this section is to discuss the diverse character of
the wetlands on Chincoteague Island and to describe the methods that were
employed to map and document the wetland areas.
Wetland Character
Chincoteague Island possesses extensive, contiguous wetlands within
and around its perimeter. The estimated total acreage of all wetland
areas on Chincoteague is 1,242 acres (Figure 3). rThe wetlands located
outside or alongside the island's border are predominantly estuarine
saltmarshes. The dominant vegetation of these areas are emergent grasses
[smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) , saltmeadow hay (jS. patens) ,
spike grass (Distichlis spicata)] and upper-marsh shrubs [marsh elder
(jva frutescens) and groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia)]. These
marshes are either regularly flooded or irregularly flooded intertidal
zones that possess marsh peat, mud or sandy substrates. The ecological
value of salt marshes is well documented in the scientific literature
(Nixon and Oviatt, 1973; Odum, 1967; Ranwell, 1972; Clark, 1977).
The functional value of Chincoteague1 s intertidal salt marshes and mud
flats is summarized below:
0 they generate particulate and dissolved organic matter that annually
contributes to detrital based energy budgets
0 saltmarshes and mud flats are the center of complex food webs for
a variety of organisms and support numerous biological communities
0 intertidal areas provide food and protection for young finfish and
support dense populations of shellfish
0 Chincoteague's shoreline may be afforded protection from erosion by
absorption of wind and wave forces by the anchored vegetation and ex-
tensive flats
0 saltmarshes can greatly contribute to the overall biological produc-
tivity of the bay and are constantly being utilized by migratory bird» for
feeding, resting, nesting and rearing of young.
The interior wetland areas on Chincoteague Island are interesting
ecological areas. These wetlands are located primarily within the swales
of the island's ridge/swale system. Chincoteagues ridges are geologic
relicts of beach dunes and the swales maintain their own ecologic and
hydrologic system. The swale wetlands are generally many times longer
than wide. Some possess open water, others are fully vegetated. The
system classification of the swale wetlands ranges from estuarine (saltwater)
to palustrine (brackish or freshwater). The vegetation that is supported
in these interior wetlands largely depends on the dominant water regimes
and/or presence of tidal inlets. The swales that are further removed from
-------
VD
rH
m
m
0)
I
01
4-J
8
0}
(0
2
•g
(0
Q
Z
LJLJ
z>
o
<
LU
I—
o
u
I
8
-------
or completely lack tidal Influences are palustrlne in nature and exhibit
vegetation that is typically intolerant of high salt concentrations.
The governing hydrologic influence on the palustrine wetland areas is
predominantly through contact with the groundwater table, and also from
surface runoff and unconfirmed subsurface lateral flow. Typical vegetation
found in Chincoteague palustrine swales are shrubs [ e.g., swamp rose
(Rosa palustris), marsh hibiscus (Hibiscus mocheu16s)] emergent8 [cattail
(Typha sp), arrow-arum (Peltandra virginica), Walter's millet, (Echinochloa
walterii), smartweeds (Polygonum sp.)J and some floating leaf vegetation
( Lemmna sp.). Forested freshwater swamps are also found on Chincoteague.
These wetlands which are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum
(Li^uldumbar styraciflua) and other water tolerant trees, may be considered
a relatively rare habitat for this coastal island.
In total, wetland types on Chincoteague Island fall within one or more
of the following catagories (Cowardin, et.al., 1980):
0 Regularly flooded and irregularly flooded estuarine salt marsh
0 Regularly flooded intertidal sand/mud flats
0 Irregularly flooded estuarine scrub-shrub wetlands
0 Seasonally flooded (reed) marshes
0 Semipermanently flooded freshwater marshes
0 Semipermanently flooded and seasonally flooded palustrine scrub-shrub
0 Temporarily flooded forested swamps
The multiple wetland types located on Chincoteague Island provide
for an interesting and deverse ecosystem. Each type of wetland habitat
can singularly provide important hydrologic and ecologic functions (e.g.,
wildlife food preferences, biochemical capibilites, productivity variations)
and together the majority of the wetland areas can optimize the island's
functioning as a healthy ecosystem (Adamus, 1983). This is an important
condition in the broader view of environmental quality on Chincoteague.
Whether the strength of the wetland ecosystem functional diversity can
collectively mitigate environmental disturbances is difficult to predict.
Wetland functions and values help to define environmental tolerances. The
past and present disturbances (from waterway dredging, creation of upland)
at the expense of wetland areas and the chronic stresses to the environment
borne by human activities (domestic wastes input) may be seriously limiting
the environmental tolerances on Chincoteague Island. It would be prudent
for land use managers to try and define the point before which ecosystem
dysfunction might become irreversible and public health and welfare are
j eopardized.
-------
Wetland Delineation
Goal #1 of the Chincoteague advanced identification study stated:
"identify and document all areas that are in jurisdiction of the Clean
Water Act, i.e., wetland habitats and/or waters of the United States."
The delineation of wetlands on Chincoteague employed a number of technical
tools and methods that produced a comprehensive map of wetlands and water
habitats for the entire island.
The first technical tool used was recent aeria*! photography that
sufficiently displayed the land area of the entire island. This aerial
photography was then interpreted by an aerial imagerist who produced
overlays to the photographs that depicted different land types. The
photographic interpretation methods described below are exerpted from
"Wetland Identification and Assessment: Chincoteague Island, Virginia"
by Douglas J. Norton of the Bionetics Corporation in Warrenton, Virginia
(Norton, 1985):
Photographic Interpretation
The analysis was performed by steroscopically viewing pairs of
transparencies, backlit on a standard Richards light table. By observing
the site three-dimensionally, and at various magnifications, the analyst
could search for objects, features, or "signatures" associated with
different environmental conditions. The term "signature" refers to a
combination of characteristics (such as color, tone, shadow, texture and
size) which indicate a specific object or conditions, even though the
object itself is not identifiable from the photography.
In order to identify plant community types, land use, and wetland /up land
boundaries, several sets of aerial photographic coverage were consulted.
All or part of the study area was included in photography representing
the spring, summer, and fall seasons in medium to large scale using color
or color infrared film.
Color infrared photography dated April 1982 (scale 1:24,000) was
selected as the most suitable photographic base for feature delineation,
and 20"x24" prints at 1:6,000 scale were prepared. The large size and
scale of the prints mad it easy to delineate small plant communities on
the acetate overlays, since at this scale a square inch equaled about 2
hectares (5 acres).
10
-------
Field Verification
The overlays depicting photo-interpreted wetland areas were sub-
jected to intensive verification in the field. All wetland habitats
were verified in concert with three basic tasks:
a) confirmation of the wetland/upland boundary on aerial overlays,
b) adjusting and updating the interpretation, showing any additions
or losses since the date of photography,
c) providing final land cover determinations on ^ones not identified
by photographic interpretation.
Ground-truthing of the Chincoteague wetlands identification included
observations of hydrologic conduits in the form of pipes, culverts, and
drainage ditches.
For the most part, the photo-interpretation products acted as a
field guide to conduct wetland identification methods much like those
that are conducted during the individual permit application process.
The technical standards for delineating wetlands under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act are to observe and identify three parameters indicating
the presence of a wetland. These three parameteters are: wetlands hydro-
logy (inundation, surface saturation, silt deposition, water marks), wet-
land soils (presence or absence of mottling, saturation), and wetlands
vegetation (presence of obligate hydrophytes and/or facultative plant
species). These characteristics were observed during the wetland delin-
eation portion of the project.
11
-------
A. Wetlands Functional Assessment
Goal #2 of the Chincoteague advanced identifcation study was to
"conduct an investigation on the hydrologic and ecologic functions of the
island's wetlands and develop a baseline of relevant environmental infor-
mation." This goal logically follows the characterization and deline-
ation of wetland areas (Goal #1) and completes the collection of environ-
mental information necessary for permit processing* In the special case
of advanced identification, however, that information is gathered prior to
a permit application.
i
The purpose of conducting a wetland functional assessment on Chincoteague
Island is to identify the observable environmental processes of the island's
wetlands resources and survey the degree of function of those processes.
This analysis furnishes useful information on the various properties
of the wetland areas and helps define their contribution to the environment.
The ability of both freshwater and saltwater wetlands to provide valdable
environmental functions is well documented in the literature (Greeson,
et. al., 1979; Darnell, 1976; Good, et.al., 1978). Most of the values
commonly attributed to wetlands have been the focus of scientific studies
that have confirmed, through intricate or long-term analyses, the ability
of wetland ecosystems to perform certain natural functions. By recogni-
zing the scientific community's documentation of wetland functional values,
the wetlands assessment on Chincoteague was well guided. The general
functional groups of environmental functions and values can be broadly
catagorized as below:
Ecological Determinants: - Hydrologic Determinants:
wildlife habitat support flood water storage
fisheries habitat support storm flow modification
food web structure support groundwater (aquifer) recharge
biotic community habitattion shoreline erosion abatement
endangered species habitat trapping, cycling of sed-
ments and nutrients
Other widely recognized environmental functions of wetlands include: re-
creation, bird-watching, fishing, boating, education, research, and food,
fiber and fuel production.
12
-------
Table 1.
1. CONTIGUITY
2. CONSTRICTION
• « 3. SHAPE OF BASIN
• 4. FETCH AND EXPOSURE
5. BASIN SURFACE
6. WETLAND SURFACE AREA
7. BASIN AREA/WATERSHED AREA RATIO
8. BASIN AREA/SURWATERSHED AREA RATIO
9. LOCATION IN WATERSHED
• 10. STREAM ORDER
11. GRADIENT OF SUBWATERSHED
12. GRADIENT OF TRIBUTARIES
13. GRADIENT OF BASIN
14. PERCHED CONDITION
15. LAND COVER OF SUBWATERSHED
16. LAND COVER TRENDS
17. SOILS OF SUBWATERSHED.
18. LITHOLOGIC DIVERSITY
19. DELTA ENVIRONMENT
20. EVAPORATION-PRECIPITATION BALANCE
21. WETLAND SYSTEM
22. VEGETATION FORM
23. SUBSTRATE TYPE
24. SALINITY AND CONDUCTIVITY
25. pH
26. HYDROPERIOD
27. FLOODING DURATION AND EXTENT
28. ARTIFICIAL WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS
29. NATURAL WATER LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS
30. TIDAL RANGE
31. SCOURING
32. FLOW VELOCITY
33. WATER DEPTH (MAXIMUM)
34. WATER DEPTH (MINIMUM)
35. WIDTH
36. OXYGENATION OF SEDIMENTS
37. MORPHOLOGY OF WETLAND
38. FLOW BLOCKAGE
39. BASIN ALTERATIONS r.»
40. POOL-RIFFLE RATIO I
41. BASIN'S VEGETATION DENSITY
42. WETLAND'S VEGETATION DENSITY
43. SHEET VS. CHANNEL FLOW
44. WETLAND-WATER EDGE
45. GRADIENT OF EDGE
46. SHORELINE VEGETATION DENSITY
47. SHORELINE SOILS
48. DISTURBANCE
49. PLANTS: FORM RICHNESS
50. PLANTS: WATERFOWL VALUE
51. PLANTS: ANCHORING VALUE
52. PLANTS: PRODUCTIVITY
53. INVERTEBRATE DENSITY: FRESHWATER
54. INVERTEBRATE DENSITY: TIDAL FLAT
55. SHORE EROSION MEASUREMENTS
56. GROUND WATER MEASUREMENTS
57. SUSPENDED SOLIDS
58. ALKALINITY
59. EUTROPHIC CONDITION
60. WATER QUALITY CORRELATES
61. WATER QUALITY ANOMALIES
62. WATER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
63. BOTTOM WATER TEMPERATURE
64. DISSOLVED OXYGEN
65. UNDERLYING STRATA
66. DISCHARGE DIFFERENTIAL
67. TSS DIFFERENTIAL
68. NUTRIENT DIFFERENTIAL
69. RECHARGE EFFECTIVENESS
70. DISCHARGE EFFECTIVENESS
71. FLOOD STORAGE EFFECTIVENESS
72. SHORELINE ANCHORING OPPORTUNITY
73. SHORELINE ANCHORING EFFECTIVENESS
74. SEDIMENT TRAPPING OPPORTUNITY
75. SEDIMENT TRAPPING EFFECTIVENESS
Observed Properties In the Assessnent of Wetland Functional Functions.
13
-------
The assessment of hydrologic and ecologic functions on the wetland
habitats of Chincoteague Island was limited by time and funding. Repre-
sentative wetland areas (Figure 4) were selected and surveyed in a fashion
that was both reliable and rapid. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
was retained by EPA Region III to conduct the wetlands functional asses-
sment on Chincoteague Island. The collection of technical information
was obtained through the Department of Environmental Sciences at the
University of Virginia. A supplementary investigation was conducted
jointly by the Norfolk Corps of Engineers, the Fish and Wildlife Service
- Annapolis, and Region III EPA. Two descriptive reports were completed
that discuss the wetlands assessment on Chincoteague Islaiid (Odum, et.al.,
1986; EPA Region III unpubl.rep.). The pertinent findings of that lit-
erature is discussed in this section.
Methods
The assessment of wetland functions and values on Chincoteague was
conducted using the methodology developed by Adamus and Stockwell; "A
Method for Wetland Functional Assessment " (2 vols., FHWA-IP-82-24, March,
1983). The method provides a rapid procedure to indicate the functional
values of selected wetland study sites on Chincoteague by primarily employ-
ing field observations. The method entails the recording of over 400 ob-
servations that supply qualitative information on the following functions:
- groundwater recharge and discharge
- flood storage and desynchronization
- nutrient retention and removal
- sediment trapping
- shoreline anchoring, erosion control
- food web support
- fishery habitat
- wildlife habitat
- recreational use
This inventory includes questions on the wetland study site, its waterways, and
the adjacent land areas. The observations are presented and explained in
terms of their ability to predict wetland functions (Table 1). The re-
corded observations then form the basis of interpreting the presence and
degree of wetland functions (above). The use of wetland technical exper-
tise also supplemented the Chincoteague wetland assessment, in an effort
to supply as much information on the wetland areas as time and funding
could afford. Areas for possible future scientific analyses (water qual-
ity studies, detrital export studies) were noted throughout the process.
•*'
14
-------
n
01
4->
•H
w
CO
0)
3
I
1
rH
4J
0)
M
Cu
15
-------
The results of the wetlands functional assessment were tabulated for
each of the wetland areas studied (Table 2). The various wetland study
areas were selected as suitably representing all classes and systems of
habitats for the island. From the compiled results, the wetland areas on
Chincoteague appear to share the ability to support a number of important
environmental functions. These are: groundwater recharge, flood storage,
sediment trapping and nutrient retention, and wildlife habitat. The
ability of the wetlands on Chincoteague Island to perform these functions
may be due to the presence of a number of physical and biological proper-
ties. For instance, the groundwater recharge funetion can be explained
by the existence of a high groundwater table directly underneath the
island's surface and by the prevalence of wetland areas in direct
contact with the underground water source. The important environmental
factors of the groundwater recharge function are replenishment of the
aquifer, desynchronization of flood peaks, and water turbidity reduction.
The role of Chincoteague's wetlands to retain or recycle nutrients
is significant from the standpoint of both environmental quality and public
health and welfare. Given that the functional survey conducted on the
island did not entail the collection of empirical data, the high functional
ratings indicate a strong potential for the wetlands to partially treat
sewage wastes. Vegetation that is suited for wetland habitats can uptake
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) from the water and sediments and
store or recycle them. This action by'wetlands prevents the direct dis-
charge of polluted water into open channels and bays. Nutrient retention
and removal is a limited function when waste input exceeds a wetlands1
chemical and physical capabilities. The increases in waste production
during the summer season on Chincoteague can cause oxygen deficiencies
in the wetlands and waterways. More important is the migration of un-
treated wastes to the coastal waters where contamination of sea life
(fish and shellfish) can occur. The cumulative losses of wetlands (and
their positive contributions to water quality) on Chincoteague is an
important factor when impacts of future discharges of dredged or fill
material are considered.
Wildlife, mostly in the form of migratory birds, visit Chincoteague
Island and the surrounding waterways in very large numbers all year. The
maintenance of a national wildlife refuge on Assateague further illustrates
this regions popularity as a feeding and nesting area by birds. On
Chincoteague Island, dense concentrations of seasonal wading birds were
observed in the islands interior wetland habitats throughout the advanced
idientification study. The herons, egrets and ibises appeared to enjoy
the shelter and solitude of the interior swales equal to the the salt-
16
-------
JJ
c
W «3
^§
O £
C D>
(-1 ±J
z £
o
to
TJ
C
O -H
0* CK
w a
TJ "D E
£ Q R3
03 D >
i 5 «
jj
•^ ..
O t-1
rn 5
C 4J
H to
—i >•>
s to
S^
U m
a Q) -o
CD <— t ro
O Q
a: a
a)
o
•o
c
££&
Oyster
Point
Devel.
1
s
l-l
X
5
M
I
S
M
3=
X
•£>
g
M
X
D
X
B
X
a
§
X
s
fH
X
1
X
M
X
s
M
X
•
X
s
t-l
X
5
M
X
HI
§
X
§
X
s
M
X
M
X
Q
1
Q
5
n
X
§
X
X
1
X
§
X
s
M
X
5
M
X
I
1
X
s
M
X
§
X
5
M
X
1
5
I
Q
S
o
£
1
3
"3
"a
l
S
5
M
X
§
X
§
1
S
M
X
§
X
b
o
CO
CO
1
§
i
§
X
^i 6; u x x « a:
CO Z fej b S < di
«
4-> Q. JJ TO H
c CL (TJ jj AJ
Q) 3 4J -"-i HJ
JJ M -H 13 Q)
0) X3 (0 U
t< c TO x: o
c z: >-,*-!
0) O M -H
-H
0)
-U (0
Q) — I
C "O
4J O W -H
3 O -H ;H O rD
2 Cu CL, S < Oi
II II II II II H
SP
5 € "H 3 £ P
O tO 0} 03 O '*•'
(D -r-i N £1 Qi
lj XJ 0) -i-i O Q<
. C1 C c JJ
Li i-i fl5 O co Jj
0 (D lu t-l 4J
4J 4J O -C QJ
(C 03 -U O C 4J
" ~ "~ -r-t C
c
§„
O O tL
n n u
C T? to (D g
80 0) ui -S
0 T3 O P
Q CO
O t,
II II
< H
to co
17
-------
marshes. By being observed in such large numbers, it was deduced that
the wildlife obtained suitable food in the palustrine swales. Habitation
by birds in these wetlands can provide for mutual benefits ( e.g., insect
control) and proof of a wetland's value. The recreational value of bird-
watching is also supported by many wetland areas on Chincoteague Island.
The assessment of wetlands functions and values is an important
component in the advanced identification process. The final determina-
tions of areas both suitable and unsuitable for the future disposal of
dredged or fill material relies heavily on the existing ecologic and hy-
drologic condition of wetlands on Chincoteague Island. In addition, by
having environmental information collected over most of the island's
area, the integration of other information sources ( demography, climate)
is facilitated. That integration forms the basis of the advanced permit
designations which is the subject of the next section.
18
-------
5) WetTand Suitability Determinations for Section 404 Activities
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act sets up the procedure for Issuing
permits that specify sites for the discharge of dredged or fill material.
Advanced identification of disposal areas allows for the identification of
sites to be considered as 1) possible future disposal sites, or 2) areas
generally unsuitable for disposal site specification (45 FR 85357, Wed.,
Dec. 24, 1980). Either type of identification constitutes information to
facilitate permit application and processing. The advanced identification
of areas for future dredged and/or fill material discharges is required to
be carried out with a full consideration of EPA's 404(b)(l) guidelines.
The designation of a site as a possible future disposal site must, therefore,
be based on the consideration that the future use is in compliance with the
regulations. Areas designated as generally unsuitable for dredged or fill
material discharges are so designated because such a use of that area is
likely not considered to be in compliance with the regulations. Both
considerations must take into account all the relative criteria that
normally form the basis of Section 404 permit decisions.
The Chincoteague advanced identification study developed the necessary
decisionmaking criteria through Goal #1: the mapping of j urisdictional
areas where advanced permit decisions could be applied; and Goal #2: col-
lection of environmental information. Goal #3 called for the development
of "advanced determinations of Section 404 permit decisions by analysis of
the results contained in Goal 1 and 2" and to "conduct suitability analyses
on all areas studied by considering potential impacts from dredged or fill
material discharge activities and their compliance with Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act."
The regulatory agencies and permitting authorities discussed at length
the environmental data that had been collected prior to the designation of
advanced permit decisions for Chincoteague Island. Upon review of that
information, a range of regulatory decisionmaking was developed that would
illustrate the probable decision for particular parcels of wetland areas.
The wetland habitats that exhibited the highest degrees of functional value
were jointly viewed as areas where the discharge of dredged or fill
material would not likely be approved. Wetlands that possessed important
environmental functions yet were segregated from larger more connected
systems were viewed as generally unsuitable for dredge and fill activities
from the standpoint of significant environmental degradation that would
be caused by the loss of the habitat. Other factors considered in the
designation of areas generally unsuitable for the disposal of dredged or
fill material were the availability of alternative sites, and whether the
discharge of fill would support a water dependent activity.
19
-------
The designation of areas generally suitable for the future disposal of
dredged or fill material was based on the considertions of lesser functional
values expressed by these areas and that the loss by filling of these
habitats would not constitute significant degradation to the environmental
quality of Chincoteague Island. Compliance with the regulations would be
required, however, prior to the issuance of permits in those areas.
Since advanced identification of disposal areas is intended as a public
advisory, individuals may still apply for Section 404 permits for any area
that is under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. , Advanced identification
is a service to the public in that it will shorten the permit processing
time due to the collection of sufficient environmental data. Applicants
will now know before hand of areas where permit issuance or denial is probable,
Applicants and the public alike will be informed of the predictable
outcomes regarding dredge and fill activities on Chincoteague Island. In
addition, regulatory enforcement for activities not in compliance with
the Clean Water Act should be reduced. Public awareness of the Section
404 permit program is considered a key benefit to advanced identification
studies. It also accomplishes public relief from regulatory burdens by
expressing openly the federal agencies decision making processes.
20
-------
REFERENCES
Adamus, Paul R., L. T. Stockwell. 1983. A Method for Wetland Functional
Assessment. 2 vols. Rep. Nos. FHWA-1P-82-23, 24. Fed. Highway
Admin. U.S. Dept. Transp., Wash., D.C. _
Battiata, Mary. 1984. Change In Chincoteague. The Washington Post.
Monday, July 9, 1984.
Castagna, Michael. 1984-86. Virg. Inst. Mar. Sci.-Wachapreague.
Personal communication.
i
Clark, John R. 1977. Coastal Ecosystems Management. NY: John Wiley
and Sons.
Cowardin, L. M., et. al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Serv. Wash., D.C.
Darnell, R. N. 1976. Impacts of Construction Activities in Wetlands of the
United States. EPA-600/3-76-045. U. S. E. P. A.-ORD. Corvallis, Oregon.
Eastern Shore Va. Resource Conservation and Development Project. 1975.
Eastern Shore of Virginia. Richmond: USDA-Soil Cons. Service.
Goettle, Marjorie S. 1981. Geological Development of the Southern Portion
of Assateague Island, Va. Northeastern Geology 3(14):278-82.
Good, Ralph E., D. F. Whigham, R. L. Simpson. 1978. Freshwater Wetlands:
Ecological Processes and Management Potential. NY: Academic Press.
Greeson, Phillip E. , J. R. Clark, J. E. (eds). 1979. Wetland Functions and
Values: The State of Our Understanding. Minneapolis: Amer. Water
Res. Assn. Tech. Publ. No. TPS 79-2.
Nixon, Scott W., C. A. Oviatt. 1973. Ecology of a New England Salt Marsh.
Ecological Monographs 43:463-498.
Norton, Douglas J. 1985. Wetlands Identification and Assessment: Chin-
coteague Island, Virginia. Bionetics Corporation. TS-PIC-85037.
Odum, E. P. and A. A. de la Cruz. 1967. Particulate organic detritus In
a Georgia salt marsh ecosystem. In: G. H. Lauff (ed.). Estuaries.
AAAS. Publ. No. 83.
21
-------
Odum, W. E., et. al. 1986. The Functional Assessment of Selected Wetlands
of Chlncoteague Island, Virginia. U.S. FWS. NCET Open File Rept.
Ranwell, D. S. 1972. Ecology of Salt Marshes and Sand Dunes. London:
Chapman and Hall, Ltd.
Reppert, R. T., et. al. 1979. Wetland Values: Concepts and Methods for
Wetlands Evaluation. Fort Belvoir, Va: U.S. Army Corps Eng.
IWR-79-R-1
State Water Control Board, Comm. of Virginia. 1975. Groundwater Conditions
in the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Planning Bulletin 45.
Want, William L. 1984. Federal Wetlands Law: The Cases and the Problems.
The Harvard Environmental Law Review 3(l):l-54.
22
------- |